Back to Authors

Quagliarella, Francesco

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7346-2738

Mayo Clinic

Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital

Citations 3

MAGIC Composite Score Predicts Outcomes of Second-Line Therapy for Acute GVHD
Sebastian, Tara, Weber, Daniela, Etra, Aaron M., Vasova, Ingrid, Ayuk, Francis, Choe, Hannah K., DeFilipp, Zachariah, Quagliarella, Francesco, Bedirian, Karni, Diniz, Marcio Augusto, Aguayo-Hiraldo, Paibel, Bader, Peter, Baez, Janna, Chanswangphuwana, Chantiya, Eng, Gilbert, Francke, Thomas, Hexner, Elizabeth O., Katsivelos, Nikolaos, Kitko, Carrie L., Kraus, Sabrina, Louloudis, Ioannis E., Morales, George, Nakamura, Ryotaro, Olson, Timothy S., Qayed, Muna, Reddy, Pavan, Reshef, Ran, Schechter, Tal, Wang, Tingyu, Wolf, Matthias, Young, Rachel, Zeiser, Robert, Hogan, William J., Levine, John E., Ferrara, James L.M., Sebastian, Tara M. , Weber, Daniela , Etra, Aaron , Vášová, Ingrid, Ayuk, Francis , Choe, Hannah , DeFilipp, Zachariah , Quagliarella, Francesco , Bedirian, Karni, Aguayo‐Hiraldo, Paibel , Bader, Peter , Baez, Janna , Chanswangphuwana, Chantiya , Eng, Gilbert, Francke, Thomas, Hexner, Elizabeth O. , Katsivelos, Nikolaos , Kitko, Carrie L. , Kraus, Sabrina , Morales, George , Nakamura, Ryotaro , Olson, Timothy S. , Qayed, Muna , Reddy, Pavan, Reshef, Ran , Schechter, Tal , Wölfl, Matthias , Young, Rachel , Zeiser, Robert , Hogan, William J. , Levine, John E. , Ferrara, James L.M.

No container title available | July 14, 2026 | Volume: No volume available | Issue: No issue available | Pages: No page available

10.64898/2026.07.09.26357664 Get It

ABSTRACT Approximately 30% of patients with acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) develop steroid-refractory disease and have very poor outcomes. Ruxolitinib has become the standard of care for steroid-refractory acute GVHD, but it is unclear which patients derive benefit. The MAGIC Composite Score (MCS), an algorithm that combines clinical symptoms and biomarkers, has been validated to predict outcomes at the start of primary GVHD treatment. Here, we evaluated its performance at the initiation of second-line treatment in 278 patients. MCS stratified patients into three risk groups (MCS1-3), with the majority (88%) classified as intermediate or high risk. Increasing MCS score was associated with progressively higher 1-year non-relapse mortality (NRM) rates (16%, 41%, and 73%; p<0.001), lower 1-year survival (77%, 56%, and 24%; p<0.001), and lower complete response (CR) rates at day 28 (47%, 38%, and 20%, respectively; p<0.01). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for 1-year NRM was significantly higher with MCS compared to clinical symptoms alone (0.70 vs. 0.63; p=0.023). Among patients treated with ruxolitinib, higher MCS similarly predicted higher NRM and lower survival and CR rates. Patients classified as MCS2/3 had poor outcomes despite ruxolitinib, underscoring the need for novel therapies in this patient population. In conclusion the MCS is an accurate predictor of outcomes for patients who require second-line treatment and may be of use as an eligibility criterion for future clinical trials in this high-risk population. Key Points MAGIC Composite Scores that integrate clinical symptoms and biomarker scores predict outcomes of second-line therapy for acute GVHD more accurately than clinical symptoms alone. MCS identifies patients with high NRM despite treatment with ruxolitinib.
Amphiregulin, ST2, and REG3α biomarker risk algorithms as predictors of nonrelapse mortality in patients with acute GVHD
Etra, Aaron , Jurdi, Najla El , Katsivelos, Nikolaos , Gergoudis, Stephanie, Morales, George , Spyrou, Nikolaos , Kowalyk, Steven, Aguayo‐Hiraldo, Paibel , Akahoshi, Yu , Ayuk, Francis, Baez, Janna , Chanswangphuwana, Chantiya , Chen, Yi‐Bin , Choe, Hannah , DeFilipp, Zachariah , Gleich, Sigrun, Holler, Ernst , MacMillan, Margaret L. , Pawarode, Attaphol , Quagliarella, Francesco , Schechter, Tal , Vášová, Ingrid, Wölfl, Matthias , Young, Rachel , Nakamura, Ryotaro , Ferrara, James L.M. , El Jurdi, Najla , Spyrou, Nikolaos , Aguayo-Hiraldo, Paibel , Chen, Yi-Bin , DeFilipp, Zachariah , Hexner, Elizabeth , Hogan, William J , Al Malki, Monzr M , Quagliarella, Francesco , Qayed, Muna , Weisdorf, Dan , Wölfl, Matthias , Nakamura, Ryotaro , Levine, John E , Holtan, Shernan , Katsivelos, Nikolaos , Akahoshi, Yu , Kwon, Deukwoo , Betts, Brian Christopher , Hexner, Elizabeth O. , Hogan, William J. , Kitko, Carrie L. , Kraus, Sabrina , Malki, Monzr M. Al , Reshef, Ran , Weisdorf, Daniel J. , Levine, John E. , Holtan, Shernan G.

Blood Advances | June 14, 2024 | Volume: 8 | Issue: 12 | Pages: 3284-3292

10.1182/bloodadvances.2023011049 Get It

Abstract Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) is a major cause of nonrelapse mortality (NRM) after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. Algorithms containing either the gastrointestinal (GI) GVHD biomarker amphiregulin (AREG) or a combination of 2 GI GVHD biomarkers (suppressor of tumorigenicity-2 [ST2] + regenerating family member 3 alpha [REG3α]) when measured at GVHD diagnosis are validated predictors of NRM risk but have never been assessed in the same patients using identical statistical methods. We measured the serum concentrations of ST2, REG3α, and AREG by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay at the time of GVHD diagnosis in 715 patients divided by the date of transplantation into training (2004-2015) and validation (2015-2017) cohorts. The training cohort (n = 341) was used to develop algorithms for predicting the probability of 12-month NRM that contained all possible combinations of 1 to 3 biomarkers and a threshold corresponding to the concordance probability was used to stratify patients for the risk of NRM. Algorithms were compared with each other based on several metrics, including the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve, proportion of patients correctly classified, sensitivity, and specificity using only the validation cohort (n = 374). All algorithms were strong discriminators of 12-month NRM, whether or not patients were systemically treated (n = 321). An algorithm containing only ST2 + REG3α had the highest area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (0.757), correctly classified the most patients (75%), and more accurately risk-stratified those who developed Minnesota standard-risk GVHD and for patients who received posttransplant cyclophosphamide-based prophylaxis. An algorithm containing only AREG more accurately risk-stratified patients with Minnesota high-risk GVHD. Combining ST2, REG3α, and AREG into a single algorithm did not improve performance.
Emapalumab for Treatment of Impending Graft Failure
Jodele, Sonata , Cook, Eleanor , Cefalo, Maria Pia, Quagliarella, Francesco , Teusink‐Cross, Ashley , Alexander, Jessie L. , Szabolcs, Paul , Kohorst, Mira A. , Corsetti, Tiziana, Sabulski, Anthony , Myers, Kasiani , Lane, Adam , Ryhänen, Samppa J. , Davies, Stella M , Aguayo‐Hiraldo, Paibel , Locatelli, Franco , Merli, Pietro

Blood | December 1, 2023 | Volume: 142 | Issue: Supplement 1 | Pages: 114-114

10.1182/blood-2023-181096 Get It

Introduction: Immune-mediated graft failure (also termed graft rejection) is a feared complication of hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) and there is no effective intervention. Multiple pre-transplant risk factors for graft failure are known and recent studies from our groups identified interferon gamma (IFNγ) as a mechanistically important and pharmacologically targetable cytokine involved in graft failure pathophysiology. CXCL9, a downstream marker of IFNγ production, was also identified as a biomarker. We describe an international multicenter retrospective pooled analysis of emapalumab (EMA), an IFNγ neutralizing agent, for the prevention/treatment of immune-mediated graft failure after HSCT. Methods: The safety and preliminary efficacy of EMA were studied in predominantly pediatric patients who received EMA using two different strategies: 1) graft failure treatment and 2) graft failure prophylaxis. Patients at US centers were treated with EMA if they developed clinical and laboratory signs of graft failure after HSCT. All treatment patients met 2 or more of the following criteria: 1) HLA mismatched donor and/or prior graft failure, 2) unexplained fever &gt;39°C (or &gt;38°C if prior history of graft failure) after HSCT, 3) absolute neutrophil count decline after initial engraftment, 4) delayed neutrophil engraftment after HSCT, 5) real-time CXCL9 &gt; 2.5x upper limit of normal (ULN). Temperature and CXCL9 cutoffs were based on a prior graft failure biomarker publication (Sabulski et al, Blood Advances 2021). Patients treated at European centers received prophylactic EMA to prevent graft failure if they were deemed at high-risk prior to transplant. High-risk patients had a prior history of graft failure after HSCT or had two or more of the following established risk factors: a) affected by a disease with high risk of graft failure, including acquired severe aplastic anemia, thalassemia, primary HLH; b) ex-vivo T cell-depleted stem cell product; c) transplant from unrelated cord blood unit or mismatched related/unrelated donor. Results: Thirty-six HSCTs used EMA for graft failure treatment or prophylaxis and were included in this study.EMA was used for graft failure treatment in 25 HSCTs wherein patients developed clinical and laboratory signs of graft failure (Table 1). Most HSCTs in the treatment cohort were performed for bone marrow failure syndromes (n=16). All patients tolerated EMA without complications and no side effects or infections were attributed to EMA. Fifty six percent (14/25) of patients treated with EMA for impending graft failure engrafted and had resolution of graft failure concerns, while the remaining 44% suffered graft failure. Responders had a median ANC of 0.29 x10 3 cells/μL (range 0.05-0.79) prior to EMA, which increased to a median of 0.6 x10 3cells/μL (range, 0-5.1) and 2.97 x10 3 cells/μL (range, 0.85-8.7) on days 3 and 7 after EMA dosing. Eighty percent (20/25) of CXCL9 levels were elevated in the treatment cohort prior to EMA dosing. The median CXCL9 level prior to EMA dosing was elevated 2.4 x ULN (range, 0.3-157.8). The median pre-EMA CXCL9 level in patients who ultimately suffered graft failure in the treatment cohort was 3.3x ULN (range, 0.7-157.8) compared to a median of 2.2x ULN (range, 0.3-30.4) in subjects who had signs of graft failure but did not suffer graft failure (p=0.24). Eleven patients received prophylactic EMA based on a prior history of graft failure or other pre-transplant risk factors. EMA was well tolerated in these patients and 91% (10/11) of patients engrafted while one patient with prior history of graft failure suffered recurrent graft failure. The pre-HSCT (day -2) CXCL9 level in the lone prophylactic patient who suffered graft failure was 4x the ULN. Conclusions: This study reports the largest cohort of HSCTs that used EMA therapy for the novel purpose of treating or preventing graft failure. EMA was well tolerated in all patients. Efficacy conclusions are preliminary and limited by the study design, however our treatment study successfully identified a cohort of patients with a markedly high graft failure rate (44%) and we show preliminary evidence to suggest emaplaumab prevented graft failure in patients who had signs of impending graft failure at the time of treatment. The safety and preliminary efficacy observations in this study support a larger prospective study of IFNγ blockade for graft failure prevention after HSCT.