Pamela Bunner

Sibling Donor and Recipient Immune Modulation With Atorvastatin for the Prophylaxis of Acute Graft-Versus-Host Disease

PURPOSE Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) is major cause of morbidity and mortality after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). Atorvastatin is a potent immunomodulatory agent that holds promise as a novel and safe agent for acute GVHD prophylaxis. PATIENTS AND METHODS We conducted a phase II trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of atorvastatin administration for GVHD prophylaxis in both adult donors and recipients of matched sibling allogeneic HCT. Atorvastatin (40 mg per day orally) was administered to sibling donors, starting 14 to 28 days before the anticipated first day of stem-cell collection. In HCT recipients (n = 30), GVHD prophylaxis consisted of tacrolimus, short-course methotrexate, and atorvastatin (40 mg per day orally). RESULTS Atorvastatin administration in healthy donors and recipients was not associated with any grade 3 to 4 adverse events. Cumulative incidence rates of grade 2 to 4 acute GVHD at days +100 and +180 were 3.3% (95% CI, 0.2% to 14.8%) and 11.1% (95% CI, 2.7% to 26.4%), respectively. One-year cumulative incidence of chronic GVHD was 52.3% (95% CI, 27.6% to 72.1%). Viral and fungal infections were infrequent. One-year cumulative incidences of nonrelapse mortality and relapse were 9.8% (95% CI, 1.4% to 28%) and 25.4% (95% CI, 10.9% to 42.9%), respectively. One-year overall survival and progression-free survival were 74% (95% CI, 58% to 96%) and 65% (95% CI, 48% to 87%), respectively. Compared with baseline, atorvastatin administration in sibling donors was associated with a trend toward increased mean plasma interleukin-10 concentrations (5.6 v 7.1 pg/mL; P = .06). CONCLUSION A novel two-pronged strategy of atorvastatin administration in both donors and recipients of matched sibling allogeneic HCT seems to be a feasible, safe, and potentially effective strategy to prevent acute GVHD.

Higher busulfan dose intensity does not improve outcomes of patients undergoing allogeneic haematopoietic cell transplantation following fludarabine, busulfan-based reduced toxicity conditioning.

We evaluated the impact of busulfan dose intensity in patients undergoing reduced toxicity/intensity conditioning allogeneic transplantation in a multicenter retrospective study of 112 consecutive patients. Seventy‐five patients were conditioned with busulfan (0.8 mg/kg/dose IV × 8 doses), fludarabine (30 mg/m2/day, days −7 to −3), and 6 mg/kg of ATG [reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) group], while 37 patients received a more‐intense conditioning with busulfan (130 mg/m2/day IV, days −6 to −3), fludarabine (40 mg/m2/day, days −6 to −3) and 6 mg/kg of ATG [reduced toxicity conditioning (RTC) group]. At baseline both groups were matched for median age, unrelated donor allografts, and human leukocyte antigen‐mismatched allografts. More patients in RIC group had high‐risk disease, and higher median comorbidity index. There were no graft rejections. Median time to neutrophil (17 days vs. 15 days; p = 0.003) and platelet engraftment (16 days vs. 11 days; p < 0.001) was significantly longer in the RIC group. RTC group had significantly more bacterial (62.2% vs. 32%; p = 0.004) and fungal infections (13.5% vs. 1.3% p = 0.01). For RIC and RTC groups rates of grades II–IV acute GVHD (34% vs. 40%; p‐value = 0.54), and chronic GVHD (45% vs. 57%; p‐value = 0.30) were not significantly different. In similar order at 1 year the cumulative‐incidence of non‐relapse mortality (NRM; 12% vs. 21%; p‐value = 0.21) and relapse rates (38% vs. 39%; p = 0.96) were not significantly different. Patients in RIC and RTC groups had similar 1‐year overall survival (61% vs. 50%, p = 0.11) and progression‐free survival (50% vs. 36%, p‐value = 0.39). Our data suggest that the merits of higher busulfan dose intensity in the context of fludarabine/busulfan‐based RTC may be offset by higher early morbidity. Copyright

Higher infused CD34+ cell dose and overall survival in patients undergoing in vivo T-cell depleted, but not t-cell repleted, allogeneic peripheral blood hematopoietic cell transplantation

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Understanding the effect of cellular graft composition on allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT) outcomes is an area of great interest. The objective of the study was to analyze the correlation between transplant-related outcomes and administered CD34+, CD3+, CD4+ and CD8+ cell doses in patients who had undergone peripheral blood, AHCT and received either in vivo T-cell depleted or T-cell replete allografts. DESIGN AND SETTING Comparison of consecutive patients who underwent peripheral blood AHCT in our institution between January 2003 and December 2009. PATIENTS AND METHODS The cohort of 149 patients was divided into two groups; non T-cell depleted (NTCD) (n=54) and T-cell depleted (TCD) (n=95). Study endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), engraftment kinetics (neutrophil and platelet recovery), incidence of acute graft versus host disease (acute GVHD), chronic GVHD, nonrelapse mortality (NRM) and disease relapse. RESULTS Multivariate analysis showed that higher infused CD34+ cell dose improved OS (relative risk 0.58, 95% CI 0.34-0.98, P=.04), PFS (relative risk 0.59, 95% CI 0.35-1.00, P=.05) and NRM (relative risk 0.49, 95% CI 0.24-0.99, P=.048) in the TCD group. By multivariate analysis, there was no difference in engraftment, grades II-IV acute GVHD, extensive chronic GVHD and relapse in the two groups relative to the infused cell doses. There was a trend towards improved OS (relative risk 0.54, 95% CI 0.29-1.01, P=.05) with higher CD3+ cell dose in the TCD group. CONCLUSION Our findings suggest that higher CD34+ cell dose imparts survival benefit only to in vivo TCD peripheral blood AHCT recipients.

Recipient Immune Modulation with Atorvastatin for Acute Graft-versus-Host Disease Prophylaxis after Allogeneic Transplantation

Atorvastatin administration to both the donors and recipients of matched related donor (MRD) allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) as acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis has been shown to be safe and effective. However, its efficacy as acute GVHD prophylaxis when given only to allo-HCT recipients is unknown. We conducted a phase II study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of atorvastatin-based acute GVHD prophylaxis given only to the recipients of MRD (n = 30) or matched unrelated donor (MUD) (n = 39) allo-HCT, enrolled in 2 separate cohorts. Atorvastatin (40 mg/day) was administered along with standard GVHD prophylaxis consisting of tacrolimus and methotrexate. All patients were evaluable for acute GVHD. The cumulative incidences of grade II to IV acute GVHD at day +100 in the MRD and MUD cohorts were 9.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0 to 20%) and 29.6% (95% CI,15.6% to 43.6%), respectively. The cumulative incidences of grade III and IV acute GVHD at day +100 in the MRD and MUD cohorts were 3.4% (95% CI, 0 to 9.7%) and 18.3% (95% CI, 6.3% to 30.4%), respectively. The corresponding rates of moderate/severe chronic GVHD at 1 year were 28.1% (95% CI, 11% to 45.2%) and 38.9% (95% CI, 20.9% to 57%), respectively. In the MRD cohort, the 1-year nonrelapse mortality, relapse rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival were 6.7% (95% CI, 0 to 15.4%), 43.3% (95% CI, 24.9% to 61.7%), 50% (95% CI, 32.1% to 67.9%), and 66.7% (95% CI, 49.8% to 83.6%), respectively. The respective figures for the MUD cohort were 10.3% (95% CI, 8% to 19.7%), 20.5% (95% CI, 7.9% to 33.1%), 69.2% (95% CI, 54.7% to 83.7%), and 79.5% (95% CI, 66.8% to 92.2%), respectively. No grade 4 toxicities attributable to atorvastatin were seen. In conclusion, the addition of atorvastatin to standard GVHD prophylaxis in only the recipients of MRD and MUD allo-HCT appears to be feasible and safe. The preliminary efficacy seen here warrants confirmation in randomized trials.