Grade I acute graft-vs-host disease: Treat or not?
Abstract
Abstract Background Acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) is a major cause of non-relapse mortality (NRM) after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). High-dose steroids are standard first-line therapy for grade II–IV acute GVHD, whereas systemic treatment (tx) is generally not recommended for grade I. However, in practice many patients (pts) with grade I GVHD receive systemic steroids. A prior GITMO randomized trial (n=173) of grade I GVHD to either systemic steroid tx or “watch and wait” found that preemptive steroid tx reduced progression to grade II but not grade III/IV GVHD, increased serious infections, and resulted in similar chronic GVHD, NRM and survival (Bacigalupo, Haematologica 2017). In this study we analyzed real world evidence for early systemic steroid use and the potential impact of serum biomarkers in grade I GVHD. Methods We analyzed clinical data and serum samples from pts with grade I acute GVHD at 24 Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium (MAGIC) centers between 2014 and 2022 who were treated according to physician discretion. Pts were divided into a preemptive steroid tx group or a watch-and-wait group (systemic steroids administered only if progression to grade II–IV GVHD). Preemptive steroid use was treated as a time-dependent covariate and a frailty proportional hazards model with random effects was used to adjust for center effects to account for possible heterogeneity in clinical practices across transplant centers. Serum samples collected at the diagnosis of grade I GVHD were analyzed for ST2 and REG3α to calculate validated Ann Arbor (AA) scores (1, 2, 3). Results Grade I GVHD was diagnosed in 1143 pts; 591 (52%) received preemptive tx and 552 (48%) were treated by a watch-and-wait strategy. In the preemptive tx group, steroids were initiated at a median of 0 days and within 7 days for >90%. The median initial dose of steroids was 1 mg/kg of prednisone or its equivalent. In the watch and wait group, only 184 pts (33%) required systemic steroids for progression to grade II-IV GVHD at a median of 14 days from grade I diagnosis. Preemptive steroid tx reduced the risk of grade II–IV acute GVHD (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56–0.89; P=0.003), but not the risk of grade III/IV acute GVHD (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.69–1.52; P=0.899) or chronic GVHD (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.69–1.52; P=0.899), consistent with the GITMO trial. The 12-month incidence of NRM was higher for preemptive tx vs. watch and wait (13% vs 7%, P=0.002). In multivariate analysis preemptive steroid use independently predicted an increased risk of NRM (HR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.06–2.50; P=0.026) as did several other known risk factors (older recipient age, umbilical cord blood donor, HCT-CI ≥3, and myeloablative conditioning). Greater NRM in the preemptive tx group was driven primarily by 3-fold more infectious deaths; deaths due to uncontrolled GVHD were similar for both tx groups. The risk for relapse was unexpectedly lower in the preemptive tx group (HR 0.64; 95% CI 0.47-0.88; P=0.006) and overall survival was therefore not different between groups, but risk factors for relapse such as minimal residual disease status were not available precluding further analysis of this finding. Serum was collected in 871 (76%) pts at onset of grade I GVHD for retrospective biomarker analysis. AA scores were AA1 (80%), AA2 (15%), and AA3 (5%). AA scores were highly predictive of progression to grade III/IV GVHD (AA1 vs AA2 vs AA3: 9% vs 14% vs 44%, all P<0.001) and the risk of 12-month NRM (8% vs 16% vs 39%, all P<0.001); this pattern was observed in both tx groups. The negative effect of preemptive steroid tx was most pronounced in pts with grade I/AA1 GVHD who experienced 5-fold more infectious related deaths compared to pts managed with a watch and wait approach. Conclusion Treatment of grade I GVHD with systemic steroids did not reduce the incidence of grade III/IV GVHD or deaths due to uncontrolled GVHD and instead increased the risk of NRM from infections compared to pts who were treated only after GVHD progressed. Importantly, 2/3 of the watch and wait pts never needed systemic steroid tx. These findings remained robust after adjusting for multiple confounders, including center effects, and were consistent with the GITMO trial. MAGIC biomarkers at the onset of grade I GVHD predicted outcomes and a watch and wait strategy may be best for the 80% of pts with AA1 GVHD. Better treatment options are needed for the 20% of pts with grade I and AA2/3 GVHD.
Article Details
Authors (28)
Yu Akahoshi
1Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, United States
Nikolaos Katsivelos
1Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, United States
Ioannis Evangelos Louloudis
1Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, United States
Daniela Weber
Francis Ayuk
From the Department of Stem Cell Transplantation, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
William Hogan
1Mayo Clinic, Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Rochester, United States
Yi-Bin Chen
1Cellular Immunotherapy Program, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
Aaron Etra
1Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, United States
Paibel Aguayo-Hiraldo
6Children's Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
Chantiya Chanswangphuwana
1Chulalongkorn University and King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Medicine, Bangkok, Thailand
Hannah Choe
2The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James Cancer Hospital, Columbus, United States
Elizabeth Hexner
Cell Therapy and Transplant Program, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
Carrie Kitko
1Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, United States
Monzr M. Al Malki
1City of Hope, Duarte, United States
Pietro Merli
1Department of Hematology/Oncology, Cell and Gene Therapy, Scientific Institute for Research, Hospitalization and Healthcare, Bambino Gesù Children’s Hospital, Rome, Italy
Timothy Olson
9Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Cell Therapy and Transplant Section, Division of Oncology, Department of Pediatrics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
Muna Qayed
Ingrid Vasova
1Friedrich-Alexander-Universität (FAU) Erlangen-Nürnberg and Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Department of Internal Medicine 5 – Hematology and Oncology, Erlangen, Germany
Matthias Woelfl
16University Hospital of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
Janna Baez
1Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, United States
Gilbert Eng
1Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, United States
Sigrun Gleich
2University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany
George Morales
1Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, United States
Nikolaos Spyrou
2Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, United States
Rachel Young
Ryotaro Nakamura
James Ferrara
2Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, United States
John Levine
12Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, United States