Search

Manipulation of the gut microbiome using live biotherapeutic products shows promise for clinical applications but remains challenging to achieve. Here, we induced dysbiosis in 56 healthy volunteers using antibiotics to test a synbiotic comprising the infant gut microbe, Bifidobacterium longum subspecies infantis (B. infantis), and human milk oligosaccharides (HMOs). B. infantis engrafted in 76% of subjects in an HMO-dependent manner, reaching a relative abundance of up to 81%. Changes in microbiome composition and gut metabolites reflect altered recovery of engrafted subjects compared with controls. Engraftment associates with increases in lactate-consuming Veillonella, faster acetate recovery, and changes in indolelactate and p-cresol sulfate, metabolites that impact host inflammatory status. Furthermore, Veillonella co-cultured in vitro and in vivo with B. infantis and HMO converts lactate produced by B. infantis to propionate, an important mediator of host physiology. These results suggest that the synbiotic reproducibly and predictably modulates recovery of a dysbiotic microbiome.

Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) is a potentially curative therapy for hematologic malignancies. Alloreactivity after HSCT is known to be mediated by adaptive immune cells expressing rearranging receptors. Recent studies demonstrated that the innate immune system could likewise sense the non-self signals and subsequently enhance the alloimmune response. We recently demonstrated that the donor/recipient mismatch of signal regulatory protein α (SIRPα), an immunoglobulin receptor exclusively expressed on innate cells, is associated with a higher risk of cGVHD and relapse protection in a cohort of acute myeloid leukemia patients who underwent allo-HSCT. Whether these effects also occur in other hematologic malignancies remains unclear. In the present study, we compared outcomes by SIRPα match status in a cohort of 310 patients who received allo-HSCT from an HLA matched-related donor for the treatment of lymphoid malignancies. Multivariable analysis showed that SIRPα mismatch was associated with a significantly higher rate of cGVHD (hazard ratio [HR] 1.8, P= .002), cGVHD requiring systemic immunosuppressive therapy (HR 1.9, P= .005), a lower rate of disease progression (HR 0.5, P= .003) and improved progression-free survival (HR 0.5, P= .001). Notably, the effects of SIRPα mismatch were observed only in the patients who achieved >95% of donor T-cell chimerism. The mismatch in SIRPα is associated with favorable relapse protection and concurrently increased risk of cGVHD in patients who undergo allo-HSCT for lymphoid malignancies, and the optimal donor could be selected based on the finding of the study to mitigate the risk of GVHD and relapse.

Optimal conditioning regimens for older patients with myelofibrosis undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant are not known. Likewise, the role of dose intensity is not clear. We conducted a nonrandomized, prospective, phase II trial using low-dose, later escalated to high-dose (myeloablative conditioning), busulfan with fludarabine (Bu-Flu) in myelofibrosis patients up to age 74 years. The first 15 patients received i.v. busulfan 130 mg/m2/day on days -3 and -2 ("low dose"); 31 patients received high-dose conditioning, either 100 mg/m2/day (days -5 to -2; n = 4) or pharmacokinetic-guided area under the curve of 4000 μmol/min (days -5 to -2; n = 27). The primary endpoint was day 100 nonrelapse mortality (NRM). Median age was 58 years (interquartile range [IQR], 53-63). Dynamic international prognostic scoring system-plus was intermediate (n = 28) or high (n = 18). Donors were related (n = 19) or unrelated (n = 27). Cumulative incidence of NRM was 9.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0-20.3) at day 100 and at 3 years in the high-dose group and 0% in the low-dose group at day 100, which increased to 20% (95% CI, 0-41.9) at 3 years. With a median follow-up of 5.1 years (IQR, 3.8-6), 3-year relapse was 32.3% (95% CI, 15.4-49.1) in high dose versus 53.3% (95% CI, 26.6-80.1) in low dose. Event-free survival was 58% (95% CI, 43-78) versus 27% (95% CI, 12-62), and overall survival was 74% (95% CI, 60-91) versus 60% (95% CI, 40-91). In multivariate analysis, high-dose busulfan had a trend toward lower relapse (hazard ratio, .44; 95% CI, .18-1.07; P = .07), with no impact on NRM. Intensifying the Bu-Flu regimen using pharmacokinetic-monitoring appears to be promising in reducing relapse without increasing NRM.

BackgroundPrevention of graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) without malignant relapse is the overall goal of allogeneic haemopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). We aimed to evaluate regimens using either maraviroc, bortezomib, or post-transplantation cyclophosphamide for GvHD prophylaxis compared with controls receiving the combination of tacrolimus and methotrexate using a novel composite primary endpoint to identify the most promising intervention to be further tested in a phase 3 trial.MethodsIn this prospective multicentre phase 2 trial, adult patients aged 18-75 years who received reduced-intensity conditioning HCT were randomly assigned (1:1:1) by random block sizes to tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and post-transplantation cyclophosphamide (cyclophosphamide 50 mg/kg on days 3 and 4, followed by tacrolimus starting on day 5 and mycophenolate mofetil starting on day 5 at 15 mg/kg three times daily not to exceed 1 g from day 5 to day 35); tacrolimus, methotrexate, and bortezomib (bortezomib 1·3 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1, 4, and 7 after HCT); or tacrolimus, methotrexate, and maraviroc (maraviroc 300 mg orally twice daily from day -3 to day 30 after HCT). Methotrexate was administered as a 15 mg/m2 intravenous bolus on day 1 and 10 mg/m2 intravenous bolus on days 3, 6, and 11 after HCT; tacrolimus was given intravenously at a dose of 0·05 mg/kg twice daily (or oral equivalent) starting on day -3 (except the post-transplantation cyclophosphamide, as indicated), with a target level of 5-15 ng/mL. Tacrolimus was continued at least until day 90 and was tapered off by day 180. Each study group was compared separately to a contemporary non-randomised prospective cohort of patients (control group) who fulfilled the same eligibility criteria as the trial, but who were treated with tacrolimus and methotrexate at centres not participating in the trial. The primary endpoint (GvHD-free, relapse-free survival [GRFS]) was defined as the time from HCT to onset of grade 3-4 acute GvHD, chronic GvHD requiring systemic immunosuppression, disease relapse, or death. The study was analysed by modified intention to treat. The study is closed to accrual and this is the planned analysis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02208037.FindingsBetween Nov 17, 2014, and May 18, 2016, 273 patients from 31 US centres were randomly assigned to the three study arms: 89 to tacrolimus, methotrexate, and bortezomib; 92 to tacrolimus, methotrexate, and maraviroc; 92 to tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and post-transplantation cyclophosphamide; and six were excluded. Between Aug 1, 2014, and Sept 14, 2016, 224 controls received tacrolimus and methotrexate. Controls were generally well matched except for more frequent comorbidities than the intervention groups and a different distribution of types of conditioning regimens used. Compared with controls, the hazard ratio for GRFS was 0·72 (90% CI 0·54-0·94; p=0·044) for tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and post-transplantation cyclophosphamide, 0·98 (0·76-1·27; p=0·92) for tacrolimus, methotrexate, and bortezomib, and 1·10 (0·86-1·41; p=0·49) for tacrolimus, methotrexate, and maraviroc. 238 patients experienced grade 3 or 4 toxicities: 12 (13%) had grade 3 and 67 (73%) grade 4 events with tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and post-transplantation cyclophosphamide; ten (11%) had grade 3 and 68 (76%) had grade 4 events with tacrolimus, methotrexate, and bortezomib; and 18 (20%) had grade 3 and 63 (68%) had grade 4 events with tacrolimus, methotrexate, and maraviroc. The most common toxicities were haematological (77 [84%] for tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and post-transplantation cyclophosphamide; 73 [82%] for tacrolimus, methotrexate, and bortezomib; and 78 [85%] for tacrolimus, methotrexate, and maraviroc) and cardiac (43 [47%], 44 [49%], and 43 [47%], respectively).InterpretationTacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and post-transplantation cyclophosphamide was the most promising intervention, yielding the best GRFS; this regimen is thus being prospectively compared with tacrolimus and methotrexate in a phase 3 randomised trial.FundingUS National Health, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Cancer Institute; National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease; and Millennium Pharmaceuticals.

Background: Allogeneic stem cell transplantation (SCT) remains the best consolidative modality in most patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Along with factors directly pertaining to SCT, pretransplantation disease control, performance status, and prior treatment‐related complications are important factors that affect posttransplantation survival outcomes. Methods: The authors compared the survival outcomes of patients ≥60 years of age treated on the phase 2 clinical trial of venetoclax (Ven) added to cladribine (CLAD) and low dose cytarabine (LDAC) alternating with azacitidine (CLAD/LDAC/Ven arm) (NCT03586609) who underwent allogeneic SCT in first remission to a retrospective cohort of patients ≥60 years of age who underwent SCT after intensive chemotherapy. Intensive chemotherapy was defined as the use of cytarabine >1 g/m2 and anthracyclines during induction/consolidation. Results: Thirty‐five patients at median age of 68 years in the CLAD/LDAC/Ven arm were compared to 42 patients at a median age of 62 years in the intensive therapy arm. The 2‐year relapse‐free survival was superior with CLAD/LDAC/Ven versus intensive chemotherapy (88% vs. 65%; p =.03) whereas the 2‐year overall survival (OS) was comparable (84% vs. 70%; p =.14). On a competing event analysis, the 2‐year cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR) was significantly lower with CLAD/LDAC/Ven versus intensive chemotherapy (2.9% vs. 17.2%, Gray's p =.049) whereas nonrelapse mortality was comparable (16.2% vs. 17.1%; p =.486). Conclusion: In conclusion, treatment with CLAD/LDAC/Ven was associated with favorable outcomes in older patients who underwent subsequent allogeneic SCT. The OS was comparable to that with intensive chemotherapy followed by allogeneic SCT, but the CIR rate was significantly lower. Older patients (≥60 years of age) with acute myeloid leukemia who underwent allogeneic stem cell transplantation after low‐intensity therapy on the phase 2 trial of venetoclax added to cladribine and low dose cytarabine alternating with azacitidine had promising survival outcomes that were comparable to a retrospective cohort of patients who underwent allogeneic stem cell transplantation after intensive chemotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundHaemopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HCT) conditioning regimens that can reduce risk of relapse without increasing non-relapse mortality are needed. We aimed to test the safety of timed-sequential delivery of low-dose versus high-dose myeloablative busulfan in older patients and patients with comorbidities.MethodsThis non-stratified, open-label, randomised phase 2 trial was done at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (Houston, TX, USA). Patients with haematological cancers aged between 5 and 75 years were eligible to participate in the study. Patients who had HIV or uncontrollable infections were excluded. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1 by a computer-generated programme in block sizes of four) to receive a total intravenous busulfan dose to achieve an area under the curve of 16 000 μmol/min (16K group) or 20 000 μmol/min (20K group) on the basis of pharmacokinetic analysis, plus intravenous fludarabine 40 mg/m2 for 4 days. The investigators and the research nurses were masked to the block size to conceal allocation. The primary outcome was day 100 non-relapse mortality. All analyses were by modified intention to treat, including only patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. No interim analyses were planned and accrual is complete. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01572662.FindingsBetween April 18, 2012, and Dec 9, 2015, 98 patients were enrolled. 49 patients were randomly assigned to the 16K group and 49 to the 20K group, one of which was removed from the study before starting the intervention. Median age was 60 years (IQR 54-67). 50 (52%) patients had an HCT-specific comorbidity index score of 3 or more, and 41 (42%) had a high or very high Disease Risk Index score. Day 100 non-relapse mortality was 4% (95% CI 0-10) in the 16K group and 6% (0-13) in the 20K group (p=0·65). Infection was the most common grade 3-5 toxicity in both the 20K group (25 [52%] of 48 patients) and the 16K group (24 [49%] of 49 participants). Mucositis (nine [19%] of 48 patients vs three [6%] of 49 patients), idiopathic pneumonia syndrome (nine [19%] of 48 patients vs two [4%] of 49 patients), and culture-negative neutropenic fever (16 [33%] of 48 patients vs eight [16%] of 49 patients) were more common in the 20K group than in the 16K group.InterpretationMyeloablative doses of busulfan administered in a timed-sequential manner with fludarabine is associated with low non-relapse mortality in older patients and patients with comorbidities. Additional studies are required to show whether this approach can reduce the risk of relapse.FundingCancer Center Support Grant (US National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health).

We report outcomes of 60 patients with steroid-refractory (SR)-aGVHD treated with pentostatin. Almost half (47%) of patients had grade 4 GVHD-22% had stage 3-4 liver GVHD and 51% had stage 3-4 lower gastrointestinal tract (LGI) GVHD. Patients received a median of 3 courses (range, 1-9) of pentostatin. Day 28 overall response rate (ORR) was 33% (n = 20) (complete response 18% (n = 11), partial response 15% (n = 9)). Non-relapse mortality was 72% (95% confidence interval (CI) 61-84%) and overall survival (OS) was 21% (95% CI 12-32%) at 18 months. On univariate analysis, age >60 years (HR 1.9, 95% CI 1.01-3.7, p = 0.045) and presence of liver GVHD (HR 1.9, 95% CI 1.9, 95% CI 1.5-3.3, p = 0.03) were significant predictors of poor OS while patients with LGI GVHD had superior OS than those without (HR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2-0.8, p = 0.01). On stratified analysis, patients

Histologic confirmation is considered a standard practice to diagnose gastrointestinal graft versus host disease (GI GVHD) and is often used in making treatment decisions. A histologic grade is often determined in cases that are diagnosed with GI GVHD. Although extensive crypt loss (histologic grade 4) is associated with high nonrelapse mortality (NRM), the prognostic value for the more common grade 1 is poorly understood. As clinical decisions are made on the degree of histologic evidence, it is important to establish its prognostic significance. Therefore, we evaluated 309 patients who underwent endoscopic biopsy for suspected GI GVHD within 6 months posttransplant between 2009 and 2012. The presence of histologic grade 1 was associated with increased NRM (hazard ratio=2.7, P=0.02) when compared with one of negative biopsy in patients with lower but not isolated upper GI GVHD. Multivariate competing-risk regression analysis confirmed the independent impact of histologic grade 1 in patients with early clinical stages of lower GI GVHD (stage 0 to 2) (hazard ratio=2.7, P=0.044). When compared with advanced histologic grades, histologic grade 1 did not lessen the adverse outcome for patients with advanced lower GI GVHD (stage 3 to 4) (cumulative incidence NRM of 84%). In conclusion, the presence of histologic grade 1 is associated with increased NRM in patients presenting with lower GI GVHD (stages 0 to 2) and is sufficient evidence for decision to initiate therapy. At the same time, histologic grade 1 does not lessen the markedly adverse impact of advanced lower GI GVHD (stage 3 to 4) and is not synonymous with "mild" GVHD.