Pediatric Graft Versus Host Disease Treatment & Management
- Author: Phillip Ruiz, Jr, MD, PhD; Chief Editor: Harumi Jyonouchi, MD more...
Prevention and treatment of acute graft versus host disease
Successful therapeutic intervention of life-threatening graft versus host disease (GVHD) is possible, although the consequence can be the development of fatal opportunistic infections. Therefore, the best approach to manage GVHD should be its prevention. Effective prevention against GVHD includes the use of histocompatible donor and recipient combinations.[16, 17, 18]
Interference of T-cell activation/function using immunosuppressive therapy: The calcineurin inhibitors (cyclosporine and tacrolimus) are the principal drugs used to prevent GVHD. They are not found to be very effective and have additional toxicity that reduces their use. Corticosteroids can also interfere with T-cell activation and function but are uncommonly used in prophylactic regimens because they seem to increase mortality from infection. Over the last few years, great attention has been focused on the potential of regulatory T cells (Tregs) for inhibiting the division, expansion and differentiation of donor T cells specific for host antigens. However, the potential use of this approach in humans is still not established.
Removal of T cells by T–cell depletion ex vivo or T-cell depletion in vivo. The in vivo host lymphocyte depletion has the advantage of reducing the risk of graft rejection, but both techniques are associated with a reduction in graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effects and a concomitant increase in risk of leukemia relapse.
T–cell depletion ex vivo: Removing T cells from the graft is very effective in preventing GVHD without affecting the graft survival, disease-free survival, and treatment-related mortality rates. The number of infused T cells should not exceed 5 × 10 4 cells/kg of recipient body weight. This procedure increases a risk of graft rejection.
T-cell depletion in vivo: Adding T-cell antibodies to the conventional conditioning regimen has the following 2 side effects: (1) it can reduce the host response, which improves engraftment, and (2) it affects mature donor T cells in the graft. This can be accomplished with such agents as alemtuzumab (Campath) or antithymocyte globulin (ATG). These long-lived agents can be directly administered to the patient, a tactic that depletes host and donor-derived T cells. Alternatively, the T cells (in the donor bone marrow) can be eliminated in vitro using monoclonal antibodies and using physical methods such as elutriation, or using immunotoxins.
Inhibition of T-cell proliferation. Drugs often used for this therapy include methotrexate and mycophenolate (MMF). Methotrexate has been the primary drug in this indication for decades, and, although effective, it is also associated with delayed engraftment, mucositis, and transplant-associated toxicity. MMF inhibits T-cell purine salvage pathways and appears to have less toxicity than methotrexate and can be used with a calcineurin inhibitor.
Interference of cytokine function (although this approach is relatively new and still experimental). Moreover, agents such as corticosteroids definitely reduce inflammatory cytokine levels, but, as noted above, for the most part they have not been helpful in GVHD prophylaxis.
Removal of host antigen-presenting cells (APCs) using extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP). ECP is pheresis of approximately 5 × 109 leukocytes that are treated with a photoactive compound 8-methoxypsoralen and ultraviolet A light and re-infused to the patients. This therapy induces lymphocytes undergoing apoptosis. Those apoptotic cells are taken up by host APCs, thereby triggering certain tolerance mechanisms, which results in lower incidence of GVHD.
Increase in host immune activity using reduced-intensity conditioning regimens. This was defined as a conditioning regimen in which the dosage of chemotherapy and/or total body irradiation (TBI) was reduced to 50%. These changes may result in less toxicity and less severe GVHD due to the persistence of host T cells.
Housing the patient in a pathogen-poor protected environment can be very helpful to reduce the risk of infections.
Many different therapies have been used in the treatment of acute GVHD. Unfortunately, control of GVHD does not translate into improved survival in many patients because of the subsequent development of opportunistic infections.
Steroids in conjunction with cyclosporine or tacrolimus are considered standard therapy. Treatment is required for established grades II-IV GVHD and often consists of continuation of original immunosuppressive agents used for GVHD prophylaxis and the addition of methylprednisolone at 2 mg/kg/d in divided doses for 10-14 days or until GVHD is controlled, followed by steroid taper. Patients who have not received cyclosporine or tacrolimus as part of their GVHD prophylaxis may benefit by combining it with corticosteroids. Combination triple therapy with cyclosporine, prednisone, and antithymocyte globulin has been found to be equally efficacious but more toxic in children. Successful treatment of GVHD with this initial intervention is only seen in about 25-40% of patients after donor transplantation; thus, 60-75% of patients with clinically significant GVHD require therapy in addition to corticosteroids.
For steroid-refractory GVHD, rituximab along with other sporadically tried drugs have been studied. ATG has activity in steroid refractory GVHD, especially in the skin. Overall responses are seen in 20-60% of patients, but overall survival has not improved, and 1-year mortality rates approach 90%. One other form of antibody therapy that has been used is the anti-IL-2 receptor (IL-2R) monoclonal antibody, daclizumab. However, in a phase III trial of primary GVHD therapy, increased mortality from a combination of infection and relapse was noted. Denileukin diftitox (Ontak) is an engineered toxin that combines the IL-2 molecule to the diphtheria toxin. This drug was also developed to eliminate the IL-2R expressing cells. Daclizumab was withdrawn from the United States market in 2009 and denileukin was discontinued from the market in January 2014.
A 2011 study noted that in patients with chronic GVHD refractory to glucocorticoid therapy, daily low-dose subcutaneous interleukin-2 was found to increase regulatory T cells in vivo, suppress clinical manifestations, and permit glucocorticoid tapering by a mean of 60%.
This has been attempted with blocking actions of IL-1 by preventing it binding to IL-1 receptor either by soluble IL-1 receptor or by IL-1 receptor antagonist, anakinra [Kineret]. This approach has not been extensively pursued. The anti-TNF alpha antibody infliximab (Remicade) has been effective in steroid-resistant GVHD but with increased subsequent infection. To date, it has shown benefit over steroids alone.
MMF and the inosine monophosphate dehydrogenase (IMPDH) inhibitor, pentostatin, are cytotoxic reagents tried on acute GVHD. The latter drug appears to be highly active in acute GVHD in a single institution experience. The response rate was approximately 65%, but long-term survival was only 26%. Several small studies of MMF have shown therapeutic efficacy in the range of 40-70%, with survival rates ranging from 16-37%. As with other reagents, opportunistic infections mandate careful dosing.
A murine monoclonal antibody against CD147, which is a neurothelion member of the immunoglobulin superfamily and up-regulated on activated B cells and T cells, induced 50% response in steroid-resistant acute GVHD. Moderate-to-severe myalgia occurred in 28-60% of cases and was dose limiting. Visilizumab is a humanized anti-CD3 antibody that selectively induces apoptosis of activated T-cells. A phase I study demonstrated that all patients affected by severe acute GVHD and treated with visilizumab improved. However, posttransplant lymphoproliferative disease (PTLD) was a major concern. Also, extracorporeal photopheresis has been used to treat resistant, acute GVHD; the patients who responded had a significantly better outcome.
Prevention and treatment of chronic graft versus host disease
The best prophylaxis against chronic GVHD is prevention of acute GVHD because de novo chronic GVHD is less common compared with incidence in patients with acute GVHD. Limited chronic GVHD may spontaneously resolve without specific therapy. Treatment of extensive chronic GVHD involves oral prednisone, which may be used simultaneously or on an alternate day schedule with cyclosporine or tacrolimus. Azathioprine may be used as a corticosteroid-sparing agent.
Numerous therapies, including psoralen plus ultraviolet radiation, thalidomide, and clofazimine, have been tried. MMF is an immunosuppressive agent used for prophylaxis for acute GVHD. In the treatment of steroid-refractory chronic GVHD, responses of 90% and 75% in first-line and second-line settings have been reported when MMF is added to standard tacrolimus, cyclosporine, and/or prednisone treatments.
Supportive therapy and symptomatic management is equally important, including ursodeoxycholic acid for cholestasis, artificial tears and saliva for sicca syndrome, physiotherapy to prevent contractures, and immunoglobulin replacement and infection prophylaxis against opportunistic infections.
Surgical care is restricted to insertion of a central line to aid in parental nutrition and intravenous treatments.
During acute GVHD, persistent diarrhea requires total parenteral nutrition until symptoms have subsided.
Activity is restricted depending on the patient's conditions, and isolation for infection control may be necessary.
Barnes DW, Loutit JF, Micklem HS. "Secondary disease" of radiation chimeras: a syndrome due to lymphoid aplasia. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1962 Oct 24. 99:374-85. [Medline].
Simonsen M. Graft versus host reactions and their possible implications in man. Bibl Haematol. 1965. 23:115-21. [Medline].
Billingham RE. The biology of graft-versus-host reactions. Harvey Lect. 1966. 62:21-78.
Ferrara JL, Deeg HJ. Graft-versus-host disease. N Engl J Med. 1991 Mar 7. 324(10):667-74. [Medline].
Filipovich AH, Weisdorf D, Pavletic S, et al. National Institutes of Health consensus development project on criteria for clinical trials in chronic graft-versus-host disease: I. Diagnosis and staging working group report. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2005 Dec. 11(12):945-56. [Medline].
Cho BS, Min CK, Eom KS, et al. Feasibility of NIH consensus criteria for chronic graft-versus-host disease. Leukemia. 2008 Oct 2. [Medline].
Ball LM, Egeler RM. Acute GvHD: pathogenesis and classification. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2008 Jun. 41 Suppl 2:S58-64. [Medline].
Sun Y, Tawara I, Toubai T, et al. Pathophysiology of acute graft-versus-host disease: recent advances. Transl Res. 2007 Oct. 150(4):197-214. [Medline].
Ferrara JL, Reddy P. Pathophysiology of graft-versus-host disease. Semin Hematol. 2006 Jan. 43(1):3-10. [Medline].
Stenger EO, Rosborough BR, Mathews LR, Ma H, Mapara MY, Thomson AW, et al. IL-12hi Rapamycin-Conditioned Dendritic Cells Mediate IFN-?-Dependent Apoptosis of Alloreactive CD4+ T Cells In Vitro and Reduce Lethal Graft-versus-Host Disease. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2013 Nov 12. [Medline].
Ferrara JL, Yanik G. Acute graft versus host disease: pathophysiology, risk factors, and prevention strategies. Clin Adv Hematol Oncol. 2005 May. 3(5):415-9, 428. [Medline].
Kohler S, Pascher A, Junge G, et al. Graft versus host disease after liver transplantation - a single center experience and review of literature. Transpl Int. 2008 May. 21(5):441-51. [Medline].
Parkman R. Chronic graft-versus-host disease. Curr Opin Hematol. 1998 Jan. 5(1):22-5. [Medline].
Choi SW, Kitko CL, Braun T, et al. Change in plasma tumor necrosis factor receptor 1 levels in the first week after myeloablative allogeneic transplantation correlates with severity and incidence of GVHD and survival. Blood. 2008 Aug 15. 112(4):1539-42. [Medline].
Paczesny S, Krijanovski OI, Braun TM, et al. A biomarker panel for acute graft versus host disease. Blood. 2008 Oct 2. [Medline].
Antin JH. Approaches to graft-vs-host disease. Pediatr Transplant. 2005 Dec. 9 Suppl 7:71-5. [Medline].
Deeg HJ. How I treat refractory acute GVHD. Blood. 2007 May 15. 109(10):4119-26. [Medline].
Ferrara JL. Novel strategies for the treatment and diagnosis of graft-versus-host-disease. Best Pract Res Clin Haematol. 2007 Mar. 20(1):91-7. [Medline].
Inagaki J, Fukano R, Kodama Y, Nishimura M, Shimokawa M, Okamura J. Safety and efficacy of low-dose methotrexate for pediatric patients with steroid-refractory acute graft-versus-host disease after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Ann Hematol. 2013 Oct 22. [Medline].
Ussowicz M, Musial J, Mielcarek M, Tomaszewska A, Nasilowska-Adamska B, Kalwak K, et al. Steroid-sparing effect of extracorporeal photopheresis in the therapy of graft-versus-host disease after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Transplant Proc. 2013 Nov. 45(9):3375-80. [Medline].
Koreth J, Matsuoka K, Kim HT, et al. Interleukin-2 and regulatory T cells in graft-versus-host disease. N Engl J Med. 2011 Dec 1. 365(22):2055-66. [Medline].
Lopez F, Parker P, Nademanee A, et al. Efficacy of mycophenolate mofetil in the treatment of chronic graft-versus-host disease. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2005 Apr. 11(4):307-13. [Medline].
Diaz MA, Vicent MG, Gonzalez ME, et al. Risk assessment and outcome of chronic graft-versus-host disease after allogeneic peripheral blood progenitor cell transplantation in pediatric patients. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2004 Jul 26. ():[Medline].
Faraci M, Dallorso S, Morreale G, et al. Surgery for acute graft-versus-host disease of the bowel: description of a pediatric case. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2004 Jul. 26(7):441-3. [Medline].
Flowers ME, Kansu E, Sullivan KM. Pathophysiology and treatment of graft-versus-host disease. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 1999 Oct. 13(5):1091-112, viii-ix. [Medline].
Graubner UB, Liese J, Belohradsky BH. [Vaccination]. Klin Padiatr. 2001 Sep. 213 Suppl 1:A77-83. [Medline].
Guinan EC, Bierer BE. Principles of Bone Marrow and Stem Cell Transplantation. Hematology of Infancy and Childhood. 1998. 346-351.
Horwitz ME, Sullivan KM. Chronic graft-versus-host disease. Blood Rev. 2006 Jan. 20(1):15-27. [Medline].
Klingebiel T, Schlegel PG. GVHD: overview on pathophysiology, incidence, clinical and biological features. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1998 Apr. 21 Suppl 2:S45-9. [Medline].
Kollman C, Howe CW, Anasetti C, et al. Donor characteristics as risk factors in recipients after transplantation of bone marrow from unrelated donors: the effect of donor age. Blood. 2001 Oct 1. 98(7):2043-51. [Medline].
Lazarus HM, Vogelsang GB, Rowe JM. Prevention and treatment of acute graft-versus-host disease: the old and the new. A report from the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG). Bone Marrow Transplant. 1997 Mar. 19(6):577-600. [Medline].
Messina C, Faraci M, de Fazio V, et al. Prevention and treatment of acute GvHD. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2008 Jun. 41 Suppl 2:S65-70. [Medline].
Ringden O, Deeg HJ. Clinical Spectrum of Graft-Versus-Host Disease. 1997. 525-550.
Simpson D. New developments in the prophylaxis and treatment of graft versus host disease. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2001 Jul. 2(7):1109-17. [Medline].
Sultan M, Ramprasad J, Jensen MK, Margolis D, Werlin S. Endoscopic diagnosis of pediatric acute gastrointestinal graft-versus-host disease. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2012 Oct. 55(4):417-20. [Medline].
Wysocki CA, Panoskaltsis-Mortari A, Blazar BR, Serody JS. Leukocyte migration and graft-versus-host disease. Blood. 2005 Jun 1. 105(11):4191-9. [Medline].