Addition of sirolimus to standard cyclosporine plus mycophenolate mofetil-based graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis for patients after unrelated non-myeloablative haemopoietic stem cell transplantation: a multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial.
Aged
Cyclosporine
/ therapeutic use
Disease-Free Survival
Drug Therapy, Combination
Female
Graft vs Host Disease
/ mortality
HLA Antigens
/ metabolism
Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
/ adverse effects
Humans
Immunosuppressive Agents
/ therapeutic use
Male
Middle Aged
Mycophenolic Acid
/ therapeutic use
Proportional Hazards Models
Recurrence
Sirolimus
/ therapeutic use
Survival Rate
Transplantation, Homologous
Treatment Outcome
Whole-Body Irradiation
Journal
The Lancet. Haematology
ISSN: 2352-3026
Titre abrégé: Lancet Haematol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101643584
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2019
Aug 2019
Historique:
received:
20
02
2019
revised:
10
04
2019
accepted:
16
04
2019
pubmed:
30
6
2019
medline:
31
10
2019
entrez:
29
6
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Acute graft-versus-host-disease (GVHD) after non-myeloablative human leucocyte antigen (HLA)-matched, unrelated donor, allogeneic haemopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. This trial aimed to evaluate the efficacy of adding sirolimus to the standard cyclosporine and mycophenolate mofetil prophylaxis therapy for preventing acute GVHD in this setting. This multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial took place at nine HSCT centres based in the USA, Denmark, and Germany. Eligible patients were diagnosed with advanced haematological malignancies treatable by allogeneic HSCT, had a Karnofsky score greater than or equal to 60, were aged older than 50 years, or if they were aged 50 years or younger, were considered at high risk of regimen-related toxicity associated with a high-dose pre-transplantation conditioning regimen. Patients were randomly allocated by an adaptive randomisation scheme stratified by transplantation centre to receive either the standard GVHD prophylaxis regimen (cyclosporine and mycophenolate mofetil) or the triple-drug combination regimen (cyclosporine, mycophenolate mofetil, and sirolimus). Patients and physicians were not masked to treatment. All patients were prepared for HSCT with fludarabine (30 mg/m Participants were recruited between Nov 1, 2010, and July 27, 2016. Of 180 patients enrolled in the study, 167 received the complete study intervention and were included in safety and efficacy analyses: 77 patients in the standard GVHD prophylaxis group and 90 in the triple-drug group. At the time of analysis, median follow-up was 48 months (IQR 31-60). The cumulative incidence of grade 2-4 acute GVHD at day 100 was lower in the triple-drug group compared with the standard GVHD prophylaxis group (26% [95% CI 17-35] in the triple-drug group vs 52% [41-63] in the standard group; HR 0·45 [95% CI 0·28-0·73]; p=0·0013). After 1 and 4 years, non-relapse mortality increased to 4% (95% CI 0-9) and 16% (8-24) in the triple-drug group and 16% (8-24) and 32% (21-43) in the standard group (HR 0·48 [0·26-0·90]; p=0·021). Overall survival at 1 year was 86% (95% CI 78-93) in the triple-drug group and 70% in the standard group (60-80) and at 4 years it was 64% in the triple-drug group (54-75) and 46% in the standard group (34-57%; HR 0·62 [0·40-0·97]; p=0·035). Progression-free survival at 1 year was 77% (95% CI 68-85) in the triple-drug group and 64% (53-74) in the standard drug group, and at 4 years it was 59% in the triple-drug group (49-70) and 41% in the standard group (30-53%; HR 0·64 [0·42-0·99]; p=0·045). We observed no difference in the cumulative incidence of grade 3-4 acute GVHD (2% [0-5] in the triple-drug group vs 8% [2-14] in the standard group; HR 0·55 [0·16-1·96]; p=0·36) and chronic GVHD (49% [39-59] in triple-drug group vs 50% [39-61] in the standard group; HR 0·94 [0·62-1·40]; p=0·74). In both groups the most common CTCAE grade 4 or higher toxic effects were pulmonary. Adding sirolimus to cyclosporine and mycophenolate mofetil resulted in a significantly lower proportion of patients developing acute GVHD compared with patients treated with cyclosporine and mycophenolate mofetil alone. Based on these results, the combination of cyclosporine, mycophenolate mofetil, and sirolimus has become the new standard GVHD prophylaxis regimen for patients treated with non-myeloablative conditioning and HLA-matched unrelated HSCT at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. National Institutes of Health.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Acute graft-versus-host-disease (GVHD) after non-myeloablative human leucocyte antigen (HLA)-matched, unrelated donor, allogeneic haemopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. This trial aimed to evaluate the efficacy of adding sirolimus to the standard cyclosporine and mycophenolate mofetil prophylaxis therapy for preventing acute GVHD in this setting.
METHODS
METHODS
This multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial took place at nine HSCT centres based in the USA, Denmark, and Germany. Eligible patients were diagnosed with advanced haematological malignancies treatable by allogeneic HSCT, had a Karnofsky score greater than or equal to 60, were aged older than 50 years, or if they were aged 50 years or younger, were considered at high risk of regimen-related toxicity associated with a high-dose pre-transplantation conditioning regimen. Patients were randomly allocated by an adaptive randomisation scheme stratified by transplantation centre to receive either the standard GVHD prophylaxis regimen (cyclosporine and mycophenolate mofetil) or the triple-drug combination regimen (cyclosporine, mycophenolate mofetil, and sirolimus). Patients and physicians were not masked to treatment. All patients were prepared for HSCT with fludarabine (30 mg/m
FINDINGS
RESULTS
Participants were recruited between Nov 1, 2010, and July 27, 2016. Of 180 patients enrolled in the study, 167 received the complete study intervention and were included in safety and efficacy analyses: 77 patients in the standard GVHD prophylaxis group and 90 in the triple-drug group. At the time of analysis, median follow-up was 48 months (IQR 31-60). The cumulative incidence of grade 2-4 acute GVHD at day 100 was lower in the triple-drug group compared with the standard GVHD prophylaxis group (26% [95% CI 17-35] in the triple-drug group vs 52% [41-63] in the standard group; HR 0·45 [95% CI 0·28-0·73]; p=0·0013). After 1 and 4 years, non-relapse mortality increased to 4% (95% CI 0-9) and 16% (8-24) in the triple-drug group and 16% (8-24) and 32% (21-43) in the standard group (HR 0·48 [0·26-0·90]; p=0·021). Overall survival at 1 year was 86% (95% CI 78-93) in the triple-drug group and 70% in the standard group (60-80) and at 4 years it was 64% in the triple-drug group (54-75) and 46% in the standard group (34-57%; HR 0·62 [0·40-0·97]; p=0·035). Progression-free survival at 1 year was 77% (95% CI 68-85) in the triple-drug group and 64% (53-74) in the standard drug group, and at 4 years it was 59% in the triple-drug group (49-70) and 41% in the standard group (30-53%; HR 0·64 [0·42-0·99]; p=0·045). We observed no difference in the cumulative incidence of grade 3-4 acute GVHD (2% [0-5] in the triple-drug group vs 8% [2-14] in the standard group; HR 0·55 [0·16-1·96]; p=0·36) and chronic GVHD (49% [39-59] in triple-drug group vs 50% [39-61] in the standard group; HR 0·94 [0·62-1·40]; p=0·74). In both groups the most common CTCAE grade 4 or higher toxic effects were pulmonary.
INTERPRETATION
CONCLUSIONS
Adding sirolimus to cyclosporine and mycophenolate mofetil resulted in a significantly lower proportion of patients developing acute GVHD compared with patients treated with cyclosporine and mycophenolate mofetil alone. Based on these results, the combination of cyclosporine, mycophenolate mofetil, and sirolimus has become the new standard GVHD prophylaxis regimen for patients treated with non-myeloablative conditioning and HLA-matched unrelated HSCT at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center.
FUNDING
BACKGROUND
National Institutes of Health.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31248843
pii: S2352-3026(19)30088-2
doi: 10.1016/S2352-3026(19)30088-2
pmc: PMC6686903
mid: NIHMS1041824
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
HLA Antigens
0
Immunosuppressive Agents
0
Cyclosporine
83HN0GTJ6D
Mycophenolic Acid
HU9DX48N0T
Sirolimus
W36ZG6FT64
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT01231412']
Types de publication
Clinical Trial, Phase III
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e409-e418Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P01 CA018029
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P01 CA078902
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA015704
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Références
Stat Med. 1999 Mar 30;18(6):695-706
pubmed: 10204198
Blood. 2001 Jun 1;97(11):3390-400
pubmed: 11369628
Blood. 2003 Feb 15;101(4):1620-9
pubmed: 12393457
Blood. 2003 Sep 1;102(5):1601-5
pubmed: 12730113
Blood. 2003 Sep 15;102(6):2021-30
pubmed: 12791654
Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2004 May;10(5):320-7
pubmed: 15111931
Br J Haematol. 2005 Jul;130(2):256-64
pubmed: 16029454
Blood. 2007 Apr 1;109(7):3108-14
pubmed: 17138818
Blood. 2007 Jul 15;110(2):490-500
pubmed: 17392502
Blood. 2007 Oct 1;110(7):2744-8
pubmed: 17595333
Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2008 May;14(5):531-7
pubmed: 18410895
Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2008 Aug;14(8):920-6
pubmed: 18640576
Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2009 Jul;15(7):844-50
pubmed: 19539216
Blood. 2010 Feb 4;115(5):1098-105
pubmed: 19965688
Leuk Res. 2012 Sep;36(9):1152-6
pubmed: 22677229
Haematologica. 2012 Dec;97(12):1882-9
pubmed: 22689677
Haematologica. 2013 Apr;98(4):526-32
pubmed: 23065527
J Clin Oncol. 2013 Apr 20;31(12):1530-8
pubmed: 23478054
Blood. 2014 Mar 27;123(13):2017-25
pubmed: 24497539
Blood. 2014 Aug 21;124(8):1372-7
pubmed: 24982504
Haematologica. 2014 Oct;99(10):1624-31
pubmed: 25085357
Br J Haematol. 2016 Apr;173(1):96-104
pubmed: 26729448
Blood. 2016 Sep 15;128(11):1528-31
pubmed: 27495140
Bone Marrow Transplant. 2017 Sep;52(9):1304-1310
pubmed: 28581472
Blood Adv. 2017;1(4):288-292
pubmed: 29242852
Ann Hematol. 2019 Jan;98(1):237-240
pubmed: 30027436
Bone Marrow Transplant. 1995 Jun;15(6):825-8
pubmed: 7581076