Addition of anti-thymocyte globulin to standard graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis versus standard treatment alone in patients with haematological malignancies undergoing transplantation from unrelated donors: final analysis of a randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous trials testing prevention strategies for chronic graft versus host disease (GVHD) have measured its cumulative incidence. In this trial of anti-thymocyte globulin, we measured treatment-independence at a long-term timepoint as the primary endpoint. METHODS: This was a randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial done at ten centres in Canada and one in Australia. Eligible patients had a haematological malignancy (leukaemia, myelodysplastic syndrome, or lymphoma), were between 16 and 70 years of age, eligible for transplantation with a Karnofsky score of at least 60, and received an unrelated donor (fully matched or one-locus mismatched at HLA-A, HLA-B, HLA-C, or DRB1 loci) graft following myeloablative or non-myeloablative-reduced intensity conditioning. Patients were randomly assigned to receive anti-thymocyte globulin 4·5 mg/kg plus standard GVHD prophylaxis (cyclosporine or tacrolimus plus methotrexate or mycophenolate) or standard GVHD prophylaxis alone. The primary endpoint, freedom from immunosuppressive therapy without resumption at 12 months, was previously reported. Here we report on the prespecified 24-month analysis. Analyses were per-protocol, excluding those patients who did not proceed to transplantation. This trial is registered as ISRCTN 29899028 and NCT01217723, status completed. FINDINGS: Between June 9, 2010, and July 8, 2013, we recruited and randomly assigned 203 eligible patients to receive anti-thymocyte globulin (n=101) or no additional treatment (n=102) along with standard GVHD prophylaxis. 7 (3%) patients did not receive a transplant and were excluded from the analysis. 38 (38%) of 99 evaluable patients in the anti-thymocyte globulin plus GVHD prophylaxis group were free from immunosuppressive therapy at 24 months compared with 18 (19%) of 97 patients in the standard GVHD prophylaxis group (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3·49 [95% CI 1·60­7·60]; p=0·0016). At 24 months, the cumulative incidence of relapse was 16·3% (95% CI 8·9­23·7) in the anti-thymocyte globulin plus GVHD prophylaxis group compared with 17·5 (9·9­25·1) in the standard GVHD prophylaxis group (p=0·73) and non-relapse mortality was 21·2% (95% CI 13·2­29·2) versus 31·3% (21·9­40·7; p=0·15). The cumulative incidence of chronic GVHD at 24 months was 26·3% (95% CI 17·5­35·1) in the anti-thymocyte globulin group and 41·3% (31·3­51·3) in the standard GVHD prophylaxis group (p=0·032). Overall survival at 24 months was 70·6% (95% CI 60·6­78·6) in the anti-thymocyte globulin plus GVHD prophylaxis group compared with 53·3% (42·8­62·8) in the standard GVHD prophylaxis group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·56, 95% CI [0·35­0·90]; p=0·017). Symptoms of chronic GVHD by the Lee Scale were more prevalent in the standard GVHD prophylaxis group, with scores of 13·27 (SD 10·94) in the anti-thymocyte globulin plus GVHD prophylaxis group and 20·38 (SD 14·68) in the standard GVHD prophylaxis group (p=0·040). Depressive symptoms were more prominent in the standard GVHD prophylaxis group, the mean Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression scale (CES-D) scores were 10·40 (SD 9·88) in the anti-thymocyte globulin group and 14·62 (SD 12·26) in the standard GVHD prophylaxis group (p=0·034). Serious adverse events (CTCAE grade 4 or 5) occurred in 38 (38%) patients in the anti-thymocyte globulin group and in 49 (51%) in the standard GVHD prophylaxis group, the most common being infection and GVHD. One patient in the anti-thymocyte globulin plus GVHD prophylaxis group died of Epstein-Barr virus hepatitis, but no deaths were attributable to anti-thymocyte globulin. INTERPRETATION: The results of this prespecified 24-month analysis suggest that pretreatment with anti-thymocyte globulin provides clinically meaningful benefits when added to standard GVHD prophylaxis in patients undergoing unrelated donor transplantation, including decreases in use of immunosuppressive therapy, chronic GVHD and its symptoms, depressive symptoms, and improved overall survival. Anti-thymocyte globulin should be included in the preparative regimens of patients with haematological malignancies selected for unrelated donor transplantation. FUNDING: Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Sanofi.

Filgrastim-Stimulated Bone Marrow Compared with Filgrastim-Mobilized Peripheral Blood in Myeloablative Sibling Allografting for Patients with Hematologic Malignancies: A Randomized Canadian Blood and Marrow Transplant Group Study.

In adult hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT), filgrastim-mobilized peripheral blood (G-PB) has largely replaced unstimulated marrow for allografting. Although the use of G-PB results in faster hematopoietic recovery, it is also associated with more chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD). A potential alternative allograft is filgrastim-stimulated marrow (G-BM), which we hypothesized may be associated with prompt hematopoietic recovery but with less cGVHD. We conducted a phase 3, open-label, multicenter randomized trial of 230 adults with hematologic malignancies receiving allografts from siblings after myeloablative conditioning to compare G-PB with G-BM. The primary endpoint was time to treatment failure, defined as a composite of extensive cGVHD, relapse/disease progression, and death. With a median follow-up of 36 months (range, 9.6 to 48), comparing G-BM with G-PB, there was no difference between the 2 arms with respect to the primary outcome of this study (hazard ratio [HR], .91; 95% confidence interval [CI], .68 to 1.22; P = .52). However, the cumulative incidence of overall cGVHD was lower with G-BM (HR, .66; 95% CI, .46 to .95; P = .007) and there was no difference in the risk of relapse or progression (P = .35). The median times to neutrophil recovery (P = .0004) and platelet recovery (P = .012) were 3 days shorter for recipients allocated to G-PB compared with those allocated to G-BM, but there were no differences in secondary engraftment-related outcomes, such as time to first hospital discharge (P = .17). In addition, there were no graft failures in either arm. This trial demonstrates that, compared with G-PB, the use of G-BM allografts leads to a significantly lower rate of overall cGVHD without a loss of the graft-versus-tumor effect and comparable overall survival. Our findings suggest that further study of this type of allograft is warranted.

Pretreatment with anti-thymocyte globulin versus no anti-thymocyte globulin in patients with haematological malignancies undergoing haemopoietic cell transplantation from unrelated donors: a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3, multicentre trial.

BACKGROUND: Pretreatment with anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG) decreases the occurrence of chronic graft-versus-host disease (CGVHD) after haemopoietic cell transplantation from an unrelated donor, but evidence of patient benefit is absent. We did a study to test whether ATG provides patient benefit, particularly in reducing the need for long-term immunosuppressive treatment after transplantation. METHODS: We did a phase 3, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial at ten transplant centres in Canada and one in Australia. Eligible patients were aged 16 to 70 years with any haematological malignancy and a Karnofsky score of at least 60 receiving either myeloablative or non-myeloablative (or reduced intensity) conditioning preparative regimens before haemopoietic cell transplantation from an unrelated donor. We allocated patients first by simple randomisation (1:1), then by a minimisation method, to either pretransplantation rabbit ATG plus standard GVHD prophylaxis (ATG group) or standard GVHD prophylaxis alone (no ATG group). We gave a total dose of ATG of 4·5 mg/kg intravenously over 3 days (0·5 mg/kg 2 days before transplantation, 2·0 mg/kg 1 day before, and 2·0 mg/kg 1 day after). The primary endpoint was freedom from all systemic immunosuppressive drugs without resumption up to 12 months after transplantation. Analysis was based on a modified intention-to-treat method. This trial was registered at ISRCTN, number 29899028. FINDINGS: Between June 9, 2010, and July 8, 2013, we recruited and assigned 203 eligible patients to treatment (101 to ATG and 102 to no ATG). 37 (37%) of 99 patients who received ATG were free from immunosuppressive treatment at 12 months compared with 16 (16%) of 97 who received no ATG (adjusted odds ratio 4·25 [95% CI 1·87-9·67]; p=0·00060. The occurrence of serious adverse events (Common Terminology Criteria grades 4 or 5) did not differ between the treatment groups (34 [34%] of 99 patients in the ATG group vs 41 [42%] of 97 in the no ATG group). Epstein-Barr virus reactivation was substantially more common in patients who received ATG (20 [one of whom died-the only death due to an adverse event]) versus those who did not receive ATG (two [no deaths]). No deaths were attributable to ATG. INTERPRETATION: ATG should be added to myeloblative and non-myeloblative preparative regimens for haemopoietic cell transplantation when using unrelated donors. The benefits of decreases in steroid use are clinically significant. Epstein-Barr virus reactivation is increased, but is manageable by prospective monitoring and the use of rituximab. Future trials could determine whether the doses of ATG used in this trial are optimum, and could also provide additional evidence of a low relapse rate after non-myeloablative regimens. FUNDING: The Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Sanofi.

Melanocyte-keratinocyte transplantation procedure in the treatment of vitiligo: the experience of an academic medical center in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Vitiligo is a disfiguring disease with limited treatment options. Surgical treatment is underused in the United States because of perceived risk of infection, costs, and difficulty of the procedure. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the efficacy and safety of the melanocyte-keratinocyte transplantation procedure (MKTP) in an academic dermatology department in the United States. METHODS: This prospective, uncontrolled, open-label study enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with a self-reported history of vitiligo and no new or expanding lesions for at least 6 months before surgery. Patients with a history of koebnerization or keloid formation were excluded. Patients underwent autologous MKTP. Repigmentation during a 3- to 6-month follow-up period was assessed categorically and by modified Vitiligo Area Scoring Index. Safety was assessed by frequency of adverse events. RESULTS: Of the 28 patients who underwent 36 procedures, 23 patients who underwent 29 procedures completed the 3- to 6-month follow-up period. Data for these 29 procedures show excellent repigmentation (ie, 95%-100%) after the MKTP in 17%, and good repigmentation (ie, 65%-94%) in 31%. Fair (64%-25%) and poor (24%-0%) repigmentation were achieved in 10% and 41% of patients, respectively. Average percent change in Vitiligo Area Scoring Index was -45% (95% confidence interval -64% to -26%), signifying an improvement in pigmentation. LIMITATIONS: Limitations include small sample size and lack of a control group. CONCLUSIONS: The MKTP is an effective and well-tolerated procedure based upon categorical and Vitiligo Area Scoring Index assessments of repigmentation.

Cutaneous toxicities of the multikinase inhibitors sorafenib and sunitinib.

Multikinase inhibitors have become first-line agents for treatment of multiple systemic cancers. These agents are very effective but can also cause a variety of toxicities affecting the skin, hair, and nails. One of the most common reactions is the hand-foot skin reaction, distinct from hand-foot syndrome caused by more traditional chemotherapy agents. All of these cutaneous reactions can negatively affect patients' quality of life and can lead to dose modifications and treatment interruptions. This article reviews the cutaneous toxicities from sorafenib and sunitinib with emphasis on treatment strategies.

UVA1 phototherapy for cutaneous diseases: an experience of 92 cases in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of UVA1 (340-400 nm) phototherapy were established by studies from European countries. PURPOSE: Evaluate experience with UVA1 phototherapy for patients with cutaneous diseases in the United States. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 92 cases of UVA1-treated cutaneous conditions from four medical centers in the United States was performed. RESULTS: Two-third of the patients showed a fair to good response (26-100% improvement) and one-third of the patients showed a poor response (0-25% improvement). Diseases with a moderate to good response (51-100% improvement) included scleredema adultorum, hand or foot dermatitis, atopic dermatitis, morphea (medium or medium- to high-dose UVA1), systemic sclerosis, and urticaria pigmentosa. Besides tanning, other adverse effects were found in 15% of patients, which include pruritus, erythema, tenderness, and burning sensation. Patients with skin types I-III responded better that those with a darker skin type. CONCLUSION: UVA1 phototherapy is a useful and well-tolerated treatment option for a variety of skin conditions.