Weber, Daniela

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.

[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.

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 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 &lt; .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&gt;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 &lt;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 &gt; 0.99). (C) Cumulative incidence of NRM in the low (N=175) and high (N=88) ST2 + REG3a group (6.7 vs. 31%, P &lt; 0.001). Overall survival in the low and high ST2 + REG3a group (77% vs. 51%, P &lt; 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 &lt; 0.001). Overall survival in the low and high elafin + ST2 + REG3a group (79% vs. 64%, P &lt; 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.

Systemic glucocorticoids are the principal treatment for acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), which remains the major cause of non-relapse mortality (NRM) after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). However, there are no validated biomarkers that measure a patient's response to glucocorticoid therapy, and thus response is evaluated by the change in clinical symptom severity. A major weakness in the predictive power of clinical responses is that changes to all organs are weighted equally even though the major driver of NRM is irreversible damage to the crypts of the GI tract. Recent studies from the Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium (MAGIC) have validated an algorithm probability (MAP) that combines serum concentrations of two biomarkers of GVHD (REG3α and ST2) to generate an estimated probability of 6 month NRM for individual patients. The MAP has been considered a "liquid biopsy" that estimates the damage caused by GVHD to crypts throughout the lower GI tract (Hartwell et al., JCI Insight, 2017; Major-Monfried et al., Blood, 2018). We hypothesized that the change in MAP between start of treatment and 28 days later could serve as a response biomarker for GVHD and might compare favorably to the change in clinical symptoms that measures response to GVHD treatment, which is widely used as a surrogate for long term survival and is the primary endpoint in most GVHD treatment trials (Martin et al., BBMT, 2009; MacMillan et al., Blood, 2010). We prospectively collected serum samples and clinical staging from 368 sequential HCT patients who received systemic treatment for acute GVHD in one of 20 MAGIC centers between January 2016 and February 2018. We measured the serum concentrations of REG3α and ST2 before and after systemic therapy for acute GVHD and computed MAPs, the changes in MAPs, and clinical responses for each patient. MAPs of patients who experienced 6 month NRM showed significantly greater increases than MAPs of patients who survived (p=0.0004). In patients whose MAPs at the start of treatment were low (Ann Arbor 1, MAP &lt; 0.141) or intermediate (Ann Arbor 2, 0.141 ≤ MAP ≤ 0.290), 6 month NRM clustered among those who had the greatest increases in MAP after 28 days (Fig 1A,B). In patients with high MAPs at the start of treatment (Ann Arbor 3, MAP &gt; 0.290), those who survived tended to have the largest decreases in MAP (Fig 1C). These changes in MAP suggested crossing a single threshold could predict risk of mortality. We found that patients whose MAPs rose above a threshold MAP of 0.290 (5% of Ann Arbor 1, 27% of Ann Arbor 2) had significantly worse survival compared to those who remained below it, whereas the large number patients with initially high MAPs that remained above the threshold (66% of Ann Arbor 3) had a large increases in mortality (Fig 2). When measured at day 28, the MAP was significantly more accurate in predicting NRM than the gold standard of the clinical response, with areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.86 and 0.70, respectively (p&lt;0.0001). An algorithm that combined clinical response with biomarkers generated the same AUC as the MAP alone (0.83 v 0.86, p = NS). We next tested whether the same MAP threshold of 0.290 could predict risk within clinical response subsets. A significant minority (10%) of clinical responders had high MAPs and experienced three-fold greater NRM than those with low MAPs (40% v 12%, p&lt;0.0001) whereas the majority (57%) of non-responders had low MAPs and experienced almost three-fold lower NRM than those with high MAPs (24% v 65%, p&lt;0.0001) (Fig 3). Thus the MAP provides important prognostic information over and above the change in clinical symptoms, further stratifying both responders and non-responders at four weeks of treatment. The MAP threshold classified patients both with and without significant lower GI symptoms because the MAP is a more specific measure of irreversible cryptic damage in patients with copious diarrhea and more sensitive in patients with less than 0.5 liters of daily diarrhea (Fig 4). We conclude that the MAP is, to our knowledge, the first validated laboratory test to serve as response biomarker for the treatment for acute GVHD and a more accurate predictor of survival than clinical response after four weeks of treatment. The MAP may serve as a novel endpoint and an important complement to changes in clinical symptom severity in future trials of GVHD treatment. Disclosures Srinagesh: National Institutes of Health: Research Funding. Ozbek:Viracor: Patents & Royalties: Biomarker Patent. Ayuk:Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding. Aziz:Doris Duke Charitable Foundation: Research Funding. Defilipp:Incyte: Research Funding. Grupp:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; CBMG: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Servier: Research Funding; Jazz: Other: study steering committees or scientific advisory boards; Adaptimmune: Other: study steering committees or scientific advisory boards; Cure Genetics: Consultancy; Humanigen: Consultancy. Hexner:novartis: Research Funding. Kitko:Mallinckrodt: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Mielke:EBMT/EHA: Other: Travel support; ISCT: Other: Travel support; Miltenyi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel and speakers fee (via institution), Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Speakers Bureau; IACH: Other: Travel support; Kiadis Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support (via institution), Speakers Bureau; DGHO: Other: Travel support; Bellicum: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel (via institution); GILEAD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel (via institution), Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel support (via institution), Speakers Bureau. Merli:Sobi: Consultancy; Amgen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Bellicum: Consultancy. Pulsipher:Amgen: Other: Lecture; Miltenyi: Research Funding; Bellicum: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Other: Education for employees; CSL Behring: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Medac: Honoraria. Qayed:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Reshef:Pfizer: Consultancy; Magenta: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding; Atara: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Shire: Research Funding. Levine:Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Biogen: Other: non-financial support; Viracor: Patents & Royalties: biomarker patent; Ironwood: Honoraria; bluebird bio: Consultancy; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Kamada: Research Funding. Ferrara:National Institutes of Health: Research Funding; ViraCor: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Kamada: Consultancy; Mallinckrodt: Consultancy; Enlivex: Consultancy; Xenikos: Consultancy; CSL Behring: Consultancy.