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.

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.

2020-10-20T12:33:43.000Z

Influence of rate of neutrophil recovery on the incidence of GvHD

Oct 20, 2020
Share:

Bookmark this article

The number of neutrophils present in graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) lesions strongly correlates with the severity of intestinal GvHD,1 but it is still unclear whether a difference in the speed of neutrophil recovery, after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT), has some influence on posttransplant complications and prognosis.

In a retrospective study, recently published in Transplant International, Takashi Nagayama and colleagues evaluated the influence of the speed of neutrophil recovery on the incidence of acute GvHD (aGvHD), in adult patients who underwent a first unrelated bone marrow transplantation.2

We hereby present a summary of their findings.

Study design

Patients included in the study were ˃ 17 years old and underwent a first unrelated bone marrow transplantation, with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) support, between January 2009 and December 2018.

Treatment

Conditioning regimens:

  • Myeloablative conditioning (MAC) regimens included: total body irradiation (TBI) > 8 Gy, melphalan > 140 mg/m2, or oral busulfan (BU) > 8 mg/kg (> 6.4 mg/kg IV)
  • Reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) regimens consisted of fludarabine-based regimens, such as fludarabine combined with BU or melphalan

GvHD prophylaxis:

  • Continuous infusion of tacrolimus (TAC) combined with short-term methotrexate (MTX)
    • MTX: 10–15 mg/m2 on Day 1, 7–10 mg/m2 on Days 3 and 6, and an optional dose on Day 11
  • In some cases of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) 1-locus mismatched transplantation, antithymocyte globulin (ATG) was administered at 1.25 mg/kg per day on Days 4 and 3

G-CSF was started on 7 days after allo-HCT in all patients, except for two patients who started G-CSFs on Day 1, for accelerating bone marrow recovery.

Defining the cutoff for neutrophil recovery slope:

  • The median neutrophil slope (N slope) for all patients was 205.5/µl/day (range, 26.4–7574). The cutoff value of N slope for grade II–IV aGvHD, defined by the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, was 207.5/µl/day. Based on these values, a cutoff value of 200/µl/day was determined and patients were then classified into low and high N slope groups according to this cutoff.

Patient characteristics

120 Patients were evaluated in this analysis and baseline characteristics are reported in Table 1.

Table 1. Patient characteristics2

AA, aplastic anemia; ALL, acute lymphoblastic leukemia; AML, acute myeloid leukemia; ATG, antithymocyte globulin; CML, chronic myeloid leukemia; HLA, human leukocyte antigen; MAC, myeloablative conditioning; MDS, myelodysplastic syndrome; ML, malignant lymphoma; MTX, methotrexate; RIC, reduced-intensity conditioning; TBI, total body irradiation.

*Standard-risk diseases included acute leukemia in first or second complete remission, CML in the first or second chronic phase, lymphoma in complete remission, MDS, AA, myelofibrosis, chronic myelomonocytic leukemia, and multiple myeloma. Other diseases were classified as high-risk.

Values indicated in bold are statistically significant.

Characteristic

Total

N = 120

Low N slope

n = 59

High N slope

n = 61

p value

Age, years, median (range)

50 (18–69)

45 (19–68)

52 (18–69)

0.03

Disease, n (%)

 

 

 

 

AML

48 (40)

24 (40.7)

24 (39.3)

0.69

ALL

27 (22.5)

16 (27.1)

11 (18)

 

MDS

20 (16.7)

9 (15.3)

11 (18)

 

CML

4 (3.3)

2 (3.4)

2 (3.3)

 

ML

9 (7.5)

4 (6.8)

5 (8.2)

 

AA

3 (2.5)

0 (0)

3 (4.9)

 

Other

9 (7.5)

4 (6.8)

5 (8.2)

 

Disease risk*, n (%)

 

 

 

 

High

18 (15)

8 (13.6)

10 (16.4)

0.80

Standard

102 (85)

51 (86.4)

51 (83.6)

 

HLA matching, n (%)

 

 

 

 

Match

84 (70)

45 (76.3)

39 (63.9)

0.17

Mismatch

36 (30)

14 (23.7)

22 (36.1)

 

Donor age, n (%)

 

 

 

 

< 40 years

65 (54.2)

33 (55.9)

32 (52.5)

0.72

≥ 40 years

55 (45.8)

26 (44.1)

29 (47.5)

 

Day 11 MTX, n (%)

 

 

 

 

Yes

65 (54.2)

40 (67.8)

25 (41)

0.004

No

55 (45.8)

19 (32.2)

36 (59)

 

ATG, n (%)

 

 

 

 

Yes

16 (13.3)

7 (11.9)

9 (14.8)

0.79

No

104 (86.7)

52 (88.1)

52 (85.2)

 

Conditioning, n (%)

 

 

 

 

MAC

100 (83.3)

54 (91.5)

46 (75.4)

0.03

RIC

20 (16.7)

5 (8.5)

15 (24.6)

 

TBI regimen, n (%)

 

 

 

 

Yes

78 (65)

35 (59.3)

43 (70.5)

0.25

No

42 (35)

24 (40.7)

18 (29.5)

 

Infuse CD34+ cells, n (%)

 

 

 

 

< 1.5 × 106/kg

50 (44.6)

30 (55.6)

20 (34.5)

0.04

≥ 1.5 × 106/kg

62 (55.4)

24 (44.4)

38 (65.5)

 

Transplantation year, n (%)

 

 

 

 

2009–2013

45 (37.5)

16 (27.1)

29 (47.5)

0.03

2014–2018

75 (62.5)

43 (72.9)

32 (52.5)

 

Results

aGvHD

The cumulative incidence of Grade II (n = 28) aGvHD was significantly higher in the high N slope group compared with the low N slope group (34.4% vs 11.9%; p = 0.002). Similarly, the incidence for Grade II–IV (n = 37) aGvHD was significantly higher in the high N slope group (44% vs 17%; p < 0.001). In contrast, no significant difference was observed in the cumulative incidence of Grade III–IV (n = 9) and Grade I (n = 36) aGvHD between the two groups.

The impact of neutrophil recovery on aGvHD target organs was analysed showing a significantly higher cumulative incidence of aGvHD for gut and liver in the high N slope group. The cumulative incidence of aGvHD in the high N slope group vs the low N slope group was:

  • Gut aGvHD (Stage 1–4; n = 21), 26% vs 10% (p = 0.02)
  • Liver aGvHD (Stage 1–4; n = 3), 7.5% vs 0% (p = 0.04)

Using univariate and multivariate analysis, the highest risk of developing Grade II–IV aGvHD was found in the high N slope group. Other significant risk factors were age > 40 years, receiving TBI, and having had allo-HCT between 2009 and 2013. Male sex was significant only in the univariate analysis, while major HLA mismatch was identified as a Grade II–IV aGvHD significant risk factor only in the multivariate analysis. Risk factors are reported in Table 2.

Table 2. Risk factors for Grade II–IV aGvHD in univariate and multivariate analyses2

aGvHD, acute graft-versus-host disease; CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; N, neutrophil; TBI, total body irradiation.

Values indicated in bold are statistically significant.

 

n

Cumulative incidence of Grade II–IV aGvHD at day +100, % (95% CI)

Univariate

p

HR (95% CI)

Multivariate

p

Donor age

 

 

 

 

 

< 40

65

18.5 (10.1–28.8)

0.002

1

Reference

≥ 40

55

45.5 (31.9–58.1)

 

3.63 (1.57–8.40)

0.003

Sex

 

 

 

 

 

Male

77

23.4 (14.6–33.3)

0.02

1

Reference

Female

43

44.2 (28.9–58.4)

 

0.56 (0.27–1.18)

0.13

ABO mismatch

 

 

 

 

 

Major mismatch

27

44.4 (25.1–62.2)

0.06

3.05 (1.47–6.31)

0.003

Other

93

26.9 (18.3–36.2)

 

1

Reference

TBI

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

78

38.5 (27.7–49.1)

0.01

2.83 (1.20–6.67)

0.02

No

42

16.7 (7.2–29.4)

 

1

Reference

N slope

 

 

 

 

 

< 200

59

16.9 (8.7–27.6)

< 0.001

1

Reference

≥ 200

61

44.3 (31.5–56.3)

 

3.73 (1.88–7.42)

< 0.001

Transplantation year

 

 

 

 

 

2009–2013

45

46.7 (31.5–60.5)

0.003

3.28 (1.40–7.68)

0.006

2014–2018

75

21.3 (12.9–31.2)

 

1

Reference

Survival

After a median follow-up of 29 months (range, 1─116), 40 patients died, 16 of them from non-relapse complications. The N slope had no impact on the cumulative incidences of non-relapse mortality (p = 0.32), relapse (p = 0.76), and overall survival (p = 0.65).

Conclusion

In this retrospective study, the authors found an association between a rapid rate of neutrophil recovery following allo-HCT and the increased risk of developing Grade II–IV aGvHD.

However, besides being retrospective, this study presents other limitations such as:

  • the inclusion of patients with heterogeneous characteristics and diagnoses
  • the cutoff value that could be not appropriate for events not directly related to aGvHD
  • the significant increase of aGvHD between 2009 and 2013 (probably due to underuse of ATG in HLA 1-locus mismatched transplantation)

Additional studies are required to demonstrate a clear association between neutrophil recovery and aGvHD.

  1. Schwab L, Goroncy L, Palaniyandi S, et al. Neutrophil granulocytes recruited upon translocation of intestinal bacteria enhance graft-versus-host disease via tissue damage. Nat Med. 2014;20(6):648-654. DOI: 10.1038/nm.3517
  2. Nagayama T, Fujiwara SI, Ikeda T, et al. Steep neutrophil recovery following unrelated bone marrow transplantation is a major risk factor for the development of acute graft-vs-host disease – a retrospective study. Transpl Int. 2020. DOI: 10.1111/tri.13741

Your opinion matters

HCPs, what is your preferred format for educational content on the GvHD Hub?
8 votes - 21 days left ...

Newsletter

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