Five-Year Outcomes of the “Abatacept Combined with a Calcineurin Inhibitor and Methotrexate for Graft Versus Host Disease (GVHD) Prophylaxis: A Randomized Controlled Trial” (‘ABA2‘)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: GVHD remains a major cause of non-relapse mortality (NRM) after hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT). Abatacept, a costimulatory blockade agent targeting the CD28:CD80/86 pathway, was FDA-approved in 2021 for GVHD prophylaxis in patients undergoing an 8/8 HLA-matched unrelated donor (MUD), or 7/8-HLA mismatched unrelated donor (MMUD) HCT for a hematologic malignancy, in part based on the ABA2 trial (NCT01743131). Here, we present 5-yr follow-up data for ABA2. Methods: ABA2 patient eligibility criteria (described in detail in PMID: 33449816) included patients ≥ 6 yr with heme malignancies undergoing MUD or MMUD HCT after intensive conditioning. MUD patients were enrolled on the randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled arm, with patients randomized to either 4 doses of abatacept (10mg/kg/dose on Day -1, +5, +14 +28) or placebo. MMUD patients all received 4 doses of abatacept. 185 patients were enrolled: 69 MUD-placebo, 73 MUD-abatacept, 43 MMUD-abatacept. GVHD prophylaxis also included a calcineurin inhibitor (CNI, continued through Day +100 followed by a wean) and methotrexate (MTX, 15mg/m2 on day +1 and 10mg/m2 on Day +3, +6, +11). Both bone marrow and PBSC grafts were used. All patient data were independently monitored through 5 yr by the NMDP CRO. Here we report cumulative incidence (CI) data at 2-, 3- and 5-yr for overall survival (OS), relapse, relapse-free survival (RFS), non-relapse mortality (NRM), systemic therapy (ST)-requiring chronic GVHD (cGVHD), and grade 3-4 acute GVHD (aGVHD)-free/ST-requiring cGVHD-free/relapse-free survival (GRFS). Results: The median follow-up was 53.8 months, 56.1 months and 60 months for the MUD-placebo, MUD-abatacept, and MMUD-abatacept cohorts, respectively. The 2-, 3- and 5-yr OS was 65.2%, 62.3% and 54.3% for MUD-placebo, 75.2%, 68.0% and 61.0% for MUD-abatacept, and 78.8%, 74.0% and 71.7% for MMUD-abatacept cohorts, respectively. The 2-, 3- and 5-yr CI of relapse was 25.7%, 27.5% and 27.5% for MUD-placebo, 21.7%, 25.0% and 25.0% for MUD-abatacept, and 9.7%, 9.7% and 12.6% for MMUD-abatacept cohorts, respectively. The 2-, 3- and 5-yr CI of NRM was 18.1%, 20.0%, 28.7% for MUD-placebo, 14.4%, 18.1% and 22.5% for MUD-abatacept, and 15.0%, 20.2% and 20.2% for MMUD-abatacept cohorts, respectively. The 2-, 3- and 5-yr CI of RFS was 60.9%, 58.0% and 51.7% for MUD-placebo, 67.0%, 61.4% and 58.1% for MUD-abatacept, and 76.7%, 72.1% and 69.8% for MMUD-abatacept cohorts, respectively. The 1-yr CI of grade 3-4 acute GVHD was 14.8% for MUD-placebo, 8.4% for MUD-abatacept, and 2.3% for MMUD-abatacept cohorts, respectively. The 2-, 3- and 5-yr CI of ST-requiring chronic GVHD was 49.6%, 52.0% and 52.0% for MUD-placebo, 54.1%, 58.5% and 58.5% for MUD-abatacept, and 72.5%, 75.2% and 78.0% for MMUD-abatacept cohorts, respectively. The 2-, 3- and 5-yr cumulative incidence of GRFS was 27.5%, 26.1%, and 26.1% for MUD-placebo, 27.4%, 21.9% and 21.9% for MUD-abatacept, and 23.3%, 20.9% and 16.3% for MMUD-abatacept cohorts, respectively. Conclusions: Here we demonstrate that the central outcomes previously reported for ABA2 at 2 yr post-HCT (PMID: 33449816) were durable at 3- and 5-yr, with relatively stable OS, relapse, NRM, cGVHD and RFS. These data are important given new CIBMTR comparisons demonstrating that, for both MUD and MMUD recipients at 2 yr, abatacept/CNI/MTX is superior for OS and RFS compared to both CNI/MTX and CNI/MTX/ATG, and is similar to post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PT-Cy, Blood 2024, PMID:39028876). Moreover, the 3-yr outcome data for MMUD patients presented here for ABA2 also appear similar to the recently reported 3-yr outcomes for myeloablative conditioning (MAC) and PT-Cy for the MMUD-15 trial (PMID: 36584941, 5-yr outcomes not yet reported for MMUD-15). Most notable is the fact that despite increased cGVHD in ABA2 compared to MMUD-15, the GRFS is similar in both trials (20.9% GRFS at 3 yr for ABA2 versus 16.9% for PT-Cy after MAC HCT). These similar composite endpoints may be driven by lower apparent relapse rates in ABA2 (9.7% at 3-yr for ABA2 and 50.5% at 3-yr for MAC PT-Cy in MMUD-15). Together, these data lead to two key conclusions: (1) That the addition of abatacept continues to abrogate historic disparities in OS and RFS for HLA-mismatched vs HLA-matched HCT (extending our previous comparison (PMID:34753172) to 5-yrs post-HCT). (2) That a head-to-head randomized trial of abatacept- versus PT-Cy-based prophylaxis is warranted.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".