Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Jul 30.
Published in final edited form as: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2020 Feb 1;26(5):845–854. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2020.01.018

A Phase 3, Single-Arm, Prospective Study of Remestemcel-L, Ex Vivo Culture-Expanded Adult Human Mesenchymal Stromal Cells for the Treatment of Pediatric Patients Who Failed to Respond to Steroid Treatment for Acute Graft-versus-Host Disease

Joanne Kurtzberg 1,*, Hisham Abdel-Azim 2, Paul Carpenter 3, Sonali Chaudhury 4, Biljana Horn 5, Kris Mahadeo 6, Eneida Nemecek 7, Steven Neudorf 8, Vinod Prasad 1, Susan Prockop 9, Troy Quigg 10, Prakash Satwani 11, Annie Cheng 12, Elizabeth Burke 12, Jack Hayes 12, Donna Skerrett 12; MSB-GVHD001/002 Study Group
PMCID: PMC8322819  NIHMSID: NIHMS1721332  PMID: 32018062

Abstract

Steroid-refractory acute graft-versus-host disease (SR-aGVHD) following hematopoietic cell transplantation (HSCT) is associated with poor clinical outcomes. Currently, there are no safe and effective therapies approved for use in the pediatric population under the age of 12 years. Accordingly, there is an urgent need for new treatments that are safe, well tolerated, and effective in managing this debilitating and potentially fatal complication of HSCT. In early phase clinical trials, mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) have demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of acute GVHD (aGVHD) in pediatric patients. We now report the results of a phase 3, prospective, single-arm, multicenter study (NCT02336230) in 54 children with primary SR-aGVHD who were naive to other immunosuppressant therapies for aGVHD treated with MSC product (remestemcel-L) dosed at 2 × 106 cells/kg twice weekly for 4 weeks. Remestemcel-L therapy significantly improved day 28 overall response rate (OR) compared with the prespecified control OR value of 45% (70.4% versus 45%, P = .0003). The statistically significant OR (70.4%) was sustained through day 100, including an increase in complete response from 29.6% at day 28 to 44.4% at day 100. Overall survival was 74.1% at day 100 and 68.5% at day 180. Overall response in all participants at day 28 was highly predictive of improved survival through 180 days, and survival was significantly greater in day 28 responders compared with nonresponders through day 100 (86.8% versus 47.1% for responders and nonresponders, respectively, P = .0001) and through day 180 (78.9% versus 43.8%, P = .003). Remestemcel-L was well tolerated with no identified infusion-related toxicities or other safety concerns. This study provides robust, prospective evidence of the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of remestemcel-L as first-line therapy after initial steroid failure in pediatric SR-aGVHD.

Keywords: Acute graft-versus-host disease, Allogeneic, Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, Mesenchymal stromal cells, Remestemcel-L, Steroid

INTRODUCTION

Acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD) is a major obstacle to the overall success of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Although the incidence of aGVHD varies across transplant type and donor sources, severe aGVHD (determined by grade C/D, visceral organ and/or multiorgan involvement, or high-risk stratification) is associated with the highest risk of primary treatment failure and highest transplant-related mortality [1,2]. Mortality can reach as high as 90% in adults and children who fail to respond to initial steroid therapy [25]. Despite overall improvement in transplantation outcomes [6], the cohort of patients who develop aGVHD and subsequently fail to respond to initial steroid therapy continue to have high morbidity and mortality in large part because there are no effective treatment options for these patients. Two recent reports highlight the poor prognosis and consequent therapeutic gap in the management of pediatric aGVHD, particularly among children who fail to respond to initial steroid therapy and have more severe disease based on organ involvement [7,8]. An exploratory analysis of outcomes in 203 patients with steroid-refractory aGVHD, including 61 children up to 18 years of age, reported a 34% day 28 overall response rate (95% confidence interval, 23% to 48%); overall 2-year survival in this cohort was 32% [7]. In a cohort of 370 pediatric patients with aGVHD, a high-risk subgroup of 42 patients based on Minnesota risk score who failed to respond to steroid therapy the overall response rate (OR) at day 28 was 48% in the high-risk group (based on Minnesota risk score) who failed to respond to steroid therapy and 2-year survival in these subjects was 35% [8]. There are currently no approved therapies specifically indicated for use in steroid-refractory aGVHD in children under the age of 12 years, a patient population with high unmet need and poor prognosis [810].

aGVHD is characterized by immune activation with systemic inflammation and tissue injury primarily affecting the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, skin, and liver. HLA disparity between the hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) donor and recipient is a key driver of aGVHD, causing alloreactive donor T cells, contained in the HSC graft, to recognize the patient’s tissues as foreign and thereby trigger an immunologic attack [11]. Release of inflammatory cytokines by injured tissues amplifies and sustains the activity of alloreactive donor immune cells, leading to further inflammation and end-organ damage [11]. The biological activity of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) provides a mechanistic rationale for their investigational use in aGVHD [12]. Evidence from in vitro studies and animal models indicates that bone marrow-derived MSCs have immunosuppressive and immunomodulatory functions [1319]. Allogeneic tolerance, inhibition at immune checkpoints, and paracrine signaling are MSC mechanisms particularly relevant to aGVHD [20,21]. Results from initial clinical studies of MSCs have indicated favorable clinical response rates with an acceptable safety profile when used to treat steroid-refractory GVHD (SR-aGVHD) [2226]. In addition, GVHD therapy with MSCs is associated with reductions in relevant inflammatory biomarkers, including IL-2Ra, tumor necrosis factor receptor 1, IL-8, and hepatocyte growth factor, providing further evidence of the biological basis of the clinical benefit of this therapy in aGVHD [25].

In a multicenter expanded-access protocol using remestemcel-L (Protocol 275, NCT00759018), 241 pediatric patients with SR-aGVHD, the majority of whom were resistant to multiple immunosuppressive therapy (IST) as aGVHD treatment at the time of study enrollment, were treated with remestemcel-L (ex vivo culture-expanded allogeneic adult human MSC) as salvage therapy for SR-aGVHD [26]. Day 28 OR was 65% (95% confidence interval, 58.9% to 70.9%) and responder survival at day 100 in patients with a day 28 OR was significantly greater compared with nonresponders (82% versus 39%, log rank P< .001). Infusions were well tolerated with no identified safety concerns. The present phase 3 registration study was designed to confirm previous observations from a pediatric expanded-access program and further evaluate the efficacy and safety of remestemcel-L in children with high-risk SR-aGVHD.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study Design

This study (MSB-GVHD001, NCT02336230, IND 7939), a phase 3, single-arm, open-label, prospective, multicenter study conducted at 20 centers in the United States, was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of remestemcel-L in pediatric patients with primary SR-aGVHD in the absence of additional IST for aGVHD. It also included a follow-up safety extension study (MSB-GVHD002) to evaluate the safety, survival, and duration of response through 180 days.

The design of the study is shown in Figure 1. Based on ethical and feasibility considerations, the study used a single-arm design with all patients receiving remestemcel-L treatment. Feedback from investigators and key experts in pediatric aGVHD indicated that a randomized, controlled study design would be challenging to enroll and potentially unfeasible because parents might be reluctant to consent to participate in a study in which the child might not receive the active investigational therapy. The study was approved by the institutional review boards of the participating centers and was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and International Conference on Harmonization Good Clinical Practice Guidelines [27]. All participants or legally acceptable representatives provided written informed consent.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Study design.

Patients

Children 2 months to 17 years of age with steroid-refractory grade B to D aGVHD (excluding skin-only grade B) were enrolled from June 2015 to December 2017. Eligible patients failed to respond to systemic steroid treatment as first-line treatment for aGVHD, as defined by progression within 3 days or no improvement within 7 days of consecutive treatment with 2 mg/kg/d of methylprednisolone or equivalent. Patients were excluded if they had received any other systemic first-line or any second-line therapy for the treatment of aGVHD prior to screening or treatment with remestemcel-L. Complete inclusion and exclusion criteria are provided in Supplementary Table S1.

Investigational Agent

Remestemcel-L comprises healthy adult volunteer donor human bone marrow-derived MSCs that have been ex vivo cultured and cryopreserved in Plasma-Lyte A supplemented with human serum albumin and dimethyl sulfoxide. Each remestemcel-L dose was stored in the vapor phase of liquid nitrogen, thawed, and reconstituted in Plasma-Lyte A (Baxter International, Inc. USA) immediately prior to administration.

MSCs are nonhematopoietic cells that express low levels of major histocompatibility complex class I, are negative for major histocompatibility complex class II molecules, and are negative for costimulatory molecules CD40, CD80, and CD86. Remestemcel-L cells are CD105+, CD156+, and CD45−; express tumor necrosis factor receptor 1; and suppress IL-2Rα expression on activated lymphocytes. Remestemcel-L cells are harvested at passage 5 and then cryopreserved as a final product. In this study, 4 donors and multiple product lots were used. Most patients received infusions from more than 1 lot, and some patients were exposed to cells from more than 1 donor.

Treatment

Treatment with remestemcel-L was administered to patients intravenously at a dose of 2 × 106 MSCs/kg body weight, twice weekly, for 4 consecutive weeks. All initial therapy infusions were completed by day 28 ± 2 days. Patients could continue treatment with a stable dose of systemic steroid therapy until eligible for steroid taper per treating physician discretion and could continue on an established regimen of baseline prophylactic therapy for GVHD. Per protocol, no other medications for the treatment of SR-aGVHD could be introduced to patients during the initial 28 days of remestemcel-L administration unless disease progression occurred. Addition of other aGVHD therapies prior to day 28 constituted failure to respond, and the patient remained on study for safety follow-up only.

Patients with partial (PR) or mixed response (MR) on day 28 could receive continued therapy of 4 once-weekly infusions of remestemcel-L at the same initial dose of 2 × 106 MSCs/kg, beginning within 1 week after the day 28 assessment. Patients who experienced an aGVHD flare (grade B to D progression after achieving a complete response [CR]) could receive additional therapy at the same dose twice a week for an additional 4 weeks.

Assessments of Efficacy and Safety

aGVHD assessments were performed at baseline and then weekly from day 14 (±2 days) after the first MSC infusion until day 100 (±7 days). Weekly assessment visits were conducted at least 24 hours after the most recent remestemcel-L infusion. For patients participating in the follow-up study to day 180, aGVHD assessments were conducted at study visits on days 120, 140, 160, and 180. Severity of aGVHD was evaluated using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research grading criteria [28,29].

All untoward medical occurrences after signing of the informed consent were considered adverse events (AEs). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were those adverse events that occurred after the start of treatment. Serious AEs were defined according to International Council for Harmonization E6 standards [27]. Concomitant medication use was assessed at each visit. Occurrence of chronic GVHD and relapse of primary disease were assessed through day 180.

Efficacy Endpoints

Definitions of clinical response endpoints are shown in Table 1. OR at day 28 was the primary efficacy endpoint. Day 28 OR is an early indicator of subsequent longer-term response and is now generally accepted as an appropriate surrogate for clinical outcomes [30]. Patients who were deceased, had missing assessment data, received additional aGVHD IST, or withdrew prior to day 28 were considered or imputed as no response regardless of the responses reported on electronic case report forms. For patients who were enrolled but not treated with remestemcel-L, the day 28 response was also considered no response. For patients who withdrew from the study because of a serious AE or the need for palliative care due to a lack of aGVHD response and had completed a 28 day endpoint assessment, the 28-day assessment was used. The primary study hypothesis was that the primary efficacy endpoint, OR at day 28, is at least 20% greater than the control, standard of care OR of 45%.

Table 1.

Clinical Response Definitions

Abbreviation Definition
CR Complete response: Resolution of aGVHD in all involved organs
PR Partial response: Organ improvement of at least 1 stage without worsening of any other organ
OR Overall response: Includes both CR + PR
VGPR Very good partial response: Fulfillment of the CR criteria except for 1 or more of the following:
Skin: No rash, nonprogressive stage 1 rash, or residual erythematous rash involving <25% of the body surface without bullae (not including residual faint erythema or hyperpigmentation)
Liver: Resolving elevations of total serum bilirubin concentration or total serum bilirubin concentration of <2 mg/dL or <25% ofbaseline at enrollment
Gut: Minimal gastrointestinal symptoms, as described below:
• Tolerating food or enteral feeding
• Predominantly formed stools
• No overt GI bleeding or abdominal cramping
• No more than occasional nausea or vomiting
MR Mixed response: Improvement in at least 1 evaluable organ stage with worsening in another
NR No response: No change in any organ stage in any organ system and no improvement in organ stage
Progression Deterioration in at least 1 organ system by 1 stage or more with no improvement in any other organ
Responder Patients who achieve an OR
Nonresponder Patients who do not achieve OR

Key secondary endpoints were overall and responder survival, as well as rates of PR, CR, and very good partial response (VGPR), defined as an absence of all GVHD symptoms except stage 1 disease in any organ. For all enrolled patients, assessments of vital status through day 100 and day 180 were completed; if vital status was not obtained, the patient was presumed to be deceased for the purpose of survival assessment and analysis.

Statistical Analysis

The primary efficacy objective of this study was to confirm the effect of remestemcel-L on day 28 OR. For the assessment of efficacy, a treatment effect size of 20% (ie, 20 percentage points) was considered clinically meaningful and was used to calculate the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis of 45% OR for standard of care alone was supported by historical age and disease severity-adjusted published findings and internal data showing an approximate 45% day 28 OR rate for aGVHD patients treated with steroids, second-line systemic agents, and supportive symptom management [31,32]. Details regarding the approximate 45% control overall response rate are provided in Supplementary Table S2. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to graphically display the data resulting from time-to-event analyses with a log-rank test used to test for differences across subgroups.

The sample size was determined using East 6.0 software (Waltham, MA). The hypothesis test used a normal approximation to the binomial distribution under the assumption of a symmetric 2-sided, 1-sample test with a significance level of 5% for a single proportion. The minimum sample size required to provide 80% statistical power to demonstrate a 20% treatment difference from a control rate of 45% was 48 patients. To provide power for additional population analyses and account for premature withdrawals, an increase of 10% to 53 patients was planned.

Analysis Populations

The primary endpoint and all other efficacy variables were evaluated for all enrolled patients (n = 55), defined as the Full Analysis Set population. In this article, we present efficacy results on all enrolled patients who received remestemcel-L treatment (n = 54). Safety outcomes were evaluated for all patients who received at least 1 dose of remestemcel-L (n = 54) for MSB-GVHD001 and all patients (n = 32) who continued into MSB-GVHD002, defined as the safety population. Duration of response was evaluated in patients who achieved OR at day 28 in MSB-GVHD001 and patients enrolled in MSB-GVHD002, which was also defined as the duration of the response population. Prespecified subgroup analyses included those defined by age, sex, aGVHD grade at baseline, baseline organ involvement, risk stratification, and transplant characteristics.

RESULTS

Patients

The disposition of patients is shown in Table 2. Fifty-five patients were enrolled in the study and 54 received at least 1 infusion of remestemcel-L. Of the treated patients, 42 completed treatment and 40 were alive and eligible to enroll in the follow-up study on day 100. Of these, 32 patients enrolled and 31 completed the follow-up study to day 180. Thirteen patients died during the primary study and 1 patient was lost to follow-up and presumed deceased. In GVHD002, 3 patients died and 1 patient was lost to follow-up and presumed deceased.

Table 2.

Protocol GVHD001 Patient Disposition (All Enrolled Patients)

Disposition/Reason Total Remestemcel-L, No. (%)
Patients enrolled 55 (100)
Patients treated with investigational agent in MSB-GVHD001
 Yes 54 (98.2)
 No 1 (1.8)
Patients completed MSB-GVHD001
 Yes 42 (76.4)
 No 13 (23.6)
Primary reason for early termination in MSB-GVHD001
 Adverse event 1 (1.8)
 Withdrawal of consent 1 (1.8)
 Death 9 (16.4)
 Other 2 (3.6)
Patients continuing into the MSB-GVHD002 follow-up phase 32 (58.2)
Primary reason for early termination in MSB-GVHD002*
 Death 1 (3.1)
*

Percentages based on the number of patients continuing into the MSB-GVHD002 follow-up phase.

Table 3 shows baseline demographic and disease characteristics. Briefly, the median age of patients was 7 years, 63.6% of patients were male, and 76.4% of patients received an HSCT from an unrelated donor. The source of HSC for transplant was bone marrow (54.5%), peripheral blood stem cells (25.5%), and cord blood in 20% of patients. The median time from onset of aGVHD to first remestemcel-L infusion was 12 days, and median time for establishing onset of steroid failure to first remestemcel-L infusion was 3.5 days. At baseline, 47.3% of patients had grade D aGVHD; 89.1% had severe disease, defined as grade C/D; and 72.7% of patients met the criteria for high-risk disease [33].

Table 3.

Demographics, Transplant Characteristics, and Disease Characteristics

Characteristics Remestemcel-L (n = 55)
Demographic characteristics
Age, yr
 Mean (SD) 7.3 (5.45)
 Median (min, max) 7.0 (0, 17)
Sex, No. (%)
 Male 35 (63.6)
 Female 20 (36.4)
Weight, kg
 Mean (SD) 28.8 (18.9)
 Median (min, max) 25.5 (4.6, 90.1)
Characteristics, No. (%)
HLA donor HLA frequency
 Matched/related 6 (10.9)
 Mismatched/related 7 (12.7)
 Unrelated 42 (76.4)
Type of transplant
 Bone marrow 30 (54.5)
 PBSC 14 (25.5)
 Cord blood 11 (20.0)
GVHD disease characteristics
aGVHD grade at baseline, No. (%)
 Grade B 6 (10.9)
 Grade C 23 (41.8)
 Grade D 26 (47.3)
Organ involvement, No. (%)
 Single organ 35 (63.6)
 Lower GI 21 (38.2)
 Skin 14 (25.5)
 Multiorgan 20 (36.4)
aGVHD risk stratification, No. (%)*
 Standard risk 15 (27.3)
 High risk 40 (72.7)
Time from:
HSCT to onset of aGVHD (days)
 Mean (SD) 50.2 (39.2)
 Median (min, max) 35.0 (9, 170)
aGVHD onset to first infusion (days)
 Mean (SD) 18.4 (22.4)
 Median (min, max) 12.0 (4, 142)
SR-aGVHD to first infusion (days)
 Mean (SD) 3.9 (2.24)
 Median (min, max) 3.5 (1, 10)

PBSC indicates peripheral blood stem cell.

*

MacMillan ML, Robin M, Harris AC, et al. A refined risk score for acute graft-versus-host disease that predicts response to initial therapy, survival, and transplant-related mortality. Biol Bone Marrow Transplant. 2015;21:761–767.

Exposure

Patient exposure to remestemcel-L is summarized in Table 4. Thirty patients received more than the initial 8 infusions (25 patients for continued therapy and 5 patients for aGVHD flare [9 to 16 infusions]; see Table 4). Mean duration of infusions was approximately 1 hour. The mean dose of MSCs per infusion was approximately 50 × 106 cells (median weight 25.5 kg). Patients who did not complete the 8 infusions over 28 days were considered nonresponders.

Table 4.

Exposure to Investigational Agent

Characteristic Remestemcel-L (n = 54)
Exposure to investigational agent
Total number of infusions 535
Infusions per patient, No. (%)
 1–4 3 (5.6)
 5–8 21 (38.9)
 9–12 25 (46.3)
 13+ 5 (9.3)
Duration of each infusion (min)
 Mean (SD) 62.0 (60.2)
 Median (min, max) 61.0 (8.25, 419.7)
Volume administered, each infusion (mL)
 Mean (SD) 45.6 (10.5)
 Median (min, max) 47.2 (9, 67)
Total volume administered, all infusions (mL)
 Mean (SD) 453.4 (190.3)
 Median (min, max) 482.4 (54, 809)

One interrupted infusion was restarted.

Clinical Response

Clinical response outcomes are summarized in Table 5. OR at day 28 was achieved by 38 of 54 patients (70.4%) with 16 patients (29.6%) and 22 patients (40.7%) achieving CR and PR, respectively. OR at day 28 was statistically superior (P = .0003) to the derived control OR at day 28 of 45%. At day 56, OR was achieved by 32 of 54 patients (59.3%): 17 (31.5%) and 15 (27.8%) CR and PR, respectively. At day 100, OR was achieved by 38 of 54 patients (70.4%), with 24 achieving CR (44.4%) and 14 achieving PR (25.9%). Rates of VGPR, a subset of PR, were consistent throughout the study: 9.3% at day 28, 11.1% at day 56, and 7.4% at day 100. Rates of CR + VGPR improved throughout the study, from 38.9% at day 28 to 42.6% at day 56 to 51.9% at day 100, although this was entirely attributable to an increased CR rate from 29.6% at day 28 to 44.4% at day 100. The median duration of response was 146 days.

Table 5.

Clinical Response Endpoints

Endpoint Remestemcel-L (n = 54), No. (%)*
Day 28 response
 Responder (OR = CR + PR) 38 (70.4)
  Complete response (CR) 16 (29.6)
  Partial response (PR) 22 (40.7)
  Very good partial response (VGPR) 5 (9.3)
 Nonresponder 17 (31.5)
  Mixed mesponse (MR) 5 (9.3)
  No response (NR) 8 (14.8)
  Progression 4 (7.4)
 CR + VGPR 21 (38.9)
Day 56 response
 Responder (OR = CR + PR) 32 (59.3)
  Complete response (CR) 17 (31.5)
  Partial response (PR) 15 (27.8)
  Very good partial response (VGPR) 6 (11.1)
 Nonresponder 12 (22.2)
  Missing 11 (20.4)
 CR + VGPR 23 (42.6)
Day 100 response
 Responder (OR = CR + PR) 38 (70.4)
  Complete response (CR) 24 (44.4)
  Partial response (PR) 14 (25.9)
  Very good partial response (VGPR) 4 (7.4)
 Nonresponder 6 (11.1)
  Missing 11 (20.4)
 CR + VGPR 28 (51.9)
*

Responses are based on the number of patients who received remestemcel-L treatment (n = 54).

Survival

Overall survival was 74.1% (40/54) through day 100 and 68.5% (37/54) at day 180. Kaplan-Meier survival curves are shown in Figure 2. Survival was statistically superior for day 28 responders compared with nonresponders through 100 days (86.8% versus 47.1%, P = .0001 log rank) and through 180 days (78.9% versus 43.8%, P = .001; Figure 2A). This finding indicates the strong predictive value of day 28 response to clinical outcome. Survival through day 180 was comparable in patients stratified by high or standard risk (Figure 2B), suggesting no decrease in the clinical response to remestemcel-L in the high-risk subgroup. Overall survival at day 180 among patients with grade C and grade D aGVHD was 73.9% (17/23) and 68.0% (17/25), respectively (Figure 2C), suggesting a trend for greater efficacy with increasing disease severity.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Kaplan-Meier plot of overall survival through day 180 from initiation of remestemcel-L therapy (day 0). (A) Stratified by overall response at day 28 (responders and nonresponders). (B) Stratified by Minnesota risk category (high risk or standard risk). (C) Stratified by baseline aGVHD grade.

A total of 30 patients received additional remestemcel-L therapy: 25 patients who were partial or mixed responders at day 28 and 5 patients with GVHD flare following CR. Among the patients who achieved PR (n = 21) or MR (n = 2) at day 28 and received continued therapy after day 28, 16 of 21 (76.2%) and 1 of 2 (50%) achieved OR at day 56. At day 100, 19 (90.5%) patients with PR at day 28 who received continued therapy achieved OR (10 CR plus 9 PR).

The probability of survival at 100 days for patients receiving initial treatment (4 to 8 infusions) and continued treatment (9 to 12 infusions) was comparable, 76.2% and 72%, respectively.

Clinical Response within Subgroups

Clinical responses within subgroups based on demographic and disease characteristics are shown in Table 6. Day 28 OR was consistent across subgroups based on age (0 to 7, 8 to 12, and 13 to 17 years), race (white, nonwhite), and sex (male and female). Day 28 OR of 43% was lower in peripheral blood transplant recipients than in bone marrow and cord blood transplant recipients: 83% and 73%, respectively. In this study, OR in patients with GVHD grade B was 50%; however, grade B skin-only patients were excluded from this study, and the number of grade B patients was small. Overall response rates at day 28 for grades C and D were 69.6% and 76.0%, respectively, and were 86%, 67%, and 63% for skin only, lower GI only, and multiorgan disease, respectively.

Table 6.

Day 28 Overall Response and Day 100 Overall Survival by Subgroups Based on Demographic and Disease Characteristics*

Characteristic Day 28 OR, No. (%) Day 100 Overall Survival, No. (%)
Age group, yr
 0–7 20/28 (71) 20/28 (71)
 8–12 10/14 (71) 11/14 (79)
 13–17 8/12 (67) 9/12 (75)
Sex
 Male 26/35 (74) 27/35 (77)
 Female 12/19 (63) 13/19 (68)
Race group
 White 21/30 (70) 24/30 (80)
 Nonwhite 17/24 (71) 16/24 (67)
Underlying malignancy at transplant
 Acute myeloid leukemia primary 10/17 (59) 9/17 (53)
 Acute lymphoblastic leukemia 9/12 (75) 10/12 (83)
 Chronic myeloid leukemia 4/4 (100) 4/4 (100)
 Myelodysplastic syndrome 1/2 (50) 2/2 (100)
 Hodgkin lymphoma 1/1 (100) 1/1 (100)
 Juvenile myelomonocytic leukemia 2/2 (100) 2/2 (100)
 Nonmalignant disease 11/16 (69) 12/16 (81)
Conditioning regimen
 Myeloablative 32/46 (70) 35/46 (76)
 Reduced intensity 5/6 (83) 4/6 (67)
 Nonmyeloablative 0/1 (0) 0/1 (0)
 Missing 1/1 (100) 1/1 (100)
Transplant donor
 Related matched 5/6 (83) 3/6 (50)
 Related mismatched 4/7 (57) 6/7 (86)
 Unrelated 29/41 (71) 31/41 (76)
Type of transplant
 Bone marrow 24/29 (83) 24/29 (83)
 Peripheral blood stem cell 6/14 (43) 9/14 (64)
 Cord blood 8/11 (73) 7/11 (64)
Grade of aGVHD at baseline
 Grade B 3/6 (50) 3/6 (50)
 Grade C 16/23 (70) 19/23 (83)
 Grade D 19/25 (76) 18/25 (72)
Organs involved at baseline
 Skin only 12/14 (86) 11/14 (79)
 Lower GI only 14/21 (67) 16/21 (76)
 Multiple organs 12/19 (63) 13/19 (68)
Minnesota risk score
 Standard risk 11/15 (73) 12/15 (80)
 High risk 27/39 (69) 28/39 (72)
*

N is based on the number of enrolled patients who received remestemcel-L.

Safety

Rates for TEAEs and serious treatment-emergent adverse events (TESAEs) are summarized in Table 7. Adverse events of special interest in this study included infusion-related toxicity and ectopic tissue formation as assessed by computed tomography scans performed at day 180. Infusions were well tolerated with a low incidence of infusion-related events. Three acute infusion reactions were reported in 3 patients. Two of these patients subsequently discontinued infusions and withdrew from the study due to additional TESAEs (somnolence and hypermetabolic syndrome). There was no evidence suggestive of ectopic tissue formation in any patient. During the treatment study MSB-GVHD001, all patients experienced at least 1 TEAE, with a total of 99 TESAEs reported in 35 patients (64.8%). Many of the common TEAEs (occurring in ≥10% of patients) were conditions related to SR-aGVHD, infections due to immunosuppressive agents, or steroid toxicities and were not attributed to the study product.

Table 7.

Summary of Safety Outcomes

Characteristic MSB-GVHD001 through Day 100 (n = 54), No. (%) MSBGVHD002 through Day 180 (n = 32), No. (%)
Any TEAE* 54 (100) 27 (84.4)
 Possibly treatment-related TEAE 9 (16.7) 0 (0)
 Any infusion reaction TEAE 3 (5.6) 0 (0)
 TEAE leading to study drug discontinuation 8 (14.8) 0 (0)
Any TESAE 35 (64.8) 15 (46.9)
 Possibly treatment-related TESAE 5 (9.3) 0 (0.0)
 TESAEs leading to study drug discontinuation 6 (11.1) 0 (0.0)
 Deaths 14 (25.9) 3 (9.4)
TEAE by system organ class
 Infections and infestations 45 (83.3) 16 (50.0)
 Gastrointestinal disorders 31 (57.4) 9 (28.1)
 General disorders 27 (50.0) 11 (34.4)
 Metabolism and nutrition disorders 26 (48.1) 10 (31.3)
 Laboratory investigations 27 (50.0) 9 (28.1)
 Respiratory, thoracic, and mediastinal disorders 26 (48.1) 7 (21.9)
 Immune system disorders 22 (40.7) 5 (15.6)
TESAE by system organ class
 Infections and infestations 17 (31.5) 8 (25.0)
 Respiratory, thoracic, and mediastinal disorders 12 (22.2) 0 (0)
 General disorders 8 (14.8) 1 (3.1)
 Gastrointestinal disorders 7 (13.0) 1 (3.1)
 Immune system disorders 6 (11.1) 0 (0)

Values are number (percent) of patients reporting the event. Percentage was calculated using the number of patients in the column heading as the denominator.

*

TEAEs are adverse events that started on or after the dose date of study treatment.

As assessed by the investigator.

Patient may have had more than 1 TEAE or TESAE but is counted only once within a system organ class category.

A total of 16 TEAEs in 9 patients (17%) were assessed by investigators as possibly related to remestemcel-L treatment. Ten of these events were nonserious and expected in this disease population: neutrophil count decreased, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, platelet count decreased, cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection, nausea, vomiting, pyrexia, allergic transfusion reaction, and hypotension. Six of the possibly related to remestemcel-L treatment TEAEs reported in 5 patients were serious (TESAEs): skin GVHD, adenovirus infection, BK virus infection, hemolytic uremic syndrome, hypermetabolism, and somnolence.

Infections were the most commonly reported TEAEs, occurring in 83.3% of patients, consistent with previous reports of high infection rates and mortality due to infections in aGVHD patients [34]. Serious infections occurred in 17 (31.5%) patients; the most frequent included BK virus (3.7%), staphylococcal infection (5.6%), Epstein-Barr viremia (1.9%), pneumonia (3.7%), and sepsis (3.7%). Two of the serious infection adverse events were considered possibly treatment related (adenovirus infection and BK virus). Aside from infections, as shown in Table 7, other frequently reported TEAEs included GI disorders (57.4%), general disorders (50.0%), metabolic/nutritional disorders (48.1%), laboratory investigations (50.0%), respiratory disorders (48.1%), and immune system disorders (40.7%).

Fourteen deaths were recorded within the initial 100-day (±7) period (13 deaths and 1 patient lost to follow-up and presumed deceased). The primary causes of death were disease relapse (n = 4), aGVHD progression (n = 4), infection (n = 2), multiorgan failure (n = 1), pulmonary hemorrhage (n = 1), and cardiac arrest (n = 1) and lost to follow-up (n = 1). No deaths were causally attributed to remestemcel-L treatment.

Notable shifts in the mean values of monocytes, lymphocytes, neutrophils, bilirubin, and blood glucose were observed over the course of the study. These were expected in a patient population with severe aGVHD requiring multiple supportive medications and not attributed to study product. There were no trends of abnormal safety signals related to other laboratory values.

While events of skin GVHD, Hemolytic uremic syndrome, and infections are expected in this disease population and therefore unlikely causally attributed to remestemcel-L, any potential increase in immune suppression mediated by remestemcel-L could increase the risk of adenovirus and BK virus infections. Overall, steroids were slowly tapered in responding patients, which resulted in a decrease in steroid-related AEs, further supporting the effectiveness of remestemcel-L therapy.

In the MSB-GVHD002 follow-up study, 27 of 32 patients (84.4%) experienced 1 or more TEAEs, and 15 of 32 (46.9%) experienced any TESAE. No TEAEs or TESAEs were considered treatment related. Infections were the most common TESAE, with 8 (25%) experiencing serious infections. Two deaths were recorded between day 100 and day 180: one due to recurrent acute lymphocytic leukemia at day 174, and the other was a patient lost to follow-up and presumed deceased. The patient who was enrolled but not treated died on day 189.

Additional Follow-up to 180 Days

Of the 32 patients followed through 180 days in the follow-up study, 15 (46.9%) discontinued systemic corticosteroid use for GVHD treatment by end of study. In addition, most (n = 28, 87.5%) patients were GVHD IST free by day 180. Chronic GVHD was reported in 8 patients during the follow-up study; 6 cases were mild, 1 was moderate, and 1 was severe. CMV surveillance testing was conducted during the initial and follow-up study periods. Of all treated patients, 1 experienced CMV disease, 1 experienced sustained reactivation, and 4 experienced transient reactivations considered clinically significant.

There were no infusion-related toxicities and no evidence suggestive of ectopic tissue formation.

DISCUSSION

aGVHD is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in adults and children undergoing HSCT [2,4,7,8]. There is a large unmet need for effective treatment. In previous studies, remestemcel-L treatment showed promising results for the treatment for SR-aGVHD in pediatric patients [26,35,36]. We report here the positive results of a prospective, multicenter, phase 3, pediatric study using remestemcel-L as first-line therapy for SR-aGVHD with long-term follow up through 180 days (MSB-GVHD002). At day 28, remestemcel-L-treated patients achieved statistically superior OR compared with the prespecified control rate (70.4% versus 45%, P = .0003, binomial proportion Pvalue), demonstrating a clinically meaningful treatment effect greater than a 20 percentage point treatment difference. The high OR was sustained at day 100 (70.4%), meeting study-defined endpoints and confirming previously reported remestemcel-L response rates in SR-aGVHD.

Survival through day 100 was also significantly greater for day 28 responders than nonresponders (86.8% versus 47.1%, P < .0001 log rank). Superior survival with remestemcel-L treatment was sustained through day 180 in patients with a day 28 OR, with 78.9% compared with 43.8% for responders and nonresponders, respectively (P = .001 log rank). Overall survival through day 100 (74.1%) and day 180 (68.5%) with remestemcel-L treatment is a meaningful increment compared with overall 2-year overall survival of 34% with standard of care in aGVHD patients younger than 18 years as reported by Rashidi et al. [7]. A trend for greater response was observed in aGVHD grades C and D than in grade B patients—in other words, in patients with more severe disease and higher mortality risk. This finding is consistent with a report that the potent anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive properties of mesenchymal stromal cells are induced by exposure to high levels of specific cytokines [37,38]. Further research may elucidate this hypothesis, which is consistent with our clinical findings of increased rates of OR and overall survival in the presence of more severe aGVHD as defined by risk stratification and aGVHD grade.

The clinical response to remestemcel-L treatment at day 28 was significantly associated with improved survival through day 180, thus demonstrating the strong predictive value of this endpoint for subsequent clinical benefit. The median duration of response for responders who enrolled in the safety follow-up study was 146 days, demonstrating durability of response to remestemcel-L [35]. Our results are also compatible with findings reported in a pediatric subset of patients with SR-aGVHD in a randomized controlled trial of remestemcel-L versus placebo (n = 14 per group) added on to standard of care. In this study, OR at day 28 was 64% and 36% in the remestemcel-L-treated and placebo-treated children, respectively [36].

Overall response and overall survival through day 180 of the follow-up study were consistent across subgroups based on baseline demographic factors: none of these factors substantially influenced overall response rate or overall survival through day 180. Greater overall response was observed in bone marrow and cord blood transplant recipients compared with recipients of peripheral blood stem cell grafts, although the clinical significance of this finding is unclear. Consistent responses were also observed across involved organs.

Results of this study indicate that remestemcel-L is effective, safe, and well tolerated for the treatment of SR-aGVHD in pediatric patients, with the majority of reported adverse events attributable to the patients’ underlying disease or its treatment. Adverse events designated by the investigators as possibly related to remestemcel-L were mostly mild to moderate in severity and not clearly related to the study drug. Although a few serious treatment-related events were observed, these generally resolved without sequelae. Complications of aGVHD and/or relapse were the primary causes of death. Relapse was a leading cause of death in nonresponders. Chronic GVHD was reported during the follow-up study, and in most cases, it was mild and did not appear to affect survival through day 180, although this time point is too early to know the impact of remestemcel-L treatment for aGVHD on chronic GVHD. Clinical manifestations of significant CMV viral load were monitored, and most patients remained free of CMV reactivation throughout the study. There were no cases of ectopic tissue formation. Importantly, remestemcel-L did not show hematologic, immunologic, or renal toxicity and therefore does not overlap with known toxicities of other commonly used agents to treat SR-aGVHD.

A number of studies have assessed the safety and efficacy of cell therapies in adults with GVHD, as described in the recent meta-analysis [39]. A number of factors are relevant to the experience reported in adults with aGVHD treated with MSCs, including variations in the type of design (prophylaxis versus treatment of GVHD), type of MSCs (adipose tissue, cord blood, or bone marrow derived cells), specific trial design elements (first line in new-onset GVHD, concomitant corticosteroids and MSCs after GVHD diagnosis, or established steroid refractory), choice of primary efficacy endpoint (the currently established day 28 overall response or durable complete response), choice or comparator, and specific aGVHD patient attributes such as severity of disease and organ involvement. The impact of several of these factors is described by Kebriaei et al. [40]. In this randomized controlled trial of remestemcel-L versus placebo in both adults and children with aGVHD, among high-risk adult patients, remestemcel-L treatment produced significantly higher OR at day 28 compared with placebo (58% versus 37%; P = .03) and similarly improved day 28 OR compared with placebo in the pediatric subset (64% versus 23%; P = .05) [40].

The present study achieved its primary objectives of demonstrating that remestemcel-L infusions significantly improved overall response in pediatric patients with SR-aGVHD compared with derived historical rates and were well tolerated with no identified safety concerns. In addition, the observed improved response at day 28 was strongly associated with significantly improved survival through day 180. Few patients received additional IST therapy for aGVHD during this study, further evidence of remestemcel-L effectiveness in aGVHD symptom control. Results of this study confirm the overall response, safety, and survival demonstrated in a pediatric expanded-access program study that assessed remestemcel-L in children who failed to respond to steroids and additional immunosuppressive agents for the treatment of aGVHD [26,35]. In conclusion, MSB-GVHD001 and the MSB-GVHD002 follow-up study taken together with positive findings of other remestemcel-L studies in aGVHD [26,36,40] confirm the safety profile and demonstrate the efficacy and durability of remestemcel-L treatment for SR-aGVHD in the pediatric population.

Supplementary Material

1

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors thank all the physicians, nurses, physician extenders, and clinical research nurses caring for the patients and collecting the data from patients on this study. In addition, they thank the hospital stem cell transplant laboratories that received, stored, thawed, and prepared remestemcel-L for administration. The authors acknowledge Ulrike Rawiel, MS (Mesoblast, Inc.), for assistance with data management. List of participants in the MSB-GVHD001/002 Study Group: Hisham Abdel-Azim, MD, Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles, CA; Roberta Adams, MD, Phoenix Children’s Hospital, Phoenix, AZ; Victor Aquino, MD, University of Texas Southwest Medical Center, Dallas, TX; Joel Brochstein, MD, Cohen Children’s Medical Center of New York, New Hyde Park, NY; Mitchell Cairo, MD, New York Medical College, Valhalla, NY; Paul Carpenter, MD, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, WA; Emi Caywood, MD, Los Angeles, CA; Nemours Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children, Wilmington, DE; Sonali Chaudhury, MD, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Ken DeSantes, MD, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI; Christopher Dvorak, MD, UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital, San Francisco, CA; John Fort, MD, University of Florida Shands Cancer Center, Gainesville, FL; Robert Greiner, MD, Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA; Kamar Godder, MD, Miami Children’s Research Institute, Miami, FL; Rabi Hanna, MD, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; Biljana Horn, MD, UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital, San Francisco, CA; Michelle Hudspeth, MD, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC; Michael Joyce, MD, Nemours Children’s Specialty Care, Jacksonville, FL; Amy Keating, MD, Children’s Hospital Colorado Center for Cancer/Blood Disorder, Aurora, CO; Sandhya Kharbanda, MD, UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital, San Francisco, CA; Joanne Kurtzberg, MD, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Jason Law, MD, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA; David Loeb, MD, The Children’s Hospital at Montefiore, Bronx, NY; Kris Mahadeo, MD, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, NY; Deepa Manwani, MD, The Children’s Hospital at Montefiore, Bronx, NY; Alicia McFarren, MD, Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles, CA; Gail Megason, MD, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS; Gary Myers, MD, Children’s Mercy Hospital, Kansas City, MO; Eneida Nemecek, MD, Doernbecher Children’s Hospital and Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Steven Neudorf, MD, Children’s Hospital of Orange County, Orange, CA; Benjamin Oshrine, MD, Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital, St. Petersburg, FL; Susan Prockop, MD, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Troy Quigg, DO, Texas Transplant Institute, Methodist Children’s Hospital, San Antonio, TX; Robert Sanders, MD, Methodist Children’s Hospital, San Antonio, TX; Prakash Satwani, MD, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY; Sureya Savasan, MD, Children’s Hospital of Michigan, Detroit, MI; Shalini Shenoy, MD, Washington University St. Louis Children’s Hospital, St. Louis, MO; Julie-An Talano, MD, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; Christina Wiedl, MD, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA; Randy Windreich, MD, Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC, Pittsburg, PA; Lolie Yu, MD, Children’s Hospital of New Orleans, New Orleans, LA; Annie Cheng, MS, Mesoblast Inc., New York, NY; Elizabeth Burke, MSN, Mesoblast Inc., New York, NY; Jack Hayes, MS, Mesoblast Inc., New York, NY; Donna Skerrett, MD, MS, Mesoblast Inc., New York, NY.

Financial disclosure: This study was funded by Mesoblast International Sàrl.

Footnotes

Conflict of interest statement: There are no conflicts of interest to report.

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS

Supplementary material associated with this article can be found in the online version at doi:10.1016/j.bbmt.2020.01.018.

REFERENCES

  • 1.Jagasia M, Arora M, Flowers ME, et al. Risk factors for acute GVHD and survival after hematopoietic cell transplantation. Blood. 2012;119(1):296–307. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Pidala J, Kim J, Anasetti C, et al. The global severity of chronic graft-versus-host disease, determined by National Institutes of Health consensus criteria, is associated with overall survival and non-relapse mortality. Haematologica. 2011;96(11):1678–1684. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Arai S, Margolis J, Zahurak M, Anders V, Vogelsang GB. Poor outcome in steroid-refractory graft-versus-host disease with antithymocyte globulin treatment. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2002;8(3):155–160. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Levine JE, Logan B, Wu J, et al. Graft versus host disease treatment: predictors of survival. The American Society of Blood and Marrow Transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2010;16:1692–1699. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Westin JR, Saliba RM, De Lima M, et al. Steroid-refractory acute GVHD: predictors and outcomes. Adv Hematol. 2011;2011: 601953. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Khoury H, Wang T, Hemmer MT, et al. Improved survival after acute graft versus host disease diagnosis in the modern era. Haematologica. 2017;102 (5):958–966. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Rashidi A, DeFor TE, Holtan SG, et al. Outcomes and predictors of response in steroid-refractory acute graft-versus-host disease. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2019;25(11):2297–2302. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.MacMillan ML, Holtan SG, Rashidi A, et al. Pediatric acute GVHD: clinical phenotype and response to upfront steroids. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2020;55(1):165–171. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Martin PJ, Rizzo JD, Wingard JR, et al. First- and second-line systemic treatment of acute graft-versus-host disease: recommendations of the American Society of Blood and Marrow Transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2012;18:1150–1163. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Holtan SG, MacMillian ML. A risk adapted approach to acute GVHD to treatment: are we there yet? Bone Marrow Transplant. 2016;51:172–175. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Goker H, Haznedaroglu IC, Chao NJ, et al. Acute graft-vs-host disease: pathobiology and management. Exp Hematol. 2001;29(3):259–277. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Aggarwal S, Pittenger MF. Human mensenchymal stem cells modulate allogeneic immune cell responses. Blood. 2018;105(4):1815–1822. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Le Blanc K, Davies L. MSCs—cells with many sides. Cytotherapy. 2018;20:273–278. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Klyushenkova K, Mosca J, Zernetkina V, et al. T-cell responses to allogeneic human mesenchymal stem cells: immunogenicity, tolerance and suppression. J Biomed Sci. 2005;12:47–57. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Auletta JJ, Eid SK, Wuttisarnwattana P, et al. Human mesenchymal stromal cells attenuate graft-versus-host disease and maintain graft-versus-leukemia activity following experimental allogeneic bone marrow transplantation. Stem Cells. 2015;33:601–614. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Tobin LM, Healy ME, English K, et al. Human mesenchymal stem cells suppress donor CD4+ T cell proliferation and reduce pathology in a humanized mouse model of acute graft-versus-host disease. Clin Exp Immunol. 2012;172:333–348. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Le Blanc K, Ringden O. Immunomodulation by mesenchymal stem cells and clinical experience. J Int Med. 2007;262:509–525. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Bartholomew A, Sturgeon C, Siatskas M, et al. Mesenchymal stem cells suppress lymphocyte proliferation in vitro and prolong and skin graft survival in vivo. Exp Hematol. 2002;30:42–48. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Zhao K, Lou R, Huang F, et al. Immunomodulation effects of mesenchymal stromal cells on acute graft versus host disease after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2015;21:97–104. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Dander E, Lucchini G, Vinci P, et al. Mesenchymal stromal cells for the treatment of graft-versus-host disease: understanding the in vivo biological effect through patient immune monitoring. Leukemia. 2012;26:1681–1684. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Dunavin N, Dias A, Li M, McGuirk J. Mesenchymal stromal cells: what is the mechanism of action? Biomedicines. 2017;5(3):E39. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Lucchini G, Introna M, Dander E, et al. Platelet-lysate-expanded mesenchymal stromal cells as a salvage therapy for severe resistant graft-versus-host disease in a pediatric population. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2010;16:1293–1301. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Muroi K, Miyamura K, Okada M, et al. Bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells (JR-031) for steroid-refractory grade III or IV acute graft-versus-host disease: a phase II/III study. Int J Hematol. 2016;103(2):243–250. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Resnick IB, Barkats C, Shapira MY, et al. Treatment of severe steroid resistant acute GVHD with mesenchymal stromal cells (MSC). Am J Blood Res. 2013;3(3):225–238. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.te Boome LCJ, Mansilla C, van der Wagen LE, et al. Biomarker profiling of steroid-resistant acute GVHD in patients after infusion of mesenchymal stromal cells. Leukemia. 2015;29:1839–1846. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Kurtzberg J, Prockop SE, Prasad VK, et al. Effect of human mesenchymal stem cells (remestemcel-l) on clinical response and survival confirmed in a large cohort of pediatric patients with severe high-risk steroid-refractory acute graft versus host disease. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2016;22(3):S59. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.ICH E6 (R2). Integrated addendum to ICH E6 (R1): Guideline for Good Clinical Practice ICH harmonized tripartite guideline: Guideline for Good Clinical Practice. Available at:http://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Efficacy/E6/E6_R2_.Accessed September 4, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Rowlings PA, Przepiorka D, Klein JP, et al. IBMTR Severity Index for grading acute graft-versus-host disease: retrospective comparison with Glucksberg grade. Br J Haematol. 1997;97(4):855–864. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Cahn JY, Klein JP, Lee SJ, et al. Prospective evaluation of two acute graft-versus-host (GVHD) grading systems: a joint Societe Francaise de Greffe de Moelle et Therapie Cellulaire (SFGM TC), Dana Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI), and International Bone Marrow Transplant Registry (IBMTR) prospective study. Blood. 2005;106(4):1495–1500. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Martin PJ, Bachier CR, Klingemann HG, et al. Endpoints for clinical trials testing treatment of acute graft-versus-host disease: a joint statement. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2009;15(7):777–784. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Prasad VK, Lucas KG, Kleiner GI, et al. Efficacy and safety of ex vivo cultured adult human mesenchymal stem cells (Prochymal) in pediatric patients with severe refractory acute graft-versus-host disease in a compassionate use study. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2011;17:534–541. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.MacMillan ML, Weisdorf DJ, Wagner JE, et al. Response of 443 patients to steroids as primary therapy for acute graft-versus-host disease: comparison of grading systems. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2002;8:387–394. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.MacMillan ML, Robin M, Harris AC, et al. A refined risk score for acute graft-versus-host disease that predicts response to initial therapy, survival and transplant-related mortality. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2015;21:761–767. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Garcia-Cadenas I, Rivera I, Martino R, et al. Patterns of infection and infection-related mortality in patients with steroid-refractory acute graft versus host disease. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2017;52(1):107–113. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Kurtzberg J, Prockop S, Teira P, et al. Allogeneic human mesenchymal stem cell therapy (remestemcel-l, prochymal) as a rescue agent for severe refractory acute graft-versus-host disease in pediatric patients. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2014;20(2):229–235. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Szabolcs P, Visani G, Locatelli F, et al. Treatment of steroid-refractory acute GvHD with mesenchymal stem cells improves outcomes in paediatric patients: results of the paediatric subset in a phase III randomized, placebo-controlled study. Bone Marrow Transplantation. 2010;45(suppl 2S):S18. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Hinden L, Shainer R, Almogi-Hazan O, Or R. Ex vivo induced regulatory human/murine mesenchymal stem cells as immune modulators. Stem Cells. 2015;33(7):2256–2267. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Noronha NC, Mizukami A, Caliári-Oliveira C, et al. Priming approaches to improve the efficacy of mesenchymal stromal cell-based therapies. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2019;10(1):131. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Fisher SA, Cutler A, Doree C, et al. Mesenchymal stromal cells as treatment or prophylaxis for acute or chronic graft-versus-host disease in haemato-poietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients with a haematological condition. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;1: CD009768. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Kebriaei P, Hayes J, Daly A, et al. A phase 3 randomized study of remestemcel-L versus placebo added to second-line therapy in patients with steroid-refractory acute graft-versus host disease[e-pub ahead of print]. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 10.1016/j.bbmt.2019.08.029. Accessed September 7, 2019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

1

RESOURCES