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.

The GvHD Hub uses cookies on this website. They help us give you the best online experience. By continuing to use our website without changing your cookie settings, you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our updated Cookie Policy

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 more
  TRANSLATE

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 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.

Steering CommitteeAbout UsNewsletterContact
LOADING
You're logged in! Click here any time to manage your account or log out.
LOADING
You're logged in! Click here any time to manage your account or log out.
2023-05-08T09:41:53.000Z

Impact of graft CD4/CD8 ratio on HSCT outcomes with different GvHD-prophylaxis regimens

May 8, 2023
Share:
Learning objective: After reading this article, learners will be able to cite a new clinical development in GvHD.

Bookmark this article

A high CD4/CD8 T-cell ratio in the hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) allograft is associated with increased risk of graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) and mortality. An optimal GvHD prophylaxis regimen may mitigate this risk; however, the impact of the CD4/CD8 ratio in the graft has not yet been systematically compared using different GvHD prophylaxis regimens.1

To address this knowledge gap, Nikoloudis et al. 1 aimed to analyze the risks associated with a high (i.e., above 75th percentile) CD4/CD8 ratio in HSCT allografts in three different cohorts within a single center, stratified by the applied GvHD prophylactic platforms. Here, we summarize the key findings.

Methods1

This retrospective monocentric study from an Austrian EBMT center included all consecutive HSCTs performed with peripheral blood stem cells between January 21, 2000, and June 29, 2021. The impact of the graft CD4/CD8 ratio was analyzed in the following three cohorts defined by GvHD prophylaxis:

  • Cyclosporine A with methotrexate (CSA/MTX; n = 185);
  • CSA with mycophenolate mofetil (CSA/MMF; n = 294); and
  • Posttransplant cyclophosphamide combined with tacrolimus and MMF (PTCy/TAC/MMF; n = 113).

The impact of the CD4/CD8 ratio was analyzed for endpoints including overall survival (OS), incidence of non-relapse mortality, acute GvHD (aGvHD), chronic GvHD (cGvHD), aGvHD-associated mortality, relapse incidence, and progression-free survival.

Results1

The cohort was stratified according to GvHD prophylaxis regimen. Compared to the CSA/MMF and PTCy-TAC/MMF cohorts, recipients in the CSA/MTX cohort were younger and a higher proportion of patients had a diagnosis of AML or ALL, matched-related donors, and myeloablative conditioning regimens. The key patient and transplant characteristics are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Patient characteristics*

Characteristic, %
(unless otherwise
stated)

CSA/MMF
(n = 294)

CSA/MTX
(n = 185)

PTCy-TAC/MMF
(n = 113)

p value

Median age of recipient (range), years

53.68
(19.55–73.04)

43.96
(18.05–74.65)

56.96
(19.36–74.90)

<0.001

Median age of donor (range), years

38.40
(18.31–76.99)

37.16
(18.29–67.44)

36.90
(18.54–63.61)

0.77

Diagnosis

MDS

25.9

15.7

22.1

0.03

              AML

40.1

54.6

46.9

 

              Lymphoma

20.1

10.8

17.7

 

              ALL

12.9

16.2

11.5

 

              Nonmalignant,
              immunodeficiency

1.0

2.7

1.8

 

Donor type

              Matched related

44.2

53.5

0

<0.01

              Unrelated

55.8

46.5

8.8

 

              Haploidentical
              related

0

0

91.2

 

Conditioning

              MAC

43.5

80

63.7

<0.001

              RIC

56.5

20

36.3

 

ATG

              No

23.1

40.5

<0.001

              Yes

76.9

59.5

 

Median CD4/CD8 ratio (range)

1.88
(0.52–6.00)

1.90
(0.33–8.26)

1.88
(0.40–6.69)

0.91

Median CD3 cell dose (range), 107/kg

25.54
(3.40–87.15)

24.80
(5.60–71.11)

32.47
(2.87–82.91)

<0.001

ALL, acute lymphoblastic leukemia; AML, acute myeloid leukemia; ATG, antithymocyte globulin; CSA, cyclosporine; MAC, myeloablative conditioning; MDS, myelodysplastic syndrome; MMF, mycophenolate-mofetil; MTX, methotrexate; PTCy, posttransplant cyclophosphamide; RIC, reduced-intensity conditioning; TAC, tacrolimus.
*Adapted from Nikoloudis, et al.1

In the CSA/MMF cohort, a high CD4/CD8 ratio was associated with significantly decreased OS, increased non-relapse mortality, and GvHD-associated mortality (Figure 1). In the PTCy/TAC/MMF cohort, a high CD4/CD8 ratio was associated with significantly lower OS and Grade 3–4 aGvHD. By contrast, a high CD4/CD8 ratio had no significant impact on any of the investigated endpoints in the CSA/MTX cohort (Figure 1).1

Figure 1. Multivariate analyses for study endpoints* 

aGvHD, acute GvHD; cGvHD, chronic GvHD; CSA, cyclosporine; GRFS, GVHD and relapse-free survival; GvHD, graft-versus-host disease; MMF, mycophenolate mofetil; MTX, methotrexate; NRM, non-relapse mortality; PTCy, post-transplant cyclophosphamide; TAC, tacrolimus.
*Adapted from Nikoloudis, et al.1
Sub-hazard ratio > 1 indicates increased probability of an event with high CD4/CD8 ratio compared with low CD4/CD8 ratio.
p = 0.01.

§p = 0.04.
ǁp = 0.005.
p = 0.02.

In recipients of a HLA-matched transplant who had a top-quartile CD4/CD8 ratio with either an MTX or MMF prophylaxis regimen (n = 116), MTX-based prophylaxis was associated with better OS versus MMF-based prophylaxis. In contrast, in recipients with a lower CD4/CD8 ratio (quartiles 1–3; n = 363), outcomes were identical with MTX versus MMF (Figure 2).

Figure 2. OS in CD4/CD8 ratio subgroups by type of GvHD prophylaxis*

GvHD, graft-versus-host disease; HSCT, hematopoietic stem cell transplant; MMF, mycophenolate-mofetil; MTX, methotrexate; OS, overall survival.
*Adapted from Nikoloudis et al.1

No differences were observed in the impact of high CD4/CD8 ratio on OS when the entire cohort was stratified by median age, conditioning regimen, or median CD3 cell dose. Also, the adverse effect of a high CD4/CD8 ratio was independent of the use of anti-T-lymphocyte globulin and vice versa.

Conclusion1

This study revealed that a high CD4/CD8 ratio in the graft can adversely impact HSCT outcomes, particularly in recipients with post-grafting CSA/MMF and PTCy/TAC/MMF, while MTX-based prophylaxis may largely alleviate this risk factor. Clinical implementation of these results could mean the addition of a short course of MTX (e.g., Day +1 and Day +3) instead of, or in addition to MMF in recipients of grafts with a high CD4/CD8 ratio. Further prospective studies are warranted to better understand the optimal prophylaxis platform for reduced intensity conditioning-based HLA-identical transplants.

  1. Nikoloudis A, Buxhofer-Ausch V, Aichinger C, et al. Adverse impact of a high CD4/CD8 ratio in the allograft may be overcome by methotrexate- but not mycophenolate- or post-transplant cyclophosphamide-based graft versus host disease prophylaxis. Eur J Haematol. 2023. Online ahead of print. DOI: 1111/ejh.13956

Newsletter

Subscribe to get the best content related to GvHD delivered to your inbox