Ali MM, Gedde-Dahl T, Osnes LT, Perrier F, Veierød MB, Tjønnfjord GE, Iversen PO. Extracorporeal photopheresis as graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis: a randomized controlled trial: Prophylactic extracorporeal photopheresis to prevent graft-versus-host disease.
Transplant Cell Ther 2023:S2666-6367(23)01133-8. [PMID:
36878428 DOI:
10.1016/j.jtct.2023.02.023]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/15/2022] [Revised: 02/20/2023] [Accepted: 02/24/2023] [Indexed: 03/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) is the only curative option for many patients diagnosed with hematological malignancies. A major obstacle is graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) causing significant morbidity and mortality. Extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) is an increasingly applied GvHD treatment, partly due to its favourable safety profile. In contrast, the use of ECP in preventing GvHD is sparse, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are lacking.
OBJECTIVE
We therefore conducted a RCT to assess if ECP applied post-transplant, could prevent the development of GvHD within the first year of transplantation.
STUDY DESIGN
We enrolled 157 patients (18-74 years) with a hematological malignancy receiving first allo-HSCT: 76 randomized to the intervention group and 81 to the control group. ECP was initiated directly upon engraftment and was planned twice weekly for two weeks, then once weekly for four weeks. GvHD, relapse, and death were analyzed with Cox regression analysis.
RESULTS
During the first year, 45 patients in the intervention and 52 control patients developed GvHD (HR=0.82, 95% CI 0.55-1.22, P=0.32). There were no differences in acute or chronic GvHD or its organ distribution in this intention-to-treat RCT. A per-protocol analysis revealed a significant difference in GvHD between the intervention (per-protocol; n=39 of 76) and the control group (n=77), 46% vs 68%, respectively, (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.27-0.80, P=0.006). Relapse occurred in 15 patients in the intervention group and in 11 patients among the controls (HR=1.38, 95% CI 0.64-3.01, P=0.42). GvHD-free relapse-free (GRFS) survival, event-free survival, overall survival and non-relapse mortality did not differ significantly between the two study groups. No significant difference in immune reconstitution between the two study groups was revealed.
CONCLUSION
This first intention-to-treat RCT, investigating ECP as GvHD prophylaxis in allo-HSCT for hematological malignancy does not support the use of ECP as adjunct to standard drug-based GvHD-prophylaxis. This trial was registered at www.
CLINICALTRIALS
gov as #NCT03204721.
Collapse