All content on this site is intended for healthcare professionals only. By acknowledging this message and accessing the information on this website you are confirming that you are a Healthcare Professional.
Introducing
Now you can personalise
your GvHD Hub experience!
Bookmark content to read later
Select your specific areas of interest
View content recommended for you
Find out moreThe GvHD Hub website uses a third-party service provided by Google that dynamically translates web content. Translations are machine generated, so may not be an exact or complete translation, and the GvHD Hub cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated content. The GvHD Hub and its employees will not be liable for any direct, indirect, or consequential damages (even if foreseeable) resulting from use of the Google Translate feature. For further support with Google Translate, visit Google Translate Help.
The GvHD Hub is an independent medical education platform, sponsored by Medac and supported through grants from Sanofi and Therakos. The funders are allowed no direct influence on our content. The levels of sponsorship listed are reflective of the amount of funding given. View funders.
Bookmark this article
Anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG) is considered the standard graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) prophylaxis for human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-mismatched, unrelated, donor (9/10 MMUD) allogeneic stem cell transplant (allo-SCT). However, it’s use has been associated with an increased risk of infection, delayed immune reconstitution and relapse. In contrast, post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PtCy) has also been shown to be an effective prophylaxis treatment for GvHD after haploidentical allo-SCT, however, it has not been well studied in the MMUD allo-SCT setting. Patients undergoing MMUD allo-SCT typically have poor survival outcomes related to the high rates of GvHD and non-relapse mortality (NRM). Therefore, there is a requirement to improve GvHD prophylaxis treatments in order to overcome current limitations of HLA mismatched allo-SCT.1,2 This article forms part of the GvHD monthly educational theme of GvHD prophylaxis.
In September, two studies comparing ATG to PtCy in MMUD allo-SCT were published. The first study by Giorgia Battipaglia, Hospital Saint-Antoine, Paris, FR, and colleagues, utilized registry data from the Acute Leukemia Working Party (ALWP) of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) to conduct a retrospective, matched-pair analysis of ATG and PtCy in patients after 9/10 MMUD transplant.1 The second, by Charlotte Nykolyszyn, Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseille, FR, and colleagues was a historical comparison of comparing PtCy and ATG in the MMUD transplant setting from a single center.2
Highlighted below, in Table 1, are the main designs of both studies, including patient characteristics and any significant differences between patients at baseline.
Table 1. Study design and patient characteristics for both studies
|
Battipaglia et al.,1 |
Nykolyszyn et al.,2 |
||
Patient population |
Homogenous population of adult patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) undergoing first allo-SCT from 9/10 MMUD source between 2011 and 2017 |
Patients undergoing first allo-SCT for treatment of a hematological malignancy using peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs) as donor source between; 2015–2018 (PtCy) and 2010–2014 (ATG) |
||
Size |
Multicenter |
Single center |
||
Study design |
Retrospective Matched pair analysis |
Retrospective Historical comparison |
||
|
ATG |
PtCy |
ATG |
PtCy |
N |
179 |
93 |
40 |
22 |
Median age at transplant (years) |
53 (19–75) |
51 (20–73) |
51 |
49 |
Female patients |
60% |
45% |
Not reported (NR) |
NR |
Type of malignancy (%, lymphoid vs myeloid) |
0 vs 100 |
0 vs 100 |
33 vs 68 |
18 vs 82 |
HLA class I mismatches |
75% |
73% |
NR |
NR |
Patients in first complete remission (CR1, total) |
55% |
NR |
||
Year of transplant (range) |
2014 2011-2017 |
2015 2011-2017 |
NR |
NR |
Median follow-up (months) |
27 |
14 |
68 |
24 |
PBSCs as source (%) |
92 |
91 |
100 |
100 |
Most frequently used myeloablative conditioning (MAC) regimen |
Busulfan and cyclophosphamide |
Busulfan and fludarabine-based |
Busulfan and fludarabine-based |
Thiotepa + busulfan-based |
Most frequently used reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) regimen |
Busulfan and fludarabine-based |
Busulfan and fludarabine-based |
Busulfan and fludarabine-based |
Fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and total body irradiation |
Engraftment rate |
96% |
95% |
NR |
NR |
Median time to neutrophil engraftment (days) |
17 |
19 |
NR |
NR |
Graft failure (n) |
37 |
4 |
NR |
NR |
Rates of acute GvHD (aGvHD) and chronic (cGvHD) as shown in Table 21,2
Survival outcomes as shown in Table 21,2
Table 2. Rates of GvHD and survival outcomes in the two studies1,2
Battipaglia et al.,1 |
Nykolyszyn et al.,2 |
||||
|
ATG (n= 179), % (95% CI) |
PtCy (n= 93), % (95% CI) |
|
ATG (n= 40), % (95% CI) |
PtCy (n= 22), % (95% CI) |
Grade II–IV aGvHD (100 days) |
32 (26–40) |
30 (21–40) |
Grade II–IV aGvHD (100 days)* |
35 (23–53) |
14 (5–39) |
Grade III–IV aGvHD (100 days)* |
19 (13–25) |
9 (14–16) |
Grade III–IV aGvHD (100 days)* |
18 (9–34) |
0 |
Any grade cGvHD (two-years) |
36 (28–44) |
39 (26–51) |
Any grade cGvHD (two-years) |
26 (15–44) |
29 (15–58) |
Extensive cGvHD (two-years) |
20 (14–28) |
17 (9–28) |
Moderate–severe cGvHD (two-years) |
26 (15–44) |
20 (8–48) |
LFS* |
34 (27–42) |
55 (43–66) |
PFS* |
45 (32–63) |
81 (65–100) |
OS |
38 (30–46) |
56 (43–68) |
OS* |
56 (42–74) |
85 (71–100) |
GRFS* |
21 (14–28) |
37 (25-49) |
GRFS* |
27 (17–45) |
60 (42–87) |
NRM |
29 (22–36) |
16 (9–25) |
NRM |
22 (13–40) |
5 (1–31) |
RI |
37 (29–44) |
29 (20–40) |
RI |
32 (21–51) |
15 (5–43) |
* Statistically significant
Table 3. Advantages and limitations of the two studies
|
Battipaglia et al.,1 |
Nykolyszyn et al.,2 |
Advantages |
|
|
Limitations |
|
|
The use of PtCy was associated with lower rates of grade III–IV aGvHD in both studies, comparable rates of cGvHD and superior survival outcomes (LFS/PFS and GRFS).1 These results suggest that PtCy represents a viable alternative to ATG for GvHD prophylaxis in the 9/10 MMUD allo-SCT setting (with PBSCs as donor source) and may improve outcome in a HLA disparity transplant setting. However, prospective trials are required to confirm the results.1,2
Subscribe to get the best content related to GvHD delivered to your inbox