Efficacy of folinic acid rescue following MTX GVHD prophylaxis: results of a double-blind, randomized, controlled study

Comparing the risk of severe oral mucositis associated with methotrexate as graft-versus host-disease prophylaxis to other immunosuppressive prophylactic agents in hematopoietic cell transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This study examines the risk of severe oral mucositis (SOM) in graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis (GVHD) compared to other agents in hematopoietic cell transplantation patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of four databases, including PubMed, Embassy, Web of Science, and Scopus, was conducted to identify studies reporting frequency and severity of oral mucositis in association with GVHD prophylactic regimens. RevMan 5.4 was used to perform the meta-analysis. Risk of bias assessment was carried out using the Rob-2 tool for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and ROBINS-I tool for observational studies.

RESULTS

Twenty-five papers, including 11 RCTs and 14 observational studies, met the inclusion criteria. The pooled results from eight RCTs showed a higher risk of SOM in patients receiving MTX or MTX-inclusive GVHD prophylaxis versus non-MTX alternatives (RR = 1.50, 95% CI [1.20, 1.87], I2 = 36%, P = 0.0003). Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and post-transplant cyclophosphamide (Pt-Cy) consistently showed lower risk of mucositis than MTX. Folinic acid (FA) rescue and mini-dosing of MTX were associated with reduced oral mucositis severity.

CONCLUSION

Patients receiving MTX have a higher SOM risk compared to other approaches to prevent GVHD, which should be considered in patient care. When appropriate, MMF, FA, and a mini-dose of MTX may be an alternative that is associated with less SOM. This work also underlines the scarcity of RCTs on MTX interventions to provide the best evidence-based recommendations.

Significance of Omitting Day 11 Mini-Dose Methotrexate for GVHD Prophylaxis After Unrelated Bone Marrow Transplantation

The combination of calcineurin inhibitors and short-term methotrexate has been used as a standard graft-versus-host-disease (GVHD) prophylaxis in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Mini-dose methotrexate (mini-MTX), consisting of 5 mg/m²/d on days 1, 3, 6, and 11, is occasionally selected as an alternative considering toxicity. The significance of day 11 administration remains unclear. We performed a retrospective study of 135 cases of unrelated bone marrow transplantation at our institute between 2006 and 2019 and compared the outcomes between day 11 MTX dose omitted (n = 72) and full-doses of mini-MTX (n = 63). In total cohort, the 4-year overall survival (OS) was 58.7 %, and the omitted group showed poor GVHD/relapse-free-survival (P = .01) with comparable OS (P = .11) and relapse-free survival (P = .11). Human leukocyte antigen (HLA) mismatch is a major risk factor for severe GVHD. We analyzed the impact of omitting day 11 MTX in 2 cohorts from HLA matched or mismatched donors. In both cohorts, the omitted group had a higher risk of severe acute and chronic GVHD. In conclusion, the omission of day 11 MTX was associated with a higher risk of severe GVHD. Therefore the omission of the day 11 dose is not recommended.

Impact of omitting post-transplant minidose-methotrexate doses in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation

Given prophylactic methotrexate (MTX) is often held in the setting of toxicity we investigated the impact of omitting minidose-MTX dose(s). Outcomes were compared between patients who had 1-3 doses omitted and those who received all four planned doses of minidose-MTX. Of 370 consecutive patients, 50 had MTX dose(s) omitted. When MTX was omitted, initial management was mycophenolate mofetil (MMF; 36/50 patients) with or without corticosteroids (14/50 patients). Rates of grade 3-4 acute GVHD were similar between groups. Omission of minidose-MTX resulted in an increased risk of chronic GVHD (cGVHD; HR 2.27; p = .024) and decreased overall survival (HR 1.61; p = .024). However, other transplant-related outcomes were comparable. In summary, omission of minidose-MTX doses was not associated with an increased risk of acute GVHD when an alternative was added (e.g. MMF ± corticosteroids). This did not abrogate the increased risk of cGVHD or decreased overall survival.

Predictors and Outcomes of Dose Reduction of Methotrexate and Cyclosporin Graft-Versus-Host-Disease Prophylaxis Following Allogeneic Haematopoietic Cell Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Concern regarding dose-related toxicities of methotrexate (MTX) and cyclosporin (CYA) GVHD prophylaxis occasionally lead to dose alterations post allogeneic haematopoietic cell transplant (alloHCT).

AIM

To clarify causes of MTX and CYA dose alteration and assess impact on patient outcomes including GVHD, relapse, non-relapse mortality (NRM), and overall survival (OS).

METHOD

Analysis of retrospective data was performed in a single tertiary centre of patients who underwent alloHCT for any indication and who received GVHD prophylaxis with CYA and MTX between the years 2011 and 2015. Univariate analysis was conducted using the log-rank test for OS and using competing risk regression for NRM, relapse and GVHD. Fisher exact tests were used to determine if an association existed between each of the pre-transplant variables and MTX alteration. Multivariate models for OS and NRM were constructed using Cox proportional hazards modelling and competing risk regression respectively.

RESULTS

54/196 (28%) had MTX alterations and 61/187 (33%) had CYA alterations. Reasons for MTX alteration included mucositis, renal or liver impairment, fluid overload and sepsis. Causes of CYA alteration were numerous but most commonly due to acute kidney impairment. MTX alteration was associated with inferior OS (HR 2.4, P=<0.001) and higher NRM (OR 4.6, P<0.001) at 6 years(y) post-landmark. CYA alteration was associated with greater NRM (OR 2.7, P= 0.0137) at 6y. GVHD rates were unaffected by dose alteration.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest dose alteration in MTX and CYA GVHD prophylaxis is associated with adverse survival outcomes in alloHCT, without a significant impact on GVHD rates. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

A Narrative Review about Nutritional Management and Prevention of Oral Mucositis in Haematology and Oncology Cancer Patients Undergoing Antineoplastic Treatments

Cancer is a prevalent disease worldwide, and treatments such as radiotherapy and chemotherapy sometimes lead to adverse events. Oral mucositis is one of the most disabling adverse events, and clinical guidelines do not take into account nutritional interventions. The primary endpoint was to gather the evidence about the efficacy of nutritional interventions in the prevention and/or treatment of antineoplastic-induced oral mucositis in oncological patients. A bibliographic review was carried out in the PubMed data base by combining MeSH terms with Boolean operators. Articles were selected based on inclusion and exclusion criteria; 50 final articles were found. Although further evidence is needed, glutamine, honey, and vitamins appear to be good therapeutic options. The rest of the compounds presented controversial or insufficient results, making it difficult to draw conclusions over their utilization as prevention or treatment options. Little evidence is reported about oral mucositis nutritional interventions in spite of them being attainable and affordable compounds. Scarce evidence is shown in paediatric patients compared with adults. Developing higher quality studies and combinations with the compounds researched is necessary for creating a stronger body of evidence.

Leucovorin Rescue After Methotrexate Graft-Versus-Host Disease Prophylaxis Shortens the Duration of Mucositis, Time to Neutrophil Engraftment, and Hospital Length of Stay

Oropharyngeal mucositis (OPM) is common following conditioning for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT) and results in pain, functional status decline, need for nutritional support, infections, and prolonged length of stay (LOS). Methotrexate (MTX) graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis exacerbates OPM and slows hematopoietic engraftment, which may prolong LOS. Previous studies have demonstrated reduced OPM and more rapid engraftment when leucovorin (LCV) is added following MTX GVHD prophylaxis, yet this practice is controversial. The primary objective of this study was to determine if the routine addition of LCV to MTX GVHD prophylaxis impacted the duration of grade 2 to 4 OPM. Secondary objectives included determination of the incidence of grade 2 to 4 and grade 3 to 4 OPM, time to engraftment, ability to receive all four planned MTX doses, use of total parenteral nutrition (TPN), use of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), LOS, incidence of acute or chronic GVHD, relapse-free survival (RFS), and overall survival (OS). This single-center, retrospective cohort study compared alloHCT outcomes for 46 adult patients who received MTX 15 mg/m² day +1; MTX 10 mg/m² days +3, +6, and +11 (15-10-10-10); and LCV following days +3, +6, and +11 MTX compared to historical controls who did not. Patients who received myeloablative conditioning (MAC) and matched related donor (MRD) or matched unrelated donor (MUD) alloHCT were included. The addition of LCV resulted in significant reductions in the duration of grade 2 to 4 OPM (median, 6 days versus 10.5 days; P = .0004), duration of TPN (7 days versus 16 days; P = .001), PCA use (16% versus 39%; P = .0001), time to neutrophil engraftment (median, 18 versus 20 days; P = .008), and LOS (median, 27.5 versus 31 days; P = .017) compared to historical controls. Patients who received routine LCV had similar incidences of grade 2 to 4 acute GVHD (30% versus 28%; relative risk [RR], 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], .57 to 2.03; P = 1.0), grade 3 or 4 acute GVHD (2% versus 7%; RR, .33; 95% CI, .04 to 3.09; P = .62) and chronic GVHD (37% versus 30%; RR, 1.21; 95% CI, .67 to 2.16; P = .66) compared to historical controls. Graft failure occurred in 2% of patients in each group. In a multivariable logistic regression analysis, RFS was similar in the LCV group compared to historical controls (HR, .86; 95% CI, .24 to 1.2; P = .13); however, OS was improved in patients who received LCV (HR, .33; 95% CI, .13 to .83; P = .01). In patients undergoing MAC MRD/MUD alloHCT with four planned doses of MTX GVHD prophylaxis (15-10-10-10), LCV was associated with reduced duration of grade 2 to 4 OPM, faster neutrophil engraftment, reduced utilization of TPN and PCA, and shortened LOS compared to historical controls not receiving routine LCV. These benefits were apparent without an increased risk of acute or chronic GVHD or adverse effect on RFS. LCV improved OS; however, it is unclear if this was due to the intervention or an unmeasured confounder. A randomized, prospective trial of LCV prophylaxis in patients receiving MAC alloHCT and MTX 15-10-10-10 GVHD prophylaxis is warranted to confirm our findings.