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 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

Updated results from a phase Ib and phase I/II trial of Orca-T

By Ella Dixon

Share:

Aug 8, 2022

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


During the 27th Congress of the European Hematology Association (EHA2022), Caspian Oliai1 presented updated results of a multicenter phase Ib trial (NCT04013685) and single-center phase I/II trial (NCT01660607) studying Orca-T, an engineered Treg donor product, for use in patients with hematologic malignancies. In comparison with traditional hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, the use of Orca-T may reduce the incidence of graft-versus-host disease (GvHD).1 The GvHD Hub has previously reported on the initial results of these trials. The Phase III trial is now open and enrolling patients across more than 20 clinical trial sites.2 

Study design1

The data includes 137 patients who have been dosed with Orca-T, with ≥100 days of follow-up, in comparison to a historical control Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) cohort. The primary objective of these studies was to evaluate the safety of Orca-T, with primary endpoints measured by incidence and severity of acute GvHD (aGvHD; Grade 3 or 4), and incidence of primary graft failure. Key eligibility criteria for enrollment in the studies included using an 8/8-matched related or unrelated donor, a hematopoietic cell transplant comorbidity index of ≤4, a Karnofsky performance status score of ≥70, adequate organ function, and an age of 18–65 years (18–72 years for patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma). Patient characteristics are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Key patient characteristics of NCT04013685 and NCT01660607, compared with a CIBMTR historical control cohort*

ALL, acute lymphoblastic leukemia; AML, acute myeloid leukemia; CIBMTR, Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research; CML, chronic myeloid leukemia; HLA, human leukocyte antigen; MDS, myelodysplastic syndrome.
*Adapted from Oliai. 2022.1

Characteristic, % (unless otherwise stated)

Multicenter phase Ib (NCT04013685)
n = 103

Single-center phase I/II (NCT01660607)
n = 34

CIBMTR control cohort
n = 375

Median age, years (range)

51 (19–65)

42 (19–71)

52 (18–65)

Male

52

71

57

Primary disease

              AML

43

41

47

              ALL

32

17

20

              MDS

13

2

33

              Myelofibrosis

7

7

0

              CML

3

12

0

              Non-Hodgkin lymphoma

0

10

0

              Other

2

11

0

Graft source

 

 

 

              HLA-matched siblings

54

74

45

              HLA-matched unrelated donor

46

26

55

Safety and efficacy1

Outcomes in patients post infusion, compared with the CIBMTR control cohort, are shown in Table 2. All outcomes are at 1 year, apart from time to neutrophil and time to platelet engraftment, which were at days posttransplant.

Table 2. Outcomes after infusion of Orca-T, compared with a CIBMTR historical control cohort*

CI, confidence interval; GvHD, graft-versus-host disease.
*Adapted from Oliai, 2022.
As defined in the Blood & Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network Manual of Procedures.

Outcome, % (unless otherwise stated)

Orca-T cohort

CIBMTR control cohort

Median time to neutrophil engraftment, days posttransplant

13

Median time to platelet engraftment, days posttransplant

16

Grade 3 infections (range)

10 (95% CI, 2–26)

Severe acute GvHD (range)

4 (95%CI, 0–20)

16 (95%CI, 12–19)

Moderate to severe (≥Grade 2 chronic GvHD, (range)

5 (95% CI, 0–21)

38 (95% CI, 33–44)

Relapse (range)

20 (8–34)

35 (30–40)

GvHD relapse-free survival (range)

71 (95% CI, 60–78)

21 (95% CI, 17–25)

Overall survival (range)

90 (95% CI, 82–95)

68 (95% CI, 63–73)

These studies also highlighted that the choice of conditioning regimen used alongside Orca-T may improve relapse-free survival. Patients given a conditioning regimen of busulfan with either cyclophosphamide or fludarabine had an average relapse-free survival of 72% compared with 91% in patients who received a regimen of busulfan with fludarabine and thiotepa. This may be due to improved lymphodepletion with use of thiotepa, allowing for a more favorable immune reconstitution in patients.

Conclusion

Following these phase Ib and phase I/II trials, a multicenter phase III trial (NCT05316701) of Orca-T is now opening at centers in the US, investigating Orca-T plus tacrolimus versus unmanipulated allograft plus tacrolimus and methotrexate. Results from these initial studies are promising, with Orca-T resulting in lower rates of GvHD, improved GvHD relapse-free survival, and low rates of infection when compared with a historical traditional hematopoietic stem cell transplantation control group. The phase III study will provide further insight into the safety and efficacy of Orca-T compared with the current standard of care.

References

Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements:

The content was clear and easy to understand

The content addressed the learning objectives

The content was relevant to my practice

I will change my clinical practice as a result of this content