Citations 4

Therapeutic Outcomes in VEXAS Syndrome: A Multicenter Comparative Cohort of Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation and Hypomethylating Agents

American Journal of Hematology | June 9, 2026 | Volume: 101 | Issue: 9 | Pages: 2166-2176

10.1002/ajh.70401 | PMID 42260942

ABSTRACT Hypomethylating agents (HMA) and allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT) have both demonstrated remissions in VEXAS; however, comparative data is lacking. We conducted a multicenter, retrospective analysis of 66 patients diagnosed with VEXAS syndrome treated with HMA ( n = 35) or alloHSCT ( n = 31). Baseline characteristics such as genetics, co‐morbidities, and performance status were balanced between the groups, except older age in the HMA group. Median follow‐up from therapy initiation was 18 months (95% CI: 11–26), and 14 (21%) deaths were reported (alloHSCT n = 3; HMA n = 11). Among all evaluable patients within the alloHSCT cohort, all patients achieved molecular remission, and a substantial proportion of patients discontinued glucocorticoids (58%). In contrast, HMA therapy was associated with lower but meaningful rates of molecular remission (22%) and glucocorticoid discontinuation (6%). In a real‐world setting, HMA therapy was associated with a high discontinuation rate related to toxicity or lack of response. On multivariable analysis adjusted for age and Charlson Comorbidity Index, alloHSCT was associated with improved overall survival (HR = 0.20, 95% CI: 0.05–0.81; p = 0.024). This association remained consistent across multiple ancillary sensitivity analyses, including restriction to transplant‐eligible patients, patients aged ≤ 75 years, 1:1 matching, and propensity score‐based weighted analyses. Although limited by retrospective design, these findings suggest that alloHSCT remains an attractive and potentially curative strategy in selected patients with VEXAS. Prospective validation of these findings is warranted.
Upfront therapy with allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation versus DNA methyltransferase inhibitors in patients with vexas syndrome: A comparative matched cohort efficacy analysis of 39 patients

Blood | December 5, 2025 | Volume: 146 | Issue: Supplement 1 | Pages: 981-981

10.1182/blood-2025-981

Abstract Background: VEXAS (Vacuoles, E1 enzyme, X-linked, Autoinflammatory, Somatic) syndrome is a hemato-inflammatory syndrome due to somatic mutations in UBA1 gene. Recently, DNA methyltransferase inhibitors (specifically, 5-azacitidine) and allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT) have shown success in eradication of UBA1 clones and clinical remission in some patients. This study aims to provide a comparative efficacy analysis between DNA methyltransferase inhibitors (hypomethylating agents/HMA) versus alloHSCT in VEXAS syndrome patients. Methods: This is a multi-center, retrospective cohort study. UBA1 mutations were detected either through next generation sequencing [NGS, limit of detection (LOD) 2% variant allele fraction (VAF)] or quantitative droplet digital polymerase chain reaction testing (ddPCR, LOD 0.5% VAF). Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS), glucocorticoid (GC) discontinuation/reduction in dose (prednisone < 10 mg/day), and complete molecular remission (CMR, defined as an undetectable UBA1 mutation). OS was calculated from the time of diagnosis to death or last follow up. Cumulative incidence of reduction in GC dose was calculated using competing risk analysis after accounting for death. Results: Between years 2020-2024, a total of thirty-nine male patients (median age 67, range 45-82 years) with VEXAS syndrome, necessity for therapy (GC-refractory inflammation and/or progressive marrow failure/myeloid neoplasm) and confirmed UBA1 pathogenic mutation were included. Of these, 18 (46%) received HMA therapy (5-azacitidine 72% and Decitabine 28%) with a median of 4 (range 1-36) cycles. and 21 (54%) underwent alloHSCT (MSD=4, MUD=12, MMUD=2, and haploidentical=3), all received reduced intensity conditioning (Flu/Mel =11, Flu/Bu=5, Flu/Cy/TBI=2, and TBF=3) and 91% received post-transplant cyclophosphamide-based graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis (only 2 patients in alloHSCT group received prior HMA without benefit). Baseline characteristics were well-balanced between HMA and alloHSCT groups; age at treatment (median 70 vs 65 years, p=0.2), and UBA1 M41V subtype (25% vs 40%, p=0.3), cytogenetic and non-UBA1 mutation abnormalities (p=0.4), prior lines of therapy (median 4 in both, p=0.5), time from diagnosis to therapy (median 7 vs 13 months, p=0.15), indication for therapy (p=0.12), Charlson CI scores (median 4 in both, p=0.4) and HCI-CI scores (median 4 in both, p=0.7). At a median follow-up of 45 (range 7-57) months, 11 (28%) deaths (alloHSCT=3 and HMA=8) were documented. Causes of death included infections (n=6), cardiac disease (n=2), poor graft function (n=2) and pulmonary GVHD (n=1). Compared to HMA therapy, alloHSCT group demonstrated higher rates of GC discontinuation (52% vs 6%, p<0.01) and CMR (evaluable= 22, 100% vs 50%, p<0.01). In the HMA group, 50% (n=9) discontinued therapy after a median of 4 months due to infectious complications or lack of benefit. In the alloHSCT group, 3 (14%) patients developed grade 2 acute GVHD (1-skin, 2-gut, no grade 3-4 acute GVHD) and 4 (19%) experienced moderate to severe chronic GvHD (2-lung, 2-mucocutaneous). In multivariable analysis (MVA) adjusted for age and HCT-CI, alloHSCT was identified as the strongest favorable predictor for OS (HR 0.18 95% CI 0.04-0.8) with similar results when analysis was restricted to transplant-eligible patients < 75 years of age (HR 0.1, 95% CI 0.03-0.6). In a 6-month post-treatment landmark analysis (n=31 evaluable), patients who underwent alloHSCT (n=17) exhibited numerically superior GC discontiuation rate (29% vs 14%, p=0.049) and subsequent OS compared to HMA (2-years OS: 84% vs. 61%, median not reached vs 25 months, 95% CI: 0.06–1.7). In a post-treatment competing risk [GC dose reduction (death)] analysis alloHSCT was associated with superior 2-, and 3-year rates of 57% (10%), and 76% (10%), compared to HMA 22% (24%), and 31% (42%) [p<0.01 (0.04)]. AlloHSCT was also associated with higher rate of CMR (evaluable= 21, alloHSCT N=16 and HMA N=5, 100% vs 60%, p=0.01). At the last follow up, none of the patients who achieved CMR had re-emergence of the UBA1 clone (despite early mixed chimerism). Conclusions: This study represents the largest comparative analysis of alloHSCT versus HMA therapy in VEXAS syndrome, and confirms superiority of alloHSCT in achieving molecular remission, GC discontinuation/dose reduction, and overall survival. Prospective clinical trial confirmation is warranted.
Reduced intensity conditioning allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in VEXAS syndrome: Data from a prospective series of patients

American Journal of Hematology | November 20, 2022 | Volume: 98 | Issue: 2 | Pages: No page available

10.1002/ajh.26786 | PMID 36403135

MI-Immune/1801: Lessons from an Ongoing, Multi-Center Trial Involving Biospecimen Collection for Prospective Microbiome and Immune Profiling in Patients Undergoing Reduced Intensity Conditioning Allogeneic HCT

Blood | November 24, 2021 | Volume: 138 | Issue: Supplement 1 | Pages: 2955-2955

10.1182/blood-2021-149313

Abstract Introduction: The gut microbiome is a potentially modifiable factor in treatment related outcomes in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT). Prior studies have linked pre- or mid-treatment gut microbiome diversity with risk for treatment related morbidity and mortality. However, these studies have been limited by the inclusion of one or only a few institutions and the lack of longitudinal sampling with high quality metadata. These limitations complicate the interpretation of microbiome alterations over the course of HCT. Methods: To overcome these, we devised and implemented a large-scale biospecimen collection protocol in conjunction with BMT CTN 1703, a randomized, multicenter, Phase III trial of tacrolimus/methotrexate vs. post-transplant cyclophosphamide/tacrolimus/mycophenolate mofetil in reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) allogeneic HCT (NCT03959241). Patients enrolled on 1703 were optionally co-enrolled in the companion immune and microbiome profiling study, 1801 (MI-IMMUNE). This involved blood, urine and stool sampling before conditioning (PCON), then weekly starting on day 0 through day 77 (through day 84 for blood), and on days 98, 180, 270, 365 and 730. For all enrolled participants where the donor consented, residual donor cells were saved from the empty hematopoietic stem cell product bag for later analysis. Additionally, the protocol included one-time blood, urine and stool sample collection from consented matched related donors (MRDs) prior to stem cell collection. Starting with protocol version 4.0 on February 1, 2021, participation in 1801 stool collection was required for the first six out of eighteen sample collection timepoints. Participation in later stool and urine timepoint collections remained optional. Here we review the feasibility of creating a multi-institutional biobank. Additionally, we assess the success of our strategies by calculating sample collection compliance and standard deviation in compliance across centers for each timepoint. Results: On June 18, 2021, BMT CTN 1703/1801 closed to accrual with 431 patients enrolled on 1703; 323 patients from 36 centers were co-enrolled on 1801. 304 (94%) provided study samples, making this the largest prospective microbiome and immune profiling study in HCT patients to date. As of July 6, 2021, 3,683 blood, 2,668 urine, and 2,098 stool samples had been collected. Across the first 6 timepoints for all participating centers, blood, urine and stool sample collection averaged 93%, 82%, and 74% compliance, respectively. Of the 99 (30%) patients enrolled on 1801 with a MRD, 34 (34%) donors consented to sample collection. Sample collection compliance was lower for MRDs than for patients on the study with 76%, 74%, and 62% of expected blood, urine and stool samples collected, respectively, from this group. For stool collection exclusively, a median of 5 samples were collected per patient across the first 6 timepoints (median of 6 across all timepoints) with 93 (31%) of patients completing a full sample set through Day 28. 139 (46%) patients provided at least one sample after day 28; these represented 37% of the total samples collected to date. The PCON sample, which provides an important measure of pre-treatment gut microbiome diversity, had the third highest compliance with 74% of patients providing a sample. Surprisingly, Day 28 had the lowest compliance (66%) and highest standard deviation (37%) possibly because this timepoint often falls around the time of hospital discharge. Between PCON and day 28, the standard deviation between sites in the average collection compliance (24%) and number of samples collected per patient (1.1) was small indicating the successful adoption of stool collection across institutions. Table 1 summarizes sample collection statistics. Conclusion: Overall this study has resulted in a large, novel biobank of blood, urine and stool samples from patients undergoing RIC allogeneic HCT at 36 centers across the US. This will serve as a valuable resource for investigating the role of the gut microbiome in long term health outcomes following HCT. Although the results of 1801 are forthcoming given ongoing sample collection, the size and composition of the biobank to date clearly demonstrate the feasibility of implementing multi-institutional stool collection. This study represents a critical step towards the large-scale adoption of microbiome sampling as a diagnostic tool. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Chhabra: GSK: Honoraria. Clark: Kadmon: Consultancy. Horowitz: Mesoblast: Research Funding; Shire: Research Funding; Vertex: Research Funding; Stemcyte: Research Funding; Vor Biopharma: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Miltenyi Biotech: Research Funding; Kiadis: Research Funding; Sobi: Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Research Funding; Pfizer, Inc: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Magenta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Medac: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Daiicho Sankyo: Research Funding; Xenikos: Research Funding; Omeros: Research Funding; Orca Biosystems: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Tscan: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; CSL Behring: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Chimerix: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; bluebird bio: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Allovir: Consultancy; Actinium: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Jenq: Microbiome DX: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Prolacta: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kaleido: Consultancy, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Seres: Consultancy, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; LisCure: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MaaT Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karius: Consultancy. Levine: Equillium Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kamada: Research Funding; Biogen: Research Funding; Omeros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Symbio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz 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; Viracor: Patents & Royalties: GVHD biomarker patent with royalties from Viracor; Mesoblast: Consultancy, Research Funding; X4 Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Murthy: CRISPR Therapeutics: Research Funding. Riches: ATARA Biotherapeutics: Other: Payment; BioIntelect: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Other: Payment. Sung: Merck: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Enterome: Research Funding; Seres: Research Funding; AVROBIO: Consultancy; Abbott Nutrition: Honoraria; Clasado: Other: Research Product; DSM: Other: Research Product. Al Malki: Neximmune: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy; Rigel Pharma: Consultancy; Hansa Biopharma: Consultancy; CareDx: Consultancy. Rezvani: Kaleido: Other: One-time scientific advisory board; Nohla Therapeutics: Other: One-time scientific advisory board; Pharmacyclics-Abbvie: Research Funding; US Department of Justice: Consultancy. Bolaños-Meade: Incyte Corp: Consultancy. Holtan: Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Generon: Consultancy. Saber: Govt. COI: Other. Hamadani: Sanofi, Genzyme, AstraZeneca, BeiGene: Speakers Bureau; Janssen, Incyte, ADC Therapeutics, Omeros, Morphosys, Kite: Consultancy; Takeda, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals and Astellas Pharma: Research Funding. Kean: Bluebird Bio: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Patents & Royalties: From clinical trial data, Research Funding; Vertex: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Gilead: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; EMD Serono: Consultancy. Perales: Cidara: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria, Other; Equilium: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Other; Nektar Therapeutics: Honoraria, Other; NexImmune: Honoraria; MorphoSys: Honoraria; Omeros: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Sellas Life Sciences: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Miltenyi Biotec: Honoraria, Other; Medigene: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria, Other; Celgene: Honoraria.