-Author name in bold denotes the presenting author
-Asterisk * with author name denotes a Non-ASH member
Clinically Relevant Abstract denotes an abstract that is clinically relevant.

PhD Trainee denotes that this is a recommended PHD Trainee Session.

Ticketed Session denotes that this is a ticketed session.

3574 Dynamics of Immune Reconstitution after Unrelated Allogeneic Transplantation with Post-Transplantation Cyclophosphamide Compared to Classical Immunosuppression with ATG

Program: Oral and Poster Abstracts
Session: 722. Allogeneic Transplantation: Acute and Chronic GVHD, Immune Reconstitution: Poster II
Hematology Disease Topics & Pathways:
adult, Therapies, Human, Study Population
Sunday, December 10, 2023, 6:00 PM-8:00 PM

Mariana Nassif Kerbauy, MD1*, Fernanda Agostini Rocha, PhD2*, Leonardo Javier Arcuri, MD, PhD, MSc3*, Priscila Silva Cunegundes2*, Clarisse MARTINS Machado4*, Andreza Feitosa Ribeiro, MD5, Lucila Nassif Kerbauy, MD, PhD2, Luciana Cavalheiro Marti, PhD2* and Nelson Hamerschlak, MD, PhD6

1Hematology, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, BRA
2Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Sao Paulo, Brazil
3Albert Einstein Israelite Hospital, São Paulo, BRA
4University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, BRA
5Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Sao Paulo, Sp, BRA
6Albert Einstein Israelite Hospital, Sao Paulo, Brazil

Introduction: Post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCY), in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), is responsible for the success of haploidentical stem cell transplantation and is also being used in matched transplants such as unrelated transplants, with promising outcomes in graft versus host disease (GVHD). However, we lack data on immune reconstitution with this type of immunosuppression, especially in unrelated transplantation. Immune reconstitution is directly involved with post-transplant morbidity and mortality, being related to GVHD, relapses and infections, such as cytomegalovirus (CMV).

Objectives: To evaluate global and CMV-specific immune reconstitution after unrelated donor HSCT, comparing the use of thymoglobulin (ATG) or PTCY protocol.

Methods: We prospectively included patients undergoing first unrelated donor HSCT with ATG, methotrexate and tacrolimus or PTCY (50mg/Kg D+3 and D+4), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and tacrolimus with patient and/or donor CMV IgG positive. Immune reconstitution analyzes were performed by flow cytometry and CMV-specific recovery by ELISPot technique on days +30, +60, +90 and +180 post HSCT.

Results: Thirty-six patients were included in this study, 20 in the ATG group and 16 in the PTCY group (table 1). Only 2 patients were 9x10 match, and the others were 10x10 match. All patients were submitted to preemptive strategy of CMV treatment, without the use of letermovir. Regarding clinical outcomes, neutrophilic engraftment was earlier with ATG (median of 12 days), compared to PTCY (median of 16 days) (p=0.0001). There was no difference between the groups in terms of length of hospital stay (median 33 days in both groups), CMV reactivation (70% in ATG and 75% PTCY, p=0.98), acute GVHD grades II to IV (p=0.26) or grades III-IV (p=0.56), and chronic GVHD (p=0.45), as well as relapse (p=0.3), non relapse mortality (p=0.77) and overall survival (p=0.4). Regarding immune reconstitution we observed an initial expansion of monocytes and NK lymphocytes in both groups and a higher increase in CD8+ T lymphocytes was evidenced, with an inversion of the CD4/CD8 ratio (CD4 14.9% vs 15.5% p=0.9 and CD8 49.7% vs 54.5%p=0.5 in ATG and PTCY respectively). We identified a CD4+/CD8+ double-positive T cell (DP) population, which was higher in PTCY group compared to ATG on days +30 (3.5% vs 10.2%, p=0.009), +90 (3.1% vs 12% p= 0.01) and +180 (5.2% vs 13%, p=0.007, in ATG and PTCY respectively ). On day +30 there were higher proportion of T cells (19.9% vs 9.6% p=0.004), B cells (0.76% vs 0.2%, p=0.006) and NK cells (19.2% vs 8.6% p=0.006) in ATG group compared to PTCY and monocytes were higher in PTCY (31.7 vs 44.5%, p=0.02). On day +180 the proportion of B cell were higher in PTCY (6.1% vs 16.6% p=0.014) and the NK cells were higher in the ATG (22.4% vs 14.7% p=0.021) (Figure 1), with higher CD56dim population in ATG group (46% vs 33.6% p=0.0079), while in PTCY there were a higher NK population CD56high on day +60 (40.3% vs 61%, p=0.014). We identified a peripheral expansion of a CD56negCD16posNKG2Dpos NK cell population, which was higher in the PTCY group on day +180 (3.7% vs 13.2% p=0.017). Regarding CMV-specific immune response, we found no difference between the groups on days +30 (5 vs 5 spots/104 PBMC p=0.41), +60 (10 vs 6 spots/104 PBMC p=0.38), +90 (13 vs 4 spots/104PBMC p=0.33) or +180 (7 vs 6 spots/104 PBMC p=0.57).
Conclusions: In the context of unrelated HSCT, we found no difference in CMV-specific immune response with the use of PTCY or ATG protocol. Post-transplant immunosuppression with PTCY compared to ATG protocol is related to lower levels of T cells, NK cells and B cells on day +30 and later neutrophil engraftment, but with a higher proportion of double positive T cells on days +30, +90 and +180 and a higher proportion of B cells on day +180. At 6 months after transplantation, a proportionately lower number of NK cells, but higher proportion of CD56negCd16posNKG2D NK population was observed in the PTCY group.

Disclosures: Kerbauy: Takeda: Patents & Royalties.

*signifies non-member of ASH