MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4310089851 · doi:10.1182/blood-2022-164874

Real-World Experience with Ruxolitinib Therapy for Steroid Refractory Acute Graft Versus Host Disease

2022· article· en· W4310089851 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Alistair Murray, Swe Mar Linn, Benoit Yu, Igor Novitzky‐Basso, Jonas Mattsson, Mohamed Elemary, Jennifer White, Christopher Lemieux, Kareem Jamani, Dennis Kim

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2022
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueHematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
Établissements canadiensBC Cancer AgencyUniversité LavalPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Calgary
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésRuxolitinibMedicineDiscontinuationInternal medicinePopulationRetrospective cohort studySalvage therapyClinical trialHematopoietic stem cell transplantationTransplantationMyelofibrosisBone marrowChemotherapy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

AM and SML contributed equally as co-first authors. KJ and DK contributed equally as co-senior authors. Background Acute graft versus host disease (aGVHD) is a common complication of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (alloHCT) and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Steroid refractory aGVHD (SR-aGVHD) carries a particularly grim prognosis. Ruxolitinib has shown promise for treatment of SR-aGVHD in phase 2 and 3 trials; however, safety and efficacy data outside of the clinical trial setting is lacking. We performed a multicenter retrospective study to examine the response to ruxolitinib and its efficacy in patients with SR-aGVHD in a Canadian population. Methods and Patients This multicenter retrospective study includes patients that underwent alloHCT between 2015 and 2021, across five Canadian transplant centers in Calgary, Toronto, Vancouver, Quebec City, and Saskatoon. Patients were included in the study if they developed at least overall grade 2 aGVHD, met the criteria of SR-aGVHD, and were started on ruxolitinib for SR-aGVHD. Data was recorded on standardized forms by independent reviewers across the five sites. Survival outcomes were calculated by Kaplan-Meier. Treatment failure was defined as 1) treatment switch due to no response/no benefit, 2) non-relapse mortality (NRM), 3) relapse of primary disease, or 4) intolerance leading to discontinuation. Failure-free survival (FFS) was calculated from ruxolitinib start until the event of treatment failure or latest follow-up, while overall survival (OS) was calculated from the day of starting ruxolitinib therapy until death or latest follow-up. Results We reviewed 59 patients treated with ruxolitinib for SR-aGVHD. The median age at time of ruxolitinib therapy was 53 (range 21-70) years, and 54.2% of patients were male. The most common indication for alloHCT was acute leukemia (48.2%), followed by myeloproliferative disorder/myelodysplastic syndrome (28.8%), lymphoma/chronic lymphocytic leukemia (18.6%), and others (5.1%). Approximately half of patients were treated with myeloablative conditioning (50.8%). Donor type included matched unrelated (44.1%), matched related (23.7%), mismatched unrelated (15.3%), haploidentical (15.3%) and cord blood (1.7%). The median onset of aGVHD was 65 days post alloHCT (range 15-265). Prior to initiation of ruxolitinib, most patients had overall grade 3 aGVHD (57.6%) and 16.9% had overall grade 4 disease. Patients had a median Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) of 80% (range 30-100%) prior to ruxolitinib initiation. A total of 36 patients (61.0%) obtained a complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) at 28 days. At day 56, 31 patients (52.5%) obtained a CR or PR. Patients that achieved a CR or PR at day 28 had a higher survival rate (69.2%), compared with patients that did not (31.6%) (p=0.037). In terms of long-term outcomes, with a median follow-up of 391 days, OS at 12 months was 41.5% (95% CI, 27.6-54.8%), with a median OS duration of 5.3 months (Figure A). The 12 months' FFS rate was 29.1% (95% CI, 16.1-43.3%), with a median FFS of 2.6 months (Figure A). Reasons for failure included NRM (39.0%), need for therapy switch (18.6%), relapse of primary disease (5.1%), and intolerance (3.4%; Figure B). Within 12 months after starting ruxolitinib, 14.8% of surviving patients were able to successfully taper off without flare of their aGVHD. By 24 months, 23.6% of surviving patients were able to taper off glucocorticoids (Figure 1A). Glucocorticoid dose decreased over time with a mean daily prednisone dose 1.486±0.072 mg/kg at day 0 of ruxolitinib, compared to 0.152±0.038 mg/kg after 6 months (p<0.001). Nineteen patients (32.2%) had an initial ruxolitinib dose of 10 mg twice daily (BID) while 37 (66.1%) were started on 5 mg BID, then escalated to 10mg BID within 3-7 days per the REACH1 study. There was no significant difference in OS observed between patients started on 10 mg BID compared to 5 mg BID. Conclusions In this Canadian real-world experience-based study, we observed similar response rate and FFS rate that was found in the REACH2 trial for SR-aGVHD treated with ruxolitinib. We also observed that NRM was the primary reason for treatment failure, and saw that ruxolitinib therapy for SR-aGVHD enabled successful tapering of prednisone. Overall, these data support clinical trial evidence for ruxolitinib as useful therapeutic option for SR-aGVHD. Figure 1View largeDownload PPTFigure 1View largeDownload PPT Close modal

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,074
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,147

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,029
Tête enseignante GPT0,307
Écart entre enseignants0,278 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations3
Publié2022
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetHematopoietic Stem Cell TransplantationTravaux en français237 207