Ferrara, James L.M.

Introduction: Risk stratification approaches using clinical criteria or biomarkers in acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) have traditionally been implemented at diagnosis or initiation systemic treatment with corticosteroids. For patients who require second-line treatment, the significance of biomarkers at salvage therapy and the relationship between biomarker risk and choice of therapy are unknown. Methods: We studied adult patients who received second-line treatment for acute GVHD between January 2016 and December 2021 in the Mount Sinai Acute GVHD Consortium (MAGIC) database, which collects clinical data and longitudinal serum samples from allogeneic HCT recipients using a rigorous PRoBE study design. Exclusion criteria included relapse of underlying malignant disease prior to second-line therapy, missing response data, or missing serum sample. Serum samples collected from 7 days prior to 3 days after initiation of second-line therapy met criteria for biomarker analysis. The MAGIC algorithm probability (MAP) was calculated as a single value based on concentrations of ST2 and REG3α and was stratified at a threshold of 0.290 to define high MAP and low MAP groups. The primary objective evaluated the association between MAP and survival for patients receiving second-line therapy for acute GVHD. The key secondary objective was to investigate the MAP and choice of second-line systemic agent on Day 28 overall response rate (ORR) and survival. Results: In total, 316 adult patients received second-line treatment for acute GVHD; 149 patients (47%) were excluded for disease relapse (n=27), missing response data (n=48), or missing sample (n=74).Of the 167 evaluable patients, most had steroid-refractory acute GVHD (n=146, 87%), rather than steroid-dependent (n=8, 5%) or steroid-sensitive (n=14, 8%) disease. 62 patients received ruxolitinib while 102 received other systemic agents (best available therapy: BAT). Baseline clinical characteristics of the study population according to treatment choice were similar, except for donor type (Rux: MRD 15%, MUD 74%, haplo 11%; BAT: MRD 30%, MUD 67%, haplo 3%; P=0.014) and median days from corticosteroids to second-line treatment (Rux: 18, BAT: 12; P=0.02).In total, 81 patients had high MAPs and 86 patients had low MAPs, with similar distribution in each treatment cohort (P=0.53). For the entire cohort, the median follow-up for survivors was 22 months (range, 1.5-27).The MAP separated patients into 2 groups (high vs low) with significantly different mortality (NRM at 2 years, 76% vs 29%, P<.0001) and survival (OS at 2 years, 12% vs 63%, P<.0001). Patients who received ruxolitinib as second-line therapy had lower mortality (NRM at 2 years, 35% vs 60%, P<.002) and improved survival (OS at 2 years, 51% vs 32%, P<.008), compared to those who received other systemic agents. However, the outcomes of patients with high MAP were poor, regardless of second-line treatment choice ( Figure 1A). The MAP (low vs high), time from corticosteroids to second-line treatment (≥14 days vs < 14 days), GVHD grade at second-line (0-2 vs 3-4), and choice of second-line therapy (Rux vs BAT) were all significant (P<0.05) predictors of lower NRM and higher OS in multivariate analysis. The MAP also separated patients into 2 groups with significantly different D28 ORR (low: 49%, high: 30%, P<.0001). In agreement with prospective trials, ruxolitinib resulted in higher D28 response rates compared to other systemic therapies (ORR 54.9% vs 30.5%, P=0.005), which was observed in both low MAP (ORR, 64.5% vs 38.5%, P=0.017) and high MAP cohorts (ORR, 42.9% vs 22.6%, P=0.06) ( Figure 1B). The MAP (low vs high), GVHD grade at second line (0-2 vs 3-4), and choice of second-line therapy (Rux vs BAT) were significant predictors (P<0.05) of higher D28 ORR in multivariate analysis. Conclusion: The MAP measured at the initiation of second-line systemic treatment for acute GVHD predicts NRM and OS, as well as treatment response. The outcomes of patients with high MAP are poor, regardless of second-line treatment choice, and the higher CR rate in low MAP patients may drive higher survival rates. Incorporation of MAP into clinical trials in this setting warrants investigation. The results also support the current use of ruxolitinib as second-line treatment for acute GVHD, particularly in patients with low MAP.

[Background] The current standard first-line treatment for acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), systemic high-dose steroids, induces clinical responses in a majority of patients. Flares of GVHD after initial improvement often occur during tapering or discontinuation of immunosuppression. There is no consensus regarding the definition of GVHD flare and little has been published regarding its natural history. [Methods] We retrospectively evaluated clinical data and blood samples from 968 allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) recipients from 23 Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium (MAGIC) transplant centers who achieved complete response (CR) or very good partial response (VGPR) within 4 weeks of acute GVHD treatment between 2014 and 2021. VGPR was defined as the complete resolution of acute GVHD manifestations except residual stage 1 skin disease. Flares were defined as a recurrence of acute GVHD after achievement of CR/VGPR if (1) patients had an increased symptom severity of at least 1 organ stage; (2) received intensified treatment (increase in steroid dose ≥ 0.25 mg/kg or initiation of additional systemic immunosuppression); and (3) had no prior history of primary disease relapse or donor lymphocyte infusion preceding the flare. Serum samples obtained at the time of CR/VGPR and at the time of flares were analyzed for ST2 and REG3α concentrations that generated MAGIC algorithm probabilities (MAPs) resulting in previously validated Ann Arbor (AA) scores (1, 2, and 3). [Results] The median recipient age at HCT was 55 years (range: 0 to 79); 18.6% of patients had grades III-IV acute GVHD before CR/VGPR. The median maximum daily dose of corticosteroids before CR/VGPR was 1 mg/kg methylprednisolone equivalent (range, 0.1 to 3.2 mg/kg). Flares developed within 6 months following CR/VGPR in 210/968 (21.7%) patients with a median onset of 28 days (range: 2 to 448). Symptom severity at the onset of flare symptoms varied widely (grade I: 22%; grade II: 38%; grade III-IV: 41%) and the development of a flare was associated with a five-fold increase in NRM (hazard ratio [HR], 4.84 [95% CI, 3.19-7.36], P < 0.001) when considered as a time-dependent covariate in a multivariate regression model. The large majority of non-relapse deaths after flares (54/71, 76%) were due to acute GVHD or complications from its treatment. The AA scores at the time of first CR/VGPR successfully stratified patients for risk of six-month NRM (AA1: 5%, AA2: 11%, AA3: 34%, P < 0.001) (Figure A). Increasing AA score at CR/VGPR was also associated with significantly increased risk of GVHD flares (Figure B). Not only did the risk of flare increase with each rising AA score, but the number of patients with severe (grade III/IV) symptoms at flare onset also increased (AA1: 34%, AA2: 43%, AA3: 54%). We next generated a multivariate regression model of risk factors for the development of flares. High AA scores at the time of CR/VGPR (AA2: HR, 1.81 [95% CI, 1.32-2.48], P = 0.001; AA3: HR, 3.14 [95% CI, 1.98-4.98], P < 0.001), HCT from HLA mismatched unrelated donor (HR, 1.74 [95% CI, 1.00-3.02], P = 0.049), and interestingly, rapid achievement of CR/VGPR from the time of initial treatment (≤14 days) (HR, 1.84 [95% CI, 1.21-2.80], P = 0.004) were all identified as significant risk factors. Meanwhile, no other transplant, GVHD, or treatment characteristics associated with the development of flares including maximum GVHD severity, maximum steroid dose, and use of additional immunosuppressive agents other than steroids before CR/VGPR. AA scores measured at the onset of flare symptoms in 98 patients also predicted six-month NRM (AA1, 6%; AA2, 19%; AA3 42%, P = 0.01). [Conclusion] Despite advances in treatment, flares of GVHD symptoms following excellent (CR/VGPR) responses still occur in over one fifth of patients in current practice and are associated with a five-fold increase in six-month NRM. AA scores from serum biomarkers predict outcomes despite the absence of symptoms, suggesting that MAGIC biomarkers detect subclinical damage to GI crypts that can drive later recrudescence of clinical GVHD. Measurement of the MAP at the time of response to GVHD treatment may thus help to risk-stratify tapering strategies of immunosuppressive therapy.

The overall response rate (ORR) 28 days (D28) after treatment has been adopted as the primary endpoint for clinical trials of acute graft versus host disease (GVHD). ORR combines complete response (CR) and partial response (PR) because CR and PR have very similar non relapse mortality (NRM). D28 ORR has some disadvantages: first, physicians usually decide to modify immunosuppression much earlier than D28, and second, NRM does not always correlate well with ORR at D28, particularly for patients who present with intermediate risk or low risk disease. MAGIC serum biomarkers at day 14 (D14) of GVHD treatment have been shown to correlate better with NRM than clinical symptom response (Srinagesh et al, Blood Advances, 2019). We therefore hypothesized that a combination of clinical symptom severity and biomarkers at D14 of treatment would predict NRM at least as well and possibly better than clinical response at D28. We studied 1144 patients from 23 MAGIC sites who were systemically treated with at least 0.25 mg/kg/day of systemic steroids (prednisone equivalents) and had clinical data and serum samples available in the MAGIC database and biorepository. We divided the patients into a training set (n=764) and a validation set (n=380). We used 12-month NRM from the time of acute GVHD onset as the primary outcome of interest. We first trained a recursive partitioning algorithm in the training set to create a response model (MAGIC D14 clinical response) according to overall GVHD grade at both onset and D14 that predicted 12-month NRM and then applied it to the validation set. Patients that either progressed to grade III/IV GVHD, continued having grade III/IV GVHD, or only improved to grade II at D14 from grade III/IV at D0 had high NRM and were classified as non-responders. Patients with grade I/II GVHD at day 0 who had grade 0-II GVHD at day 14 and patients who improved to grade 0/I at day 14 from grade III/IV at day 0 had low NRM and were classified as responders. Although counterintuitive, responders included patients whose GVHD remained at grade II because the 12 month NRM of this group was only 20%. The new clinical model predicted NRM as well as the D28 standard response model in the validation set. When we integrated the D14 MAP biomarker score (low: ≤ 0.290 vs high: >0.290) with the new D14 clinical response (D14 MAGIC integrated response), we observed three response groups of integrated response with strikingly different 12 month NRM (8%, 35%, 76%, p<0.001), in contrast to the D28 standard response (Figure 1A, 1B). D14 complete response required MAGIC clinical response with low MAP; D14 partial response required either MAGIC clinical response with high MAP or MAGIC clinical non-response with low MAP; and D14 non-response required MAGIC clinical non-response with high MAP. The D14 response groups also displayed significant differences in 12 month OS (82%, 58%, 14% respectively, p<0.001) We then compared the D14 integrated response with the D28 standard response for 12 month NRM prediction. This D14 integrated response model was superior for time-dependent AUC (0.78 vs 0.71, P=0.03), sensitivity (0.71 vs 0.54), positive predictive value (0.52 vs 0.48) and negative predictive value (0.92 vs 0.89), with minimal loss in specificity (0.85 vs 0.87) in the prediction of 12-month NRM compared to the D28 standard response model. Using decision curve analysis, the D14 integrated response displayed higher net benefit (correct identification of patients that will experience NRM by 12 months) over the whole range of threshold probabilities/preferences for changing immunosuppression when 12-month NRM was used as the outcome. We conclude first, that the definition of response that uses onset and D14 grades is as accurate as D28 ORR model; and second, that a model using clinical grades and biomarkers on D14 more accurately predicts long term NRM than the standard D28 definition and may be useful as a clinical trial endpoint.

Abstract Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract is the main cause of nonrelapse mortality (NRM) after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. Ann Arbor (AA) scores derived from serum biomarkers at onset of GVHD quantify GI crypt damage; AA2/3 scores correlate with resistance to treatment and higher NRM. We conducted a multicenter, phase 2 study using natalizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that blocks T-cell trafficking to the GI tract through the α4 subunit of α4β7 integrin, combined with corticosteroids as primary treatment for patients with new onset AA2/3 GVHD. Seventy-five patients who were evaluable were enrolled and treated; 81% received natalizumab within 2 days of starting corticosteroids. Therapy was well tolerated with no treatment emergent adverse events in >10% of patients. Outcomes for patients treated with natalizumab plus corticosteroids were compared with 150 well-matched controls from the MAGIC database whose primary treatment was corticosteroids alone. There were no significant differences in overall or complete response between patients treated with natalizumab plus corticosteroids and those treated with corticosteroids alone (60% vs 58%; P = .67% and 48% vs 48%; P = 1.0, respectively) including relevant subgroups. There were also no significant differences in NRM or overall survival at 12 months in patients treated with natalizumab plus corticosteroids compared with controls treated with corticosteroids alone (38% vs 39%; P = .80% and 46% vs 54%; P = .48, respectively). In this multicenter biomarker–based phase 2 study, natalizumab combined with corticosteroids failed to improve outcome of patients with newly diagnosed high-risk GVHD. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as # NCT02133924.

Abstract Late acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) is defined as de novo acute GVHD presenting beyond 100 days after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) without manifestations of chronic GVHD. Data are limited regarding its characteristics, clinical course, and risk factors because of underrecognition and changes in classification. We evaluated 3542 consecutive adult recipients of first HCTs at 24 Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium (MAGIC) centers between January 2014 and August 2021 to better describe the clinical evolution and outcomes of late acute GVHD. The cumulative incidence of classic acute GVHD that required systemic treatment was 35.2%, and an additional 5.7% of patients required treatment for late acute GVHD. At the onset of symptoms, late acute GVHD was more severe than classic acute GVHD based on both clinical and MAGIC algorithm probability biomarker parameters and showed a lower overall response rate on day 28. Both clinical and biomarker grading at the time of treatment stratified the risk of nonrelapse mortality (NRM) in patients with classic and late acute GVHD, respectively, but long-term NRM and overall survival did not differ between patients with classic and late acute GVHD. Advanced age, female-to-male sex mismatch, and the use of reduced intensity conditioning were associated with the development of late acute GVHD, whereas the use of posttransplant cyclophosphamide–based GVHD prevention was protective mainly because of shifts in GVHD timing. Because overall outcomes were comparable, our findings, although not definitive, suggest that similar treatment strategies, including eligibility for clinical trials, based solely on clinical presentation at onset are appropriate.

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.

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.

Abstract Background: A major cause of mortality in patients receiving hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT) is acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), a multiorgan disorder that includes the skin, liver and gastrointestinal tract. We have previously identified elafin, a protease inhibitor overexpressed in inflamed epidermis, as a diagnostic biomarker of GVHD in the skin, the most commonly involved GVHD organ. However, our initial study was limited to a subset of patients with isolated skin GVHD. The main driver of nonrelapse mortality (NRM) in HCT patients is GI GVHD. Two biomarkers, Regenerating islet-derived 3a (REG3α) and Suppressor of tumorigenesis 2 (ST2), have since been validated as biomarkers of GI GVHD that predict long-term outcomes in patients treated for GVHD. We undertook this study to determine the utility of elafin as a prognostic biomarker of acute GVHD in the general population of previously unstudied acute GVHD patients, and to compare it to ST2 and REG3α. Study Design: 526 patients who received systemic corticosteroid treatment for skin GVHD were analyzed from the Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium (MAGIC), which includes patients from 25 HCT centers. We used ELISA to measure serum concentrations of elafin, ST2 and REG3α. Patients were divided randomly into equal training and validation sets; and we developed a competing risk regression model for 6-month NRM using elafin concentration in the training set. We developed additional models for 6-month NRM using concentrations of ST2 and REG3α, or the combination of all three biomarkers as predictors. We then constructed ROC curves to evaluate the predictive accuracy of each model and to analyze the ability of each model to stratify patients into high- and low-risk groups. We analyzed the cumulative incidence of 6-month NRM and overall survival in each model and compared the accuracy of each model in the validation set. Results: The area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) for elafin alone was 0.55 whereas it was 0.75 and statistically superior (P = 0.02) for the combination of ST2 and REG3α. The combination of 3 biomarkers produced an AUROC of 0.76 that was not significantly better than the two biomarker model (P = 0.10). Elafin concentrations, either alone or in combination with ST2 and REG3α, did not produce higher hazard ratios of NRM (data not shown). Patients in the low-risk elafin group paradoxically demonstrated a higher incidence of 6-month NRM, although this difference was not statistically significant (17% vs. 11%, P=0.19), and both overall survival at 6 months (68% vs. 68%, P>0.99) and four-week response (78% vs. 78%, P=0.98) were similar in the low- and high-risk elafin groups (Figure 1). As demonstrated in previous data sets, the combination of ST2 and REG3α divided patients into two groups with a nearly five-fold difference in NRM (6.7% vs. 31%, P <0.001). Conclusion: We demonstrated that serum elafin concentrations measured at the initiation of systemic treatment for acute GVHD in a multicenter population of patients treated systemically for acute GVHD do not predict 6-month NRM, overall survival, or treatment response. As seen in previous studies, serum concentrations of the GI GVHD biomarkers ST2 and REG3α were significant predictors of NRM and the addition of elafin levels did not improve their accuracy. These results underscore the importance of GI disease in driving NRM in patients who develop acute GVHD. Figure 1. Cumulative incidence of nonrelapse mortality and overall survival in high and low risk groups Six-month cumulative incidences of nonrelapse mortality (NRM) in high (solid line) and low (dotted line) risk groups defined by optimized biomarker thresholds (upper panels) and six-month overall survival estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method (lower panels). (A) Cumulative incidence of NRM (14%) and overall survival (75%) in the total validation set (N=263). (B) Cumulative incidence of NRM in the low (N=150) and high (N=113) elafin group (17% vs. 11%, P=0.19). Overall survival in the low and high elafin group (68% vs. 68%, P > 0.99). (C) Cumulative incidence of NRM in the low (N=175) and high (N=88) ST2 + REG3a group (6.7 vs. 31%, P < 0.001). Overall survival in the low and high ST2 + REG3a group (77% vs. 51%, P < 0.001). (D) Cumulative incidence of NRM in the low (N=180) and high (N=83) elafin + ST2 + REG3a group (7.0 vs. 30%, P < 0.001). Overall survival in the low and high elafin + ST2 + REG3a group (79% vs. 64%, P < 0.001). Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Ozbek: Viracor: Patents & Royalties: GVHD biomarker patent with royalties from Viracor. DeFilipp: Omeros, Corp.: Consultancy; Incyte Corp.: Research Funding; Regimmune Corp.: Research Funding; Syndax Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Consultancy. Grupp: Novartis, Kite, Vertex, and Servier: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Other: Steering committee, Research Funding; Novartis, Roche, GSK, Humanigen, CBMG, Eureka, and Janssen/JnJ: Consultancy; Novartis, Adaptimmune, TCR2, Cellectis, Juno, Vertex, Allogene and Cabaletta: Other: Study steering committees or scientific advisory boards. Hexner: Blueprint medicines: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tmunity Therapeutics: Research Funding; PharmaEssentia: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kitko: Co-investigator on two NIH grants as part of the cGVHD consortium: Research Funding; Vanderbilt University Medical Center: Current Employment; PER: Other: PER - CME educational talks about GVHD; Horizon: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Qayed: Novartis: Honoraria; Mesoblast: Honoraria; Medexus: Honoraria. Reshef: ilead, BMS, Precision, Immatics, Atara, Takeda, Shire, Pharmacyclics, Incyte: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; Gilead and Novartis: Honoraria; BMS, Regeneron, TScan, Synthekine, Atara, Jasper, Bayer: Consultancy. Levine: Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Viracor: Patents & Royalties: GVHD biomarker patent with royalties from Viracor; Mesoblast: Consultancy, Research Funding; Equillium Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; X4 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; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Omeros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Symbio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Biogen: Research Funding; Kamada: Research Funding. Ferrara: Eurofins Viracor: Consultancy, Other: Royalties. Chen: Incyte: Consultancy; Gamida: Consultancy.