Dataset Information

Comparative Analysis of Calcineurin Inhibitor-Based Methotrexate and Mycophenolate Mofetil-Containing Regimens for Prevention of Graft-versus-Host Disease after Reduced-Intensity Conditioning Allogeneic Transplantation.

ABSTRACT: The combination of a calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) such as tacrolimus (TAC) or cyclosporine (CYSP) with methotrexate (MTX) or with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) has been commonly used for graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis after reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT), but there are limited data comparing efficacy of the 2 regimens. We evaluated 1564 adult patients who underwent RIC alloHCT for acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) and acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML), and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) from 2000 to 2013 using HLA-identical sibling (matched related donor [MRD]) or unrelated donor (URD) peripheral blood graft and received CYSP or TAC with MTX or MMF for GVHD prophylaxis. Primary outcomes of the study were acute and chronic GVHD and overall survival (OS). The study divided the patient population into 4 cohorts based on regimen: MMF-TAC, MMF-CYSP, MTX-TAC, and MTX-CYSP. In the URD group, MMF-CYSP was associated with increased risk of grade II to IV acute GVHD (relative risk [RR], 1.78; P < .001) and grade III to IV acute GVHD (RR, 1.93; P = .006) compared with MTX-TAC. In the URD group, use of MMF-TAC (versus MTX-TAC) lead to higher nonrelapse mortality. (hazard ratio, 1.48; P = .008). In either group, no there was no difference in chronic GVHD, disease-free survival, and OS among the GVHD prophylaxis regimens. For RIC alloHCT using MRD, there are no differences in outcomes based on GVHD prophylaxis. However, with URD RIC alloHCT, MMF-CYSP was inferior to MTX-based regimens for acute GVHD prevention, but all the regimens were equivalent in terms of chronic GVHD and OS. Prospective studies, targeting URD recipients are needed to confirm these results.

SUBMITTER: Chhabra S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6355336 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative Analysis of Calcineurin Inhibitor-Based Methotrexate and Mycophenolate Mofetil-Containing Regimens for Prevention of Graft-versus-Host Disease after Reduced-Intensity Conditioning Allogeneic Transplantation.

Chhabra Saurabh S Liu Ying Y Hemmer Michael T MT Costa Luciano L Pidala Joseph A JA Couriel Daniel R DR Alousi Amin M AM Majhail Navneet S NS Stuart Robert K RK Kim Dennis D Ringden Olle O Urbano-Ispizua Alvaro A Saad Ayman A Savani Bipin N BN Cooper Brenda B Marks David I DI Socie Gerard G Schouten Harry C HC Schoemans Helene H Abdel-Azim Hisham H Yared Jean J Cahn Jean-Yves JY Wagner John J Antin Joseph H JH Verdonck Leo F LF Lehmann Leslie L Aljurf Mahmoud D MD MacMillan Margaret L ML Litzow Mark R MR Solh Melhem M MM Qayed Muna M Hematti Peiman P Kamble Rammurti T RT Vij Ravi R Hayashi Robert J RJ Gale Robert P RP Martino Rodrigo R Seo Sachiko S Hashmi Shahrukh K SK Nishihori Taiga T Teshima Takanori T Gergis Usama U Inamoto Yoshihiro Y Spellman Stephen R SR Arora Mukta M Hamilton Betty K BK

Biology of blood and marrow transplantation : journal of the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation 20180825 1

The combination of a calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) such as tacrolimus (TAC) or cyclosporine (CYSP) with methotrexate (MTX) or with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) has been commonly used for graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis after reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT), but there are limited data comparing efficacy of the 2 regimens. We evaluated 1564 adult patients who underwent RIC alloHCT for acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) and acute ...[more]

PMID: 30153491

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAcute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) remains a barrier to more widespread application of allogeneic haemopoietic stem-cell transplantation. Vorinostat is an inhibitor of histone deacetylases and was shown to attenuate GVHD in preclinical models. We aimed to study the safety and activity of vorinostat, in combination with standard immunoprophylaxis, for prevention of GVHD in patients undergoing related-donor reduced-intensity conditioning haemopoietic stem-cell transplantation.MethodsBetween March 31, 2009, and Feb 8, 2013, we did a prospective, single-arm, phase 1/2 study at two centres in the USA. We recruited adults (aged ≥18 years) with high-risk haematological malignant diseases who were candidates for reduced-intensity conditioning haemopoietic stem-cell transplantation and had an available 8/8 or 7/8 HLA-matched related donor. All patients received a conditioning regimen of fludarabine (40 mg/m(2) daily for 4 days) and busulfan (3.2 mg/kg daily for 2 days) and GVHD immunoprophylaxis of mycophenolate mofetil (1 g three times a day, days 0-28) and tacrolimus (0.03 mg/kg a day, titrated to a goal level of 8-12 ng/mL, starting day -3 until day 180). Vorinostat (either 100 mg or 200 mg, twice a day) was initiated 10 days before haemopoietic stem-cell transplantation until day 100. The primary endpoint was the cumulative incidence of grade 2-4 acute GVHD by day 100. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00810602.Findings50 patients were assessable for both toxic effects and response; eight additional patients were included in the analysis of toxic effects. All patients engrafted neutrophils and platelets at expected times after haemopoietic stem-cell transplantation. The cumulative incidence of grade 2-4 acute GVHD by day 100 was 22% (95% CI 13-36). The most common non-haematological adverse events included electrolyte disturbances (n=15), hyperglycaemia (11), infections (six), mucositis (four), and increased activity of liver enzymes (three). Non-symptomatic thrombocytopenia after engraftment was the most common haematological grade 3-4 adverse event (nine) but was transient and all cases resolved swiftly.InterpretationAdministration of vorinostat in combination with standard GVHD prophylaxis after related-donor reduced-intensity conditioning haemopoietic stem-cell transplantation is safe and is associated with a lower than expected incidence of severe acute GVHD. Future studies are needed to assess the effect of vorinostat for prevention of GVHD in broader settings of haemopoietic stem-cell transplantation.FundingMerck, Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, National Institutes of Health, St Baldrick's Foundation, Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research.

Project description:Reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) regimens are frequently used for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) in patients with diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL). However, the RIC regimen with the best risk/benefit profile for allo-HCT in DLBCL is not known. This is particularly important because patients with DLBCL undergoing allo-HCT in the future would be enriched for those whose lymphoma has failed chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR-T) therapy or other novel immunotherapies, with potentially more advanced disease and suboptimal performance scores. Using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) database, we report the outcomes of the 3 most commonly used allo-HCT RIC regimens in patients with DLBCL. Our analysis included a total of 562 adult DLBCL patients in the CIBMTR registry undergoing allo-HCT using matched related or unrelated donors, between 2008 and 2016. Patients received 1 of 3 RIC regimens: fludarabine/i.v. busulfan ~6.4 mg/kg (Flu/Bu), fludarabine/melphalan 140 mg/m2 (Flu/Mel140), or BCNU/etoposide/cytarabine/melphalan (BEAM). Accordingly, the study group was divided into 3 groups: Flu/Bu (n = 151), Flu/Mel140 (n = 296), and BEAM (n = 115). Relative to Flu/Bu, the Flu/Mel140 (hazard ratio [HR], 2.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.42 to 3.82; P = .001) and BEAM (HR, 2.54; 95% CI, 1.34 to 4.80; P = .004) regimens were associated with a risk of higher nonrelapse mortality (NRM). Although the risk of relapse with Flu/Mel140 was lower than that with Flu/Bu (HR, .70; 95% CI, .52 to .95; P = .02), this did not translate to improved progression-free survival (HR, 1.04) or overall survival (HR, 1.30). There was a significantly higher risk of grade III-IV acute graft-versus-host disease with BEAM compared with Flu/Bu (HR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.10 to 4.35; P = .03). In the chemosensitive subset, multivariate analysis showed a significantly higher mortality risk with Flu/Mel140 (HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.07 to 2.04; P = .02) relative to Flu/Bu conditioning. In the largest analysis comparing the impact of various RIC regimens on the survival of DLBCL patients undergoing allo-HCT, our results suggest that Flu/Bu is a better RIC choice in less fit or heavily pretreated patients due to lowest NRM risk.

Project description:A universally accepted strategy for therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) in the prevention of acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD) in allogenic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT) does not exist. We explored the feasibility of developing a limited sampling strategy (LSS) for TDM of MMF in this setting. Patients undergoing alloHSCT received standard MMF-cyclosporine prophylaxis, with MMF administered twice daily (BD) for matched transplant recipients or thrice daily (TID) in haploidentical transplantation. Intensive blood sampling was carried out on day 7 and area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) of mycophenolic acid (MPA), the active metabolite, was estimated using noncompartmental analysis. The ability of MPA exposure defined by AUC0-12 to discriminate between responders (patients who did not develop GVHD) and nonresponders (patients who developed GVHD) was determined by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Patients were divided into training and validation sets within BD and TID groups. Mathematical equations were developed from the training set to predict AUC0-12 from an abbreviated AUC involving a limited number of sampling points. The equations were validated in the validation set by comparing the MPA AUC0-12 predicted from LSS with the observed AUC0-12. It was observed that patients with AUC0-12 ≤18.99 mg*h/L had a higher risk of developing aGVHD [odds ratio (OR) = 2.63 (1.17 to 5.87), P = 0.06]. The benefit was more in matched transplant recipients [OR = 3.5 (1.30 to 9.49), P = 0.05] as compared to haploindentical transplant [OR = 2.8 (0.49 to 15.91), P = NS]. Using the mathematical equations, the observed AUC0-12 was predicted with 92.31% accuracy in the BD subset and 100% accuracy in the TID subset for a combined accuracy of 94.76%. A set of just three samples that constituted the abbreviated AUC1-4 was used to develop the predictive models. The LSS could be employed for the therapeutic monitoring of MMF particularly in patients undergoing matched hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

Project description:To compare the relative effectiveness of methotrexate and mycophenolate mofetil for noninfectious intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis, or panuveitis.Multicenter, block-randomized, observer-masked clinical trial.Eighty patients with noninfectious intermediate, posterior, or panuveitis requiring corticosteroid-sparing therapy at Aravind Eye Hospitals in Madurai and Coimbatore, India.Patients were randomized to receive 25 mg weekly oral methotrexate or 1 g twice daily oral mycophenolate mofetil and were monitored monthly for 6 months. Oral prednisone and topical corticosteroids were tapered.Masked examiners assessed the primary outcome of treatment success, defined by achieving the following at 5 and 6 months: (1) ?0.5+ anterior chamber cells, ?0.5+ vitreous cells, ?0.5+ vitreous haze and no active retinal/choroidal lesions in both eyes, (2) ?10 mg of prednisone and ?2 drops of prednisolone acetate 1% a day, and (3) no declaration of treatment failure because of intolerability or safety. Additional outcomes included time to sustained corticosteroid-sparing control of inflammation, change in best spectacle-corrected visual acuity, resolution of macular edema, adverse events, subgroup analysis by anatomic location, and medication adherence.Forty-one patients were randomized to methotrexate and 39 to mycophenolate mofetil. A total of 67 patients (35 methotrexate, 32 mycophenolate mofetil) contributed to the primary outcome. Sixty-nine percent of patients achieved treatment success with methotrexate and 47% with mycophenolate mofetil (P = 0.09). Treatment failure from adverse events or tolerability was not different by treatment arm (P = 0.99). There were no differences between treatment groups in time to corticosteroid-sparing control of inflammation (P = 0.44), change in best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (P = 0.68), or resolution of macular edema (P = 0.31).There was no statistically significant difference in corticosteroid-sparing control of inflammation between patients receiving methotrexate or mycophenolate mofetil. However, there was a 22% difference in treatment success favoring methotrexate.

Dataset Information

Comparative Analysis of Calcineurin Inhibitor-Based Methotrexate and Mycophenolate Mofetil-Containing Regimens for Prevention of Graft-versus-Host Disease after Reduced-Intensity Conditioning Allogeneic Transplantation.

Publications

Comparative Analysis of Calcineurin Inhibitor-Based Methotrexate and Mycophenolate Mofetil-Containing Regimens for Prevention of Graft-versus-Host Disease after Reduced-Intensity Conditioning Allogeneic Transplantation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets