Louloudis, Ioannis

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.

Abstract Changes in the clinical symptoms of acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) are currently used to assess treatment responses. The Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium (MAGIC) consortium has recently revealed that the integration of serum biomarkers with clinical symptoms at the onset of treatment in a MAGIC composite score (MCS) more accurately predicts treatment response and 6-month nonrelapse mortality (NRM) than clinical symptoms alone. In this study, we evaluated whether the integration of serum biomarkers and clinical symptoms on day 28 (D28) would also better predict NRM than clinical response only (CRO). We analyzed data from 1135 patients receiving systemic treatment for acute GVHD and created a fourth MCS category for patients with complete resolution of symptoms and low-risk clinical biomarkers on D28. Using a classification and regression tree model with 6-month NRM as the end point, we identified status of MCS 0 or MCS 1 at D28 as responses, which we termed the MAGIC composite response (MCR). In the validation cohort (n = 309), MCR more accurately predicted 6-month NRM than CRO (area under the curve: 0.77 vs 0.69; P = .014) and demonstrated higher negative and positive predictive values. MCR correctly reclassified both clinical nonresponders and responders: 28 of 213 clinical responders (13%) became nonresponders with fivefold higher NRM (34.3% vs 6.8%, P < .001) and a larger group (29/96, 30%) of clinical nonresponders became responders with sixfold lower NRM (7.6% vs 50.7%, P < .001). These findings support the use of MCR as a superior surrogate end point for long-term GVHD control and survival in future clinical trials.

Background: The majority of patients respond to steroid treatment for graft-vs-host disease (GVHD), but the typically high doses and prolonged courses can cause substantial morbidity. GVHD can be classified at onset into two groups with significant differences in treatment response and non-relapse mortality (NRM) by clinical criteria (Minnesota risk) but the more favorable standard risk group still experiences high rates of treatment failure and NRM [MacMillan, BBMT 2015]. We previously validated a serum biomarker-based (ST2+REG3α) risk stratification system, MAGIC algorithm probabilities (MAPs), that can stratify patients both at initiation and during treatment into risk groups for treatment response and NRM [Hartwell, JCI Insight 2017, Srinagesh, Blood Adv 2019]. GVHD that is Minnesota standard risk and has a low MAP (i.e., Ann Arbor 1) at start of treatment represents a low risk group with >80% response rate to steroids and ~10% NRM [Etra, Blood 2023]. We hypothesized that serial monitoring of GVHD symptom severity and MAPs twice (days (d) 7 and 14) in patients with clinical and biomarker defined low risk GVHD could further stratify patients into clinically meaningful groups. Methods: We retrospectively determined MAPs at d7 and 14 in 450 patients with low risk GVHD who participated in a prospective, multi-center, observational trial and were treated with systemic steroids between 2015-2023. MAPs <0.291 at days 7 and 14 were defined as low risk based on a previously validated threshold [Major-Monfried Blood 2018]. Clinical responses were scored as complete (CR), partial (PR), or non-response (NR) by standard criteria. Initiation of second line therapy was considered NR. Patients were categorized into three groups (A-C) based on clinical responses and MAPs at days d7 and 14. A: CR/PR by d14 and low MAP at both d7+14; B: stable or worse GVHD (NR) by d14 with low MAP at both d7 and 14; C: any response with a high MAP at d7 or 14. The endpoints were clinical response at day 28 (overall response rate, ORR=CR or PR), regardless of earlier response status, and 6-month NRM. Results: The median age of the study population was 54 years (range: 0-79); 19% of patients received PT-Cy for GVHD prophylaxis. Target organ involvement was skin ± upper GI (66%), lower GI (23%), isolated UGI (11%), and skin+liver (1%), and GVHD severity was grade I (35%), II (61%), and III (4%) at start of treatment. Patients in group A (n=310, 69%), clinical responders with low MAPs through day 14, had excellent d28 ORR (93%) and very low NRM (4%). GVHD in this group was considered ultra-low risk (ULR) and subset analyses revealed highly consistent d28 ORR and NRM, regardless of target organ severity, age (<18, 18-59, >60), HCT-CI score, conditioning intensity, and GVHD prophylaxis. Group B patients comprised clinical non-responders with low MAPs through day 14 (n=112, 25%); half of them responded by d28 and their NRM was low (8%), albeit double that of group A (p=0.079). Group C was small (n=28, 6%) and included both clinical responders (n=20, 4%) and clinical non-responders (n=8, 2%) who had at least one high MAP through day 14. Their d28 ORR was 54% but NRM increased four-fold (32%) and was significantly worse than patients who maintained low MAPs regardless of clinical response (p<0.001). Conclusion: Serial monitoring by clinical response and biomarkers during the first two weeks of treatment identifies a small number of high risk patients whose GVHD is initially low risk (group C). This group experiences high NRM regardless of clinical response to steroid treatment and may benefit from treatment escalation. Patients with low risk GVHD who do not have an early clinical response to steroids but maintain low MAPs, (group B) have reasonably good long-term outcomes with standard treatment. Finally, serial monitoring identifies a very large subset of patients with ULR GVHD (group A) who respond exceptionally well to standard treatment and experience very low rates of 6-month NRM regardless of pre-transplant characteristics and GVHD prophylaxis. Such patients may benefit from treatment de-escalation strategies such as shorter courses of lower dose steroids, a strategy we are currently testing in a clinical trial (NCT05090384).