Morales, George

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.

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 &gt;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&lt;0.001) and the risk of 12-month NRM (8% vs 16% vs 39%, all P&lt;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 &lt; .001) and a larger group (29/96, 30%) of clinical nonresponders became responders with sixfold lower NRM (7.6% vs 50.7%, P &lt; .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 &gt;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 &lt;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 (&lt;18, 18-59, &gt;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&lt;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).

Abstract Acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) grading systems that use only clinical symptoms at treatment initiation such as the Minnesota risk identify standard and high-risk categories but lack a low-risk category suitable to minimize immunosuppressive strategies. We developed a new grading system that includes a low-risk stratum based on clinical symptoms alone and determined whether the incorporation of biomarkers would improve the model’s prognostic accuracy. We randomly divided 1863 patients in the Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium (MAGIC) who were treated for GVHD into training and validation cohorts. Patients in the training cohort were divided into 14 groups based on similarity of clinical symptoms and similar nonrelapse mortality (NRM); we used a classification and regression tree (CART) algorithm to create three Manhattan risk groups that produced a significantly higher area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for 6-month NRM than the Minnesota risk classification (0.69 vs 0.64, P = .009) in the validation cohort. We integrated serum GVHD biomarker scores with Manhattan risk using patients with available serum samples and again used a CART algorithm to establish 3 MAGIC composite scores that significantly improved prediction of NRM compared to Manhattan risk (AUC, 0.76 vs 0.70, P = .010). Each increase in MAGIC composite score also corresponded to a significant decrease in day 28 treatment response (80% vs 63% vs 30%, P &lt; .001). We conclude that the MAGIC composite score more accurately predicts response to therapy and long-term outcomes than systems based on clinical symptoms alone and may help guide clinical decisions and trial design.

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.

Abstract The absence of a standardized definition for graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) flares and data on its clinical course are significant concerns. We retrospectively evaluated 968 patients across 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 treatment. The cumulative incidence of flares within 6 months was 22%, and flares were associated with a higher risk of nonrelapse mortality (NRM; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 4.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.19-7.36; P &lt; .001). Flares were more severe (grades 3/4, 41% vs 16%; P &lt; .001) and had more frequent lower gastrointestinal (LGI) involvement (55% vs 32%; P &lt; .001) than the initial GVHD. At CR/VGPR, elevated MAGIC biomarkers predicted the future occurrence of a flare, along with its severity and LGI involvement. In multivariate analyses, higher Ann Arbor (AA) biomarker scores at CR/VGPR were significant risk factors for flares (AA2 vs AA1: aHR, 1.81 [95% CI, 1.32-2.48; P = .001]; AA3 vs AA1: aHR, 3.14 [95% CI, 1.98-4.98; P &lt; .001]), as were early response to initial treatment (aHR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.21-2.80; P = .004) and HLA-mismatched unrelated donor (aHR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.00-3.02; P = .049). MAGIC biomarkers also stratified the risk of NRM both at CR/VGPR and at the time of flare. We conclude that GVHD flares are common and carry a significant mortality risk. The occurrence of future flares can be predicted by serum biomarkers that may serve to guide adjustment and discontinuation of immunosuppression.

[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 &lt; 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 &lt; 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 &lt; 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: &gt;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&lt;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&lt;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 &gt;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.