Back to Authors

Malki, Monzr M. Al

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8226-471X

Mayo Clinic

City Of Hope National Medical Center

Citations 25

Effective treatment of low-risk acute GVHD with itacitinib monotherapy
Etra, Aaron , Capellini, Alexandra, Alousi, Amin, Malki, Monzr M. Al , Choe, Hannah , DeFilipp, Zachariah , Kitko, Carrie L. , Ayuk, Francis, Baez, Janna , Gandhi, Isha , Kasikis, Stelios, Gleich, Sigrun, Hoepting, Matthias, Kapoor, Urvi , Kowalyk, Steven, Langston, Amelia , Morales, George , Özbek, Umut , Rösler, Wolf, Spyrou, Nikolaos , Young, Rachel , Chen, Yi‐Bin , Ferrara, James L.M. , Al Malki, Monzr M , Gandhi, Isha , Hexner, Elizabeth , Langston, Amelia , Qayed, Muna , Spyrou, Nikolaos , Chen, Yi-Bin , Levine, John E , Alousi, Amin Majid , Hogan, William J. , Hexner, Elizabeth O. , Kwon, Deukwoo , Mielcarek, Marco B. , Reshef, Ran , Levine, John E.

Blood | September 12, 2022 | Volume: 141 | Issue: 5 | Pages: 481-489

10.1182/blood.2022017442 Get It

Abstract The standard primary treatment for acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) requires prolonged, high-dose systemic corticosteroids (SCSs) that delay reconstitution of the immune system. We used validated clinical and biomarker staging criteria to identify a group of patients with low-risk (LR) GVHD that is very likely to respond to SCS. We hypothesized that itacitinib, a selective JAK1 inhibitor, would effectively treat LR GVHD without SCS. We treated 70 patients with LR GVHD in a multicenter, phase 2 trial (NCT03846479) with 28 days of itacitinib 200 mg/d (responders could receive a second 28-day cycle), and we compared their outcomes to those of 140 contemporaneous, matched control patients treated with SCSs. More patients responded to itacitinib within 7 days (81% vs 66%, P = .02), and response rates at day 28 were very high for both groups (89% vs 86%, P = .67), with few symptomatic flares (11% vs 12%, P = .88). Fewer itacitinib-treated patients developed a serious infection within 90 days (27% vs 42%, P = .04) due to fewer viral and fungal infections. Grade ≥3 cytopenias were similar between groups except for less severe leukopenia with itacitinib (16% vs 31%, P = .02). No other grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in >10% of itacitinib-treated patients. There were no significant differences between groups at 1 year for nonrelapse mortality (4% vs 11%, P = .21), relapse (18% vs 21%, P = .64), chronic GVHD (28% vs 33%, P = .33), or survival (88% vs 80%, P = .11). Itacitinib monotherapy seems to be a safe and effective alternative to SCS treatment for LR GVHD and deserves further investigation.
Assessment of systemic and gastrointestinal tissue damage biomarkers for GVHD risk stratification
Etra, Aaron , Gergoudis, Stephanie, Morales, George , Spyrou, Nikolaos , Shah, Jay , Kowalyk, Steven, Ayuk, Francis , Baez, Janna , Chanswangphuwana, Chantiya , Chen, Yi‐Bin , Choe, Hannah , DeFilipp, Zachariah , Gandhi, Isha , Holler, Ernst , Kapoor, Urvi , Kitko, Carrie L. , Lin, Jung-Yi, Pawarode, Attaphol , Rösler, Wolf, Schechter, Tal , Hyfte, Grace Van , Weber, Daniela , Wölfl, Matthias , Young, Rachel , Özbek, Umut , Ferrara, James L.M. , Hexner, Elizabeth , Lin, Jung-Yi , Merli, Pietro , Pulsipher, Michael A. , Qayed, Muna , Levine, John E , Spyrou, Nikolaos , Hexner, Elizabeth O. , Hogan, William J. , Kraus, Sabrina , Malki, Monzr M. Al , Reshef, Ran , Levine, John E.

Blood Advances | June 23, 2022 | Volume: 6 | Issue: 12 | Pages: 3707-3715

10.1182/bloodadvances.2022007296 Get It

Abstract We used a rigorous PRoBE (prospective-specimen collection, retrospective-blinded-evaluation) study design to compare the ability of biomarkers of systemic inflammation and biomarkers of gastrointestinal (GI) tissue damage to predict response to corticosteroid treatment, the incidence of clinically severe disease, 6-month nonrelapse mortality (NRM), and overall survival in patients with acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). We prospectively collected serum samples of newly diagnosed GVHD patients (n = 730) from 19 centers, divided them into training (n = 352) and validation (n = 378) cohorts, and measured TNFR1, TIM3, IL6, ST2, and REG3α via enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Performances of the 4 strongest algorithms from the training cohort (TNFR1 + TIM3, TNFR1 + ST2, TNFR1 + REG3α, and ST2 + REG3α) were evaluated in the validation cohort. The algorithm that included only biomarkers of systemic inflammation (TNFR1 + TIM3) had a significantly smaller area under the curve (AUC; 0.57) than the AUCs of algorithms that contained ≥1 GI damage biomarker (TNFR1 + ST2, 0.70; TNFR1 + REG3α, 0.73; ST2 + REG3α, 0.79; all P < .001). All 4 algorithms were able to predict short-term outcomes such as response to systemic corticosteroids and severe GVHD, but the inclusion of a GI damage biomarker was needed to predict long-term outcomes such as 6-month NRM and survival. The algorithm that included 2 GI damage biomarkers was the most accurate of the 4 algorithms for all endpoints.
MI-Immune/1801: Lessons from an Ongoing, Multi-Center Trial Involving Biospecimen Collection for Prospective Microbiome and Immune Profiling in Patients Undergoing Reduced Intensity Conditioning Allogeneic HCT
Spahn, Ashley, Waldvogel, Stephanie, Howard, Alan , Bar, Merav , Clark, William, Das, Suman Ranjan, Horowitz, Mary M. , Jones, Richard J. , Logan, Brent R. , Riches, Marcie , Sandhu, Karamjeet , Runaas, Lyndsey, Elmariah, Hany , Rezvani, Andrew R. , Bolaños‐Meade, Javier , Saber, Wael , Kean, Leslie S. , Bhatt, Ami S. , Das, Suman R. , Elmariah, Hany , Bhatt, Ami S , Brooks, Erin F. , Howard, Alan, Bratrude, Brandi , Chhabra, Saurabh , Das, Suman Ranjan, Jenq, Robert R. , Levine, John E. , Murthy, Hemant S. , Rashidi, Armin , Riwes, Mary , Sung, Anthony D. , Malki, Monzr M. Al , Gooptu, Mahasweta , Holtan, Shernan G. , Hamadani, Mehdi , Perales, Miguel‐Angel

Blood | November 24, 2021 | Volume: 138 | Issue: Supplement 1 | Pages: 2955-2955

10.1182/blood-2021-149313 Get It

Abstract Introduction: The gut microbiome is a potentially modifiable factor in treatment related outcomes in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT). Prior studies have linked pre- or mid-treatment gut microbiome diversity with risk for treatment related morbidity and mortality. However, these studies have been limited by the inclusion of one or only a few institutions and the lack of longitudinal sampling with high quality metadata. These limitations complicate the interpretation of microbiome alterations over the course of HCT. Methods: To overcome these, we devised and implemented a large-scale biospecimen collection protocol in conjunction with BMT CTN 1703, a randomized, multicenter, Phase III trial of tacrolimus/methotrexate vs. post-transplant cyclophosphamide/tacrolimus/mycophenolate mofetil in reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) allogeneic HCT (NCT03959241). Patients enrolled on 1703 were optionally co-enrolled in the companion immune and microbiome profiling study, 1801 (MI-IMMUNE). This involved blood, urine and stool sampling before conditioning (PCON), then weekly starting on day 0 through day 77 (through day 84 for blood), and on days 98, 180, 270, 365 and 730. For all enrolled participants where the donor consented, residual donor cells were saved from the empty hematopoietic stem cell product bag for later analysis. Additionally, the protocol included one-time blood, urine and stool sample collection from consented matched related donors (MRDs) prior to stem cell collection. Starting with protocol version 4.0 on February 1, 2021, participation in 1801 stool collection was required for the first six out of eighteen sample collection timepoints. Participation in later stool and urine timepoint collections remained optional. Here we review the feasibility of creating a multi-institutional biobank. Additionally, we assess the success of our strategies by calculating sample collection compliance and standard deviation in compliance across centers for each timepoint. Results: On June 18, 2021, BMT CTN 1703/1801 closed to accrual with 431 patients enrolled on 1703; 323 patients from 36 centers were co-enrolled on 1801. 304 (94%) provided study samples, making this the largest prospective microbiome and immune profiling study in HCT patients to date. As of July 6, 2021, 3,683 blood, 2,668 urine, and 2,098 stool samples had been collected. Across the first 6 timepoints for all participating centers, blood, urine and stool sample collection averaged 93%, 82%, and 74% compliance, respectively. Of the 99 (30%) patients enrolled on 1801 with a MRD, 34 (34%) donors consented to sample collection. Sample collection compliance was lower for MRDs than for patients on the study with 76%, 74%, and 62% of expected blood, urine and stool samples collected, respectively, from this group. For stool collection exclusively, a median of 5 samples were collected per patient across the first 6 timepoints (median of 6 across all timepoints) with 93 (31%) of patients completing a full sample set through Day 28. 139 (46%) patients provided at least one sample after day 28; these represented 37% of the total samples collected to date. The PCON sample, which provides an important measure of pre-treatment gut microbiome diversity, had the third highest compliance with 74% of patients providing a sample. Surprisingly, Day 28 had the lowest compliance (66%) and highest standard deviation (37%) possibly because this timepoint often falls around the time of hospital discharge. Between PCON and day 28, the standard deviation between sites in the average collection compliance (24%) and number of samples collected per patient (1.1) was small indicating the successful adoption of stool collection across institutions. Table 1 summarizes sample collection statistics. Conclusion: Overall this study has resulted in a large, novel biobank of blood, urine and stool samples from patients undergoing RIC allogeneic HCT at 36 centers across the US. This will serve as a valuable resource for investigating the role of the gut microbiome in long term health outcomes following HCT. Although the results of 1801 are forthcoming given ongoing sample collection, the size and composition of the biobank to date clearly demonstrate the feasibility of implementing multi-institutional stool collection. This study represents a critical step towards the large-scale adoption of microbiome sampling as a diagnostic tool. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Chhabra: GSK: Honoraria. Clark: Kadmon: Consultancy. Horowitz: Mesoblast: Research Funding; Shire: Research Funding; Vertex: Research Funding; Stemcyte: Research Funding; Vor Biopharma: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Miltenyi Biotech: Research Funding; Kiadis: Research Funding; Sobi: Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Research Funding; Pfizer, Inc: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Magenta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Medac: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Daiicho Sankyo: Research Funding; Xenikos: Research Funding; Omeros: Research Funding; Orca Biosystems: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Tscan: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; CSL Behring: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Chimerix: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; bluebird bio: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Allovir: Consultancy; Actinium: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Jenq: Microbiome DX: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Prolacta: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kaleido: Consultancy, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Seres: Consultancy, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; LisCure: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MaaT Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karius: Consultancy. Levine: Equillium Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kamada: Research Funding; Biogen: Research Funding; Omeros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Symbio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Talaris Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Viracor: Patents & Royalties: GVHD biomarker patent with royalties from Viracor; Mesoblast: Consultancy, Research Funding; X4 Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Murthy: CRISPR Therapeutics: Research Funding. Riches: ATARA Biotherapeutics: Other: Payment; BioIntelect: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Other: Payment. Sung: Merck: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Enterome: Research Funding; Seres: Research Funding; AVROBIO: Consultancy; Abbott Nutrition: Honoraria; Clasado: Other: Research Product; DSM: Other: Research Product. Al Malki: Neximmune: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy; Rigel Pharma: Consultancy; Hansa Biopharma: Consultancy; CareDx: Consultancy. Rezvani: Kaleido: Other: One-time scientific advisory board; Nohla Therapeutics: Other: One-time scientific advisory board; Pharmacyclics-Abbvie: Research Funding; US Department of Justice: Consultancy. Bolaños-Meade: Incyte Corp: Consultancy. Holtan: Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Generon: Consultancy. Saber: Govt. COI: Other. Hamadani: Sanofi, Genzyme, AstraZeneca, BeiGene: Speakers Bureau; Janssen, Incyte, ADC Therapeutics, Omeros, Morphosys, Kite: Consultancy; Takeda, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals and Astellas Pharma: Research Funding. Kean: Bluebird Bio: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Patents & Royalties: From clinical trial data, Research Funding; Vertex: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Gilead: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; EMD Serono: Consultancy. Perales: Cidara: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria, Other; Equilium: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Other; Nektar Therapeutics: Honoraria, Other; NexImmune: Honoraria; MorphoSys: Honoraria; Omeros: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Sellas Life Sciences: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Miltenyi Biotec: Honoraria, Other; Medigene: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria, Other; Celgene: Honoraria.
A Phase 1 Dose-Escalation Study of the Oral CDK Inhibitor Voruciclib in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory B-Cell Malignancies or Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML): Preliminary Results of the Completed Dose Escalation Stage in AML
Konopleva, Marina , Brander, Danielle M. , Patel, Krish , Frankfurt, Olga, Danilov, Alexey V. , Abedin, Sameem , Begna, Kebede H. , Patel, Krish , Abedin, Sameem , Diefenbach, Catherine , Alvarado, Yesid , Malki, Monzr M. Al , Kallam, Avyakta , Ghalie, Richard G , Davids, Matthew S.

Blood | November 24, 2021 | Volume: 138 | Issue: Supplement 1 | Pages: 3423-3423

10.1182/blood-2021-146079 Get It

Abstract Background: Mcl-1 is an anti-apoptotic protein in the Bcl-2 family that contributes to the pathophysiology of certain B-cell malignancies and AML. Dependence on Mcl-1 is associated with poor prognosis, and increased Mcl-1 levels is a common mechanism of resistance to venetoclax. Voruciclib (VORU), a potent oral CDK9 inhibitor (Ki <10 nM), was shown to decrease Mcl-1 protein expression in preclinical models, supporting its evaluation as a single agent and in combination with venetoclax in AML and B-cell malignancies. In two dose escalation phase 1 studies of VORU in patients (pts) with solid tumors, the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was established at 350 mg when administered daily continuously and 600 mg when administered on days 1 to 14 in a 21-day cycle. Based on concentrations needed for antitumoral activity in preclinical models, pharmacokinetic (PK) results predict a dose of ~200 mg could be sufficient for target inhibition. The present phase 1 study is the first to evaluate the MTD, recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D), dose-limiting toxicities (DLT), safety, PK, and preliminary efficacy of VORU in pts with relapsed/refractory hematologic malignancies (NCT03547115). Methods: Pts with relapsed B-cell lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), or AML were eligible if age ≥18 years, ECOG performance status ≤1, disease progression after failure of standard therapies, adequate hepatic and renal function, and no prior CDK9 therapy. Dose escalation started at 50 mg, followed a 3+3 design, and DLTs were assessed in Cycle 1. Initially VORU was administered once daily continuously in a 28-day cycle (Group I). After 2 DLTs were observed at 100 mg, administration was changed to once daily on days 1 to 14 in a 28-day cycle (Group II), patients with prior allogeneic transplant were excluded, and dose escalation (100, 150, 200 mg) proceeded in separate cohorts for AML and B-cell malignancies. Disease response was assessed by the Lugano, iwCLL, and 2017 ELN criteria. Results: To date 28 pts have been enrolled: 14 AML, 7 diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), 3 follicular lymphoma (FL), 2 CLL and 2 mantle cell lymphoma. Group I enrolled 16 pts, 8 each at 50 mg and 100 mg. Group II enrolled 12 pts, 10 with AML administered VORU at 100, 150 or 200 mg and 2 pts with B-cell malignancies administered VORU at 100 mg. Dose escalation in AML is completed. Median age was 71 years (range 40-90) and 54% of pts were male. Pts were generally heavily pretreated, with a median of 3 prior therapies (range 1-8). Median number of VORU cycles administered was 2 (range 1-4). Drug-related serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported in Group I only and consisted of 2 DLT of Gr 3 pneumonitis at 100 mg, both in AML pts treated with allogeneic transplant followed by GVHD in the preceding 12 months, one of whom also had a concurrent Gr 3 differentiation syndrome (DS), and 1 SAE not meeting DLT criteria, a Gr 3 hypoxemic respiratory failure in Cycle 4 in a pt with DLBCL at 50 mg. One AML pt developed ischemic bowel thought to be due to disease progression. Symptoms consistent with DS were observed in 4 AML pts. In Group II, no DLTs have been observed to date and there were no Gr 3-5 drug-related adverse events reported. There is no evidence of significant drug-related neutropenia in pts with B-cell malignancies. To date, in Groups I and II combined, 1 AML pt achieved a morphologic leukemia-free state, 2 AML pts achieved stable disease (SD), and 3 pts with B-cell malignancies had a best response of SD, including 1 FL pt who achieved a 42% reduction in SPD, and 1 CLL pt with relapsed disease after chemoimmunotherapy, venetoclax, and ibrutinib who had stable blood counts. Conclusions: VORU at doses up to 200 mg administered on 14 consecutive days in a 28-day cycle was well tolerated with no DLTs observed. Consistent with the phase 1 studies in solid tumors, no significant myelosuppression was seen in pts with B-cell malignancies. The safety profile does not indicate overlapping toxicities with venetoclax. Disease stabilization was observed in heavily pretreated pts and differentiation syndrome was observed in AML indicating biologic activity. Enrollment at 200 mg will continue in an expansion cohort in AML. A forthcoming protocol amendment will evaluate VORU in combination with venetoclax in pts with relapsed AML to exploit the dual inhibition of Bcl-2 and Mcl-1. Disclosures Konopleva: Sanofi: Other: grant support, Research Funding; Ablynx: Other: grant support, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: grant support; KisoJi: Research Funding; Novartis: Other: research funding pending, Patents & Royalties: intellectual property rights; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: grant support, Research Funding; Reata Pharmaceuticals: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company, Patents & Royalties: intellectual property rights; Stemline Therapeutics: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Patents & Royalties: intellectual property rights, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Other: grant support, Research Funding; Rafael Pharmaceuticals: Other: grant support, Research Funding; Agios: Other: grant support, Research Funding; Ascentage: Other: grant support, Research Funding; Calithera: Other: grant support, Research Funding; Cellectis: Other: grant support; Forty Seven: Other: grant support, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grant Support, Research Funding. Brander: Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; DTRM: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics/Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: Biosimilars outcomes research panel; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ascentage: Research Funding; LOXO: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; ArQule: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: informCLL registry steering committee, Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; NCCN: Other: panel member; ArQule/Merck: Consultancy. Patel: TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Curis, Inc: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Juno Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Fate Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Trillium Therapeutics: Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Morphosys: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Aptevo Therapeutics: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Velos Bio: Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding. Diefenbach: Celgene: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; IMab: Research Funding; Merck Sharp & Dohme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Gilead: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; AbbVie: Research Funding; Perlmutter Cancer Center at NYU Langone Health: Current Employment; IGM Biosciences: Research Funding; MEI: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc./ F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Alvarado: BerGenBio: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; CytomX Therapeutics: Consultancy; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Research Funding; FibroGen: Research Funding; Sun Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding. Al Malki: Rigel Pharma: Consultancy; Neximmune: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy; Hansa Biopharma: Consultancy; CareDx: Consultancy. Danilov: Bayer Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; SecuraBio: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Rigel Pharm: Honoraria; Bristol-Meyers-Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Abedin: Pfizer: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Helsinn: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma Inc.: Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria; Actinium: Research Funding; AltruBio: Research Funding. Ghalie: MEI Pharma: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Davids: Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ascentage Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Surface Oncology: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Eli Lilly and Company: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Research to Practice: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. OffLabel Disclosure: Vorucicilb is an investigational CDK inhibitor being evaluated in patients with hematologic malignancies, specifically relapsed AML and B-cell malignancies. The abstract submitted to ASH 2021 reports the results of the completed dose escalation portion of a phase 1 study.
Biomarkers Predict Graft-Vs-Host Disease Outcomes Better Than Clinical Response after One Week of Treatment
Major-Monfried, Hannah , Özbek, Umut , Renteria, Anne S. , Pawarode, Attaphol , Yanik, Gregory A. , Ayuk, Francis , Holler, Ernst , Efebera, Yvonne A. , Wölfl, Matthias , Ordemann, Rainer, Mielke, Stephan , Bunworasate, Udomsak , Chen, Yi‐Bin , Harris, Andrew C. , Jagasia, Madan , Litzow, Mark R. , Nakamura, Ryotaro , Roesler, Wolf, Weber, Daniela , Ferrara, James L.M. , Hartwell, Matthew J. , Hogan, William J. , Qayed, Muna , Hexner, Elizabeth O. , Wudhikarn, Kitsada , Mielke, Stephan , Devine, Steven M. , Kröger, Nicolaus , Malki, Monzr M. Al , Kitko, Carrie L. , Locatelli, Franco , Reddy, Pavan , Reshef, Ran , Levine, John E.

Blood | October 11, 2019 | Volume: 128 | Issue: 22 | Pages: 510-510

10.1182/blood.v128.22.510.510 Get It

Abstract Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), the primary cause of non-relapse mortality (NRM) following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, does not always respond to treatment with high dose systemic corticosteroids. We have recently shown that a combination of three biomarkers (TNFR1, ST2, and REG3α) measured at onset of GVHD can predict day 28 response to treatment and 6-month NRM (Levine, Lancet Haem, 2015). Our goal in the current study was to determine if the same biomarker-based Ann Arbor GVHD algorithm can alsopredict treatment response andmortality whenapplied after one week of systemic corticosteroid treatment. The study population consisted of 378 patients (pts) with acute GVHD from 11 centers in the Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium. All pts were treated with systemic steroids and provided a plasma or serum sample obtained after one week of treatment (±3 days). The median starting dose of systemic steroids for Grade II-IV GVHD was 2.0 mg/kg/day and for Grade I was 1.0 mg/kg/day, after which treatment varied. Patients were divided into test (n=236) and validation (n=142) cohorts. We applied the Ann Arbor GVHD algorithm to concentrations of TNFR1, ST2, and REG3α measured after one week of treatment to generate a predicted probability of 6-month NRM, which we term the treatment score (TS). We employed unsupervised k-medoidclustering to partition TS values from the test cohort into two groups (high and low). This unbiased approach identified a high score group made up of 25% of pts (n=58) in the test cohort. We observed that the day 28 response rate (complete, CR + partial, PR) was significantly lower in pts with high scores compared to low scores in the test cohort (24% vs 65%, p<0.0001) (Fig 1A). Analysis of the validation cohort using the same TS definitions showed similar differences in response rates (22% vs 61%, p<0.0001) (Fig 1B). Further, nearly four times as many pts with high scores in both cohorts died within 6 months from non-relapse causes compared to pts with low scores (test: 57% vs 17%, p<0.0001; validation: 57% vs 14%, p<0.0001) (Fig 1C/D). As expected, the majority of non-relapse deaths in pts treated for GVHD were directly attributable to GVHD (test: 95%; validation: 89%). Relapse rates for high and low score pts were similar (data not shown), and thus pts with a high TS experienced significantly worse overall survival in both cohorts (test: 37% vs 72%, p<0.0001; validation: 38% vs 79%, p<0.0001) (Fig 1E/F). Approximately half of the pts in each cohort (test: 48%; validation: 44%) responded (CR+PR) to the first week of steroids and these ptshad significantly lower 6-month NRM than non-responders (NR) (test: 17% vs 36%, p=0.0002; validation: 13% vs 36%, p=0.0014). Yet the TS continued to stratify mortality risk independently of clinical response. In the test cohort, pts with a high score comprised 16% of all early responders and experienced more than twice the NRM of early responders with a low score (33% vs 13%, p=0.022) (Fig 2A). Conversely, test cohort pts who did not respond by day 7, but had a low score, fared much better than non-responders with a high score (NRM 21% vs 68%, p<0.0001) (Fig 2B). Two thirds of early non-responders comprised this more favorable group. These highly significant results reproduced in the independent validation cohort in similar proportions (CR+PR: 45% vs 6%, p=0.0003; NR: 61% vs 22%, p=0.0001) (Fig 2C/D). Finally, a subset analysis revealed that pts classified as NR after one week of steroids due to isolated, yet persistent, grade I skin GVHD (24/378, 6%) overwhelmingly had low treatment scores (22/24, 92%) and experienced rates of NRM (9%) comparable to responders with low scores, thus forming a distinct, albeit small, subset of pts with non-responsive GVHD that fares particularly well (Fig 3). In conclusion, a treatment score based on three GVHD biomarkers measured after one week of steroids stratifies pts into two groups with distinct risks for treatment failure and 6-month NRM. It is particularly noteworthy that the TS identifies two subsets of pts with steroid refractory (SR) GVHD who have highly different outcomes (Fig 2B/D). The much larger group, approximately two thirds of all SR pts, may not need the same degree of treatment escalation as is traditional for clinical non-response, and thus overtreatment might be avoided. Because the TSis measured at a common decision making time point, it may prove useful to guide risk-adapted therapy. Disclosures Mielke: Novartis: Consultancy; MSD: Consultancy, Other: Travel grants; Celgene: Other: Travel grants, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Other: Travel grants; JAZZ Pharma: Speakers Bureau. Kroeger:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding. Chen:Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Jagasia:Therakos: Consultancy. Kitko:Therakos: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Ferrara:Viracor: Patents & Royalties: GVHD biomarker patent. Levine:Viracor: Patents & Royalties: GVHD biomarker patent.