TBD Meeting (5328-20)

ORLANDO – A second hematopoietic stem cell transplant can be a successful salvage therapy for a child who has experienced a relapse following a first allogeneic transplant, investigators report.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

A retrospective study of 221 children who experienced a relapse after a first hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) showed that 3-year overall survival (OS) was six times higher among those who had second HSCT, compared with those who did not, reported Akshay Sharma, MBBS, from St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis.

“We found that factors that are typically associated with poor outcomes after transplant such as disease status at the time of first transplantation – being in remission or not, type of transplant – myeloablative or reduced intensity, and choice of donor were generally not significantly predictive of outcomes following posttransplant relapse in our multivariable model,” he said at the Transplantation and Cellular Therapy Meetings.

Relapse is the most common cause of death after HSCT, and 20%-30% of children who undergo allogeneic HSCT will experience a relapse.

To study this issue, Dr. Sharma and colleagues took a retrospective look at 703 patients 21 and younger who received a first alloHSCT at St. Jude’s for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndrome from 1990 through 2018. Of this cohort, 211 patients (31%) experienced a relapse after transplant.

There were no significant differences between patients who had a relapse and those who did not in sex, race, conditioning-regimen intensity, performance status, donor type, or graft type (peripheral blood stem cell, umbilical cord blood, bone marrow), or in the incidence of acute graft-versus-host disease GVHD.

The investigators found that, as expected, outcomes were poor for patients who experienced a posttransplant relapse, with 3-year overall survival from relapse for the 221 patients of just 10%.

In multivariable analysis controlling for sex, disease status at the time of first transplant, interval from first transplant to relapse, management after relapse, chronic GVHD and year of relapse, factors significantly associated with worse overall survival were relapse within 6 months of transplant vs. later than 6 months (hazard ratio, 4.6; P < .001) and decade of transplant (HR, 2.6 for 1990-2000 and 1.6 for 2001-2010 vs. 2011-2018; P < .001).

In contrast, both second HSCT and donor lymphocyte infusion were associated with better overall survival, compared with postrelapse chemotherapy or supportive care (HR, 0.04 and 0.6, respectively; P < .001 for both comparisons).

A longer interval from first transplant to relapse was the strongest predictor of long-term survival, Dr. Sharma said at the meeting held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

Among the 221 patients who had a relapse, 61 (28%) had a second HSCT, 28 (13%) received only donor lymphocyte infusions, without second transplant, and 132 (62%) received either chemotherapy or supportive care.

The 3-year overall survival rate for patients who received a second transplant was 28%, compared with 4% for those who did not have a repeat HSCT. The most important independent predictors for getting a second transplant were longer time to relapse after first transplant, first transplantation from a matched sibling donor instead of from a haploidentical donor, some degree of acute GVHD, and decade of first transplant (current decade vs. earlier decades).

The investigators also looked at guideline recommendations from both the American Society of Hematology and UK National Health Service regarding second allogenenic transplant after relapse.

ASH guidelines say that “patients with chemo-sensitive disease in remission who had a long initial remission (> 6-12 months) after first transplant and who never developed any GVHD” are most likely to benefit from a second transplant.

NHS guidelines say that a second transplant can be considered for patients who experience relapse more than 12 months after first alloHSCT. But as Dr. Sharma and colleagues discovered, patients who had a second transplant had better overall survival regardless of time from first to second transplant, compared with patients who had later relapses but no second transplant.

“With these data in mind, we submit that these ASH and NHS guidelines, which are based on older data from the 1900s and 2000 and are mostly based on adult data and do not include much pediatric data should be reconsidered, at least in the context of pediatric patients as we approach them,” he said.

Jaap-Jan Boelens, MD, PhD, a pediatric transplant specialist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, who was not involved in the study, said that the use of second transplant as salvage therapy is becoming more common at his center.

“But there is a little nuance,” he said in an interview. “If someone relapses a month after transplant, let’s say, it doesn’t make sense to go for another allo transplant. But if the interval between transplant is longer, more than half a year, we usually consider going for a second allo transplant.”

The decision to attempt a second transplant may also hinge on the disease the patient is being treated for, and on the depth of remission prior to relapse, he said.

Reggie E. Duerst, MD, director of the Stem Cell Transplant Program at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, said that trying to replicate the conditions of the first transplant may not work.

“It’s also a function of who was the donor for the first transplant – was it a matched sibling? And then for the second one do you go to an unrelated donor, or a half-matched relative, banking on the fact that the donor’s immune system for the second transplant is going to be able to mediate some kind of graft-versus-leukemia effect that wasn’t there the first time around?” he said.

Dr. Duerst, who was not involved in the study, noted that, for some patients with lymphoid malignancies, chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy may be a more effective salvage strategy than second transplant, but added that it’s still too soon to know which strategy will be more effective.

The study was supported by St. Jude’s, the American Society of Hematology, and the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy. Dr. Sharma, Dr. Boelens, and Dr. Duerst reported having no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Sharma A et al. TCT 2020, Abstract 116.

ORLANDO – A second hematopoietic stem cell transplant can be a successful salvage therapy for a child who has experienced a relapse following a first allogeneic transplant, investigators report.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

A retrospective study of 221 children who experienced a relapse after a first hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) showed that 3-year overall survival (OS) was six times higher among those who had second HSCT, compared with those who did not, reported Akshay Sharma, MBBS, from St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis.

“We found that factors that are typically associated with poor outcomes after transplant such as disease status at the time of first transplantation – being in remission or not, type of transplant – myeloablative or reduced intensity, and choice of donor were generally not significantly predictive of outcomes following posttransplant relapse in our multivariable model,” he said at the Transplantation and Cellular Therapy Meetings.

Relapse is the most common cause of death after HSCT, and 20%-30% of children who undergo allogeneic HSCT will experience a relapse.

To study this issue, Dr. Sharma and colleagues took a retrospective look at 703 patients 21 and younger who received a first alloHSCT at St. Jude’s for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndrome from 1990 through 2018. Of this cohort, 211 patients (31%) experienced a relapse after transplant.

There were no significant differences between patients who had a relapse and those who did not in sex, race, conditioning-regimen intensity, performance status, donor type, or graft type (peripheral blood stem cell, umbilical cord blood, bone marrow), or in the incidence of acute graft-versus-host disease GVHD.

The investigators found that, as expected, outcomes were poor for patients who experienced a posttransplant relapse, with 3-year overall survival from relapse for the 221 patients of just 10%.

In multivariable analysis controlling for sex, disease status at the time of first transplant, interval from first transplant to relapse, management after relapse, chronic GVHD and year of relapse, factors significantly associated with worse overall survival were relapse within 6 months of transplant vs. later than 6 months (hazard ratio, 4.6; P < .001) and decade of transplant (HR, 2.6 for 1990-2000 and 1.6 for 2001-2010 vs. 2011-2018; P < .001).

In contrast, both second HSCT and donor lymphocyte infusion were associated with better overall survival, compared with postrelapse chemotherapy or supportive care (HR, 0.04 and 0.6, respectively; P < .001 for both comparisons).

A longer interval from first transplant to relapse was the strongest predictor of long-term survival, Dr. Sharma said at the meeting held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

Among the 221 patients who had a relapse, 61 (28%) had a second HSCT, 28 (13%) received only donor lymphocyte infusions, without second transplant, and 132 (62%) received either chemotherapy or supportive care.

The 3-year overall survival rate for patients who received a second transplant was 28%, compared with 4% for those who did not have a repeat HSCT. The most important independent predictors for getting a second transplant were longer time to relapse after first transplant, first transplantation from a matched sibling donor instead of from a haploidentical donor, some degree of acute GVHD, and decade of first transplant (current decade vs. earlier decades).

The investigators also looked at guideline recommendations from both the American Society of Hematology and UK National Health Service regarding second allogenenic transplant after relapse.

ASH guidelines say that “patients with chemo-sensitive disease in remission who had a long initial remission (> 6-12 months) after first transplant and who never developed any GVHD” are most likely to benefit from a second transplant.

NHS guidelines say that a second transplant can be considered for patients who experience relapse more than 12 months after first alloHSCT. But as Dr. Sharma and colleagues discovered, patients who had a second transplant had better overall survival regardless of time from first to second transplant, compared with patients who had later relapses but no second transplant.

“With these data in mind, we submit that these ASH and NHS guidelines, which are based on older data from the 1900s and 2000 and are mostly based on adult data and do not include much pediatric data should be reconsidered, at least in the context of pediatric patients as we approach them,” he said.

Jaap-Jan Boelens, MD, PhD, a pediatric transplant specialist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, who was not involved in the study, said that the use of second transplant as salvage therapy is becoming more common at his center.

“But there is a little nuance,” he said in an interview. “If someone relapses a month after transplant, let’s say, it doesn’t make sense to go for another allo transplant. But if the interval between transplant is longer, more than half a year, we usually consider going for a second allo transplant.”

The decision to attempt a second transplant may also hinge on the disease the patient is being treated for, and on the depth of remission prior to relapse, he said.

Reggie E. Duerst, MD, director of the Stem Cell Transplant Program at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, said that trying to replicate the conditions of the first transplant may not work.

“It’s also a function of who was the donor for the first transplant – was it a matched sibling? And then for the second one do you go to an unrelated donor, or a half-matched relative, banking on the fact that the donor’s immune system for the second transplant is going to be able to mediate some kind of graft-versus-leukemia effect that wasn’t there the first time around?” he said.

Dr. Duerst, who was not involved in the study, noted that, for some patients with lymphoid malignancies, chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy may be a more effective salvage strategy than second transplant, but added that it’s still too soon to know which strategy will be more effective.

The study was supported by St. Jude’s, the American Society of Hematology, and the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy. Dr. Sharma, Dr. Boelens, and Dr. Duerst reported having no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Sharma A et al. TCT 2020, Abstract 116.

ORLANDO – A second hematopoietic stem cell transplant can be a successful salvage therapy for a child who has experienced a relapse following a first allogeneic transplant, investigators report.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

A retrospective study of 221 children who experienced a relapse after a first hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) showed that 3-year overall survival (OS) was six times higher among those who had second HSCT, compared with those who did not, reported Akshay Sharma, MBBS, from St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis.

“We found that factors that are typically associated with poor outcomes after transplant such as disease status at the time of first transplantation – being in remission or not, type of transplant – myeloablative or reduced intensity, and choice of donor were generally not significantly predictive of outcomes following posttransplant relapse in our multivariable model,” he said at the Transplantation and Cellular Therapy Meetings.

Relapse is the most common cause of death after HSCT, and 20%-30% of children who undergo allogeneic HSCT will experience a relapse.

To study this issue, Dr. Sharma and colleagues took a retrospective look at 703 patients 21 and younger who received a first alloHSCT at St. Jude’s for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndrome from 1990 through 2018. Of this cohort, 211 patients (31%) experienced a relapse after transplant.

There were no significant differences between patients who had a relapse and those who did not in sex, race, conditioning-regimen intensity, performance status, donor type, or graft type (peripheral blood stem cell, umbilical cord blood, bone marrow), or in the incidence of acute graft-versus-host disease GVHD.

The investigators found that, as expected, outcomes were poor for patients who experienced a posttransplant relapse, with 3-year overall survival from relapse for the 221 patients of just 10%.

In multivariable analysis controlling for sex, disease status at the time of first transplant, interval from first transplant to relapse, management after relapse, chronic GVHD and year of relapse, factors significantly associated with worse overall survival were relapse within 6 months of transplant vs. later than 6 months (hazard ratio, 4.6; P < .001) and decade of transplant (HR, 2.6 for 1990-2000 and 1.6 for 2001-2010 vs. 2011-2018; P < .001).

In contrast, both second HSCT and donor lymphocyte infusion were associated with better overall survival, compared with postrelapse chemotherapy or supportive care (HR, 0.04 and 0.6, respectively; P < .001 for both comparisons).

A longer interval from first transplant to relapse was the strongest predictor of long-term survival, Dr. Sharma said at the meeting held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

Among the 221 patients who had a relapse, 61 (28%) had a second HSCT, 28 (13%) received only donor lymphocyte infusions, without second transplant, and 132 (62%) received either chemotherapy or supportive care.

The 3-year overall survival rate for patients who received a second transplant was 28%, compared with 4% for those who did not have a repeat HSCT. The most important independent predictors for getting a second transplant were longer time to relapse after first transplant, first transplantation from a matched sibling donor instead of from a haploidentical donor, some degree of acute GVHD, and decade of first transplant (current decade vs. earlier decades).

The investigators also looked at guideline recommendations from both the American Society of Hematology and UK National Health Service regarding second allogenenic transplant after relapse.

ASH guidelines say that “patients with chemo-sensitive disease in remission who had a long initial remission (> 6-12 months) after first transplant and who never developed any GVHD” are most likely to benefit from a second transplant.

NHS guidelines say that a second transplant can be considered for patients who experience relapse more than 12 months after first alloHSCT. But as Dr. Sharma and colleagues discovered, patients who had a second transplant had better overall survival regardless of time from first to second transplant, compared with patients who had later relapses but no second transplant.

“With these data in mind, we submit that these ASH and NHS guidelines, which are based on older data from the 1900s and 2000 and are mostly based on adult data and do not include much pediatric data should be reconsidered, at least in the context of pediatric patients as we approach them,” he said.

Jaap-Jan Boelens, MD, PhD, a pediatric transplant specialist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, who was not involved in the study, said that the use of second transplant as salvage therapy is becoming more common at his center.

“But there is a little nuance,” he said in an interview. “If someone relapses a month after transplant, let’s say, it doesn’t make sense to go for another allo transplant. But if the interval between transplant is longer, more than half a year, we usually consider going for a second allo transplant.”

The decision to attempt a second transplant may also hinge on the disease the patient is being treated for, and on the depth of remission prior to relapse, he said.

Reggie E. Duerst, MD, director of the Stem Cell Transplant Program at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, said that trying to replicate the conditions of the first transplant may not work.

“It’s also a function of who was the donor for the first transplant – was it a matched sibling? And then for the second one do you go to an unrelated donor, or a half-matched relative, banking on the fact that the donor’s immune system for the second transplant is going to be able to mediate some kind of graft-versus-leukemia effect that wasn’t there the first time around?” he said.

Dr. Duerst, who was not involved in the study, noted that, for some patients with lymphoid malignancies, chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy may be a more effective salvage strategy than second transplant, but added that it’s still too soon to know which strategy will be more effective.

The study was supported by St. Jude’s, the American Society of Hematology, and the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy. Dr. Sharma, Dr. Boelens, and Dr. Duerst reported having no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Sharma A et al. TCT 2020, Abstract 116.

ORLANDO – For visits to hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients, the kids are alright – assuming that they’re not sniffling, coughing, or running a fever, that is.

Neil Osterweill/MDedge News

Since their blood and marrow transplant (BMT) unit began allowing child visits to patients in 2018, there have been no increases in either health care–associated infections or average length of stay, and patient satisfaction has markedly improved, reported Mylene R. de Vera, RN, and colleagues from the Greenbaum Cancer Center at the University of Maryland Medical Center in Baltimore.

Although her center had previously had a policy restricting child visitors out of concerns about transmission of infections, “we did a literature search and found that child visitor restriction is really neither evidence based nor recommended by any professional organization,” she said in an interview at the annual Transplantation & Cellular Therapy Meetings.

“At the same time, I also informally surveyed 10 hospitals and BMT centers nationally, and found that 70% of them allow child visitation,” she added at the meeting held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

An informal survey by this reporter found wide variations in practice. For example, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center policy allows only children 12 and older to visit, but other hospitals have somewhat less stringent policies.

“Our policy is that for children under 12, they need to A) be screened, and B) need to get approval from the attending stem-cell physician,” said Reggie E. Duerst, MD, director of the Stem Cell Transplant Program at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago.

Dr. Duerst, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview seeking objective commentary that his center doesn’t especially encourage visits from younger children, on the understanding that, as every parent knows, the odds are higher that children under 12 may be carrying a respiratory virus, compared with adolescents.

He added that visits from children might be beneficial for patients who are more critically ill or at high risk for dying, but again, only if the child has been carefully screened.

At Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, children are allowed to visit transplant recipients strictly on a case-by-case basis, and only after consultation with and approval from transplant unit staff, an MSKCC spokesman said.

In an interview, Ms. de Vera cited a 2016 study in the American Journal of Critical Care by Mini Jacob, RN, and colleagues from Emory University in Atlanta, who reported that, among family members visiting patients in an intensive care unit with a continuous visitation policy, open visitation was ranked as the second-most important need.

Beginning in 2018, Ms. de Vera and colleagues sought to promote a patient-centered policy by implementing guidelines that would allow safe visitation by children to BMT recipients.

The process included the aforementioned literature search, survey of other centers, and a staff survey, which showed that 70% of staff said they believed that allowing child visitation would support the goal of patient-centered care. The survey also showed, however, that 40% of staff thought that healthy children presented a higher risk of infection to immunocompromised patients, and 50% agreed with the statement that having children on the unit would be disruptive to care.

In August of 2019, all BMT unit staff members took part in an in-service training session designed “to align perception with evidence-based practice.” The training included detailed information and procedures for screening would-be child visitors for potential risks prior to allowing them on the unit.

The one-page screening tool asks about current or recent infections; coughing, sneezing, etc.; and other health-related issues, including whether the child is up to date on vaccinations.

The following month, the BMT unit implemented its new child visitation policy, and by the end of 2019 the unit had logged a total of 71 child visits.

As noted, there were no increases in either health care–associated infections or in the average length of stay, In fact, from April to September 2019 the average length of stay was 13 days, compared with 18 days during the 6-month period in 2018, before child visits were allowed.

In addition, a Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) patient-satisfaction survey showed that the scores on “taking preferences into account” increased to 92% during October through December 2018, compared with 33% from July through September of the same year.

Interestingly, patient-reported satisfaction also fell by half from January to March 2019, when child visits were suspended as part of hospital-wide restrictions during the influenza season.

A survey of staff conducted a year after the child visitation policy was implemented showed a relative 37% increase in reported awareness that the visits promote patient-centered care, a 35% drop in the reported belief that healthy child visitors pose higher risk of infection, and a more than 100% relative decline in the perception that child visitors would upset BMT unit routine.

“I just wanted to prove to my coworkers that child visitation really did not affect length of stay or health care–associated infections, and at the same time may have a positive effect on patient satisfaction,” Ms. de Vera said.

The study was internally supported. All persons interviewed reported no conflicts of interest to disclose.

SOURCE: de Vera MR et al. TCT 2020, Abstract 588.

ORLANDO – For visits to hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients, the kids are alright – assuming that they’re not sniffling, coughing, or running a fever, that is.

Neil Osterweill/MDedge News

Since their blood and marrow transplant (BMT) unit began allowing child visits to patients in 2018, there have been no increases in either health care–associated infections or average length of stay, and patient satisfaction has markedly improved, reported Mylene R. de Vera, RN, and colleagues from the Greenbaum Cancer Center at the University of Maryland Medical Center in Baltimore.

Although her center had previously had a policy restricting child visitors out of concerns about transmission of infections, “we did a literature search and found that child visitor restriction is really neither evidence based nor recommended by any professional organization,” she said in an interview at the annual Transplantation & Cellular Therapy Meetings.

“At the same time, I also informally surveyed 10 hospitals and BMT centers nationally, and found that 70% of them allow child visitation,” she added at the meeting held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

An informal survey by this reporter found wide variations in practice. For example, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center policy allows only children 12 and older to visit, but other hospitals have somewhat less stringent policies.

“Our policy is that for children under 12, they need to A) be screened, and B) need to get approval from the attending stem-cell physician,” said Reggie E. Duerst, MD, director of the Stem Cell Transplant Program at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago.

Dr. Duerst, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview seeking objective commentary that his center doesn’t especially encourage visits from younger children, on the understanding that, as every parent knows, the odds are higher that children under 12 may be carrying a respiratory virus, compared with adolescents.

He added that visits from children might be beneficial for patients who are more critically ill or at high risk for dying, but again, only if the child has been carefully screened.

At Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, children are allowed to visit transplant recipients strictly on a case-by-case basis, and only after consultation with and approval from transplant unit staff, an MSKCC spokesman said.

In an interview, Ms. de Vera cited a 2016 study in the American Journal of Critical Care by Mini Jacob, RN, and colleagues from Emory University in Atlanta, who reported that, among family members visiting patients in an intensive care unit with a continuous visitation policy, open visitation was ranked as the second-most important need.

Beginning in 2018, Ms. de Vera and colleagues sought to promote a patient-centered policy by implementing guidelines that would allow safe visitation by children to BMT recipients.

The process included the aforementioned literature search, survey of other centers, and a staff survey, which showed that 70% of staff said they believed that allowing child visitation would support the goal of patient-centered care. The survey also showed, however, that 40% of staff thought that healthy children presented a higher risk of infection to immunocompromised patients, and 50% agreed with the statement that having children on the unit would be disruptive to care.

In August of 2019, all BMT unit staff members took part in an in-service training session designed “to align perception with evidence-based practice.” The training included detailed information and procedures for screening would-be child visitors for potential risks prior to allowing them on the unit.

The one-page screening tool asks about current or recent infections; coughing, sneezing, etc.; and other health-related issues, including whether the child is up to date on vaccinations.

The following month, the BMT unit implemented its new child visitation policy, and by the end of 2019 the unit had logged a total of 71 child visits.

As noted, there were no increases in either health care–associated infections or in the average length of stay, In fact, from April to September 2019 the average length of stay was 13 days, compared with 18 days during the 6-month period in 2018, before child visits were allowed.

In addition, a Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) patient-satisfaction survey showed that the scores on “taking preferences into account” increased to 92% during October through December 2018, compared with 33% from July through September of the same year.

Interestingly, patient-reported satisfaction also fell by half from January to March 2019, when child visits were suspended as part of hospital-wide restrictions during the influenza season.

A survey of staff conducted a year after the child visitation policy was implemented showed a relative 37% increase in reported awareness that the visits promote patient-centered care, a 35% drop in the reported belief that healthy child visitors pose higher risk of infection, and a more than 100% relative decline in the perception that child visitors would upset BMT unit routine.

“I just wanted to prove to my coworkers that child visitation really did not affect length of stay or health care–associated infections, and at the same time may have a positive effect on patient satisfaction,” Ms. de Vera said.

The study was internally supported. All persons interviewed reported no conflicts of interest to disclose.

SOURCE: de Vera MR et al. TCT 2020, Abstract 588.

ORLANDO – For visits to hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients, the kids are alright – assuming that they’re not sniffling, coughing, or running a fever, that is.

Neil Osterweill/MDedge News

Since their blood and marrow transplant (BMT) unit began allowing child visits to patients in 2018, there have been no increases in either health care–associated infections or average length of stay, and patient satisfaction has markedly improved, reported Mylene R. de Vera, RN, and colleagues from the Greenbaum Cancer Center at the University of Maryland Medical Center in Baltimore.

Although her center had previously had a policy restricting child visitors out of concerns about transmission of infections, “we did a literature search and found that child visitor restriction is really neither evidence based nor recommended by any professional organization,” she said in an interview at the annual Transplantation & Cellular Therapy Meetings.

“At the same time, I also informally surveyed 10 hospitals and BMT centers nationally, and found that 70% of them allow child visitation,” she added at the meeting held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

An informal survey by this reporter found wide variations in practice. For example, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center policy allows only children 12 and older to visit, but other hospitals have somewhat less stringent policies.

“Our policy is that for children under 12, they need to A) be screened, and B) need to get approval from the attending stem-cell physician,” said Reggie E. Duerst, MD, director of the Stem Cell Transplant Program at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago.

Dr. Duerst, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview seeking objective commentary that his center doesn’t especially encourage visits from younger children, on the understanding that, as every parent knows, the odds are higher that children under 12 may be carrying a respiratory virus, compared with adolescents.

He added that visits from children might be beneficial for patients who are more critically ill or at high risk for dying, but again, only if the child has been carefully screened.

At Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, children are allowed to visit transplant recipients strictly on a case-by-case basis, and only after consultation with and approval from transplant unit staff, an MSKCC spokesman said.

In an interview, Ms. de Vera cited a 2016 study in the American Journal of Critical Care by Mini Jacob, RN, and colleagues from Emory University in Atlanta, who reported that, among family members visiting patients in an intensive care unit with a continuous visitation policy, open visitation was ranked as the second-most important need.

Beginning in 2018, Ms. de Vera and colleagues sought to promote a patient-centered policy by implementing guidelines that would allow safe visitation by children to BMT recipients.

The process included the aforementioned literature search, survey of other centers, and a staff survey, which showed that 70% of staff said they believed that allowing child visitation would support the goal of patient-centered care. The survey also showed, however, that 40% of staff thought that healthy children presented a higher risk of infection to immunocompromised patients, and 50% agreed with the statement that having children on the unit would be disruptive to care.

In August of 2019, all BMT unit staff members took part in an in-service training session designed “to align perception with evidence-based practice.” The training included detailed information and procedures for screening would-be child visitors for potential risks prior to allowing them on the unit.

The one-page screening tool asks about current or recent infections; coughing, sneezing, etc.; and other health-related issues, including whether the child is up to date on vaccinations.

The following month, the BMT unit implemented its new child visitation policy, and by the end of 2019 the unit had logged a total of 71 child visits.

As noted, there were no increases in either health care–associated infections or in the average length of stay, In fact, from April to September 2019 the average length of stay was 13 days, compared with 18 days during the 6-month period in 2018, before child visits were allowed.

In addition, a Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) patient-satisfaction survey showed that the scores on “taking preferences into account” increased to 92% during October through December 2018, compared with 33% from July through September of the same year.

Interestingly, patient-reported satisfaction also fell by half from January to March 2019, when child visits were suspended as part of hospital-wide restrictions during the influenza season.

A survey of staff conducted a year after the child visitation policy was implemented showed a relative 37% increase in reported awareness that the visits promote patient-centered care, a 35% drop in the reported belief that healthy child visitors pose higher risk of infection, and a more than 100% relative decline in the perception that child visitors would upset BMT unit routine.

“I just wanted to prove to my coworkers that child visitation really did not affect length of stay or health care–associated infections, and at the same time may have a positive effect on patient satisfaction,” Ms. de Vera said.

The study was internally supported. All persons interviewed reported no conflicts of interest to disclose.

SOURCE: de Vera MR et al. TCT 2020, Abstract 588.

ORLANDO – Collecting and storing extra stem cells on the off chance that a patient with multiple myeloma will need a salvage autologous stem cell transplant may not be worth the money or effort, investigators say.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Among patients with multiple myeloma who had adequate collection of mobilized and stored cells, only 3 of 146 eligible patients were given the stored cells in a second autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), reported Nausheen Ahmed, MD, from the Case Western Reserve Cancer Center and University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, both in Cleveland.

“We found overall low utilization of salvage transplants and storage stem cells at our institution, which may not justify the strategy of early collection for all patients fit for transplant,” she said at the Transplantation and Cellular Therapy Meetings.

But Sergio Giralt, MD, a transplant specialist from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, who was not involved in the study, warned against changing practice “for the wrong reason, because it’s just a financial reason.”
 

Get them while they’re fresh

The rationale for collecting and storing extra cells is the risk that mobilization will fail in the future following prolonged maintenance with immunomodulatory agents such as lenalidomide (Revlimid), and the risk for genetic or epigenetic damage to cells from high-dose melphalan used in transplant-conditioning regimens, Dr. Ahmed noted at the meeting held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

“However, there are potential issues with early mobilization and storage, including cost, resources, apheresis scheduling, uncertainty of cell viability, and liability. There’s also risk of side effects with filgrastim and plerixafor use [for mobilization],” she said.

Dr. Ahmed and colleagues conducted a study to determine how stored stem cells for second ASCT were used, describe how second ASCTs are used in patients who meet the Mayo Consensus Stratification for Myeloma & Risk-Adapted Therapy (mSMART) criteria, and the costs of mobilizing and storing stem cells for a second ASCT.

They took a retrospective look at all adults aged 18 years and older with a diagnosis of multiple myeloma who received a first ASCT at their institution from 2009 to 2017. They excluded patients who had amyloidosis without myeloma or POEMS (polyneuropathy, organomegaly, endocrinopathy, monoclonal plasma proliferative disorder, skin changes) syndrome.

Patients were considered eligible for a second ASCT based on mSMART recommendations if they had a relapse either 18 or more months without maintenance therapy or after at least 36 months on maintenance. The investigators defined an extra day of collection as an additional day of apheresis to obtain 2 million or more CD34 cells/kg for storage only.

They estimated costs from the institution’s charge master as the sum of cell processing, leukapheresis costs, additional plerixafor costs, and storage costs, and calculated the total duration of storage as months from the date of collection until the last follow-up.

The median age of the total study population of 179 patients was 61 years, with a majority of male and white patients. Of this group, 98% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0-1. In all, 63.7% of the patients had standard-risk cytogenetics, 22.4% had high-risk disease, and the remainder had unknown cytogenetic risk.

At a median follow-up of 56.5 months, 95 patients (53.1%) had experienced a relapse after transplant with a median time to progression of 47.5 months. The majority of patients (166; 92.7%) had received a single transplant, 10 (5.6%) had received tandem transplants, and only 3 (1.6%) had a second transplant at relapse.

Looking at the use of second transplant in patients who met the criteria for salvage transplant based on mSMART (excluding patients who had undergone tandem transplant) and whose maintenance status was known, they identified 61 patients on maintenance therapy and 24 with no maintenance. A total of 31 patients (18 in the maintenance group and 13 in the no-maintenance group) met mSMART criteria for salvage ASCT.

Dr. Ahmed and colleagues next looked at the 146 patients who had at least 2 million stored cells/kg, and found that the stored cells were used for only three patients. Of the 146 patients, 66 had 1 extra collection day, 17 had 2 extra days, and 4 had 3 extra days, for an average additional cost per patient of $16,859.
 

‘Woefully underutilized’

Discussing the study, Dr. Giralt asked: “How valid are the SMART criteria of 36 months? And the answer is there is no data to support it, and if we actually go back to our oncology, any patient who has had more than 18 months without exposure to a drug can continue to have sensitivity to that drug, and that’s why if we used the ASBMT criteria of greater than 18 months you’d have a larger population” of patients eligible for salvage transplant.

He stated that, “we know these patients exist, we know they have cells in the freezer, but we’re not using those cells. Second transplant is woefully underutilized in myeloma patients,” and he added that stored cells could also be used to support those patients who develop cytopenias following chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy.

Yago Nieto, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, who comoderated the session where the data were presented, agreed with Dr. Giralt that stored stem cells are underutilized in the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma.

“I don’t think that the experience from Case Western, where the percentage of patients who are eligible for salvage transplant and actually got it was less than 10%, can be extrapolated to many other centers. I think that in most centers the actual percentage is higher than that,” he said in an interview.

“There are going to be therapies like CAR T that will compete with salvage transplants, but I think more patients should be considered for this salvage procedure,” he added.

No funding source for the story was disclosed. Dr. Ahmed reported no financial disclosures. Dr. Giralt reported consulting/advisory activities and receiving research funding from multiple companies. Dr. Nieto disclosed research funding from, and consultancy for, several companies.

SOURCE: Ahmed N et al. TCT 2020, Abstract 28.

ORLANDO – Collecting and storing extra stem cells on the off chance that a patient with multiple myeloma will need a salvage autologous stem cell transplant may not be worth the money or effort, investigators say.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Among patients with multiple myeloma who had adequate collection of mobilized and stored cells, only 3 of 146 eligible patients were given the stored cells in a second autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), reported Nausheen Ahmed, MD, from the Case Western Reserve Cancer Center and University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, both in Cleveland.

“We found overall low utilization of salvage transplants and storage stem cells at our institution, which may not justify the strategy of early collection for all patients fit for transplant,” she said at the Transplantation and Cellular Therapy Meetings.

But Sergio Giralt, MD, a transplant specialist from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, who was not involved in the study, warned against changing practice “for the wrong reason, because it’s just a financial reason.”
 

Get them while they’re fresh

The rationale for collecting and storing extra cells is the risk that mobilization will fail in the future following prolonged maintenance with immunomodulatory agents such as lenalidomide (Revlimid), and the risk for genetic or epigenetic damage to cells from high-dose melphalan used in transplant-conditioning regimens, Dr. Ahmed noted at the meeting held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

“However, there are potential issues with early mobilization and storage, including cost, resources, apheresis scheduling, uncertainty of cell viability, and liability. There’s also risk of side effects with filgrastim and plerixafor use [for mobilization],” she said.

Dr. Ahmed and colleagues conducted a study to determine how stored stem cells for second ASCT were used, describe how second ASCTs are used in patients who meet the Mayo Consensus Stratification for Myeloma & Risk-Adapted Therapy (mSMART) criteria, and the costs of mobilizing and storing stem cells for a second ASCT.

They took a retrospective look at all adults aged 18 years and older with a diagnosis of multiple myeloma who received a first ASCT at their institution from 2009 to 2017. They excluded patients who had amyloidosis without myeloma or POEMS (polyneuropathy, organomegaly, endocrinopathy, monoclonal plasma proliferative disorder, skin changes) syndrome.

Patients were considered eligible for a second ASCT based on mSMART recommendations if they had a relapse either 18 or more months without maintenance therapy or after at least 36 months on maintenance. The investigators defined an extra day of collection as an additional day of apheresis to obtain 2 million or more CD34 cells/kg for storage only.

They estimated costs from the institution’s charge master as the sum of cell processing, leukapheresis costs, additional plerixafor costs, and storage costs, and calculated the total duration of storage as months from the date of collection until the last follow-up.

The median age of the total study population of 179 patients was 61 years, with a majority of male and white patients. Of this group, 98% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0-1. In all, 63.7% of the patients had standard-risk cytogenetics, 22.4% had high-risk disease, and the remainder had unknown cytogenetic risk.

At a median follow-up of 56.5 months, 95 patients (53.1%) had experienced a relapse after transplant with a median time to progression of 47.5 months. The majority of patients (166; 92.7%) had received a single transplant, 10 (5.6%) had received tandem transplants, and only 3 (1.6%) had a second transplant at relapse.

Looking at the use of second transplant in patients who met the criteria for salvage transplant based on mSMART (excluding patients who had undergone tandem transplant) and whose maintenance status was known, they identified 61 patients on maintenance therapy and 24 with no maintenance. A total of 31 patients (18 in the maintenance group and 13 in the no-maintenance group) met mSMART criteria for salvage ASCT.

Dr. Ahmed and colleagues next looked at the 146 patients who had at least 2 million stored cells/kg, and found that the stored cells were used for only three patients. Of the 146 patients, 66 had 1 extra collection day, 17 had 2 extra days, and 4 had 3 extra days, for an average additional cost per patient of $16,859.
 

‘Woefully underutilized’

Discussing the study, Dr. Giralt asked: “How valid are the SMART criteria of 36 months? And the answer is there is no data to support it, and if we actually go back to our oncology, any patient who has had more than 18 months without exposure to a drug can continue to have sensitivity to that drug, and that’s why if we used the ASBMT criteria of greater than 18 months you’d have a larger population” of patients eligible for salvage transplant.

He stated that, “we know these patients exist, we know they have cells in the freezer, but we’re not using those cells. Second transplant is woefully underutilized in myeloma patients,” and he added that stored cells could also be used to support those patients who develop cytopenias following chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy.

Yago Nieto, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, who comoderated the session where the data were presented, agreed with Dr. Giralt that stored stem cells are underutilized in the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma.

“I don’t think that the experience from Case Western, where the percentage of patients who are eligible for salvage transplant and actually got it was less than 10%, can be extrapolated to many other centers. I think that in most centers the actual percentage is higher than that,” he said in an interview.

“There are going to be therapies like CAR T that will compete with salvage transplants, but I think more patients should be considered for this salvage procedure,” he added.

No funding source for the story was disclosed. Dr. Ahmed reported no financial disclosures. Dr. Giralt reported consulting/advisory activities and receiving research funding from multiple companies. Dr. Nieto disclosed research funding from, and consultancy for, several companies.

SOURCE: Ahmed N et al. TCT 2020, Abstract 28.

ORLANDO – Collecting and storing extra stem cells on the off chance that a patient with multiple myeloma will need a salvage autologous stem cell transplant may not be worth the money or effort, investigators say.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Among patients with multiple myeloma who had adequate collection of mobilized and stored cells, only 3 of 146 eligible patients were given the stored cells in a second autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), reported Nausheen Ahmed, MD, from the Case Western Reserve Cancer Center and University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, both in Cleveland.

“We found overall low utilization of salvage transplants and storage stem cells at our institution, which may not justify the strategy of early collection for all patients fit for transplant,” she said at the Transplantation and Cellular Therapy Meetings.

But Sergio Giralt, MD, a transplant specialist from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, who was not involved in the study, warned against changing practice “for the wrong reason, because it’s just a financial reason.”
 

Get them while they’re fresh

The rationale for collecting and storing extra cells is the risk that mobilization will fail in the future following prolonged maintenance with immunomodulatory agents such as lenalidomide (Revlimid), and the risk for genetic or epigenetic damage to cells from high-dose melphalan used in transplant-conditioning regimens, Dr. Ahmed noted at the meeting held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

“However, there are potential issues with early mobilization and storage, including cost, resources, apheresis scheduling, uncertainty of cell viability, and liability. There’s also risk of side effects with filgrastim and plerixafor use [for mobilization],” she said.

Dr. Ahmed and colleagues conducted a study to determine how stored stem cells for second ASCT were used, describe how second ASCTs are used in patients who meet the Mayo Consensus Stratification for Myeloma & Risk-Adapted Therapy (mSMART) criteria, and the costs of mobilizing and storing stem cells for a second ASCT.

They took a retrospective look at all adults aged 18 years and older with a diagnosis of multiple myeloma who received a first ASCT at their institution from 2009 to 2017. They excluded patients who had amyloidosis without myeloma or POEMS (polyneuropathy, organomegaly, endocrinopathy, monoclonal plasma proliferative disorder, skin changes) syndrome.

Patients were considered eligible for a second ASCT based on mSMART recommendations if they had a relapse either 18 or more months without maintenance therapy or after at least 36 months on maintenance. The investigators defined an extra day of collection as an additional day of apheresis to obtain 2 million or more CD34 cells/kg for storage only.

They estimated costs from the institution’s charge master as the sum of cell processing, leukapheresis costs, additional plerixafor costs, and storage costs, and calculated the total duration of storage as months from the date of collection until the last follow-up.

The median age of the total study population of 179 patients was 61 years, with a majority of male and white patients. Of this group, 98% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0-1. In all, 63.7% of the patients had standard-risk cytogenetics, 22.4% had high-risk disease, and the remainder had unknown cytogenetic risk.

At a median follow-up of 56.5 months, 95 patients (53.1%) had experienced a relapse after transplant with a median time to progression of 47.5 months. The majority of patients (166; 92.7%) had received a single transplant, 10 (5.6%) had received tandem transplants, and only 3 (1.6%) had a second transplant at relapse.

Looking at the use of second transplant in patients who met the criteria for salvage transplant based on mSMART (excluding patients who had undergone tandem transplant) and whose maintenance status was known, they identified 61 patients on maintenance therapy and 24 with no maintenance. A total of 31 patients (18 in the maintenance group and 13 in the no-maintenance group) met mSMART criteria for salvage ASCT.

Dr. Ahmed and colleagues next looked at the 146 patients who had at least 2 million stored cells/kg, and found that the stored cells were used for only three patients. Of the 146 patients, 66 had 1 extra collection day, 17 had 2 extra days, and 4 had 3 extra days, for an average additional cost per patient of $16,859.
 

‘Woefully underutilized’

Discussing the study, Dr. Giralt asked: “How valid are the SMART criteria of 36 months? And the answer is there is no data to support it, and if we actually go back to our oncology, any patient who has had more than 18 months without exposure to a drug can continue to have sensitivity to that drug, and that’s why if we used the ASBMT criteria of greater than 18 months you’d have a larger population” of patients eligible for salvage transplant.

He stated that, “we know these patients exist, we know they have cells in the freezer, but we’re not using those cells. Second transplant is woefully underutilized in myeloma patients,” and he added that stored cells could also be used to support those patients who develop cytopenias following chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy.

Yago Nieto, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, who comoderated the session where the data were presented, agreed with Dr. Giralt that stored stem cells are underutilized in the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma.

“I don’t think that the experience from Case Western, where the percentage of patients who are eligible for salvage transplant and actually got it was less than 10%, can be extrapolated to many other centers. I think that in most centers the actual percentage is higher than that,” he said in an interview.

“There are going to be therapies like CAR T that will compete with salvage transplants, but I think more patients should be considered for this salvage procedure,” he added.

No funding source for the story was disclosed. Dr. Ahmed reported no financial disclosures. Dr. Giralt reported consulting/advisory activities and receiving research funding from multiple companies. Dr. Nieto disclosed research funding from, and consultancy for, several companies.

SOURCE: Ahmed N et al. TCT 2020, Abstract 28.

ORLANDO – Folinic acid does not prevent oral mucositis in patients who are receiving a calcineurin inhibitor and methotrexate for graft-vs.-host disease prophylaxis, results of a multicenter study from Israel suggest.

A randomized clinical trial to determine whether folinic acid rescue 24 hours after a methotrexate dose protects patients against severe oral mucositis was halted for futility after an interim analysis showed no advantage to adding folinic acid, reported Moshe Yeshrun, MD, of Rabin Medical Center at Tel Aviv University, Israel.

“Regarding the primary and secondary endpoints, we observed identical rates and duration of severe oral mucositis, as well as identical rates of oral mucositis of any grade in the folinic acid and placebo groups,” he said at the annual Transplantation and Cellular Therapy Meetings.

There were also no significant differences between the folinic acid and placebo control groups in time to neutrophil and platelet engraftment, rates of febrile neutropenia and bloodstream infections, veno-occlusive disease, need for opiates or total parenteral nutrition (TPN), or time from transplant to discharge, Dr. Yeshrun added at the meeting, held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

Folinic acid therapy did not, however, appear to abrogate or interfere with the effects of methotrexate on prevention of either acute or chronic graft-vs-host disease (GVHD).
 

Severe adverse event

Oral mucositis can be a serious complication of therapy, associated with increased morbidity and mortality; significant pain; difficulty with eating or speaking; difficulty swallowing water, food, and medications; prolonged hospitalizations; and increased costs of care, Dr. Yeshrun noted.

The presence of oral mucositis sometimes leads clinicians to reduce or even skip methotrexate doses, thereby increasing risk for GVHD.

There are limited data from nonrandomized studies indicating that folinic acid (also called leucovorin) may reduce methotrexate-associated toxicities, and both the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and European LeukemiaNet working group recommend the use of folinic-acid rescue 24 hours following each methotrexate dose, Dr. Yeshrun said.

To see whether folinic acid rescue actually reduces the rate of methotrexate-induced toxicity and affects outcomes for patients who receive methotrexate post transplant for GVHD prophylaxis, Dr. Yeshrun and colleagues in three Israeli medical centers conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

The eligible study population included patients 18 and older with hematological malignancies in complete remission or minimal residual disease who underwent myeloablative conditioning and allogeneic transplant from HLA-matched or 1-antigen mismatched siblings or unrelated donors.

The patients were stratified by treatment center and intensity of the conditioning regimen, and then randomized on a 1:1 basis to receive folinic acid or placebo beginning 24 hours after each methotrexate dose, with the assigned medication given at a dose of 15 mg three times daily on the first day, and once daily on days 3 and 6.

Patients who received a transplant from an unrelated donor were also given anti-thymocyte globulin at a total dose of 15 mg/kg.

Supportive care included filgrastim (Neupogen) 5 mcg/kg from day 7 until neutrophil engraftment, infection prophylaxis, and ursodeoxycholic acid for prevention of veno-occlusive disease.
 

Trial stopped

Although the study was designed to enroll 116 patients to have a power of 80% to detect a 50% reduction in the rate of severe oral mucositis from an anticipated 50% in the placebo arm, a planned interim analysis conducted after approximately half of the target events occurred showed no difference in the rates of severe oral mucositis, and the trial was halted.

A total of 28 patients in the folinic acid group and 24 in the placebo group were available for the analysis.

The rate of grade 3 or 4 mucositis, the primary endpoint, was 46.6% in the folinic acid group, and 45.8% in the placebo group.

Respectively, the median duration of severe oral mucositis was 4 days in each group, days to neutrophil engraftment were a median of 12 and to platelet engraftment were a median of 13 days in each group, rates of febrile neutropenia were 57.1% and 58.3%, rates of bloodstream infections were 10.7% and 16.6%, rates of veno-occlusive disease were 7% and 12.5%, need for TPN occurred in 14.2% vs. 25%, need for opiates occurred in 78.5% vs. 66.6%, and median time to discharge was 18 and 19 days. As noted, none of the differences were statistically significant.

“These unequivocal interim results led to our decision to discontinue the study,” Dr. Yeshrun said.

Arnon Nagler, MD, MSc, from Sheba Medical Center Tel HaShomer at Tel Aviv University in Israel, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview “I think this is a very practical and important study, because we need evidence-based data such as this.”

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

His comoderator, Maria Gilleece, MD, director of the Yorkshire (England) Blood and Marrow Transplant Program, noted in an interview that folinic acid is frequently used in the United Kingdom for patients receiving high-dose methotrexate, ”and certainly, this study suggests that may be inappropriate.”

Rabin Medical Center sponsored the trial. Dr. Yeshrun, Dr. Nagler, and Dr. Gilleece reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Yeshrun M. et al. TCT 2020. Abstract 61.

ORLANDO – Folinic acid does not prevent oral mucositis in patients who are receiving a calcineurin inhibitor and methotrexate for graft-vs.-host disease prophylaxis, results of a multicenter study from Israel suggest.

A randomized clinical trial to determine whether folinic acid rescue 24 hours after a methotrexate dose protects patients against severe oral mucositis was halted for futility after an interim analysis showed no advantage to adding folinic acid, reported Moshe Yeshrun, MD, of Rabin Medical Center at Tel Aviv University, Israel.

“Regarding the primary and secondary endpoints, we observed identical rates and duration of severe oral mucositis, as well as identical rates of oral mucositis of any grade in the folinic acid and placebo groups,” he said at the annual Transplantation and Cellular Therapy Meetings.

There were also no significant differences between the folinic acid and placebo control groups in time to neutrophil and platelet engraftment, rates of febrile neutropenia and bloodstream infections, veno-occlusive disease, need for opiates or total parenteral nutrition (TPN), or time from transplant to discharge, Dr. Yeshrun added at the meeting, held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

Folinic acid therapy did not, however, appear to abrogate or interfere with the effects of methotrexate on prevention of either acute or chronic graft-vs-host disease (GVHD).
 

Severe adverse event

Oral mucositis can be a serious complication of therapy, associated with increased morbidity and mortality; significant pain; difficulty with eating or speaking; difficulty swallowing water, food, and medications; prolonged hospitalizations; and increased costs of care, Dr. Yeshrun noted.

The presence of oral mucositis sometimes leads clinicians to reduce or even skip methotrexate doses, thereby increasing risk for GVHD.

There are limited data from nonrandomized studies indicating that folinic acid (also called leucovorin) may reduce methotrexate-associated toxicities, and both the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and European LeukemiaNet working group recommend the use of folinic-acid rescue 24 hours following each methotrexate dose, Dr. Yeshrun said.

To see whether folinic acid rescue actually reduces the rate of methotrexate-induced toxicity and affects outcomes for patients who receive methotrexate post transplant for GVHD prophylaxis, Dr. Yeshrun and colleagues in three Israeli medical centers conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

The eligible study population included patients 18 and older with hematological malignancies in complete remission or minimal residual disease who underwent myeloablative conditioning and allogeneic transplant from HLA-matched or 1-antigen mismatched siblings or unrelated donors.

The patients were stratified by treatment center and intensity of the conditioning regimen, and then randomized on a 1:1 basis to receive folinic acid or placebo beginning 24 hours after each methotrexate dose, with the assigned medication given at a dose of 15 mg three times daily on the first day, and once daily on days 3 and 6.

Patients who received a transplant from an unrelated donor were also given anti-thymocyte globulin at a total dose of 15 mg/kg.

Supportive care included filgrastim (Neupogen) 5 mcg/kg from day 7 until neutrophil engraftment, infection prophylaxis, and ursodeoxycholic acid for prevention of veno-occlusive disease.
 

Trial stopped

Although the study was designed to enroll 116 patients to have a power of 80% to detect a 50% reduction in the rate of severe oral mucositis from an anticipated 50% in the placebo arm, a planned interim analysis conducted after approximately half of the target events occurred showed no difference in the rates of severe oral mucositis, and the trial was halted.

A total of 28 patients in the folinic acid group and 24 in the placebo group were available for the analysis.

The rate of grade 3 or 4 mucositis, the primary endpoint, was 46.6% in the folinic acid group, and 45.8% in the placebo group.

Respectively, the median duration of severe oral mucositis was 4 days in each group, days to neutrophil engraftment were a median of 12 and to platelet engraftment were a median of 13 days in each group, rates of febrile neutropenia were 57.1% and 58.3%, rates of bloodstream infections were 10.7% and 16.6%, rates of veno-occlusive disease were 7% and 12.5%, need for TPN occurred in 14.2% vs. 25%, need for opiates occurred in 78.5% vs. 66.6%, and median time to discharge was 18 and 19 days. As noted, none of the differences were statistically significant.

“These unequivocal interim results led to our decision to discontinue the study,” Dr. Yeshrun said.

Arnon Nagler, MD, MSc, from Sheba Medical Center Tel HaShomer at Tel Aviv University in Israel, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview “I think this is a very practical and important study, because we need evidence-based data such as this.”

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

His comoderator, Maria Gilleece, MD, director of the Yorkshire (England) Blood and Marrow Transplant Program, noted in an interview that folinic acid is frequently used in the United Kingdom for patients receiving high-dose methotrexate, ”and certainly, this study suggests that may be inappropriate.”

Rabin Medical Center sponsored the trial. Dr. Yeshrun, Dr. Nagler, and Dr. Gilleece reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Yeshrun M. et al. TCT 2020. Abstract 61.

ORLANDO – Folinic acid does not prevent oral mucositis in patients who are receiving a calcineurin inhibitor and methotrexate for graft-vs.-host disease prophylaxis, results of a multicenter study from Israel suggest.

A randomized clinical trial to determine whether folinic acid rescue 24 hours after a methotrexate dose protects patients against severe oral mucositis was halted for futility after an interim analysis showed no advantage to adding folinic acid, reported Moshe Yeshrun, MD, of Rabin Medical Center at Tel Aviv University, Israel.

“Regarding the primary and secondary endpoints, we observed identical rates and duration of severe oral mucositis, as well as identical rates of oral mucositis of any grade in the folinic acid and placebo groups,” he said at the annual Transplantation and Cellular Therapy Meetings.

There were also no significant differences between the folinic acid and placebo control groups in time to neutrophil and platelet engraftment, rates of febrile neutropenia and bloodstream infections, veno-occlusive disease, need for opiates or total parenteral nutrition (TPN), or time from transplant to discharge, Dr. Yeshrun added at the meeting, held by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

Folinic acid therapy did not, however, appear to abrogate or interfere with the effects of methotrexate on prevention of either acute or chronic graft-vs-host disease (GVHD).
 

Severe adverse event

Oral mucositis can be a serious complication of therapy, associated with increased morbidity and mortality; significant pain; difficulty with eating or speaking; difficulty swallowing water, food, and medications; prolonged hospitalizations; and increased costs of care, Dr. Yeshrun noted.

The presence of oral mucositis sometimes leads clinicians to reduce or even skip methotrexate doses, thereby increasing risk for GVHD.

There are limited data from nonrandomized studies indicating that folinic acid (also called leucovorin) may reduce methotrexate-associated toxicities, and both the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and European LeukemiaNet working group recommend the use of folinic-acid rescue 24 hours following each methotrexate dose, Dr. Yeshrun said.

To see whether folinic acid rescue actually reduces the rate of methotrexate-induced toxicity and affects outcomes for patients who receive methotrexate post transplant for GVHD prophylaxis, Dr. Yeshrun and colleagues in three Israeli medical centers conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

The eligible study population included patients 18 and older with hematological malignancies in complete remission or minimal residual disease who underwent myeloablative conditioning and allogeneic transplant from HLA-matched or 1-antigen mismatched siblings or unrelated donors.

The patients were stratified by treatment center and intensity of the conditioning regimen, and then randomized on a 1:1 basis to receive folinic acid or placebo beginning 24 hours after each methotrexate dose, with the assigned medication given at a dose of 15 mg three times daily on the first day, and once daily on days 3 and 6.

Patients who received a transplant from an unrelated donor were also given anti-thymocyte globulin at a total dose of 15 mg/kg.

Supportive care included filgrastim (Neupogen) 5 mcg/kg from day 7 until neutrophil engraftment, infection prophylaxis, and ursodeoxycholic acid for prevention of veno-occlusive disease.
 

Trial stopped

Although the study was designed to enroll 116 patients to have a power of 80% to detect a 50% reduction in the rate of severe oral mucositis from an anticipated 50% in the placebo arm, a planned interim analysis conducted after approximately half of the target events occurred showed no difference in the rates of severe oral mucositis, and the trial was halted.

A total of 28 patients in the folinic acid group and 24 in the placebo group were available for the analysis.

The rate of grade 3 or 4 mucositis, the primary endpoint, was 46.6% in the folinic acid group, and 45.8% in the placebo group.

Respectively, the median duration of severe oral mucositis was 4 days in each group, days to neutrophil engraftment were a median of 12 and to platelet engraftment were a median of 13 days in each group, rates of febrile neutropenia were 57.1% and 58.3%, rates of bloodstream infections were 10.7% and 16.6%, rates of veno-occlusive disease were 7% and 12.5%, need for TPN occurred in 14.2% vs. 25%, need for opiates occurred in 78.5% vs. 66.6%, and median time to discharge was 18 and 19 days. As noted, none of the differences were statistically significant.

“These unequivocal interim results led to our decision to discontinue the study,” Dr. Yeshrun said.

Arnon Nagler, MD, MSc, from Sheba Medical Center Tel HaShomer at Tel Aviv University in Israel, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview “I think this is a very practical and important study, because we need evidence-based data such as this.”

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

His comoderator, Maria Gilleece, MD, director of the Yorkshire (England) Blood and Marrow Transplant Program, noted in an interview that folinic acid is frequently used in the United Kingdom for patients receiving high-dose methotrexate, ”and certainly, this study suggests that may be inappropriate.”

Rabin Medical Center sponsored the trial. Dr. Yeshrun, Dr. Nagler, and Dr. Gilleece reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Yeshrun M. et al. TCT 2020. Abstract 61.