4.5 Article

Ruxolitinib-ECP combination treatment for refractory severe chronic graft-versus-host disease

Journal

BONE MARROW TRANSPLANTATION
Volume 56, Issue 4, Pages 909-916

Publisher

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41409-020-01122-8

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Germany [SFB1160]
  2. DFG [390939984]
  3. GVHDCure (ERC)
  4. Wilhelm Sander Stiftung [2008.046.5]
  5. Jose-Carreras Leukemia foundation [DJCLS 01R/2019]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The combination of Ruxolitinib and extracorporeal photopheresis has shown activity in treating glucocorticoid refractory chronic graft-versus-host disease, with a best response rate of 74%. However, some patients may experience newly diagnosed cytopenia and CMV reactivation. Further prospective trials are needed to validate the safety and efficacy of this combination therapy.
Glucocorticoid-refractory (SR) chronic (c) graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) is a multisystem immunological disease and the leading cause of non-relapse mortality (NRM) in patients surviving longer than 2 years after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. Both ruxolitinib (RUX) and extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) have shown activity for SR-cGVHD which motivated us to treat refractory cGHVD patients with the RUX-ECP combination. In this retrospective survey, 23 patients received RUX-ECP as salvage therapy for SR-cGVHD. The best response (CR or PR) at any time point during treatment was 74% (17/23) including 9% (2/23) CR and 65% (15/23) PR. The 24-months-survival was 75% (CI 56.0-94.1). Newly diagnosed cytopenia occurred in 22% (5/23) and CMV reactivation was observed in 26% (6/23) of the patients. Serum levels of soluble interleukin-2 receptor (sIL-2R) correlated with response. Our retrospective analysis shows that the RUX-ECP combination is safe and has activity in a fraction of patients with SR-cGVHD, which needs validation in a prospective trial.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available