The 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 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.
Now you can support HCPs in making informed decisions for their patients
Your contribution helps us continuously deliver expertly curated content to HCPs worldwide. You will also have the opportunity to make a content suggestion for consideration and receive updates on the impact contributions are making to our content.
Find out more
Create an account and access these new features:
Bookmark content to read later
Select your specific areas of interest
View gvhd content recommended for you
GvHD prophylaxis – which one is better? Comparison of single-agent post-transplantation cyclophosphamide and calcineurin inhibitors
On Wednesday 21 March 2018 during an oral abstract session at the 44th Annual Meeting of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT), Lisbon, Portugal, Ivan Moiseev of the First Saint Petersburg State Medical University, St. Petersburg, Russia, on behalf of his colleagues presented results from a single-center study which was designed to compare single-agent post-transplantation cyclophosphamide (saPTCy) and calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) in patients who received matched related bone marrow transplantation (BMT).
In total, 183 patients were enrolled and received BMT from matched related donor, 78 of them received saPTCy, the other 105 control patients received CNI (mycophenolate mofetil or methotrexate). Median follow-up of patients was two years.
Key findings:
-
Efficacy
- Primary graft failure was not significantly different between the saPTCy and the control group: 1.1% vs 1.6%, P = 0.42
- Engraftment was significantly slower in the saPTCy group than the control group: 24 vs 19 days, P < 0.001
- PTCy was superior to CNIs in the following parameters:
- Grade II-IV aGvHD: HR = 0.239 (95% CI, 0.099–0.58), P = 0.002
- Grade III-IV aGvHD: HR = 0.192 (95% CI, 0.055–0.666), P = 0.009
- Relapse incidence: HR = 0.519, (95% CI, 0.297–0.893), P = 0.023
- Overall survival: HR = 0.489 (95% CI, 0.261–0.917, P = 0.03
- Event-free-survival: HR = 0.571 (95% CI, 0.334–0.976), P = 0.04
- GvHD-relapse-free survival: HR = 0.493 (95% CI, 0.309–0.786), P = 0.003
- There was no significant difference found for moderate and severe GvHD and non-relapse mortality (NRM)
- Moderate and severe cGvHD: HR = 0.898 (95% CI, 0.477–1.69), P = 0.74
- Non-relapse mortality: HR = 0.384 (95% CI, 0.089–1.437), P = 0.1768
-
Safety
- Toxicity of BMT was largely equivalent apart from lower incidence of nephrotoxicity after saPTCy: 33% vs 43%, P = 0.008
- Higher incidence of grade 3-4 mucositis in the saPTCy group was observed: 41% vs 34%, P = 0.02
In conclusion, saPTCy showed superior results to CNIs in prevention of Grade II-IV, Grade III-IV aGvHD and also increased the incidence of relapse. Moreover, patients receiving saPTCy had better overall survival, event-free-survival and GvHD-relapse-free survival.
Key limitations of this study include its single-center retrospective design and a diverse patient group. The speaker concluded that this study demonstrated that saPTCy provides better outcome rates than CNI-based prophylaxis. Doctor Moiseev further added that “these results should be confirmed in the prospective randomized trials.”
References