ALL

Among individuals who have received a hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT), often used in the treatment of blood cancers, rates of survival are poor for those who develop COVID-19.

The probability of survival 30 days after being diagnosed with COVID-19 is only 68% for persons who have received an allogeneic HSCT and 67% for autologous HSCT recipients, according to new data from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

These findings underscore the need for “stringent surveillance and aggressive treatment measures” in this population, Akshay Sharma, MBBS, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, and colleagues wrote.

The findings were published online March 1, 2021, in The Lancet Haematology.

The study is “of importance for physicians caring for HSCT recipients worldwide,” Mathieu Leclerc, MD, and Sébastien Maury, MD, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France, commented in an accompanying editorial.
 

Study details

For their study, Dr. Sharma and colleagues analyzed outcomes for all HSCT recipients who developed COVID-19 and whose cases were reported to the CIBMTR. Of 318 such patients, 184 had undergone allogeneic HSCT, and 134 had undergone autologous HSCT.

Overall, about half of these patients (49%) had mild COVID-19.

Severe COVID-19 that required mechanical ventilation developed in 15% and 13% of the allogeneic and autologous HSCT recipients, respectively.

About one-fifth of patients died: 22% and 19% of allogeneic and autologous HSCT recipients, respectively.

Factors associated with greater mortality risk included age of 50 years or older (hazard ratio, 2.53), male sex (HR, 3.53), and development of COVID-19 within 12 months of undergoing HSCT (HR, 2.67).

Among autologous HSCT recipients, lymphoma was associated with higher mortality risk in comparison with a plasma cell disorder or myeloma (HR, 2.41), the authors noted.

“Two important messages can be drawn from the results reported by Sharma and colleagues,” Dr. Leclerc and Dr. Maury wrote in their editorial. “The first is the confirmation that the prognosis of COVID-19 is particularly poor in HSCT recipients, and that its prevention, in the absence of any specific curative treatment with sufficient efficacy, should be at the forefront of concerns.”

The second relates to the risk factors for death among HSCT recipients who develop COVID-19. In addition to previously known risk factors, such as age and gender, the investigators identified transplant-specific factors potentially associated with prognosis – namely, the nearly threefold increase in death among allogeneic HSCT recipients who develop COVID-19 within 12 months of transplant, they explained.

However, the findings are limited by a substantial amount of missing data, short follow-up, and the possibility of selection bias, they noted.

“Further large and well-designed studies with longer follow-up are needed to confirm and refine the results,” the editorialists wrote.

“[A] better understanding of the distinctive features of COVID-19 infection in HSCT recipients will be a necessary and essential step toward improvement of the remarkably poor prognosis observed in this setting,” they added.

The study was funded by the American Society of Hematology; the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society; the National Cancer Institute; the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute; the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; the National Institutes of Health; the Health Resources and Services Administration; and the Office of Naval Research. Dr. Sharma receives support for the conduct of industry-sponsored trials from Vertex Pharmaceuticals, CRISPR Therapeutics, and Novartis and consulting fees from Spotlight Therapeutics. Dr. Leclerc and Dr. Maury disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Among individuals who have received a hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT), often used in the treatment of blood cancers, rates of survival are poor for those who develop COVID-19.

The probability of survival 30 days after being diagnosed with COVID-19 is only 68% for persons who have received an allogeneic HSCT and 67% for autologous HSCT recipients, according to new data from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

These findings underscore the need for “stringent surveillance and aggressive treatment measures” in this population, Akshay Sharma, MBBS, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, and colleagues wrote.

The findings were published online March 1, 2021, in The Lancet Haematology.

The study is “of importance for physicians caring for HSCT recipients worldwide,” Mathieu Leclerc, MD, and Sébastien Maury, MD, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France, commented in an accompanying editorial.
 

Study details

For their study, Dr. Sharma and colleagues analyzed outcomes for all HSCT recipients who developed COVID-19 and whose cases were reported to the CIBMTR. Of 318 such patients, 184 had undergone allogeneic HSCT, and 134 had undergone autologous HSCT.

Overall, about half of these patients (49%) had mild COVID-19.

Severe COVID-19 that required mechanical ventilation developed in 15% and 13% of the allogeneic and autologous HSCT recipients, respectively.

About one-fifth of patients died: 22% and 19% of allogeneic and autologous HSCT recipients, respectively.

Factors associated with greater mortality risk included age of 50 years or older (hazard ratio, 2.53), male sex (HR, 3.53), and development of COVID-19 within 12 months of undergoing HSCT (HR, 2.67).

Among autologous HSCT recipients, lymphoma was associated with higher mortality risk in comparison with a plasma cell disorder or myeloma (HR, 2.41), the authors noted.

“Two important messages can be drawn from the results reported by Sharma and colleagues,” Dr. Leclerc and Dr. Maury wrote in their editorial. “The first is the confirmation that the prognosis of COVID-19 is particularly poor in HSCT recipients, and that its prevention, in the absence of any specific curative treatment with sufficient efficacy, should be at the forefront of concerns.”

The second relates to the risk factors for death among HSCT recipients who develop COVID-19. In addition to previously known risk factors, such as age and gender, the investigators identified transplant-specific factors potentially associated with prognosis – namely, the nearly threefold increase in death among allogeneic HSCT recipients who develop COVID-19 within 12 months of transplant, they explained.

However, the findings are limited by a substantial amount of missing data, short follow-up, and the possibility of selection bias, they noted.

“Further large and well-designed studies with longer follow-up are needed to confirm and refine the results,” the editorialists wrote.

“[A] better understanding of the distinctive features of COVID-19 infection in HSCT recipients will be a necessary and essential step toward improvement of the remarkably poor prognosis observed in this setting,” they added.

The study was funded by the American Society of Hematology; the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society; the National Cancer Institute; the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute; the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; the National Institutes of Health; the Health Resources and Services Administration; and the Office of Naval Research. Dr. Sharma receives support for the conduct of industry-sponsored trials from Vertex Pharmaceuticals, CRISPR Therapeutics, and Novartis and consulting fees from Spotlight Therapeutics. Dr. Leclerc and Dr. Maury disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Among individuals who have received a hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT), often used in the treatment of blood cancers, rates of survival are poor for those who develop COVID-19.

The probability of survival 30 days after being diagnosed with COVID-19 is only 68% for persons who have received an allogeneic HSCT and 67% for autologous HSCT recipients, according to new data from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

These findings underscore the need for “stringent surveillance and aggressive treatment measures” in this population, Akshay Sharma, MBBS, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, and colleagues wrote.

The findings were published online March 1, 2021, in The Lancet Haematology.

The study is “of importance for physicians caring for HSCT recipients worldwide,” Mathieu Leclerc, MD, and Sébastien Maury, MD, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France, commented in an accompanying editorial.
 

Study details

For their study, Dr. Sharma and colleagues analyzed outcomes for all HSCT recipients who developed COVID-19 and whose cases were reported to the CIBMTR. Of 318 such patients, 184 had undergone allogeneic HSCT, and 134 had undergone autologous HSCT.

Overall, about half of these patients (49%) had mild COVID-19.

Severe COVID-19 that required mechanical ventilation developed in 15% and 13% of the allogeneic and autologous HSCT recipients, respectively.

About one-fifth of patients died: 22% and 19% of allogeneic and autologous HSCT recipients, respectively.

Factors associated with greater mortality risk included age of 50 years or older (hazard ratio, 2.53), male sex (HR, 3.53), and development of COVID-19 within 12 months of undergoing HSCT (HR, 2.67).

Among autologous HSCT recipients, lymphoma was associated with higher mortality risk in comparison with a plasma cell disorder or myeloma (HR, 2.41), the authors noted.

“Two important messages can be drawn from the results reported by Sharma and colleagues,” Dr. Leclerc and Dr. Maury wrote in their editorial. “The first is the confirmation that the prognosis of COVID-19 is particularly poor in HSCT recipients, and that its prevention, in the absence of any specific curative treatment with sufficient efficacy, should be at the forefront of concerns.”

The second relates to the risk factors for death among HSCT recipients who develop COVID-19. In addition to previously known risk factors, such as age and gender, the investigators identified transplant-specific factors potentially associated with prognosis – namely, the nearly threefold increase in death among allogeneic HSCT recipients who develop COVID-19 within 12 months of transplant, they explained.

However, the findings are limited by a substantial amount of missing data, short follow-up, and the possibility of selection bias, they noted.

“Further large and well-designed studies with longer follow-up are needed to confirm and refine the results,” the editorialists wrote.

“[A] better understanding of the distinctive features of COVID-19 infection in HSCT recipients will be a necessary and essential step toward improvement of the remarkably poor prognosis observed in this setting,” they added.

The study was funded by the American Society of Hematology; the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society; the National Cancer Institute; the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute; the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; the National Institutes of Health; the Health Resources and Services Administration; and the Office of Naval Research. Dr. Sharma receives support for the conduct of industry-sponsored trials from Vertex Pharmaceuticals, CRISPR Therapeutics, and Novartis and consulting fees from Spotlight Therapeutics. Dr. Leclerc and Dr. Maury disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Researchers developed a predictive score for the risk of graft failure in patients with acute leukemia who underwent allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (aHSCT) with ex vivo T-cell depletion. T-cell depletion is performed in an effort to prevent subsequent graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) after transplant.

The risk score was based on patient age and the T-lymphocyte population pre-aHSCT with 1 point of risk possible in each category. Patients with 1 point had a graft failure risk of 5% and 13% if they had 2 points, according to the results of the study presented at the virtual meeting of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation.

Graft failure is a potentially severe complication in patients treated with aHSCT, but there are few studies analyzing risk factors when ex vivo T-cell depletion is used, Ivan López Torija of the Hospital Infantil Universitario Niño Jesús, Madrid, and colleagues noted in their presentation, which won the Best Young Poster Abstract Award at the meeting.

The researchers assessed 148 pediatric patients (64% boys) with acute leukemia who underwent allogeneic HSCT from haploidentical donors using ex vivo T-cell depletion between 2005 and 2020. About 53% of the patients were diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia, the rest with acute myeloid leukemia. The donor mean age was 40 years, and all transplant patients received toxicity reduction conditioning based on fludarabine busulfan and thiotepa.
 

Predictive results

Multivariate analysis showed that T-cell count (CD3+/CD8+ ≥ 350/mL: hazard ratio, 2,6; P = .01) and patient age (less than 9 years: HR; 5.0; P = .04) were associated with graft failure. A risk score was established using these results and based on patient age and T lymphocyte pre-aHSCT with 1 point each for each increased risk category. Patients with 1 point had a graft failure risk of 5% and a risk of 13% if they had 2 points.

However, in this particular population, with a mean follow up of 4 years, the overall survival rate was 60%, with no significant differences seen between patients that presented graft failure and those without graft failure.

“Patient age and pretransplant number of CD3+/CD8+ are associated with [graft failure] in pediatric patients with acute leukemia undergoing ex vivo T-cell–depleted haploidentical transplantation. These findings highlight the importance of preexisting cellular immunity in the transplant recipient and support T-cell population analysis as part of a pretransplant working program,” the researchers concluded.

The authors reported that they had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Researchers developed a predictive score for the risk of graft failure in patients with acute leukemia who underwent allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (aHSCT) with ex vivo T-cell depletion. T-cell depletion is performed in an effort to prevent subsequent graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) after transplant.

The risk score was based on patient age and the T-lymphocyte population pre-aHSCT with 1 point of risk possible in each category. Patients with 1 point had a graft failure risk of 5% and 13% if they had 2 points, according to the results of the study presented at the virtual meeting of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation.

Graft failure is a potentially severe complication in patients treated with aHSCT, but there are few studies analyzing risk factors when ex vivo T-cell depletion is used, Ivan López Torija of the Hospital Infantil Universitario Niño Jesús, Madrid, and colleagues noted in their presentation, which won the Best Young Poster Abstract Award at the meeting.

The researchers assessed 148 pediatric patients (64% boys) with acute leukemia who underwent allogeneic HSCT from haploidentical donors using ex vivo T-cell depletion between 2005 and 2020. About 53% of the patients were diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia, the rest with acute myeloid leukemia. The donor mean age was 40 years, and all transplant patients received toxicity reduction conditioning based on fludarabine busulfan and thiotepa.
 

Predictive results

Multivariate analysis showed that T-cell count (CD3+/CD8+ ≥ 350/mL: hazard ratio, 2,6; P = .01) and patient age (less than 9 years: HR; 5.0; P = .04) were associated with graft failure. A risk score was established using these results and based on patient age and T lymphocyte pre-aHSCT with 1 point each for each increased risk category. Patients with 1 point had a graft failure risk of 5% and a risk of 13% if they had 2 points.

However, in this particular population, with a mean follow up of 4 years, the overall survival rate was 60%, with no significant differences seen between patients that presented graft failure and those without graft failure.

“Patient age and pretransplant number of CD3+/CD8+ are associated with [graft failure] in pediatric patients with acute leukemia undergoing ex vivo T-cell–depleted haploidentical transplantation. These findings highlight the importance of preexisting cellular immunity in the transplant recipient and support T-cell population analysis as part of a pretransplant working program,” the researchers concluded.

The authors reported that they had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Researchers developed a predictive score for the risk of graft failure in patients with acute leukemia who underwent allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (aHSCT) with ex vivo T-cell depletion. T-cell depletion is performed in an effort to prevent subsequent graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) after transplant.

The risk score was based on patient age and the T-lymphocyte population pre-aHSCT with 1 point of risk possible in each category. Patients with 1 point had a graft failure risk of 5% and 13% if they had 2 points, according to the results of the study presented at the virtual meeting of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation.

Graft failure is a potentially severe complication in patients treated with aHSCT, but there are few studies analyzing risk factors when ex vivo T-cell depletion is used, Ivan López Torija of the Hospital Infantil Universitario Niño Jesús, Madrid, and colleagues noted in their presentation, which won the Best Young Poster Abstract Award at the meeting.

The researchers assessed 148 pediatric patients (64% boys) with acute leukemia who underwent allogeneic HSCT from haploidentical donors using ex vivo T-cell depletion between 2005 and 2020. About 53% of the patients were diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia, the rest with acute myeloid leukemia. The donor mean age was 40 years, and all transplant patients received toxicity reduction conditioning based on fludarabine busulfan and thiotepa.
 

Predictive results

Multivariate analysis showed that T-cell count (CD3+/CD8+ ≥ 350/mL: hazard ratio, 2,6; P = .01) and patient age (less than 9 years: HR; 5.0; P = .04) were associated with graft failure. A risk score was established using these results and based on patient age and T lymphocyte pre-aHSCT with 1 point each for each increased risk category. Patients with 1 point had a graft failure risk of 5% and a risk of 13% if they had 2 points.

However, in this particular population, with a mean follow up of 4 years, the overall survival rate was 60%, with no significant differences seen between patients that presented graft failure and those without graft failure.

“Patient age and pretransplant number of CD3+/CD8+ are associated with [graft failure] in pediatric patients with acute leukemia undergoing ex vivo T-cell–depleted haploidentical transplantation. These findings highlight the importance of preexisting cellular immunity in the transplant recipient and support T-cell population analysis as part of a pretransplant working program,” the researchers concluded.

The authors reported that they had no disclosures.

[email protected]

The use of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) can improve survival in minimal residual disease (MRD)–negative remission patients with relapsed/refractory (r/r) B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) after the start of monoclonal antibody treatment, according to the results of a landmark analysis presented at the virtual meeting of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation.

VashiDonsk/Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons 3.0

Previous studies have indicated that allo-HSCT improves the results of treatment in r/r B-ALL patients, compared with chemotherapy alone. In addition, it has been found that the monoclonal antibodies (Mab), anti-CD19-blinatumomab and anti-CD22-inotuzumab ozogamicin, induced remission in a significant proportion of such patients.

To determine if the use of allo-HSCT improves the outcome of patients in MRD-negative remission with or without Mab treatment, researchers performed a landmark analysis of 110 patients who achieved MRD-negative status after Mab treatment. The analysis examined results at 2, 4, and 6 months subsequent to the initiation of Mab treatment, according to poster presentation by Inna V. Markova, MD, and colleagues at Pavlov University, Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation.
 

Study details

The researchers included 110 patients who achieved MRD-negative status outside of clinical trials at a single institution in the analysis. Forty of the patients (36%) were children and 70 (64%) were adults. The median age for all patients was 23 years and the median follow up was 24 months. Fifty-seven (52%) and 53 (48%) patients received Mab for hematological relapse and persistent measurable residual disease or for molecular relapse, respectively. Therapy with Mab alone without subsequent allo-HSCT was used in 36 (31%) patients (30 received blinatumomab and 6 received inotuzumab ozogamicin). A total of 74 (69%) patients received allo-HSCT from a matched related or unrelated donor (MD-HSCT, n = 38) or haploidentical donor (Haplo-HSCT, n = 36). All patients received posttransplantation cyclophosphamide (PTCY)–based graft-versus host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis. Landmark analysis was performed at 2, 4, and 6 months after Mab therapy initiation to determine the effect of allo-HSCT on the outcome and the optimal timing of HSCT. Overall survival and disease-free survival (DFS) were used as outcomes.
 

Promising results

No significant differences between the MD-HSCT, Mab alone, and Haplo-HSCT groups were observed in 2-month landmark analysis (P = .4 for OS and P =.65 for DFS). However, the 4-month landmark analysis demonstrated superior overall survival and DFS in patients after MD-HSCT, but not Haplo-HSCT, compared with Mab alone: 2-year OS was 75%, 50%, and 27,7% (P = .032) and DFS was 53.5%, 51.3%, and 16.6% (P = .02) for MD-HSCT, Mab alone and Haplo-HSCT groups, respectively. In addition, 6-month analysis showed that there was no benefit from subsequent transplantation, according to the authors, with regard to overall survival (P = .11).

“Our study demonstrated that at least MD-HSCT with PTCY platform improves survival in MRD-negative remission if performed during the first 4 months after Mab initiation. Haplo-HSCT or MD-HSCT beyond 4 months are not associated with improved outcomes in this groups of patients,” the researchers concluded.

The researchers reported they had no conflicts of interest to declare.

[email protected]

The use of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) can improve survival in minimal residual disease (MRD)–negative remission patients with relapsed/refractory (r/r) B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) after the start of monoclonal antibody treatment, according to the results of a landmark analysis presented at the virtual meeting of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation.

VashiDonsk/Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons 3.0

Previous studies have indicated that allo-HSCT improves the results of treatment in r/r B-ALL patients, compared with chemotherapy alone. In addition, it has been found that the monoclonal antibodies (Mab), anti-CD19-blinatumomab and anti-CD22-inotuzumab ozogamicin, induced remission in a significant proportion of such patients.

To determine if the use of allo-HSCT improves the outcome of patients in MRD-negative remission with or without Mab treatment, researchers performed a landmark analysis of 110 patients who achieved MRD-negative status after Mab treatment. The analysis examined results at 2, 4, and 6 months subsequent to the initiation of Mab treatment, according to poster presentation by Inna V. Markova, MD, and colleagues at Pavlov University, Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation.
 

Study details

The researchers included 110 patients who achieved MRD-negative status outside of clinical trials at a single institution in the analysis. Forty of the patients (36%) were children and 70 (64%) were adults. The median age for all patients was 23 years and the median follow up was 24 months. Fifty-seven (52%) and 53 (48%) patients received Mab for hematological relapse and persistent measurable residual disease or for molecular relapse, respectively. Therapy with Mab alone without subsequent allo-HSCT was used in 36 (31%) patients (30 received blinatumomab and 6 received inotuzumab ozogamicin). A total of 74 (69%) patients received allo-HSCT from a matched related or unrelated donor (MD-HSCT, n = 38) or haploidentical donor (Haplo-HSCT, n = 36). All patients received posttransplantation cyclophosphamide (PTCY)–based graft-versus host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis. Landmark analysis was performed at 2, 4, and 6 months after Mab therapy initiation to determine the effect of allo-HSCT on the outcome and the optimal timing of HSCT. Overall survival and disease-free survival (DFS) were used as outcomes.
 

Promising results

No significant differences between the MD-HSCT, Mab alone, and Haplo-HSCT groups were observed in 2-month landmark analysis (P = .4 for OS and P =.65 for DFS). However, the 4-month landmark analysis demonstrated superior overall survival and DFS in patients after MD-HSCT, but not Haplo-HSCT, compared with Mab alone: 2-year OS was 75%, 50%, and 27,7% (P = .032) and DFS was 53.5%, 51.3%, and 16.6% (P = .02) for MD-HSCT, Mab alone and Haplo-HSCT groups, respectively. In addition, 6-month analysis showed that there was no benefit from subsequent transplantation, according to the authors, with regard to overall survival (P = .11).

“Our study demonstrated that at least MD-HSCT with PTCY platform improves survival in MRD-negative remission if performed during the first 4 months after Mab initiation. Haplo-HSCT or MD-HSCT beyond 4 months are not associated with improved outcomes in this groups of patients,” the researchers concluded.

The researchers reported they had no conflicts of interest to declare.

[email protected]

The use of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) can improve survival in minimal residual disease (MRD)–negative remission patients with relapsed/refractory (r/r) B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) after the start of monoclonal antibody treatment, according to the results of a landmark analysis presented at the virtual meeting of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation.

VashiDonsk/Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons 3.0

Previous studies have indicated that allo-HSCT improves the results of treatment in r/r B-ALL patients, compared with chemotherapy alone. In addition, it has been found that the monoclonal antibodies (Mab), anti-CD19-blinatumomab and anti-CD22-inotuzumab ozogamicin, induced remission in a significant proportion of such patients.

To determine if the use of allo-HSCT improves the outcome of patients in MRD-negative remission with or without Mab treatment, researchers performed a landmark analysis of 110 patients who achieved MRD-negative status after Mab treatment. The analysis examined results at 2, 4, and 6 months subsequent to the initiation of Mab treatment, according to poster presentation by Inna V. Markova, MD, and colleagues at Pavlov University, Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation.
 

Study details

The researchers included 110 patients who achieved MRD-negative status outside of clinical trials at a single institution in the analysis. Forty of the patients (36%) were children and 70 (64%) were adults. The median age for all patients was 23 years and the median follow up was 24 months. Fifty-seven (52%) and 53 (48%) patients received Mab for hematological relapse and persistent measurable residual disease or for molecular relapse, respectively. Therapy with Mab alone without subsequent allo-HSCT was used in 36 (31%) patients (30 received blinatumomab and 6 received inotuzumab ozogamicin). A total of 74 (69%) patients received allo-HSCT from a matched related or unrelated donor (MD-HSCT, n = 38) or haploidentical donor (Haplo-HSCT, n = 36). All patients received posttransplantation cyclophosphamide (PTCY)–based graft-versus host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis. Landmark analysis was performed at 2, 4, and 6 months after Mab therapy initiation to determine the effect of allo-HSCT on the outcome and the optimal timing of HSCT. Overall survival and disease-free survival (DFS) were used as outcomes.
 

Promising results

No significant differences between the MD-HSCT, Mab alone, and Haplo-HSCT groups were observed in 2-month landmark analysis (P = .4 for OS and P =.65 for DFS). However, the 4-month landmark analysis demonstrated superior overall survival and DFS in patients after MD-HSCT, but not Haplo-HSCT, compared with Mab alone: 2-year OS was 75%, 50%, and 27,7% (P = .032) and DFS was 53.5%, 51.3%, and 16.6% (P = .02) for MD-HSCT, Mab alone and Haplo-HSCT groups, respectively. In addition, 6-month analysis showed that there was no benefit from subsequent transplantation, according to the authors, with regard to overall survival (P = .11).

“Our study demonstrated that at least MD-HSCT with PTCY platform improves survival in MRD-negative remission if performed during the first 4 months after Mab initiation. Haplo-HSCT or MD-HSCT beyond 4 months are not associated with improved outcomes in this groups of patients,” the researchers concluded.

The researchers reported they had no conflicts of interest to declare.

[email protected]

Omidubicel, an investigational enriched umbilical cord blood product being developed by Gamida Cell for transplantation in patients with blood cancers, appears to have some advantages over standard umbilical cord blood.

The results come from a global phase 3 trial (NCT02730299) presented at the annual meeting of the European Society for Blood and Bone Marrow Transplantation.

“Transplantation with omidubicel, compared to standard cord blood transplantation, results in faster hematopoietic recovery, fewer infections, and fewer days in hospital,” said coinvestigator Guillermo F. Sanz, MD, PhD, from the Hospital Universitari i Politècnic la Fe in Valencia, Spain.

“Omidubicel should be considered as the new standard of care for patients eligible for umbilical cord blood transplantation,” Dr. Sanz concluded.

Zachariah DeFilipp, MD, from Mass General Cancer Center in Boston, a hematopoietic stem cell transplantation specialist who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that “omidubicel significantly improves the engraftment after transplant, as compared to standard cord blood transplant. For patients that lack an HLA-matched donor, this approach can help overcome the prolonged cytopenias that occur with standard cord blood transplants in adults.”

Gamida Cell plans to submit these data for approval of omidubicel by the Food and Drug Administration in the fourth quarter of 2021.

Omidubicel is also being evaluated in a phase 1/2 clinical study in patients with severe aplastic anemia (NCT03173937).
 

Expanding possibilities

Although umbilical cord blood stem cell grafts come from a readily available source and show greater tolerance across HLA barriers than other sources (such as bone marrow), the relatively low dose of stem cells in each unit results in delayed hematopoietic recovery, increased transplant-related morbidity and mortality, and longer hospitalizations, Dr. Sanz said.

Omidubicel consists of two cryopreserved fractions from a single cord blood unit. The product contains both noncultured CD133-negative cells, including T cells, and CD133-positive cells that are then expanded ex vivo for 21 days in the presence of nicotinamide.

“Nicotinamide increases stem and progenitor cells, inhibits differentiation and increases migration, bone marrow homing, and engraftment efficiency while preserving cellular functionality and phenotype,” Dr. Sanz explained during his presentation.

In an earlier phase 1/2 trial in 36 patients with high-risk hematologic malignancies, omidubicel was associated with hematopoietic engraftment lasting at least 10 years.
 

Details of phase 3 trial results

The global phase 3 trial was conducted in 125 patients (aged 13-65 years) with high-risk malignancies, including acute myeloid and lymphoblastic leukemias, myelodysplastic syndrome, chronic myeloid leukemia, lymphomas, and rare leukemias. These patients were all eligible for allogeneic stem cell transplantation but did not have matched donors.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive hematopoietic reconstitution with either omidubicel (n = 52) or standard cord blood (n = 58).

At 42 days of follow-up, the median time to neutrophil engraftment in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, the primary endpoint, was 12 days with omidubicel versus 22 days with standard cord blood (P < .001).

In the as-treated population – the 108 patients who actually received omidubicel or standard cord blood – median time to engraftment was 10.0 versus 20.5 days, respectively (P < .001).

Rates of neutrophil engraftment at 42 days were 96% with omidubicel versus 89% with standard cord blood.

The secondary endpoint of time-to-platelet engraftment in the ITT population also favored omidubicel, with a cumulative day 42 incidence rate of 55%, compared with 35% with standard cord blood (P = .028).

In the as-treated population, median times to platelet engraftment were 37 days and 50 days, respectively (P = .023). The cumulative rates of platelet engraftment at 100 days of follow-up were 83% and 73%, respectively.

The incidence of grade 2 or 3 bacterial or invasive fungal infections by day 100 in the ITT population was 37% among patients who received omidubicel, compared with 57% for patients who received standard cord blood (P = .027). Viral infections occurred in 10% versus 26% of patients, respectively.

The incidence of acute graft versus host disease at day 100 was similar between treatment groups, and there was no significant difference at 1 year.

Relapse and nonrelapse mortality rates, as well as disease-free and overall survival rates also did not differ between groups.

In the first 100 days post transplant, patients who received omidubicel were alive and out of the hospital for a median of 60.5 days, compared with 48 days for patients who received standard cord blood (P = .005).

The study was funded by Gamida Cell. Dr. Sanz reported receiving research funding from the company and several others, and consulting fees, honoraria, speakers bureau activity, and travel expenses from other companies. Dr. DeFilipp reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Omidubicel, an investigational enriched umbilical cord blood product being developed by Gamida Cell for transplantation in patients with blood cancers, appears to have some advantages over standard umbilical cord blood.

The results come from a global phase 3 trial (NCT02730299) presented at the annual meeting of the European Society for Blood and Bone Marrow Transplantation.

“Transplantation with omidubicel, compared to standard cord blood transplantation, results in faster hematopoietic recovery, fewer infections, and fewer days in hospital,” said coinvestigator Guillermo F. Sanz, MD, PhD, from the Hospital Universitari i Politècnic la Fe in Valencia, Spain.

“Omidubicel should be considered as the new standard of care for patients eligible for umbilical cord blood transplantation,” Dr. Sanz concluded.

Zachariah DeFilipp, MD, from Mass General Cancer Center in Boston, a hematopoietic stem cell transplantation specialist who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that “omidubicel significantly improves the engraftment after transplant, as compared to standard cord blood transplant. For patients that lack an HLA-matched donor, this approach can help overcome the prolonged cytopenias that occur with standard cord blood transplants in adults.”

Gamida Cell plans to submit these data for approval of omidubicel by the Food and Drug Administration in the fourth quarter of 2021.

Omidubicel is also being evaluated in a phase 1/2 clinical study in patients with severe aplastic anemia (NCT03173937).
 

Expanding possibilities

Although umbilical cord blood stem cell grafts come from a readily available source and show greater tolerance across HLA barriers than other sources (such as bone marrow), the relatively low dose of stem cells in each unit results in delayed hematopoietic recovery, increased transplant-related morbidity and mortality, and longer hospitalizations, Dr. Sanz said.

Omidubicel consists of two cryopreserved fractions from a single cord blood unit. The product contains both noncultured CD133-negative cells, including T cells, and CD133-positive cells that are then expanded ex vivo for 21 days in the presence of nicotinamide.

“Nicotinamide increases stem and progenitor cells, inhibits differentiation and increases migration, bone marrow homing, and engraftment efficiency while preserving cellular functionality and phenotype,” Dr. Sanz explained during his presentation.

In an earlier phase 1/2 trial in 36 patients with high-risk hematologic malignancies, omidubicel was associated with hematopoietic engraftment lasting at least 10 years.
 

Details of phase 3 trial results

The global phase 3 trial was conducted in 125 patients (aged 13-65 years) with high-risk malignancies, including acute myeloid and lymphoblastic leukemias, myelodysplastic syndrome, chronic myeloid leukemia, lymphomas, and rare leukemias. These patients were all eligible for allogeneic stem cell transplantation but did not have matched donors.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive hematopoietic reconstitution with either omidubicel (n = 52) or standard cord blood (n = 58).

At 42 days of follow-up, the median time to neutrophil engraftment in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, the primary endpoint, was 12 days with omidubicel versus 22 days with standard cord blood (P < .001).

In the as-treated population – the 108 patients who actually received omidubicel or standard cord blood – median time to engraftment was 10.0 versus 20.5 days, respectively (P < .001).

Rates of neutrophil engraftment at 42 days were 96% with omidubicel versus 89% with standard cord blood.

The secondary endpoint of time-to-platelet engraftment in the ITT population also favored omidubicel, with a cumulative day 42 incidence rate of 55%, compared with 35% with standard cord blood (P = .028).

In the as-treated population, median times to platelet engraftment were 37 days and 50 days, respectively (P = .023). The cumulative rates of platelet engraftment at 100 days of follow-up were 83% and 73%, respectively.

The incidence of grade 2 or 3 bacterial or invasive fungal infections by day 100 in the ITT population was 37% among patients who received omidubicel, compared with 57% for patients who received standard cord blood (P = .027). Viral infections occurred in 10% versus 26% of patients, respectively.

The incidence of acute graft versus host disease at day 100 was similar between treatment groups, and there was no significant difference at 1 year.

Relapse and nonrelapse mortality rates, as well as disease-free and overall survival rates also did not differ between groups.

In the first 100 days post transplant, patients who received omidubicel were alive and out of the hospital for a median of 60.5 days, compared with 48 days for patients who received standard cord blood (P = .005).

The study was funded by Gamida Cell. Dr. Sanz reported receiving research funding from the company and several others, and consulting fees, honoraria, speakers bureau activity, and travel expenses from other companies. Dr. DeFilipp reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Omidubicel, an investigational enriched umbilical cord blood product being developed by Gamida Cell for transplantation in patients with blood cancers, appears to have some advantages over standard umbilical cord blood.

The results come from a global phase 3 trial (NCT02730299) presented at the annual meeting of the European Society for Blood and Bone Marrow Transplantation.

“Transplantation with omidubicel, compared to standard cord blood transplantation, results in faster hematopoietic recovery, fewer infections, and fewer days in hospital,” said coinvestigator Guillermo F. Sanz, MD, PhD, from the Hospital Universitari i Politècnic la Fe in Valencia, Spain.

“Omidubicel should be considered as the new standard of care for patients eligible for umbilical cord blood transplantation,” Dr. Sanz concluded.

Zachariah DeFilipp, MD, from Mass General Cancer Center in Boston, a hematopoietic stem cell transplantation specialist who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that “omidubicel significantly improves the engraftment after transplant, as compared to standard cord blood transplant. For patients that lack an HLA-matched donor, this approach can help overcome the prolonged cytopenias that occur with standard cord blood transplants in adults.”

Gamida Cell plans to submit these data for approval of omidubicel by the Food and Drug Administration in the fourth quarter of 2021.

Omidubicel is also being evaluated in a phase 1/2 clinical study in patients with severe aplastic anemia (NCT03173937).
 

Expanding possibilities

Although umbilical cord blood stem cell grafts come from a readily available source and show greater tolerance across HLA barriers than other sources (such as bone marrow), the relatively low dose of stem cells in each unit results in delayed hematopoietic recovery, increased transplant-related morbidity and mortality, and longer hospitalizations, Dr. Sanz said.

Omidubicel consists of two cryopreserved fractions from a single cord blood unit. The product contains both noncultured CD133-negative cells, including T cells, and CD133-positive cells that are then expanded ex vivo for 21 days in the presence of nicotinamide.

“Nicotinamide increases stem and progenitor cells, inhibits differentiation and increases migration, bone marrow homing, and engraftment efficiency while preserving cellular functionality and phenotype,” Dr. Sanz explained during his presentation.

In an earlier phase 1/2 trial in 36 patients with high-risk hematologic malignancies, omidubicel was associated with hematopoietic engraftment lasting at least 10 years.
 

Details of phase 3 trial results

The global phase 3 trial was conducted in 125 patients (aged 13-65 years) with high-risk malignancies, including acute myeloid and lymphoblastic leukemias, myelodysplastic syndrome, chronic myeloid leukemia, lymphomas, and rare leukemias. These patients were all eligible for allogeneic stem cell transplantation but did not have matched donors.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive hematopoietic reconstitution with either omidubicel (n = 52) or standard cord blood (n = 58).

At 42 days of follow-up, the median time to neutrophil engraftment in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, the primary endpoint, was 12 days with omidubicel versus 22 days with standard cord blood (P < .001).

In the as-treated population – the 108 patients who actually received omidubicel or standard cord blood – median time to engraftment was 10.0 versus 20.5 days, respectively (P < .001).

Rates of neutrophil engraftment at 42 days were 96% with omidubicel versus 89% with standard cord blood.

The secondary endpoint of time-to-platelet engraftment in the ITT population also favored omidubicel, with a cumulative day 42 incidence rate of 55%, compared with 35% with standard cord blood (P = .028).

In the as-treated population, median times to platelet engraftment were 37 days and 50 days, respectively (P = .023). The cumulative rates of platelet engraftment at 100 days of follow-up were 83% and 73%, respectively.

The incidence of grade 2 or 3 bacterial or invasive fungal infections by day 100 in the ITT population was 37% among patients who received omidubicel, compared with 57% for patients who received standard cord blood (P = .027). Viral infections occurred in 10% versus 26% of patients, respectively.

The incidence of acute graft versus host disease at day 100 was similar between treatment groups, and there was no significant difference at 1 year.

Relapse and nonrelapse mortality rates, as well as disease-free and overall survival rates also did not differ between groups.

In the first 100 days post transplant, patients who received omidubicel were alive and out of the hospital for a median of 60.5 days, compared with 48 days for patients who received standard cord blood (P = .005).

The study was funded by Gamida Cell. Dr. Sanz reported receiving research funding from the company and several others, and consulting fees, honoraria, speakers bureau activity, and travel expenses from other companies. Dr. DeFilipp reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The main threat to the vast majority of children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia still remains the ALL itself, according to updated recommendations released by the Leukemia Committee of the French Society for the Fight Against Cancers and Leukemias in Children and Adolescents (SFCE).

VashiDonsk/Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons 3.0

“The situation of the current COVID-19 pandemic is continuously evolving. We thus have taken the more recent knowledge into account to update the previous recommendations from the Leukemia Committee,” Jérémie Rouger-Gaudichon, MD, of Pediatric Hemato-Immuno-Oncology Unit, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Caen (France), and colleagues wrote on behalf of the SFCE.

The updated recommendations are based on data collected in a real-time prospective survey among the 30 SFCE centers since April 2020. As of December 2020, 127 cases of COVID-19 were reported, most of them being enrolled in the PEDONCOVID study (NCT04433871) according to the report. Of these, eight patients required hospitalization in intensive care unit and one patient with relapsed acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) died from ARDS with multiorgan failure. This confirms earlier reports that SARS-CoV-2 infection can be severe in some children with cancer and/or having hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT), according to the report, which was published online in Bulletin du Cancer.
 

Recommendations

General recommendations were provided in the report, including the following:

• Test for SARS-CoV-2 (preferably by PCR or at least by immunological tests, on nasopharyngeal swab) before starting intensive induction chemotherapy or other intensive phase of treatment, for ALL patients, with or without symptoms.
• Delay systemic treatment if possible (e.g., absence of major hyperleukocytosis) in positive patients. During later phases, if patients test positive, tests should be repeated over time until negativity, especially before the beginning of an intensive course.
• Isolate any COVID-19–negative child or adolescent to allow treatment to continue (facial mask, social distancing, barrier measures, no contact with individuals suspected of COVID-19 or COVID-19–positive), in particular for patients to be allografted.
• Limit visitation to parents and potentially siblings in patients slated for HSCT and follow all necessary sanitary procedures for those visits.

The report provides a lengthy discussion of more detailed recommendations, including the following for first-line treatment of ALL:

• For patients with high-risk ALL, an individualized decision regarding transplantation and its timing should weigh the risks of transplantation in an epidemic context of COVID-19 against the risk linked to ALL.
• Minimizing hospital visits by the use of home blood tests and partial use of telemedicine may be considered.
• A physical examination should be performed regularly to avoid any delay in the diagnosis of treatment complications or relapse and preventative measures for SARS-CoV-2 should be applied in the home.

Patients with relapsed ALL may be at more risk from the effects of COVID-19 disease, according to the others, so for ALL patients receiving second-line or more treatment the recommendations include the following:

• Testing must be performed before starting a chemotherapy block, and postponing chemotherapy in case of positive test should be discussed in accordance with each specific situation and benefits/risks ratio regarding the leukemia.
• First-relapse patients should follow the INTREALL treatment protocol as much as possible and those who reach appropriate complete remission should be considered promptly for allogeneic transplantation, despite the pandemic.
• Second relapse and refractory relapses require testing and negative results for inclusion in phase I-II trials being conducted by most if not all academic or industrial promoters.
• The indication for treatment with CAR-T cells must be weighed with the center that would perform the procedure to determine the feasibility of performing all necessary procedures including apheresis and manufacturing.

In the case of a SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis during the treatment of ALL, discussions should occur with regard to stopping and/or postponing all chemotherapies, according to the severity of the ALL, the stage of treatment and the severity of clinical and/or radiological signs. In addition, any specific anti-COVID-19 treatment must be discussed with the infectious diseases team, according to the report.

“Fortunately, SARS-CoV-2 infection appears nevertheless to be mild in most children with cancer/ALL. Thus, the main threat to the vast majority of children with ALL still remains the ALL itself. Long-term data including well-matched case-control studies will tell if treatment delays/modifications due to COVID-19 have impacted the outcome if children with ALL,” the authors stated. However, “despite extremely rapid advances obtained in less than one year, our knowledge of SARS-CoV-2 and its complications is still incomplete,” they concluded, adding that the recommendations will likely need to be updated within another few months.

The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

The main threat to the vast majority of children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia still remains the ALL itself, according to updated recommendations released by the Leukemia Committee of the French Society for the Fight Against Cancers and Leukemias in Children and Adolescents (SFCE).

VashiDonsk/Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons 3.0

“The situation of the current COVID-19 pandemic is continuously evolving. We thus have taken the more recent knowledge into account to update the previous recommendations from the Leukemia Committee,” Jérémie Rouger-Gaudichon, MD, of Pediatric Hemato-Immuno-Oncology Unit, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Caen (France), and colleagues wrote on behalf of the SFCE.

The updated recommendations are based on data collected in a real-time prospective survey among the 30 SFCE centers since April 2020. As of December 2020, 127 cases of COVID-19 were reported, most of them being enrolled in the PEDONCOVID study (NCT04433871) according to the report. Of these, eight patients required hospitalization in intensive care unit and one patient with relapsed acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) died from ARDS with multiorgan failure. This confirms earlier reports that SARS-CoV-2 infection can be severe in some children with cancer and/or having hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT), according to the report, which was published online in Bulletin du Cancer.
 

Recommendations

General recommendations were provided in the report, including the following:

• Test for SARS-CoV-2 (preferably by PCR or at least by immunological tests, on nasopharyngeal swab) before starting intensive induction chemotherapy or other intensive phase of treatment, for ALL patients, with or without symptoms.
• Delay systemic treatment if possible (e.g., absence of major hyperleukocytosis) in positive patients. During later phases, if patients test positive, tests should be repeated over time until negativity, especially before the beginning of an intensive course.
• Isolate any COVID-19–negative child or adolescent to allow treatment to continue (facial mask, social distancing, barrier measures, no contact with individuals suspected of COVID-19 or COVID-19–positive), in particular for patients to be allografted.
• Limit visitation to parents and potentially siblings in patients slated for HSCT and follow all necessary sanitary procedures for those visits.

The report provides a lengthy discussion of more detailed recommendations, including the following for first-line treatment of ALL:

• For patients with high-risk ALL, an individualized decision regarding transplantation and its timing should weigh the risks of transplantation in an epidemic context of COVID-19 against the risk linked to ALL.
• Minimizing hospital visits by the use of home blood tests and partial use of telemedicine may be considered.
• A physical examination should be performed regularly to avoid any delay in the diagnosis of treatment complications or relapse and preventative measures for SARS-CoV-2 should be applied in the home.

Patients with relapsed ALL may be at more risk from the effects of COVID-19 disease, according to the others, so for ALL patients receiving second-line or more treatment the recommendations include the following:

• Testing must be performed before starting a chemotherapy block, and postponing chemotherapy in case of positive test should be discussed in accordance with each specific situation and benefits/risks ratio regarding the leukemia.
• First-relapse patients should follow the INTREALL treatment protocol as much as possible and those who reach appropriate complete remission should be considered promptly for allogeneic transplantation, despite the pandemic.
• Second relapse and refractory relapses require testing and negative results for inclusion in phase I-II trials being conducted by most if not all academic or industrial promoters.
• The indication for treatment with CAR-T cells must be weighed with the center that would perform the procedure to determine the feasibility of performing all necessary procedures including apheresis and manufacturing.

In the case of a SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis during the treatment of ALL, discussions should occur with regard to stopping and/or postponing all chemotherapies, according to the severity of the ALL, the stage of treatment and the severity of clinical and/or radiological signs. In addition, any specific anti-COVID-19 treatment must be discussed with the infectious diseases team, according to the report.

“Fortunately, SARS-CoV-2 infection appears nevertheless to be mild in most children with cancer/ALL. Thus, the main threat to the vast majority of children with ALL still remains the ALL itself. Long-term data including well-matched case-control studies will tell if treatment delays/modifications due to COVID-19 have impacted the outcome if children with ALL,” the authors stated. However, “despite extremely rapid advances obtained in less than one year, our knowledge of SARS-CoV-2 and its complications is still incomplete,” they concluded, adding that the recommendations will likely need to be updated within another few months.

The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

The main threat to the vast majority of children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia still remains the ALL itself, according to updated recommendations released by the Leukemia Committee of the French Society for the Fight Against Cancers and Leukemias in Children and Adolescents (SFCE).

VashiDonsk/Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons 3.0

“The situation of the current COVID-19 pandemic is continuously evolving. We thus have taken the more recent knowledge into account to update the previous recommendations from the Leukemia Committee,” Jérémie Rouger-Gaudichon, MD, of Pediatric Hemato-Immuno-Oncology Unit, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Caen (France), and colleagues wrote on behalf of the SFCE.

The updated recommendations are based on data collected in a real-time prospective survey among the 30 SFCE centers since April 2020. As of December 2020, 127 cases of COVID-19 were reported, most of them being enrolled in the PEDONCOVID study (NCT04433871) according to the report. Of these, eight patients required hospitalization in intensive care unit and one patient with relapsed acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) died from ARDS with multiorgan failure. This confirms earlier reports that SARS-CoV-2 infection can be severe in some children with cancer and/or having hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT), according to the report, which was published online in Bulletin du Cancer.
 

Recommendations

General recommendations were provided in the report, including the following:

• Test for SARS-CoV-2 (preferably by PCR or at least by immunological tests, on nasopharyngeal swab) before starting intensive induction chemotherapy or other intensive phase of treatment, for ALL patients, with or without symptoms.
• Delay systemic treatment if possible (e.g., absence of major hyperleukocytosis) in positive patients. During later phases, if patients test positive, tests should be repeated over time until negativity, especially before the beginning of an intensive course.
• Isolate any COVID-19–negative child or adolescent to allow treatment to continue (facial mask, social distancing, barrier measures, no contact with individuals suspected of COVID-19 or COVID-19–positive), in particular for patients to be allografted.
• Limit visitation to parents and potentially siblings in patients slated for HSCT and follow all necessary sanitary procedures for those visits.

The report provides a lengthy discussion of more detailed recommendations, including the following for first-line treatment of ALL:

• For patients with high-risk ALL, an individualized decision regarding transplantation and its timing should weigh the risks of transplantation in an epidemic context of COVID-19 against the risk linked to ALL.
• Minimizing hospital visits by the use of home blood tests and partial use of telemedicine may be considered.
• A physical examination should be performed regularly to avoid any delay in the diagnosis of treatment complications or relapse and preventative measures for SARS-CoV-2 should be applied in the home.

Patients with relapsed ALL may be at more risk from the effects of COVID-19 disease, according to the others, so for ALL patients receiving second-line or more treatment the recommendations include the following:

• Testing must be performed before starting a chemotherapy block, and postponing chemotherapy in case of positive test should be discussed in accordance with each specific situation and benefits/risks ratio regarding the leukemia.
• First-relapse patients should follow the INTREALL treatment protocol as much as possible and those who reach appropriate complete remission should be considered promptly for allogeneic transplantation, despite the pandemic.
• Second relapse and refractory relapses require testing and negative results for inclusion in phase I-II trials being conducted by most if not all academic or industrial promoters.
• The indication for treatment with CAR-T cells must be weighed with the center that would perform the procedure to determine the feasibility of performing all necessary procedures including apheresis and manufacturing.

In the case of a SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis during the treatment of ALL, discussions should occur with regard to stopping and/or postponing all chemotherapies, according to the severity of the ALL, the stage of treatment and the severity of clinical and/or radiological signs. In addition, any specific anti-COVID-19 treatment must be discussed with the infectious diseases team, according to the report.

“Fortunately, SARS-CoV-2 infection appears nevertheless to be mild in most children with cancer/ALL. Thus, the main threat to the vast majority of children with ALL still remains the ALL itself. Long-term data including well-matched case-control studies will tell if treatment delays/modifications due to COVID-19 have impacted the outcome if children with ALL,” the authors stated. However, “despite extremely rapid advances obtained in less than one year, our knowledge of SARS-CoV-2 and its complications is still incomplete,” they concluded, adding that the recommendations will likely need to be updated within another few months.

The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

Nearly one in three patients with blood cancer, and survivors, say they are unlikely to get a COVID-19 vaccine or unsure about getting it if one were available. The findings come from a nationwide survey by The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, which collected 6,517 responses.

“These findings are worrisome, to say the least,” Gwen Nichols, MD, chief medical officer of the society, said in a statement.

“We know cancer patients – and blood cancer patients in particular – are susceptible to the worst effects of the virus [and] all of us in the medical community need to help cancer patients understand the importance of getting vaccinated,” she added.

The survey – the largest ever done in which cancer patients and survivors were asked about their attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines – was published online March 8 by The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society.
 

Survey sample

The survey asked patients with blood cancer, and survivors, about their attitudes regarding COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines.

“The main outcome [was] vaccine attitudes,” noted the authors, headed by Rena Conti, PhD, dean’s research scholar, Boston University.

Respondents were asked: “How likely are you to choose to get the vaccine?” Participants could indicate they were very unlikely, unlikely, neither likely nor unlikely, likely, or very likely to get vaccinated.

“We found that 17% of respondents indicate[d] that they [were] unlikely or very unlikely to take a vaccine,” Dr. Conti and colleagues observed.

Among the 17% – deemed to be “vaccine hesitant” – slightly over half (54%) stated they had concerns about the side effects associated with COVID-19 vaccination and believed neither of the two newly approved vaccines had been or would ever be tested properly.

The survey authors noted that there is no reason to believe COVID-19 vaccines are any less safe in patients with blood cancers, but concerns have been expressed that patients with some forms of blood cancer or those undergoing certain treatments may not achieve the same immune response to the vaccine as would noncancer controls.

Importantly, the survey was conducted Dec. 1-21, 2020, and responses differed depending on whether respondents answered the survey before or after the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines had been given emergency use authorization by the Food and Drug Administration starting Dec. 10, 2020. 

There was a slight increase in positive responses after the vaccines were granted regulatory approval. (One-third of those who responded to the survey after the approval were 3.7% more likely to indicate they would get vaccinated). “This suggests that hesitancy may be influenced by emerging information dissemination, government action, and vaccine availability, transforming the hypothetical opportunity of vaccination to a real one,” the survey authors speculated.

Survey respondents who were vaccine hesitant were also over 14% more likely to indicate that they didn’t think they would require hospitalization should they contract COVID-19. But clinical data have suggested that approximately half of patients with a hematological malignancy who required hospitalization for COVID-19 die from the infection, the authors noted.

“Vaccine hesitant respondents [were] also significantly less likely to engage in protective health behaviors,” the survey authors pointed out. For example, they were almost 4% less likely to have worn a face mask and 1.6% less likely to have taken other protective measures to guard against COVID-19 infection.
 

Need for clear messaging

To counter vaccine hesitancy, the authors suggest there is a need for clear, consistent messaging targeting patients with cancer that emphasize the risks of COVID-19 and underscore vaccine benefits.

Dr. Conti pointed out that patients with blood cancer are, in fact, being given preferential access to vaccines in many communities, although this clearly doesn’t mean patients are willing to get vaccinated, as she also noted.

“We need both adequate supply and strong demand to keep this vulnerable population safe,” Dr. Conti emphasized.

The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society plans to repeat the survey in the near future to assess patients’ and survivors’ access to vaccines as well as their willingness to get vaccinated.

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly one in three patients with blood cancer, and survivors, say they are unlikely to get a COVID-19 vaccine or unsure about getting it if one were available. The findings come from a nationwide survey by The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, which collected 6,517 responses.

“These findings are worrisome, to say the least,” Gwen Nichols, MD, chief medical officer of the society, said in a statement.

“We know cancer patients – and blood cancer patients in particular – are susceptible to the worst effects of the virus [and] all of us in the medical community need to help cancer patients understand the importance of getting vaccinated,” she added.

The survey – the largest ever done in which cancer patients and survivors were asked about their attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines – was published online March 8 by The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society.
 

Survey sample

The survey asked patients with blood cancer, and survivors, about their attitudes regarding COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines.

“The main outcome [was] vaccine attitudes,” noted the authors, headed by Rena Conti, PhD, dean’s research scholar, Boston University.

Respondents were asked: “How likely are you to choose to get the vaccine?” Participants could indicate they were very unlikely, unlikely, neither likely nor unlikely, likely, or very likely to get vaccinated.

“We found that 17% of respondents indicate[d] that they [were] unlikely or very unlikely to take a vaccine,” Dr. Conti and colleagues observed.

Among the 17% – deemed to be “vaccine hesitant” – slightly over half (54%) stated they had concerns about the side effects associated with COVID-19 vaccination and believed neither of the two newly approved vaccines had been or would ever be tested properly.

The survey authors noted that there is no reason to believe COVID-19 vaccines are any less safe in patients with blood cancers, but concerns have been expressed that patients with some forms of blood cancer or those undergoing certain treatments may not achieve the same immune response to the vaccine as would noncancer controls.

Importantly, the survey was conducted Dec. 1-21, 2020, and responses differed depending on whether respondents answered the survey before or after the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines had been given emergency use authorization by the Food and Drug Administration starting Dec. 10, 2020. 

There was a slight increase in positive responses after the vaccines were granted regulatory approval. (One-third of those who responded to the survey after the approval were 3.7% more likely to indicate they would get vaccinated). “This suggests that hesitancy may be influenced by emerging information dissemination, government action, and vaccine availability, transforming the hypothetical opportunity of vaccination to a real one,” the survey authors speculated.

Survey respondents who were vaccine hesitant were also over 14% more likely to indicate that they didn’t think they would require hospitalization should they contract COVID-19. But clinical data have suggested that approximately half of patients with a hematological malignancy who required hospitalization for COVID-19 die from the infection, the authors noted.

“Vaccine hesitant respondents [were] also significantly less likely to engage in protective health behaviors,” the survey authors pointed out. For example, they were almost 4% less likely to have worn a face mask and 1.6% less likely to have taken other protective measures to guard against COVID-19 infection.
 

Need for clear messaging

To counter vaccine hesitancy, the authors suggest there is a need for clear, consistent messaging targeting patients with cancer that emphasize the risks of COVID-19 and underscore vaccine benefits.

Dr. Conti pointed out that patients with blood cancer are, in fact, being given preferential access to vaccines in many communities, although this clearly doesn’t mean patients are willing to get vaccinated, as she also noted.

“We need both adequate supply and strong demand to keep this vulnerable population safe,” Dr. Conti emphasized.

The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society plans to repeat the survey in the near future to assess patients’ and survivors’ access to vaccines as well as their willingness to get vaccinated.

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly one in three patients with blood cancer, and survivors, say they are unlikely to get a COVID-19 vaccine or unsure about getting it if one were available. The findings come from a nationwide survey by The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, which collected 6,517 responses.

“These findings are worrisome, to say the least,” Gwen Nichols, MD, chief medical officer of the society, said in a statement.

“We know cancer patients – and blood cancer patients in particular – are susceptible to the worst effects of the virus [and] all of us in the medical community need to help cancer patients understand the importance of getting vaccinated,” she added.

The survey – the largest ever done in which cancer patients and survivors were asked about their attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines – was published online March 8 by The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society.
 

Survey sample

The survey asked patients with blood cancer, and survivors, about their attitudes regarding COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines.

“The main outcome [was] vaccine attitudes,” noted the authors, headed by Rena Conti, PhD, dean’s research scholar, Boston University.

Respondents were asked: “How likely are you to choose to get the vaccine?” Participants could indicate they were very unlikely, unlikely, neither likely nor unlikely, likely, or very likely to get vaccinated.

“We found that 17% of respondents indicate[d] that they [were] unlikely or very unlikely to take a vaccine,” Dr. Conti and colleagues observed.

Among the 17% – deemed to be “vaccine hesitant” – slightly over half (54%) stated they had concerns about the side effects associated with COVID-19 vaccination and believed neither of the two newly approved vaccines had been or would ever be tested properly.

The survey authors noted that there is no reason to believe COVID-19 vaccines are any less safe in patients with blood cancers, but concerns have been expressed that patients with some forms of blood cancer or those undergoing certain treatments may not achieve the same immune response to the vaccine as would noncancer controls.

Importantly, the survey was conducted Dec. 1-21, 2020, and responses differed depending on whether respondents answered the survey before or after the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines had been given emergency use authorization by the Food and Drug Administration starting Dec. 10, 2020. 

There was a slight increase in positive responses after the vaccines were granted regulatory approval. (One-third of those who responded to the survey after the approval were 3.7% more likely to indicate they would get vaccinated). “This suggests that hesitancy may be influenced by emerging information dissemination, government action, and vaccine availability, transforming the hypothetical opportunity of vaccination to a real one,” the survey authors speculated.

Survey respondents who were vaccine hesitant were also over 14% more likely to indicate that they didn’t think they would require hospitalization should they contract COVID-19. But clinical data have suggested that approximately half of patients with a hematological malignancy who required hospitalization for COVID-19 die from the infection, the authors noted.

“Vaccine hesitant respondents [were] also significantly less likely to engage in protective health behaviors,” the survey authors pointed out. For example, they were almost 4% less likely to have worn a face mask and 1.6% less likely to have taken other protective measures to guard against COVID-19 infection.
 

Need for clear messaging

To counter vaccine hesitancy, the authors suggest there is a need for clear, consistent messaging targeting patients with cancer that emphasize the risks of COVID-19 and underscore vaccine benefits.

Dr. Conti pointed out that patients with blood cancer are, in fact, being given preferential access to vaccines in many communities, although this clearly doesn’t mean patients are willing to get vaccinated, as she also noted.

“We need both adequate supply and strong demand to keep this vulnerable population safe,” Dr. Conti emphasized.

The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society plans to repeat the survey in the near future to assess patients’ and survivors’ access to vaccines as well as their willingness to get vaccinated.

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The first report on responses to COVID-19 vaccination among patients with cancer suggests that, for these patients, the immune response that occurs after the first dose of vaccine is reduced, in comparison with the response that occurs in healthy individuals.

The new findings, which are soon to be published as a preprint, cast doubt on the current U.K. policy of delaying the second dose of the vaccine.

Delaying the second dose can leave most patients with cancer wholly or partially unprotected, according to the researchers. Moreover, such a delay has implications for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the cancer patient’s environs as well as for the evolution of virus variants that could be of concern, the researchers concluded.

The data come from a British study that included 151 patients with cancer and 54 healthy control persons. All participants received the COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech).

This vaccine requires two doses. The first few participants in this study were given the second dose 21 days after they had received the first dose, but then national guidelines changed, and the remaining participants had to wait 12 weeks to receive their second dose.

The researchers reported that, among health controls, the immune efficacy of the first dose was very high (97% efficacious). By contrast, among patients with solid tumors, the immune efficacy of a single dose was strikingly low (39%), and it was even lower in patients with hematologic malignancies (13%).

The second dose of vaccine greatly and rapidly increased the immune efficacy in patients with solid tumors (95% within 2 weeks of receiving the second dose), the researchers added.

Too few patients with hematologic cancers had received the second dose before the study ended for clear conclusions to be drawn. Nevertheless, the available data suggest that 50% of patients with hematologic cancers who had received the booster at day 21 were seropositive at 5 weeks vs. only 8% of those who had not received the booster.

“Our data provide the first real-world evidence of immune efficacy following one dose of the Pfizer vaccine in immunocompromised patient populations [and] clearly show that the poor one-dose efficacy in cancer patients can be rescued with an early booster at day 21,” commented senior author Sheeba Irshad, MD, senior clinical lecturer, King’s College London.

“Based on our findings, we would recommend an urgent review of the vaccine strategy for clinically extremely vulnerable groups. Until then, it is important that cancer patients continue to observe all public health measures in place, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination,” Dr. Irshad added.

The paper, with first author Leticia Monin-Aldama, PhD, is scheduled to appear on the preprint server medRxiv. It has not undergone peer review. The paper was distributed to journalists, with comments from experts not involved in the study, by the UK Science Media Centre.

These data are “of immediate importance” to patients with cancer, commented Shoba Amarnath, PhD, Newcastle University research fellow, Laboratory of T-cell Regulation, Newcastle University Center for Cancer, Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

“These findings are consistent with our understanding. … We know that the immune system within cancer patients is compromised as compared to healthy controls,” Dr. Amarnath said. “The data in the study support the notion that, in solid cancer patients, a considerable delay in second dose will extend the period when cancer patients are at risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

Although more data are required, “this study does raise the issue of whether patients with cancer, other diseases, or those undergoing therapies that affect the body’s immune response should be fast-tracked for their second vaccine dose,” commented Lawrence Young, PhD, professor of molecular oncology and director of the Warwick Cancer Research Center, University of Warwick, Coventry, England.

Stephen Evans, MSc, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, underlined that the study is “essentially” observational and “inevitable limitations must be taken into account.

“Nevertheless, these results do suggest that the vaccines may well not protect those patients with cancer as well as those without cancer,” Mr. Evans said. He added that it is “important that this population continues to observe all COVID-19–associated measures, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination.”

Study details

Previous studies have shown that some patients with cancer have prolonged responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection, with ongoing immune dysregulation, inefficient seroconversion, and prolonged viral shedding.

There are few data, however, on how these patients respond to COVID-19 vaccination. The authors point out that, among the 18,860 individuals who received the Pfizer vaccine during its development trials, “none with an active oncological diagnosis was included.”

To investigate this issue, they launched the SARS-CoV-2 for Cancer Patients (SOAP-02) study.

The 151 patients with cancer who participated in this study were mostly elderly, the authors noted (75% were older than 65 years; the median age was 73 years). The majority (63%) had solid-tumor malignancies. Of those, 8% had late-stage disease and had been living with their cancer for more than 24 months.

The healthy control persons were vaccine-eligible primary health care workers who were not age matched to the cancer patients.

All participants received the first dose of vaccine; 31 (of 151) patients with cancer and 16 (of 54) healthy control persons received the second dose on day 21.

The remaining participants were scheduled to receive their second dose 12 weeks later (after the study ended), in line with the changes in the national guidelines.

The team reported that, approximately 21 days after receiving the first vaccine dose, the immune efficacy of the vaccine was estimated to be 97% among healthy control persons vs. 39% for patients with solid tumors and only 13% for those with hematologic malignancies (P < .0001 for both).

T-cell responses, as assessed via interferon-gamma and/or interleukin-2 production, were observed in 82% of healthy control persons, 71% of patients with solid tumors, and 50% of those with hematologic cancers.

Vaccine boosting at day 21 resulted in immune efficacy of 100% for healthy control persons and 95% for patients with solid tumors. In contrast, only 43% of those who did not receive the second dose were seropositive 2 weeks later.

Further analysis suggested that participants who did not have a serologic response were “spread evenly” across different cancer types, but the reduced responses were more frequent among patients who had received the vaccine within 15 days of cancer treatment, especially chemotherapy, and had undergone intensive treatments.

The SOAP study is sponsored by King’s College London and Guy’s and St. Thomas Trust Foundation NHS Trust. It is funded from grants from the KCL Charity, Cancer Research UK, and program grants from Breast Cancer Now. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The first report on responses to COVID-19 vaccination among patients with cancer suggests that, for these patients, the immune response that occurs after the first dose of vaccine is reduced, in comparison with the response that occurs in healthy individuals.

The new findings, which are soon to be published as a preprint, cast doubt on the current U.K. policy of delaying the second dose of the vaccine.

Delaying the second dose can leave most patients with cancer wholly or partially unprotected, according to the researchers. Moreover, such a delay has implications for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the cancer patient’s environs as well as for the evolution of virus variants that could be of concern, the researchers concluded.

The data come from a British study that included 151 patients with cancer and 54 healthy control persons. All participants received the COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech).

This vaccine requires two doses. The first few participants in this study were given the second dose 21 days after they had received the first dose, but then national guidelines changed, and the remaining participants had to wait 12 weeks to receive their second dose.

The researchers reported that, among health controls, the immune efficacy of the first dose was very high (97% efficacious). By contrast, among patients with solid tumors, the immune efficacy of a single dose was strikingly low (39%), and it was even lower in patients with hematologic malignancies (13%).

The second dose of vaccine greatly and rapidly increased the immune efficacy in patients with solid tumors (95% within 2 weeks of receiving the second dose), the researchers added.

Too few patients with hematologic cancers had received the second dose before the study ended for clear conclusions to be drawn. Nevertheless, the available data suggest that 50% of patients with hematologic cancers who had received the booster at day 21 were seropositive at 5 weeks vs. only 8% of those who had not received the booster.

“Our data provide the first real-world evidence of immune efficacy following one dose of the Pfizer vaccine in immunocompromised patient populations [and] clearly show that the poor one-dose efficacy in cancer patients can be rescued with an early booster at day 21,” commented senior author Sheeba Irshad, MD, senior clinical lecturer, King’s College London.

“Based on our findings, we would recommend an urgent review of the vaccine strategy for clinically extremely vulnerable groups. Until then, it is important that cancer patients continue to observe all public health measures in place, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination,” Dr. Irshad added.

The paper, with first author Leticia Monin-Aldama, PhD, is scheduled to appear on the preprint server medRxiv. It has not undergone peer review. The paper was distributed to journalists, with comments from experts not involved in the study, by the UK Science Media Centre.

These data are “of immediate importance” to patients with cancer, commented Shoba Amarnath, PhD, Newcastle University research fellow, Laboratory of T-cell Regulation, Newcastle University Center for Cancer, Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

“These findings are consistent with our understanding. … We know that the immune system within cancer patients is compromised as compared to healthy controls,” Dr. Amarnath said. “The data in the study support the notion that, in solid cancer patients, a considerable delay in second dose will extend the period when cancer patients are at risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

Although more data are required, “this study does raise the issue of whether patients with cancer, other diseases, or those undergoing therapies that affect the body’s immune response should be fast-tracked for their second vaccine dose,” commented Lawrence Young, PhD, professor of molecular oncology and director of the Warwick Cancer Research Center, University of Warwick, Coventry, England.

Stephen Evans, MSc, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, underlined that the study is “essentially” observational and “inevitable limitations must be taken into account.

“Nevertheless, these results do suggest that the vaccines may well not protect those patients with cancer as well as those without cancer,” Mr. Evans said. He added that it is “important that this population continues to observe all COVID-19–associated measures, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination.”

Study details

Previous studies have shown that some patients with cancer have prolonged responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection, with ongoing immune dysregulation, inefficient seroconversion, and prolonged viral shedding.

There are few data, however, on how these patients respond to COVID-19 vaccination. The authors point out that, among the 18,860 individuals who received the Pfizer vaccine during its development trials, “none with an active oncological diagnosis was included.”

To investigate this issue, they launched the SARS-CoV-2 for Cancer Patients (SOAP-02) study.

The 151 patients with cancer who participated in this study were mostly elderly, the authors noted (75% were older than 65 years; the median age was 73 years). The majority (63%) had solid-tumor malignancies. Of those, 8% had late-stage disease and had been living with their cancer for more than 24 months.

The healthy control persons were vaccine-eligible primary health care workers who were not age matched to the cancer patients.

All participants received the first dose of vaccine; 31 (of 151) patients with cancer and 16 (of 54) healthy control persons received the second dose on day 21.

The remaining participants were scheduled to receive their second dose 12 weeks later (after the study ended), in line with the changes in the national guidelines.

The team reported that, approximately 21 days after receiving the first vaccine dose, the immune efficacy of the vaccine was estimated to be 97% among healthy control persons vs. 39% for patients with solid tumors and only 13% for those with hematologic malignancies (P < .0001 for both).

T-cell responses, as assessed via interferon-gamma and/or interleukin-2 production, were observed in 82% of healthy control persons, 71% of patients with solid tumors, and 50% of those with hematologic cancers.

Vaccine boosting at day 21 resulted in immune efficacy of 100% for healthy control persons and 95% for patients with solid tumors. In contrast, only 43% of those who did not receive the second dose were seropositive 2 weeks later.

Further analysis suggested that participants who did not have a serologic response were “spread evenly” across different cancer types, but the reduced responses were more frequent among patients who had received the vaccine within 15 days of cancer treatment, especially chemotherapy, and had undergone intensive treatments.

The SOAP study is sponsored by King’s College London and Guy’s and St. Thomas Trust Foundation NHS Trust. It is funded from grants from the KCL Charity, Cancer Research UK, and program grants from Breast Cancer Now. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The first report on responses to COVID-19 vaccination among patients with cancer suggests that, for these patients, the immune response that occurs after the first dose of vaccine is reduced, in comparison with the response that occurs in healthy individuals.

The new findings, which are soon to be published as a preprint, cast doubt on the current U.K. policy of delaying the second dose of the vaccine.

Delaying the second dose can leave most patients with cancer wholly or partially unprotected, according to the researchers. Moreover, such a delay has implications for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the cancer patient’s environs as well as for the evolution of virus variants that could be of concern, the researchers concluded.

The data come from a British study that included 151 patients with cancer and 54 healthy control persons. All participants received the COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech).

This vaccine requires two doses. The first few participants in this study were given the second dose 21 days after they had received the first dose, but then national guidelines changed, and the remaining participants had to wait 12 weeks to receive their second dose.

The researchers reported that, among health controls, the immune efficacy of the first dose was very high (97% efficacious). By contrast, among patients with solid tumors, the immune efficacy of a single dose was strikingly low (39%), and it was even lower in patients with hematologic malignancies (13%).

The second dose of vaccine greatly and rapidly increased the immune efficacy in patients with solid tumors (95% within 2 weeks of receiving the second dose), the researchers added.

Too few patients with hematologic cancers had received the second dose before the study ended for clear conclusions to be drawn. Nevertheless, the available data suggest that 50% of patients with hematologic cancers who had received the booster at day 21 were seropositive at 5 weeks vs. only 8% of those who had not received the booster.

“Our data provide the first real-world evidence of immune efficacy following one dose of the Pfizer vaccine in immunocompromised patient populations [and] clearly show that the poor one-dose efficacy in cancer patients can be rescued with an early booster at day 21,” commented senior author Sheeba Irshad, MD, senior clinical lecturer, King’s College London.

“Based on our findings, we would recommend an urgent review of the vaccine strategy for clinically extremely vulnerable groups. Until then, it is important that cancer patients continue to observe all public health measures in place, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination,” Dr. Irshad added.

The paper, with first author Leticia Monin-Aldama, PhD, is scheduled to appear on the preprint server medRxiv. It has not undergone peer review. The paper was distributed to journalists, with comments from experts not involved in the study, by the UK Science Media Centre.

These data are “of immediate importance” to patients with cancer, commented Shoba Amarnath, PhD, Newcastle University research fellow, Laboratory of T-cell Regulation, Newcastle University Center for Cancer, Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

“These findings are consistent with our understanding. … We know that the immune system within cancer patients is compromised as compared to healthy controls,” Dr. Amarnath said. “The data in the study support the notion that, in solid cancer patients, a considerable delay in second dose will extend the period when cancer patients are at risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

Although more data are required, “this study does raise the issue of whether patients with cancer, other diseases, or those undergoing therapies that affect the body’s immune response should be fast-tracked for their second vaccine dose,” commented Lawrence Young, PhD, professor of molecular oncology and director of the Warwick Cancer Research Center, University of Warwick, Coventry, England.

Stephen Evans, MSc, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, underlined that the study is “essentially” observational and “inevitable limitations must be taken into account.

“Nevertheless, these results do suggest that the vaccines may well not protect those patients with cancer as well as those without cancer,” Mr. Evans said. He added that it is “important that this population continues to observe all COVID-19–associated measures, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination.”

Study details

Previous studies have shown that some patients with cancer have prolonged responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection, with ongoing immune dysregulation, inefficient seroconversion, and prolonged viral shedding.

There are few data, however, on how these patients respond to COVID-19 vaccination. The authors point out that, among the 18,860 individuals who received the Pfizer vaccine during its development trials, “none with an active oncological diagnosis was included.”

To investigate this issue, they launched the SARS-CoV-2 for Cancer Patients (SOAP-02) study.

The 151 patients with cancer who participated in this study were mostly elderly, the authors noted (75% were older than 65 years; the median age was 73 years). The majority (63%) had solid-tumor malignancies. Of those, 8% had late-stage disease and had been living with their cancer for more than 24 months.

The healthy control persons were vaccine-eligible primary health care workers who were not age matched to the cancer patients.

All participants received the first dose of vaccine; 31 (of 151) patients with cancer and 16 (of 54) healthy control persons received the second dose on day 21.

The remaining participants were scheduled to receive their second dose 12 weeks later (after the study ended), in line with the changes in the national guidelines.

The team reported that, approximately 21 days after receiving the first vaccine dose, the immune efficacy of the vaccine was estimated to be 97% among healthy control persons vs. 39% for patients with solid tumors and only 13% for those with hematologic malignancies (P < .0001 for both).

T-cell responses, as assessed via interferon-gamma and/or interleukin-2 production, were observed in 82% of healthy control persons, 71% of patients with solid tumors, and 50% of those with hematologic cancers.

Vaccine boosting at day 21 resulted in immune efficacy of 100% for healthy control persons and 95% for patients with solid tumors. In contrast, only 43% of those who did not receive the second dose were seropositive 2 weeks later.

Further analysis suggested that participants who did not have a serologic response were “spread evenly” across different cancer types, but the reduced responses were more frequent among patients who had received the vaccine within 15 days of cancer treatment, especially chemotherapy, and had undergone intensive treatments.

The SOAP study is sponsored by King’s College London and Guy’s and St. Thomas Trust Foundation NHS Trust. It is funded from grants from the KCL Charity, Cancer Research UK, and program grants from Breast Cancer Now. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Although the only pediatric indication for chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration is B-lineage acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) that is refractory to at least two frontline induction attempts or is in second or later relapse, clinical trials of CAR-T therapy for pediatric solid tumors are also currently in progress, said Gregory Yanik, MD, from the CS Mott Children’s Hospital at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, at the Transplant & Cellular Therapies Meetings.

In his presentation, Dr. Yanik discussed progress in solid tumor studies as well as some issues involving the current use of CAR-T therapy for ALL.

Solid tumor studies

Malignancies such as sarcomas, brain tumors, and neuroblastomas pose unique challenges, “In contrast to hematologic malignancies, the protein we’re targeting may not be present on the cell surface of all the tumor cells. There are lower-expression profiles, and this is a problem. In fact, many people have postulated that with CAR-T for pediatric solid tumors we’ll have to do repeated cycles, almost like we do with chemotherapy,” he said at the meeting held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

There are currently 14 studies of CAR-T for central nervous system tumors in children, targeting either epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) in glioblastoma multiforme and high-grade gliomas, HER2 in a variety of CNS tumors, the GD2 antigen on pontine gliomas, and the checkpoint molecular B7H3 in medulloblastomas and pontine gliomas.

“In sarcomas in kids there are currently 12 trials in progress. Most of the targeting epitopes are targeting either HER2 or GD2. Repetitive CAR-T infusions are being used in several of these trials in sarcomas.

For neuroblastomas there are currently 13 studies in progress, nearly all of which target GD2. Some of the trials include combining CAR-T with immune checkpoint inhibitors or C7R, an engineered cytokine driver designed to prevent T-cell exhaustion.

In addition, several trials of tumor pulsed dendritic cell vaccines are underway for treatment of children with Wilms tumor, Dr. Yanik noted.
 

Unresolved procedural questions

It’s still early days in CAR-T therapy, and there are several still unanswered questions regarding optimal therapy for and management of patients undergoing CAR-T procedures, Dr. Yanik said.

For example, the optimal time to collect T cells during apheresis is still unclear, he said. Collecting prior to reinduction therapy raises the risk of transducing leukemic cells, while collecting after reinduction may result in inadequate quantity or quality of cells. Regardless of when cells are collected, apheresis should be performed only when the absolute lymphocyte count is above 500/mcL or the CD3 count is above 150/mcL at the time of apheresis.

In the case tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah), his center typically collects 1x10⁹ CD3 cells regardless of age or weight.

The number of CAR T-cells infused also appears to matter, as responses are improved at CAR-T doses above 1.5x10⁶/kg, while risk for higher-grade cytokine release syndrome (CRS) occurs at higher infusion doses.
 

Blinatumomab or inotuzumab?

Along with CAR-T, two other agents, the bispecific T-cell engager blinatumomab (Blincyto) and the antibody conjugate inotuzumab ozogamicin (Besponsa) are also approved for the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell ALL.

Like CAR-T therapy, the primary toxicities associated with blinatumomab are CRS and neurologic adverse events, whereas at inotuzumab is largely associated with hematologic and hepatic toxicities.

The logistics of therapy differ widely, with a 28-day infusion required for blinatumomab, compared with weekly dosing of inotuzumab, and the multiple visits for apheresis and infusion required for CAR-T.

Blinatumomab is approved for both children and adults with relapsed/refractory ALL, but inotuzumab is approved only for adults, and CAR-T with tisagenlecleucel is approved only for children in this indication.
 

CD-19 expression

There is evidence to suggest that CD19 expression prior to CAR-T has an effect on outcomes, Dr. Yanik said.

“Does blinatumomab pre–CAR-T impact outcome? The answer is probably yes,” he said.

He referred to a study by investigators at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia showing that, “if you’re giving blinatumomab prior to CAR-T therapy, you’re potentially reducing the cell-surface expression of CD19 on your leukemic blasts, and now while you’re bringing these patients in for CAR-T therapy, you’re getting a much higher population of dim CD19 expressers, and this is associated with a higher relapse rate and lower remission rate.”
 

Predicting relapse

Dr. Yanik referred to a study, currently unpublished, which will show that next-generation sequencing (NGS) is more sensitive than flow cytometry for detection of minimal residual disease (MRD), and that MRD analysis of marrow was more sensitive than analysis of peripheral blood.

“Poor outcomes were seen post CAR-T for patients who were in morphologic remission on day 28 or day 100, but had positive MRD. This especially held true if it was next-gen sequencing MRD-positive at day 100, for which relapse rates were over 95%,” he said.

The absence of B-cells is a surrogate marker for the persistence of CAR-T, and conversely, the recovery of CD19-positive B cells may be a predictor for relapse, especially if the B-cell recovery occurs within the first 6 months following CAR-T infusion.
 

Transplant after CAR-T?

Bone marrow transplant after CAR-T is recommend for patients with high risk of relapse, including those with B-cell recovery within the first 6 months after CAR-T, patients with MRD positivity at days 28 or 100, and patients with mixed lineage leukemia.

“Should we transplant good-risk patients, meaning, if you have NGS-MRD negative patients, is there a role for transplant? You have to look at the risk versus benefit there. These patients may have a cure rate that’s in the 80%-plus range, could we potentially optimize that even more if we consolidate them with an allo[geneic] transplant,” Dr. Yank said.
 

Move CAR-T up front?

A Children’s Oncology Group study is currently examining whether giving CAR-T therapy to patients with MRD of 0.01% or greater following first consolidation could result in lower tumor burden, fewer relapse, and less CRS with CAR-T.

Dr. Yanik reported that he had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Although the only pediatric indication for chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration is B-lineage acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) that is refractory to at least two frontline induction attempts or is in second or later relapse, clinical trials of CAR-T therapy for pediatric solid tumors are also currently in progress, said Gregory Yanik, MD, from the CS Mott Children’s Hospital at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, at the Transplant & Cellular Therapies Meetings.

In his presentation, Dr. Yanik discussed progress in solid tumor studies as well as some issues involving the current use of CAR-T therapy for ALL.

Solid tumor studies

Malignancies such as sarcomas, brain tumors, and neuroblastomas pose unique challenges, “In contrast to hematologic malignancies, the protein we’re targeting may not be present on the cell surface of all the tumor cells. There are lower-expression profiles, and this is a problem. In fact, many people have postulated that with CAR-T for pediatric solid tumors we’ll have to do repeated cycles, almost like we do with chemotherapy,” he said at the meeting held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

There are currently 14 studies of CAR-T for central nervous system tumors in children, targeting either epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) in glioblastoma multiforme and high-grade gliomas, HER2 in a variety of CNS tumors, the GD2 antigen on pontine gliomas, and the checkpoint molecular B7H3 in medulloblastomas and pontine gliomas.

“In sarcomas in kids there are currently 12 trials in progress. Most of the targeting epitopes are targeting either HER2 or GD2. Repetitive CAR-T infusions are being used in several of these trials in sarcomas.

For neuroblastomas there are currently 13 studies in progress, nearly all of which target GD2. Some of the trials include combining CAR-T with immune checkpoint inhibitors or C7R, an engineered cytokine driver designed to prevent T-cell exhaustion.

In addition, several trials of tumor pulsed dendritic cell vaccines are underway for treatment of children with Wilms tumor, Dr. Yanik noted.
 

Unresolved procedural questions

It’s still early days in CAR-T therapy, and there are several still unanswered questions regarding optimal therapy for and management of patients undergoing CAR-T procedures, Dr. Yanik said.

For example, the optimal time to collect T cells during apheresis is still unclear, he said. Collecting prior to reinduction therapy raises the risk of transducing leukemic cells, while collecting after reinduction may result in inadequate quantity or quality of cells. Regardless of when cells are collected, apheresis should be performed only when the absolute lymphocyte count is above 500/mcL or the CD3 count is above 150/mcL at the time of apheresis.

In the case tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah), his center typically collects 1x10⁹ CD3 cells regardless of age or weight.

The number of CAR T-cells infused also appears to matter, as responses are improved at CAR-T doses above 1.5x10⁶/kg, while risk for higher-grade cytokine release syndrome (CRS) occurs at higher infusion doses.
 

Blinatumomab or inotuzumab?

Along with CAR-T, two other agents, the bispecific T-cell engager blinatumomab (Blincyto) and the antibody conjugate inotuzumab ozogamicin (Besponsa) are also approved for the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell ALL.

Like CAR-T therapy, the primary toxicities associated with blinatumomab are CRS and neurologic adverse events, whereas at inotuzumab is largely associated with hematologic and hepatic toxicities.

The logistics of therapy differ widely, with a 28-day infusion required for blinatumomab, compared with weekly dosing of inotuzumab, and the multiple visits for apheresis and infusion required for CAR-T.

Blinatumomab is approved for both children and adults with relapsed/refractory ALL, but inotuzumab is approved only for adults, and CAR-T with tisagenlecleucel is approved only for children in this indication.
 

CD-19 expression

There is evidence to suggest that CD19 expression prior to CAR-T has an effect on outcomes, Dr. Yanik said.

“Does blinatumomab pre–CAR-T impact outcome? The answer is probably yes,” he said.

He referred to a study by investigators at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia showing that, “if you’re giving blinatumomab prior to CAR-T therapy, you’re potentially reducing the cell-surface expression of CD19 on your leukemic blasts, and now while you’re bringing these patients in for CAR-T therapy, you’re getting a much higher population of dim CD19 expressers, and this is associated with a higher relapse rate and lower remission rate.”
 

Predicting relapse

Dr. Yanik referred to a study, currently unpublished, which will show that next-generation sequencing (NGS) is more sensitive than flow cytometry for detection of minimal residual disease (MRD), and that MRD analysis of marrow was more sensitive than analysis of peripheral blood.

“Poor outcomes were seen post CAR-T for patients who were in morphologic remission on day 28 or day 100, but had positive MRD. This especially held true if it was next-gen sequencing MRD-positive at day 100, for which relapse rates were over 95%,” he said.

The absence of B-cells is a surrogate marker for the persistence of CAR-T, and conversely, the recovery of CD19-positive B cells may be a predictor for relapse, especially if the B-cell recovery occurs within the first 6 months following CAR-T infusion.
 

Transplant after CAR-T?

Bone marrow transplant after CAR-T is recommend for patients with high risk of relapse, including those with B-cell recovery within the first 6 months after CAR-T, patients with MRD positivity at days 28 or 100, and patients with mixed lineage leukemia.

“Should we transplant good-risk patients, meaning, if you have NGS-MRD negative patients, is there a role for transplant? You have to look at the risk versus benefit there. These patients may have a cure rate that’s in the 80%-plus range, could we potentially optimize that even more if we consolidate them with an allo[geneic] transplant,” Dr. Yank said.
 

Move CAR-T up front?

A Children’s Oncology Group study is currently examining whether giving CAR-T therapy to patients with MRD of 0.01% or greater following first consolidation could result in lower tumor burden, fewer relapse, and less CRS with CAR-T.

Dr. Yanik reported that he had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Although the only pediatric indication for chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration is B-lineage acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) that is refractory to at least two frontline induction attempts or is in second or later relapse, clinical trials of CAR-T therapy for pediatric solid tumors are also currently in progress, said Gregory Yanik, MD, from the CS Mott Children’s Hospital at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, at the Transplant & Cellular Therapies Meetings.

In his presentation, Dr. Yanik discussed progress in solid tumor studies as well as some issues involving the current use of CAR-T therapy for ALL.

Solid tumor studies

Malignancies such as sarcomas, brain tumors, and neuroblastomas pose unique challenges, “In contrast to hematologic malignancies, the protein we’re targeting may not be present on the cell surface of all the tumor cells. There are lower-expression profiles, and this is a problem. In fact, many people have postulated that with CAR-T for pediatric solid tumors we’ll have to do repeated cycles, almost like we do with chemotherapy,” he said at the meeting held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

There are currently 14 studies of CAR-T for central nervous system tumors in children, targeting either epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) in glioblastoma multiforme and high-grade gliomas, HER2 in a variety of CNS tumors, the GD2 antigen on pontine gliomas, and the checkpoint molecular B7H3 in medulloblastomas and pontine gliomas.

“In sarcomas in kids there are currently 12 trials in progress. Most of the targeting epitopes are targeting either HER2 or GD2. Repetitive CAR-T infusions are being used in several of these trials in sarcomas.

For neuroblastomas there are currently 13 studies in progress, nearly all of which target GD2. Some of the trials include combining CAR-T with immune checkpoint inhibitors or C7R, an engineered cytokine driver designed to prevent T-cell exhaustion.

In addition, several trials of tumor pulsed dendritic cell vaccines are underway for treatment of children with Wilms tumor, Dr. Yanik noted.
 

Unresolved procedural questions

It’s still early days in CAR-T therapy, and there are several still unanswered questions regarding optimal therapy for and management of patients undergoing CAR-T procedures, Dr. Yanik said.

For example, the optimal time to collect T cells during apheresis is still unclear, he said. Collecting prior to reinduction therapy raises the risk of transducing leukemic cells, while collecting after reinduction may result in inadequate quantity or quality of cells. Regardless of when cells are collected, apheresis should be performed only when the absolute lymphocyte count is above 500/mcL or the CD3 count is above 150/mcL at the time of apheresis.

In the case tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah), his center typically collects 1x10⁹ CD3 cells regardless of age or weight.

The number of CAR T-cells infused also appears to matter, as responses are improved at CAR-T doses above 1.5x10⁶/kg, while risk for higher-grade cytokine release syndrome (CRS) occurs at higher infusion doses.
 

Blinatumomab or inotuzumab?

Along with CAR-T, two other agents, the bispecific T-cell engager blinatumomab (Blincyto) and the antibody conjugate inotuzumab ozogamicin (Besponsa) are also approved for the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell ALL.

Like CAR-T therapy, the primary toxicities associated with blinatumomab are CRS and neurologic adverse events, whereas at inotuzumab is largely associated with hematologic and hepatic toxicities.

The logistics of therapy differ widely, with a 28-day infusion required for blinatumomab, compared with weekly dosing of inotuzumab, and the multiple visits for apheresis and infusion required for CAR-T.

Blinatumomab is approved for both children and adults with relapsed/refractory ALL, but inotuzumab is approved only for adults, and CAR-T with tisagenlecleucel is approved only for children in this indication.
 

CD-19 expression

There is evidence to suggest that CD19 expression prior to CAR-T has an effect on outcomes, Dr. Yanik said.

“Does blinatumomab pre–CAR-T impact outcome? The answer is probably yes,” he said.

He referred to a study by investigators at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia showing that, “if you’re giving blinatumomab prior to CAR-T therapy, you’re potentially reducing the cell-surface expression of CD19 on your leukemic blasts, and now while you’re bringing these patients in for CAR-T therapy, you’re getting a much higher population of dim CD19 expressers, and this is associated with a higher relapse rate and lower remission rate.”
 

Predicting relapse

Dr. Yanik referred to a study, currently unpublished, which will show that next-generation sequencing (NGS) is more sensitive than flow cytometry for detection of minimal residual disease (MRD), and that MRD analysis of marrow was more sensitive than analysis of peripheral blood.

“Poor outcomes were seen post CAR-T for patients who were in morphologic remission on day 28 or day 100, but had positive MRD. This especially held true if it was next-gen sequencing MRD-positive at day 100, for which relapse rates were over 95%,” he said.

The absence of B-cells is a surrogate marker for the persistence of CAR-T, and conversely, the recovery of CD19-positive B cells may be a predictor for relapse, especially if the B-cell recovery occurs within the first 6 months following CAR-T infusion.
 

Transplant after CAR-T?

Bone marrow transplant after CAR-T is recommend for patients with high risk of relapse, including those with B-cell recovery within the first 6 months after CAR-T, patients with MRD positivity at days 28 or 100, and patients with mixed lineage leukemia.

“Should we transplant good-risk patients, meaning, if you have NGS-MRD negative patients, is there a role for transplant? You have to look at the risk versus benefit there. These patients may have a cure rate that’s in the 80%-plus range, could we potentially optimize that even more if we consolidate them with an allo[geneic] transplant,” Dr. Yank said.
 

Move CAR-T up front?

A Children’s Oncology Group study is currently examining whether giving CAR-T therapy to patients with MRD of 0.01% or greater following first consolidation could result in lower tumor burden, fewer relapse, and less CRS with CAR-T.

Dr. Yanik reported that he had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

A novel T-cell engineered product, Orca-T (Orca Bio), was associated with lower incidence of both acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) and more than double the rate of GVHD-free and relapse-free survival, compared with the current standard of care for patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCT), investigators said.

In both a multicenter phase 1 trial (NCT04013685) and single-center phase 1/2 trial (NCT01660607) with a total of 50 patients, those who received Orca-T with single-agent GVHD prophylaxis had a 1-year GVHD-free and relapse-free survival rate of 75%, compared with 31% for patients who received standard of care with two-agent prophylaxis, reported Everett H. Meyer, MD, PhD, from the Stanford (Calif.) University.

“Orca-T has good evidence for reduced acute graft-versus-host disease, reduced chromic graft-versus-host disease, and a low nonrelapse mortality,” he said at the Transplant & Cellular Therapies Meetings.

The product can be quickly manufactured and delivered to treatment centers across the continental United States, with “vein-to-vein” time of less than 72 hours, he said at the meeting held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

Orca-T consists of highly purified, donor-derived T-regulatory (Treg) cells that are sorted and delivered on day 0 with hematopoietic stem cells, without immunosuppressants, followed 2 days later with infusion of a matching dose of conventional T cells.

“The Treg cells are allowed to expand to create the right microenvironment for the [conventional T cells],” he explained.

In preclinical studies, donor-derived, high-purity Tregs delivered prior to adoptive transfer of conventional T cells prevented GVHD while maintaining graft-versus-tumor immunity, he said.
 

Two T-cell infusions

He reported updated results from current studies on a total of 50 adults, with a cohort of 144 patients treated concurrently with standard of care as controls.

The Orca-T–treated patients had a median age of 47 and 52% were male. Indications for transplant included acute myeloid and acute lymphoblastic leukemia, chronic myeloid leukemia, B-cell lymphoma, myelodysplastic syndrome/myelofibrosis, and other unspecified indications.

In both the Orca-T and control cohorts, patients underwent myeloablative conditioning from 10 to 2 days prior to stem cell infusion.

As noted patients in the experimental arm received infusion of hematopoietic stem/progenitor cells and Tregs, followed 2 days later by conventional T-cell infusion, and, on the day after that, tacrolimus at a target dose of 4.6 ng/mL. The conventional T cells were reserved from donor apheresis and were otherwise unmanipulated prior to infusion into the recipient, Dr. Meyer noted.

Patients in the standard-of-care arm received tacrolimus on the day before standard infusion of the apheresis product, followed by methotrexate prophylaxis on days 1, 3, 6 and 11.

Time to neutrophil engraftment, platelet engraftment, and from day 0 to hospital discharge were all significantly shorter in the Orca-T group, at 12 versus 14 days (P < .0001), 11 vs. 17 days (P < .0001), and 15 vs. 17 days (P = .01) respectively.

At 100 days of follow-up, the rate of grade 2 or greater acute GVHD was 30% among standard-of-care patients versus 10% among Orca-T–treated patients. At 1-year follow-up, respective rates of chronic GVHD were 46% vs. 3%.
 

Safety

“In general, the protocol is extremely well tolerated by our patients. We’ve seen no exceptional infectious disease complications, and we’ve seen no other major complications,” Dr. Meyer said.

Cytomegalovirus prophylaxis was used variably, depending on the center and on the attending physician. Epstein-Barr virus reactivation occurred in eight patients, with one requiring therapy, but there was no biopsy or radiographic evidence of posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder.

In all, 18% of patients had serious adverse events during the reporting period, all of which resolved. There were no treatment-related deaths in the Orca-T arm, compared with 11% of controls.
 

Engraftment differences explored

In the question-and-answer session following the presentation, Christopher J. Gamper, MD, PhD, from the Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, told Dr. Meyer that “your outcomes from Orca-T look excellent,” and asked about the cost differential, compared with similar, unmanipulated transplants performed with standard GVHD prophylaxis.

“Is this recovered by lower costs for treatment of GVHD?” he asked.

“I have not done an economic cost analysis of course, and I think others may be looking into this,” Dr. Meyer replied. “Graft engineering can be expensive, although it’s an engineering proposition and one could imagine that the costs will go down substantially over time.”

Session moderator Alan Hanash, MD, PhD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, commented on the differences in engraftment between the experimental controls arms, and asked Dr. Meyer: “Do you think this is due to the difference in prophylaxis? Absence of methotrexate? Do you think that it could be a direct impact of regulatory T cells on hematopoietic engraftment?”

“Certainly not having methotrexate is beneficial for engraftment, and may account for the differences we see, Dr. Meyer said. “However, it is possible that Tregs could be playing a facilitative role. There certainly is good preclinical literature that Tregs, particularly in the bone marrow space, can facilitate bone marrow engraftment.”

The Orca-T trials are sponsored by Orca Bio and Stanford, with support from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Meyer receives research support from Orca and is a scientific adviser to GigaGen, Triursus, Incyte, and Indee Labs. Dr. Hanash and Dr. Gamper had no relevant disclosures.

A novel T-cell engineered product, Orca-T (Orca Bio), was associated with lower incidence of both acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) and more than double the rate of GVHD-free and relapse-free survival, compared with the current standard of care for patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCT), investigators said.

In both a multicenter phase 1 trial (NCT04013685) and single-center phase 1/2 trial (NCT01660607) with a total of 50 patients, those who received Orca-T with single-agent GVHD prophylaxis had a 1-year GVHD-free and relapse-free survival rate of 75%, compared with 31% for patients who received standard of care with two-agent prophylaxis, reported Everett H. Meyer, MD, PhD, from the Stanford (Calif.) University.

“Orca-T has good evidence for reduced acute graft-versus-host disease, reduced chromic graft-versus-host disease, and a low nonrelapse mortality,” he said at the Transplant & Cellular Therapies Meetings.

The product can be quickly manufactured and delivered to treatment centers across the continental United States, with “vein-to-vein” time of less than 72 hours, he said at the meeting held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

Orca-T consists of highly purified, donor-derived T-regulatory (Treg) cells that are sorted and delivered on day 0 with hematopoietic stem cells, without immunosuppressants, followed 2 days later with infusion of a matching dose of conventional T cells.

“The Treg cells are allowed to expand to create the right microenvironment for the [conventional T cells],” he explained.

In preclinical studies, donor-derived, high-purity Tregs delivered prior to adoptive transfer of conventional T cells prevented GVHD while maintaining graft-versus-tumor immunity, he said.
 

Two T-cell infusions

He reported updated results from current studies on a total of 50 adults, with a cohort of 144 patients treated concurrently with standard of care as controls.

The Orca-T–treated patients had a median age of 47 and 52% were male. Indications for transplant included acute myeloid and acute lymphoblastic leukemia, chronic myeloid leukemia, B-cell lymphoma, myelodysplastic syndrome/myelofibrosis, and other unspecified indications.

In both the Orca-T and control cohorts, patients underwent myeloablative conditioning from 10 to 2 days prior to stem cell infusion.

As noted patients in the experimental arm received infusion of hematopoietic stem/progenitor cells and Tregs, followed 2 days later by conventional T-cell infusion, and, on the day after that, tacrolimus at a target dose of 4.6 ng/mL. The conventional T cells were reserved from donor apheresis and were otherwise unmanipulated prior to infusion into the recipient, Dr. Meyer noted.

Patients in the standard-of-care arm received tacrolimus on the day before standard infusion of the apheresis product, followed by methotrexate prophylaxis on days 1, 3, 6 and 11.

Time to neutrophil engraftment, platelet engraftment, and from day 0 to hospital discharge were all significantly shorter in the Orca-T group, at 12 versus 14 days (P < .0001), 11 vs. 17 days (P < .0001), and 15 vs. 17 days (P = .01) respectively.

At 100 days of follow-up, the rate of grade 2 or greater acute GVHD was 30% among standard-of-care patients versus 10% among Orca-T–treated patients. At 1-year follow-up, respective rates of chronic GVHD were 46% vs. 3%.
 

Safety

“In general, the protocol is extremely well tolerated by our patients. We’ve seen no exceptional infectious disease complications, and we’ve seen no other major complications,” Dr. Meyer said.

Cytomegalovirus prophylaxis was used variably, depending on the center and on the attending physician. Epstein-Barr virus reactivation occurred in eight patients, with one requiring therapy, but there was no biopsy or radiographic evidence of posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder.

In all, 18% of patients had serious adverse events during the reporting period, all of which resolved. There were no treatment-related deaths in the Orca-T arm, compared with 11% of controls.
 

Engraftment differences explored

In the question-and-answer session following the presentation, Christopher J. Gamper, MD, PhD, from the Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, told Dr. Meyer that “your outcomes from Orca-T look excellent,” and asked about the cost differential, compared with similar, unmanipulated transplants performed with standard GVHD prophylaxis.

“Is this recovered by lower costs for treatment of GVHD?” he asked.

“I have not done an economic cost analysis of course, and I think others may be looking into this,” Dr. Meyer replied. “Graft engineering can be expensive, although it’s an engineering proposition and one could imagine that the costs will go down substantially over time.”

Session moderator Alan Hanash, MD, PhD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, commented on the differences in engraftment between the experimental controls arms, and asked Dr. Meyer: “Do you think this is due to the difference in prophylaxis? Absence of methotrexate? Do you think that it could be a direct impact of regulatory T cells on hematopoietic engraftment?”

“Certainly not having methotrexate is beneficial for engraftment, and may account for the differences we see, Dr. Meyer said. “However, it is possible that Tregs could be playing a facilitative role. There certainly is good preclinical literature that Tregs, particularly in the bone marrow space, can facilitate bone marrow engraftment.”

The Orca-T trials are sponsored by Orca Bio and Stanford, with support from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Meyer receives research support from Orca and is a scientific adviser to GigaGen, Triursus, Incyte, and Indee Labs. Dr. Hanash and Dr. Gamper had no relevant disclosures.

A novel T-cell engineered product, Orca-T (Orca Bio), was associated with lower incidence of both acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) and more than double the rate of GVHD-free and relapse-free survival, compared with the current standard of care for patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCT), investigators said.

In both a multicenter phase 1 trial (NCT04013685) and single-center phase 1/2 trial (NCT01660607) with a total of 50 patients, those who received Orca-T with single-agent GVHD prophylaxis had a 1-year GVHD-free and relapse-free survival rate of 75%, compared with 31% for patients who received standard of care with two-agent prophylaxis, reported Everett H. Meyer, MD, PhD, from the Stanford (Calif.) University.

“Orca-T has good evidence for reduced acute graft-versus-host disease, reduced chromic graft-versus-host disease, and a low nonrelapse mortality,” he said at the Transplant & Cellular Therapies Meetings.

The product can be quickly manufactured and delivered to treatment centers across the continental United States, with “vein-to-vein” time of less than 72 hours, he said at the meeting held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

Orca-T consists of highly purified, donor-derived T-regulatory (Treg) cells that are sorted and delivered on day 0 with hematopoietic stem cells, without immunosuppressants, followed 2 days later with infusion of a matching dose of conventional T cells.

“The Treg cells are allowed to expand to create the right microenvironment for the [conventional T cells],” he explained.

In preclinical studies, donor-derived, high-purity Tregs delivered prior to adoptive transfer of conventional T cells prevented GVHD while maintaining graft-versus-tumor immunity, he said.
 

Two T-cell infusions

He reported updated results from current studies on a total of 50 adults, with a cohort of 144 patients treated concurrently with standard of care as controls.

The Orca-T–treated patients had a median age of 47 and 52% were male. Indications for transplant included acute myeloid and acute lymphoblastic leukemia, chronic myeloid leukemia, B-cell lymphoma, myelodysplastic syndrome/myelofibrosis, and other unspecified indications.

In both the Orca-T and control cohorts, patients underwent myeloablative conditioning from 10 to 2 days prior to stem cell infusion.

As noted patients in the experimental arm received infusion of hematopoietic stem/progenitor cells and Tregs, followed 2 days later by conventional T-cell infusion, and, on the day after that, tacrolimus at a target dose of 4.6 ng/mL. The conventional T cells were reserved from donor apheresis and were otherwise unmanipulated prior to infusion into the recipient, Dr. Meyer noted.

Patients in the standard-of-care arm received tacrolimus on the day before standard infusion of the apheresis product, followed by methotrexate prophylaxis on days 1, 3, 6 and 11.

Time to neutrophil engraftment, platelet engraftment, and from day 0 to hospital discharge were all significantly shorter in the Orca-T group, at 12 versus 14 days (P < .0001), 11 vs. 17 days (P < .0001), and 15 vs. 17 days (P = .01) respectively.

At 100 days of follow-up, the rate of grade 2 or greater acute GVHD was 30% among standard-of-care patients versus 10% among Orca-T–treated patients. At 1-year follow-up, respective rates of chronic GVHD were 46% vs. 3%.
 

Safety

“In general, the protocol is extremely well tolerated by our patients. We’ve seen no exceptional infectious disease complications, and we’ve seen no other major complications,” Dr. Meyer said.

Cytomegalovirus prophylaxis was used variably, depending on the center and on the attending physician. Epstein-Barr virus reactivation occurred in eight patients, with one requiring therapy, but there was no biopsy or radiographic evidence of posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder.

In all, 18% of patients had serious adverse events during the reporting period, all of which resolved. There were no treatment-related deaths in the Orca-T arm, compared with 11% of controls.
 

Engraftment differences explored

In the question-and-answer session following the presentation, Christopher J. Gamper, MD, PhD, from the Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, told Dr. Meyer that “your outcomes from Orca-T look excellent,” and asked about the cost differential, compared with similar, unmanipulated transplants performed with standard GVHD prophylaxis.

“Is this recovered by lower costs for treatment of GVHD?” he asked.

“I have not done an economic cost analysis of course, and I think others may be looking into this,” Dr. Meyer replied. “Graft engineering can be expensive, although it’s an engineering proposition and one could imagine that the costs will go down substantially over time.”

Session moderator Alan Hanash, MD, PhD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, commented on the differences in engraftment between the experimental controls arms, and asked Dr. Meyer: “Do you think this is due to the difference in prophylaxis? Absence of methotrexate? Do you think that it could be a direct impact of regulatory T cells on hematopoietic engraftment?”

“Certainly not having methotrexate is beneficial for engraftment, and may account for the differences we see, Dr. Meyer said. “However, it is possible that Tregs could be playing a facilitative role. There certainly is good preclinical literature that Tregs, particularly in the bone marrow space, can facilitate bone marrow engraftment.”

The Orca-T trials are sponsored by Orca Bio and Stanford, with support from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Meyer receives research support from Orca and is a scientific adviser to GigaGen, Triursus, Incyte, and Indee Labs. Dr. Hanash and Dr. Gamper had no relevant disclosures.

Steroids are usually the first choice of therapy for the treatment of patients with graft-vs.-host disease (GVHD), but complications from steroid use may carry a high financial cost, investigators caution.

Among 689 patients with a diagnosis of GVHD following a hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) who received steroids, 685 (97%) had at least one steroid-related complication, resulting in nearly $165,000 in mean health-care costs over 24 months, said Elizabeth J. Bell, PhD, MPH, an epidemiologist at Optum Inc.

“For both acute and chronic GVHD, the standard of care for first-line treatment is systemic steroids. The complications associated with steroid treatment are well known. However, the health-care resources utilized and the costs incurred by these patients are not well-quantified,” she said at the Transplantation & Cellular Therapies Meetings (Abstract 12).

Dr. Bell reported the results of a retrospective database analysis on costs associated with steroid complications in HSCT recipients at the meeting, which was held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

She and colleagues from Optum, Incyte, and the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis looked at data on 689 patients with a diagnosis of GVHD after HSCT who received systemic steroids from July 1, 2010, through Aug. 31, 2019. The data were extracted from the Optum Research database, and included U.S. commercial and Medicare Advantage patients.

They looked at total complications and steroid-associated complications in each of four categories: infections; metabolic or endocrine complications (for example, diabetes, dyslipidemia); gastrointestinal (GI) complications (e.g., peptic ulcer disease); and bone or muscle complications (myopathy, etc).

They estimated costs based on International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes for any steroid complications during the 24 months after steroid initiation, including those complications that may have been present at the time of GVHD diagnosis.

The median patient age was 55 years, and 60% of the sample were male. The mean Charlson Comorbidity Index score at baseline was 3.

Overall, 22% of patients had only acute GVHD, 21% had only chronic GVHD, and 39% had both acute and chronic disease. The GVHD type was unspecified in the remaining 18%.

The median time from GVHD diagnosis to initiating steroids was 30 days for patients with both acute and chronic disease, as well as those with both presentations. The median time to initiation was 36 days for patients with unspecified GVHD type.

The median cumulative duration of steroid use over 24 months was 62 days for patients with acute GVHD, 208 days for those with chronic GVHD, 166 days for those with both, and 74 days for patients with unspecified GVHD type.

As noted before, complications occurred in 97% of patients, with infections being the most common complications, occurring in 80% of patients, followed by metabolic/endocrine complications in 32%, gastrointestinal in 29%, and bone/muscle complications in 20%.

For the 665 patients who had any steroid-related complication, the mean costs of steroid-associated care in the 24 months after they were started on steroids was $164,787, and the median cost was $50,834.

Health care costs were highest among patients with infections, at a mean of $167,473, and a median of $57,680, followed by bone/muscle conditions ($75,289 and $2,057, respectively), GI conditions ($67,861 and $3,360), and metabolic or endocrine conditions ($47, 101 and $1,164).

In all categories, hospitalizations accounted for the large majority of costs.

Two-thirds (66%) of patients who experienced any steroid-related complication required hospitalization, primarily for infections.

Among all patients with complications, the median cumulative hospital stay over 24 months was 20 days, with bone/muscle complications and infections associated with a median of 19 and 18 days of hospitalization, respectively.

Dr. Bell acknowledged that the study was limited by use of ICD coding to identify steroid complication-related health-care utilization and costs, which can be imprecise, and by the fact that the analysis included only complications resulting in health care use as documented in medical claims. In addition, the investigators noted that they could not control for the possibility that steroids exacerbated conditions that existed at baseline.

“These findings emphasize the need to cautiously evaluate the treatment options for patients with GVHD. Future study with medical records is needed to provide insights on the clinical aspects of the complications (e.g., severity and suspected causality),” Dr. Bell and colleagues concluded in the study’s abstract.
 

Definitions questioned

An HSCT specialist approached for comment said that the findings of the study made sense, but she had questions regarding the study methodology.

“I would intuitively think that steroid-associated complications are a major cause of health care use in GVHD patients and it’s interesting to see that there is emerging data to support this hypothesis,” HSCT specialist Hélène Schoemans, MD of the University of Leuven, Belgium, said in an interview.

She noted, however, that “it is surprising that the period of steroid initiation was the same for acute and chronic GVHD,” and questioned whether that anomalous finding could be due to the study’s definition of acute and chronic GVHD or to how the period from baseline to steroid initiation was defined.

The questions about the definitions and timing of therapy make it uncertain as to whether the complications reported were caused by steroids or by some other factor, she suggested.

The study was supported by Optum Inc. Dr. Bell is an employee of the company, and a paid consultant of Incyte. Dr. Schoemans has received travel expenses from Celgene, Abbvie, and Incyte; is part of the advisory boards for Incyte; and has received speakers fees from Novartis, Incyte, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda.

Steroids are usually the first choice of therapy for the treatment of patients with graft-vs.-host disease (GVHD), but complications from steroid use may carry a high financial cost, investigators caution.

Among 689 patients with a diagnosis of GVHD following a hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) who received steroids, 685 (97%) had at least one steroid-related complication, resulting in nearly $165,000 in mean health-care costs over 24 months, said Elizabeth J. Bell, PhD, MPH, an epidemiologist at Optum Inc.

“For both acute and chronic GVHD, the standard of care for first-line treatment is systemic steroids. The complications associated with steroid treatment are well known. However, the health-care resources utilized and the costs incurred by these patients are not well-quantified,” she said at the Transplantation & Cellular Therapies Meetings (Abstract 12).

Dr. Bell reported the results of a retrospective database analysis on costs associated with steroid complications in HSCT recipients at the meeting, which was held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

She and colleagues from Optum, Incyte, and the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis looked at data on 689 patients with a diagnosis of GVHD after HSCT who received systemic steroids from July 1, 2010, through Aug. 31, 2019. The data were extracted from the Optum Research database, and included U.S. commercial and Medicare Advantage patients.

They looked at total complications and steroid-associated complications in each of four categories: infections; metabolic or endocrine complications (for example, diabetes, dyslipidemia); gastrointestinal (GI) complications (e.g., peptic ulcer disease); and bone or muscle complications (myopathy, etc).

They estimated costs based on International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes for any steroid complications during the 24 months after steroid initiation, including those complications that may have been present at the time of GVHD diagnosis.

The median patient age was 55 years, and 60% of the sample were male. The mean Charlson Comorbidity Index score at baseline was 3.

Overall, 22% of patients had only acute GVHD, 21% had only chronic GVHD, and 39% had both acute and chronic disease. The GVHD type was unspecified in the remaining 18%.

The median time from GVHD diagnosis to initiating steroids was 30 days for patients with both acute and chronic disease, as well as those with both presentations. The median time to initiation was 36 days for patients with unspecified GVHD type.

The median cumulative duration of steroid use over 24 months was 62 days for patients with acute GVHD, 208 days for those with chronic GVHD, 166 days for those with both, and 74 days for patients with unspecified GVHD type.

As noted before, complications occurred in 97% of patients, with infections being the most common complications, occurring in 80% of patients, followed by metabolic/endocrine complications in 32%, gastrointestinal in 29%, and bone/muscle complications in 20%.

For the 665 patients who had any steroid-related complication, the mean costs of steroid-associated care in the 24 months after they were started on steroids was $164,787, and the median cost was $50,834.

Health care costs were highest among patients with infections, at a mean of $167,473, and a median of $57,680, followed by bone/muscle conditions ($75,289 and $2,057, respectively), GI conditions ($67,861 and $3,360), and metabolic or endocrine conditions ($47, 101 and $1,164).

In all categories, hospitalizations accounted for the large majority of costs.

Two-thirds (66%) of patients who experienced any steroid-related complication required hospitalization, primarily for infections.

Among all patients with complications, the median cumulative hospital stay over 24 months was 20 days, with bone/muscle complications and infections associated with a median of 19 and 18 days of hospitalization, respectively.

Dr. Bell acknowledged that the study was limited by use of ICD coding to identify steroid complication-related health-care utilization and costs, which can be imprecise, and by the fact that the analysis included only complications resulting in health care use as documented in medical claims. In addition, the investigators noted that they could not control for the possibility that steroids exacerbated conditions that existed at baseline.

“These findings emphasize the need to cautiously evaluate the treatment options for patients with GVHD. Future study with medical records is needed to provide insights on the clinical aspects of the complications (e.g., severity and suspected causality),” Dr. Bell and colleagues concluded in the study’s abstract.
 

Definitions questioned

An HSCT specialist approached for comment said that the findings of the study made sense, but she had questions regarding the study methodology.

“I would intuitively think that steroid-associated complications are a major cause of health care use in GVHD patients and it’s interesting to see that there is emerging data to support this hypothesis,” HSCT specialist Hélène Schoemans, MD of the University of Leuven, Belgium, said in an interview.

She noted, however, that “it is surprising that the period of steroid initiation was the same for acute and chronic GVHD,” and questioned whether that anomalous finding could be due to the study’s definition of acute and chronic GVHD or to how the period from baseline to steroid initiation was defined.

The questions about the definitions and timing of therapy make it uncertain as to whether the complications reported were caused by steroids or by some other factor, she suggested.

The study was supported by Optum Inc. Dr. Bell is an employee of the company, and a paid consultant of Incyte. Dr. Schoemans has received travel expenses from Celgene, Abbvie, and Incyte; is part of the advisory boards for Incyte; and has received speakers fees from Novartis, Incyte, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda.

Steroids are usually the first choice of therapy for the treatment of patients with graft-vs.-host disease (GVHD), but complications from steroid use may carry a high financial cost, investigators caution.

Among 689 patients with a diagnosis of GVHD following a hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) who received steroids, 685 (97%) had at least one steroid-related complication, resulting in nearly $165,000 in mean health-care costs over 24 months, said Elizabeth J. Bell, PhD, MPH, an epidemiologist at Optum Inc.

“For both acute and chronic GVHD, the standard of care for first-line treatment is systemic steroids. The complications associated with steroid treatment are well known. However, the health-care resources utilized and the costs incurred by these patients are not well-quantified,” she said at the Transplantation & Cellular Therapies Meetings (Abstract 12).

Dr. Bell reported the results of a retrospective database analysis on costs associated with steroid complications in HSCT recipients at the meeting, which was held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

She and colleagues from Optum, Incyte, and the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis looked at data on 689 patients with a diagnosis of GVHD after HSCT who received systemic steroids from July 1, 2010, through Aug. 31, 2019. The data were extracted from the Optum Research database, and included U.S. commercial and Medicare Advantage patients.

They looked at total complications and steroid-associated complications in each of four categories: infections; metabolic or endocrine complications (for example, diabetes, dyslipidemia); gastrointestinal (GI) complications (e.g., peptic ulcer disease); and bone or muscle complications (myopathy, etc).

They estimated costs based on International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes for any steroid complications during the 24 months after steroid initiation, including those complications that may have been present at the time of GVHD diagnosis.

The median patient age was 55 years, and 60% of the sample were male. The mean Charlson Comorbidity Index score at baseline was 3.

Overall, 22% of patients had only acute GVHD, 21% had only chronic GVHD, and 39% had both acute and chronic disease. The GVHD type was unspecified in the remaining 18%.

The median time from GVHD diagnosis to initiating steroids was 30 days for patients with both acute and chronic disease, as well as those with both presentations. The median time to initiation was 36 days for patients with unspecified GVHD type.

The median cumulative duration of steroid use over 24 months was 62 days for patients with acute GVHD, 208 days for those with chronic GVHD, 166 days for those with both, and 74 days for patients with unspecified GVHD type.

As noted before, complications occurred in 97% of patients, with infections being the most common complications, occurring in 80% of patients, followed by metabolic/endocrine complications in 32%, gastrointestinal in 29%, and bone/muscle complications in 20%.

For the 665 patients who had any steroid-related complication, the mean costs of steroid-associated care in the 24 months after they were started on steroids was $164,787, and the median cost was $50,834.

Health care costs were highest among patients with infections, at a mean of $167,473, and a median of $57,680, followed by bone/muscle conditions ($75,289 and $2,057, respectively), GI conditions ($67,861 and $3,360), and metabolic or endocrine conditions ($47, 101 and $1,164).

In all categories, hospitalizations accounted for the large majority of costs.

Two-thirds (66%) of patients who experienced any steroid-related complication required hospitalization, primarily for infections.

Among all patients with complications, the median cumulative hospital stay over 24 months was 20 days, with bone/muscle complications and infections associated with a median of 19 and 18 days of hospitalization, respectively.

Dr. Bell acknowledged that the study was limited by use of ICD coding to identify steroid complication-related health-care utilization and costs, which can be imprecise, and by the fact that the analysis included only complications resulting in health care use as documented in medical claims. In addition, the investigators noted that they could not control for the possibility that steroids exacerbated conditions that existed at baseline.

“These findings emphasize the need to cautiously evaluate the treatment options for patients with GVHD. Future study with medical records is needed to provide insights on the clinical aspects of the complications (e.g., severity and suspected causality),” Dr. Bell and colleagues concluded in the study’s abstract.
 

Definitions questioned

An HSCT specialist approached for comment said that the findings of the study made sense, but she had questions regarding the study methodology.

“I would intuitively think that steroid-associated complications are a major cause of health care use in GVHD patients and it’s interesting to see that there is emerging data to support this hypothesis,” HSCT specialist Hélène Schoemans, MD of the University of Leuven, Belgium, said in an interview.

She noted, however, that “it is surprising that the period of steroid initiation was the same for acute and chronic GVHD,” and questioned whether that anomalous finding could be due to the study’s definition of acute and chronic GVHD or to how the period from baseline to steroid initiation was defined.

The questions about the definitions and timing of therapy make it uncertain as to whether the complications reported were caused by steroids or by some other factor, she suggested.

The study was supported by Optum Inc. Dr. Bell is an employee of the company, and a paid consultant of Incyte. Dr. Schoemans has received travel expenses from Celgene, Abbvie, and Incyte; is part of the advisory boards for Incyte; and has received speakers fees from Novartis, Incyte, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda.