/clinical/,/clinical/cckm-tools/,/clinical/cckm-tools/content/,/clinical/cckm-tools/content/questionnaires/,/clinical/cckm-tools/content/questionnaires/related/,

/clinical/cckm-tools/content/questionnaires/related/name-104976-en.cckm

201610277

page

100

UWHC,UWMF,

Tools,

Clinical Hub,UW Health Clinical Tool Search,UW Health Clinical Tool Search,Questionnaires,Related

How We Treat Chronic Graft-Versus-Host Disease

How We Treat Chronic Graft-Versus-Host Disease - Clinical Hub, UW Health Clinical Tool Search, UW Health Clinical Tool Search, Questionnaires, Related


How I Treat
How we treat chronic graft-versus-host disease
Mary E. D. Flowers and Paul J. Martin
Clinical Research Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
Chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD)
remains a common and potentially life-
threatening complication of allogeneic
hematopoietic stem cell transplantation
(HCT). The 2-year cumulative incidence of
chronic GVHD requiring systemic treat-
ment is∼30%to40%byNational Institutes
of Health criteria. The risk of chronic
GVHD is higher and the duration of treat-
ment is longer after HCT with mobilized
blood cells than with marrow cells. Clini-
cal manifestations can impair activities of
daily living and often linger for years.
Hematology and oncology specialists who
refer patients to centers for HCT are often
subsequently involved in the management
of chronic GVHD when patients return to
their care after HCT. Treatment of these
patients can be optimized under shared
care arrangements that enable referring
physicians to manage long-term admin-
istration of immunosuppressive medica-
tions and supportive care with guidance
from transplant center experts. Keys to
successful collaborative management
include early recognition in making the
diagnosis of chronic GVHD, comprehen-
sive evaluation at the onset and periodi-
cally during the course of the disease,
prompt institution of systemic and topical
treatment, appropriate monitoring of the
response, calibration of treatment in-
tensity over time in order to avoid over-
treatment or undertreatment, and the use
of supportive care to prevent complications
and disability. (Blood. 2015;125(4):606-615)
Introduction
The prevalence and severity of chronic graft-versus-host disease
(GVHD) have increased during the past 2 decades in associationwith
the increasing use of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT)
for treatment of older age patients, the widespread use of mobilized
blood cells instead of marrow for grafting, and improvements in
survival during the �rst several months after allogeneic HCT.
1-6
Pathophysiological understanding of chronic GVHD is emerging,
7,8
but the long-standing reliance on prednisone described as the main-
stay of treatment in Vogelsang’s “How I Treat” review in 2001 has
persistedtothepresent.
9
The 2005 National Institutes of Health (NIH)
Consensus Conference developed a framework for characterizing
the pleomorphic manifestations of chronic GVHD. The consen-
sus project de�ned minimal criteria for the clinical diagnosis, em-
phasized differences in the clinical manifestations of chronic and
acute GVHD, established criteria for scoring the severity of clinical
manifestations in affected organs, and proposed new categories for
describing overall disease severity and indications for treatment.
10
The consensus project also proposed measures for monitoring dis-
ease progression and response to therapy and provided other infor-
mation for purposes of clinical trials.
11-13
In 2014, the NIH Conference
was reconvened, and revisions are under consideration to update the
recommendations based on available evidence and insights from
clinical application of the original recommendations.
14-33
Chronic GVHD has a wide range of pleomorphic manifestations,
and many complications can emerge from both the disease and its
treatment. A dedicated multidisciplinary team approach with rel-
evant expertise is necessary in order to provide the best care for
patients with a chronic illness that can have devastating effects on
quality of life. Our approach to treatment emphasizes the importance
of early recognition in the management of chronic GVHD, with
respect to making the initial diagnosis, monitoring the response to
initial treatment, and preventing complications and disability.
Nuances applicable only to children are not addressed in this review.
Case summary
A 45-year-old man received growth factor–mobilized blood cells
from an HLA-matched unrelated male donor after conditioning with
12 Gy total body irradiation and cyclophosphamide for treatment of
acute myeloid leukemia with persistent disease. He received meth-
otrexate and tacrolimus for immunosuppression after HCT. He
developed acute GVHD of the skin and gut, which resolved after
treatment with steroid cream and oral beclomethasone and budesonide.
Because malignant cells persisted after HCT, treatment was admin-
isteredwith azacytidine, and immunosuppressionwith tacrolimus
was withdrawn by day 100, 3 months earlier than originally planned.
Malignant cells disappeared, but 7 months after HCT and 2
months after the third cycle of azacytidine, he was diagnosed with
severe chronic GVHD (NIH global score). Affected sites included
the skin (erythematous rash involving.50% body surface area [BSA]),
mouth (ulcers and lichenoid features), fasciae (wrist tightness and leg
edema), liver (alanine aminotransferase twice the normal upper limit
with normal total serum bilirubin concentration), and eosinophilia
(1800 per mL). Forced expiratory volume in the �rst second (FEV1)
was 79% of predicted, and the ratio of FEV1 to forced vital capacity
(FVC) was 78% of predicted, representing an absolute 8% decline
from the baseline before HCT.
Treatment was started with prednisone at 1 mg/kg per day, and
antibiotic prophylaxis was administered to prevent Pneumocystis
pneumonia and infection with encapsulated bacteria. Antiviral pro-
phylaxis was continued with acyclovir. Daily intake of vitamin D
1000 IU and calcium 1500 mg was recommended. After 2 weeks,
improvement was noted in wrist discomfort, leg edema, and the
extent of rash, with resolution of eosinophilia and liver function
abnormalities. The dose of prednisone was tapered to reach 80 mg
every other day, with continued clinical monitoring and pulmonary
function tests (PFTs) at monthly intervals.
Submitted August 5, 2014; accepted November 6, 2014. Prepublished online
as Blood First Edition paper, November 14, 2014; DOI 10.1182/blood-2014-
08-551994.
The online version of this article contains a data supplement.
? 2015 by The American Society of Hematology
606 BLOOD, 22 JANUARY 2015 x VOLUME 125, NUMBER 4
For personal use only.on August 29, 2016. by guest www.bloodjournal.orgFrom

Table 1. Clinical manifestations of chronic GVHD
Organ or site
Diagnostic (sufficient
for diagnosis)
Distinctive (insufficient alone
for diagnosis) Other
Features seen in both acute
and chronic GVHD
Skin Poikiloderma Depigmentation Erythema
Lichen planus-like Papulosquamous Maculopapular
Sclerosis Pruritus
Morphea-like
Lichen sclerosis-like
Nails Dystrophy
Onycholysis
Nail loss
Pterygium unguis
Scalp and body hair Alopecia (scarring or
nonscarring)
Scaling
Mouth Lichen planus-like Xerostomia Gingivitis
Mucoceles Mucositis
Mucosal atrophy Erythema
Pseudomembranes
or ulcers*
Pain
Eyes New dry, gritty, or painful
eyes (sicca)
Keratoconjunctivitis sicca
Punctate keratopathy
Genitalia Lichen planus-like Erosions*
Lichen sclerosis-like Fissures*
Female: Ulcers*
Vagina scarring
or stenosis
Clitoral or labial
agglutination
Male:
Phimosis
Urethral scarring
or stenosis
GI tract Esophageal web Diarrhea
Esophageal stricture Anorexia
Nausea or emesis
Failure to thrive
Weight loss
Liver Total bilirubin, alkaline phospha-
tase or ALT .23 ULN
Lung Bronchiolitis obliterans
diagnosed by biopsy BOS§
Cryptogenic organizing
pneumonia†
Restrictive lung disease†
Muscles, fascia,
joints
Fasciitis Myositis
Joint stiffness or
contractures due
to sclerosis
Polymyositis
Hematopoietic
and Immune
Thrombocytopenia
Eosinophilia
Hypo- or hypergamma-
globulinemia
Autoantibodies
Raynaud phenomenon
Others Effusions‡
Nephrotic syndrome
Myasthenia gravis
Peripheral neuropathy
Modified from Stem Cell Trialists’ Collaborative Group.
6
ALT, alanine aminotransferase; BOS, bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome; GI, gastrointestinal; ULN, upper limit of normal.
*In all cases infection, drug effect, malignancy, endocrine causes must be excluded as applicable.
†These pulmonary manifestations are under investigation or unclassified.
‡Pericardium, pleural, or ascites.
§BOS can be diagnostic for lung chronic GVHD only, if distinctive feature present in another site.
BLOOD, 22 JANUARY 2015 x VOLUME 125, NUMBER 4 HOW WE TREAT CHRONIC GVHD 607
For personal use only.on August 29, 2016. by guest www.bloodjournal.orgFrom

During the next 3 months, PFTs improved, but other manifes-
tations showed progressive worsening, with cutaneous sclerosis
involving;28% of the BSAwith a Rodnanmodi�ed total score
34
of
8, oral ulceration, and decreased wrist mobility. The patient enrolled
in a randomized clinical trial comparing imatinib vs rituximab for
steroid-refractory sclerotic GVHD. He was randomized to treatment
with imatinib (200 mg daily) while continuing treatment with pred-
nisone 80 mg every other day. Dexamethasone oral rinses and
clobetasol ointment were used to control oral ulceration.
13
The extent and severity of sclerosis remained stable for 3 months.
Sclerosis then began to progress, involving ;50% of BSA with a
Rodnan score of 28 after 6 months of treatment with imatinib. The
patient met the criteria for crossover according to the study design,
and he was treated with 2 cycles of rituximab, 375 mg/m
2
per week for
4 weeks per cycle. Due to hypertension and hyperglycemia, the dose
of prednisone was gradually tapered to 40 mg every other day within
6 months. The patient subsequently reported improved �exibility, and
after 7 months, sclerosis remained stable with a Rodnan score of 26.
Elevenmonths after the last dose of rituximab, fasciitis progressed
with further decrease in range of motion while continuing treatment
with prednisone at 40 mg every other day. Extracorporeal photo-
pheresis (ECP)
35
(reviewed in Inamoto and Flowers
36
), low-dose
interleukin-2 (IL-2),
37
and sirolimus were considered as possible
further treatment. The patient opted for daily low-dose IL-2, but he
had signi�cant local reactions, low-grade fever, and no appreciable
improvement in GVHD. Three months after treatment with IL-2
was discontinued, he developed a new erythematous maculopapular
rash affecting 50% of BSA. The dose of prednisone was increased
to 40 mg per day, and sirolimus was added. The rash subsequently
improved, but sclerosis and fasciitis continued to worsen, prompting
treatment with ECP for the past 3 months. Ef�cacy cannot yet be
assessed because improvement is often not observed until treatment
with ECP has been continued for at least 6 months.
35,38
Pathophysiology
Recent laboratory studies have yielded some insights into the
pathophysiology of chronic GVHD, and candidate biomarkers that
could be used for diagnosis or monitoring have been identi�ed.
7,8
The disease likely represents a syndrome in which the respective
contributions of in�ammation, innate and adaptive cell-mediated
immunity, humoral immunity, abnormal immune regulation, and
�brosis vary considerably from 1 patient to the next. The risk of
chronic GVHD can be substantially decreased by administration of
rabbit anti-thymocyte globulin or alemtuzumab in the condition-
ing regimen before HCT,
39-43
or by administration of high-dose
cyclophosphamide on days 3 and 4 after HCT.
44,45
These results
demonstrate that the pathophysiological mechanisms leading
to development of chronic GVHD are set in motion at the time of
HCT, even though the manifestations of the disease typically do
not become apparent until several months later.
Animal models that replicate many features of the disease have
been established, but mechanisms linking in�ammation with abnormal
immune regulation andmechanisms linking immune-mediated injury
Figure 1. The frequency of involvement by chronic
GVHD varies across organs and sites and is higher
after HCT with mobilized blood cells as compared
with marrow. (A) The most frequently involved organs
and sites are the skin, mouth, eyes, gastrointestinal
tract, and liver.
3
(B) Chronic GVHD can affect all layers
of the skin. Photographs of each manifestation in italic
may be found in the supplemental Data, available on
the Blood Website.ArtworkbyDelilahCohn,MFA,
CMI, used with permission.
608 FLOWERS and MARTIN BLOOD, 22 JANUARY 2015 x VOLUME 125, NUMBER 4
For personal use only.on August 29, 2016. by guest www.bloodjournal.orgFrom

with�brosis have not beenwell de�ned. In the absence of a de�nitive
understanding of the pathophysiological mechanisms or clear expla-
nation accounting for the considerable variability of disease man-
ifestations among patients, efforts to develop new treatment have
relied on empirical testing of agents approved for other indications
where in�ammation, abnormal immune regulation, or �brosis have
been implicated as pathogenic mechanisms.
Diagnosis and evaluation
Manifestations of chronic GVHDcan resemble autoimmune or other
immune-mediated disorders such as scleroderma, Sjo¨gren syn-
drome, primary biliary cirrhosis, bronchiolitis obliterans, immune
cytopenias, and chronic immunode�ciency.Manifestations typically
appear within the �rst year after HCT, most often when doses of
immunosuppressive medications are weaned. The disease can begin
as early as 2 months and as late as 7 years after HCT, although onset
at .1 year from HCT occurs in ,10% of cases.
46
Chronic GVHD
should be suspected at the onset of any perturbation in laboratory
tests, symptoms, or signs, especially during the �rst year after HCT.
Conversely, not every problem after allogeneic HCT represents
chronic GVHD. Other conditions such as eczema, iron overload,
hypothyroidism, adrenal insuf�ciency, infections, or drug effect can
be misdiagnosed as chronic GVHD.
47
Chronic GVHD generally involves several organs or sites, al-
though manifestations are sometimes restricted to a single organ or
site. The disease is characterized by features that differ from the typical
dermatitis, enteritis, and cholestatic liver manifestations of acute
GVHD (Table 1).
10
Patients frequently have erythematous rash,
enteritis, or hepatic involvement characterized by transaminase
elevation or hyperbilirubinemia at initial presentation and inter-
mittently afterward during the course of the disease. The term “overlap
syndrome” has been used to indicate that manifestations typical
of acute GVHD are present in a patient with chronic GVHD.
These in�ammatory manifestations are often transient, disappearing
when the intensity of immunosuppression is increased and reappearing
when the intensity of immunosuppression is tapered. According to
NIH criteria, the diagnosis of chronic GVHD requires at least 1
Table 2. Evaluation and frequency of monitoring according symptoms or affected organs
Evaluation
Frequency of evaluation/monitoring
Manifestations present Manifestations absent
Review of systems (see Table 3 for chronic
GVHD-specific questions)
Every clinic visit Every clinic visit
Physical examination
Complete skin examination (look, touch, pinch) Every clinic visit Every clinic visit
Oral examination Every clinic visit Every clinic visit
Range of motion assessment Every clinic visit Every clinic visit
Performance score Every clinic visit Every clinic visit
Nurse assessment
Weight Every clinic visit Every clinic visit
Height/adults Yearly Yearly
Height/children Every 3-12 mo Every 3-12 mo
Medical photographs ;100 d after HCT (baseline), at initial diagnosis of
chronic GVHD, every 6 mo if skin or joints are
involved and during treatment until at least 1 y
after discontinuation of treatment
;100 d after HCT (baseline)
Other evaluations
PFTs ;100 d after HCT (baseline); see also Table 4 ;100 d after HCT and every 3 mo for the first year,
then yearly if previous PFTs were abnormal or if
continuing systemic treatment; reassess at
onset of new symptoms
Nutritional assessment As clinically indicated and yearly if receiving
corticosteroids
As clinically indicated
Physiotherapy with assessment of range of
motion
Every 3 mo if sclerotic features affecting range of
motion until resolution
As clinically indicated
Dental or oral medicine consultation with
comprehensive soft and hard tissue
examination, culture, biopsy, or photographs
of lesions, as clinically indicated
Every 3-6 mo or more often as indicated Yearly
Ophthalmology consultation with Schirmer test,
slit-lamp examination, and intraocular
pressure
At initial diagnosis and every 3-6 mo or more often
as indicated
;100 d after HCT (baseline) and yearly
Gynecology examination for vulvar or vaginal
involvement
Every 6 mo or more often as indicated Yearly
Dermatology consultation with assessment of
extent and type of skin involvement, biopsy, or
photographs
As clinically indicated
Neuropsychological testing As clinically indicated
Bone mineral assessment (DEXA) scan Yearly during corticosteroid treatment or if prior
test was abnormal
;100 d after HCT if continuing corticosteroid
treatment (baseline)
Modified from Flowers and Vogelsang.
69
BLOOD, 22 JANUARY 2015 x VOLUME 125, NUMBER 4 HOW WE TREAT CHRONIC GVHD 609
For personal use only.on August 29, 2016. by guest www.bloodjournal.orgFrom

diagnostic sign or at least 1 distinctive sign con�rmed by biopsy,
other tests, or by radiography in the same or another organ, and
exclusion of other diagnoses (Table 1).
10
Manifestations of chronic
GVHD have a wide range of severity and impact on quality of life
after HCT. Certain manifestations are particularly dif�cult to
manage and require prolonged treatment. These include fasciitis or
cutaneous sclerosis, severe ocular sicca, and BOS, occurring in
;20%,
48
12%,
3
and about 10%
3
of patients, respectively. The
most commonorgans and sites affectedby chronicGVHDinclude
the skin, mouth, eyes, gastrointestinal tract, and liver (Figure 1).
Systematic and comprehensive assessment of organs and sites
possibly affected by chronic GVHD is essential for early diagnosis,
early recognition of manifestations associated with high morbidity
and disability, and assessment of disease progression and response
during treatment (Tables 2-3). Once the clinical diagnosis of chronic
GVHD is made, the extent and severity of each affected organ must
be ascertained using the NIH chronic GVHD diagnosis and scoring
consensus criteria.
10
Recommended methods for conducting a chronic
GVHD-focused evaluation have beenpublished
49
(they can be viewed
at http://www.fhcrc.org/en/labs/clinical/projects/gvhd.html).
50
Com-
prehensive evaluations should be done at the time of initial diagnosis,
at 3- to 6-month intervals thereafter, and at any timewhen amajor
change in therapy is made. Evaluations should continue until at least
12 months after systemic treatment has ended.
Close serialmonitoring of all organ systems is essential in order to
ensure early detection, recognition, and intervention directed toward
reversing or preventing progression of chronic GVHD manifes-
tations and treatment-associated toxicities. In particular, periodic
pulmonary function tests are essential for early detection of lung
involvement manifested as BOS because this complication has
an insidious onset, and patients may remain asymptomatic until
considerable lung function has been lost. We recommend complete
pulmonary function testing in all patients before HCT and at ;3
months after HCT as a baseline for future comparisons (Table 4).
10
Follow-up testing should be done at the onset of chronic GVHD and
at 3- to 6-month intervals for the �rst year or more often if testing
shows any signi�cant new air�ow obstruction or decline in the per-
cent of predicted FEV1. Patient and physician-directed tools to sup-
port chronicGVHDmonitoringcanbe foundonline (http://www.fhcrc.
org/en/treatment/long-term-follow-up/information-for-physicians.html).
Treatment
Treatment of chronic GVHD is intended to produce a sustained
bene�t by reducing symptom burden, controlling objective mani-
festations of disease activity, and preventing damage and disability,
without causing disproportionate toxicity or harms related to the
treatments themselves. The long-term goal of GVHD treatment is
the development of immunologic tolerance, indicated by successful
withdrawal of all immunosuppressive treatment without recurrence
or clinically signi�cant exacerbation of disease manifestations. The
current therapeutic approach functions primarily to prevent immune-
mediated damage, while awaiting the development of tolerance.
Evidence to suggest that current treatments accelerate the devel-
opment of immunologic tolerance is lacking. Optimal treatment
of chronic GVHD requires a multidisciplinary team approach that
includes transplantation specialists, a primary health care provider,
organ-speci�c consultants, nurses, and ancillary services such as
social services, vocational specialists, patient and family support
groups, and systems.
Systemic therapy for at least 1 year is generally indicated for
patients who meet criteria for moderate-to-severe disease according
to the NIH consensus criteria: involvement of 3 or more organs,
moderate or severe organ involvement in any organ, or any lung
involvement.
10,51
Systemic treatment is also generally indicated
for patients with less severe disease if high-risk features such as
thrombocytopenia, hyperbilirubinemia, or onset during corticoste-
roid treatment are present.
2,10,52-54
Symptomatic mild chronic GVHD
is often treated with topical therapies alone.
13,52
Topical agents may
also be used as adjuncts to systemic therapy to improve and accel-
erate local response. Comprehensive reviews of topical therapies
have been published previously.
2,13,52
Considerations affecting the
choice of treatment include the affected organs or sites, the severity
of diseasemanifestations, the presence of health problems that might
be exacerbated by the treatment, possible drug interactions, the
intensity of themonitoring needed, and factors that affect access to
the treatment such as travel, distance, and cost.
Primary systemic treatment
Management of chronic GVHD has relied on corticosteroids as the
mainstay of treatment of .3 decades. Systemic treatment typically
begins with prednisone at 0.5 to 1mg/kg per day, followed by a taper
to reach an alternate-day regimen, with or without cyclosporine or
tacrolimus. The ef�cacy of alternate-day vs daily administration of
corticosteroids has been reported in pediatric renal transplantation
but has not been tested in HCT.
55
Prolonged systemic corticosteroid
treatment causes signi�cant toxicity, including weight gain, bone
loss, myopathy, diabetes, hypertension, mood swings, cataract for-
mation, and increased risk of infection.Many of these toxicities can be
mitigated by alternate-day administrationof corticosteroids.Alternate-
day administration also has an important role in facilitating adrenal
recovery long before the end of treatment. In a recent prospective
study, the average dose of prednisonewas tapered to 0.20 to 0.25mg/kg
Table 3. Chronic GVHD review of systems
No. System/others Inquire/description
1 Skin Skin feels tight or hard, increased dryness, pruritus, or looks different (ie, new rash, papules, discoloration, shining scar-like, scaly)?
2 Sweat glands Inability to sweat or to keep body warm?
3 Skin appendages Loss of hair (scalp or body including bows or lashes), or nail changes (ridges or brittle, loss)?
4 Fasciae/joints Stiffness or pain in the wrists, fingers, or other joints?
5 Eyes Eye dryness, sensitivity to wind or dry environments (air conditioning), pain?
6 Mouth Oral dryness, taste alterations, sensitivities (spicy/carbonate drinks, toothpaste), ulcers/sores, pain?
7 Esophagus Foods or pills gets stuck upon swallowing?
8 Lungs Cough, dyspnea (on exertion or rest) or wheezes?
9 Genital tract Vaginal dryness, pain, dyspareunia (female); pain or dysuria due to stenosis of urethra (male)?
10 Weight loss Unexplained weight loss or inability to gain weight (pancreatic insufficiency or hypercatabolism)?
610 FLOWERS and MARTIN BLOOD, 22 JANUARY 2015 x VOLUME 125, NUMBER 4
For personal use only.on August 29, 2016. by guest www.bloodjournal.orgFrom

per day or 0.4 to 0.5 mg/kg every other day within 3 months after
starting treatment.
56
Medications used for treatment of chronicGVHD
should be withdrawn gradually one at a time after the disease has
resolved. As a general principle, withdrawal of systemic treatment
should beginwith themedication that ismost likely to cause long-term
toxicity.Withdrawal of prednisone should generally precedewithdrawal
of a calcineurin inhibitor, unless continued treatmentwith the calcineurin
inhibitor threatens to cause intolerable or irreversible toxicity.
Strategies for tapering the dose of prednisone vary considerably,
but as a general principle, efforts should bemade to use theminimum
dose that is suf�cient to control GVHD manifestations (Figure 2).
In practice, this means that prednisone doses should be decreased
progressively in patients who have had a complete response or a
very-good-partial response, and tapering should continue until man-
ifestations begin to recur or show evidence of exacerbation. A pro-
totypic taper schedule (Table 5) is designed to approximate a 20% to
30%dose reduction every 2weeks,with smaller absolute decrements
toward the end of the taper schedule. Toxicity associated with the
administration of prednisone may require dose adjustments.
A physician or advanced practitioner should examine the patient
before each reduction of the prednisone dose. If exacerbation or
recurrence of chronic GVHD is evident at any step of the taper, the dose
of prednisone should be increased promptly by 2 levels, with daily
administration for 2 to 4weeks, followed by resumption of alternate-day
administration. Treatment should then be continued for at least 3months
before attempting to resume the taper. Cycles of attempted tapering and
dose escalation should be repeated as needed until the dose reaches
0.10 mg/kg per day, which equates to adrenal replacement therapy.
Administration of prednisone may be discontinued after a minimum
of at least 4 weeks of treatment at a dose of 0.10 mg/kg every other
day. Some patients have recurrent symptoms with doses at or below
0.10 mg/kg every other day, and in this situation, treatment with
very low prednisone doses may be required for a year or more.
Combination therapy with other immunosuppressive agents is
often considered in hopes of minimizing toxicity caused by pro-
longed corticosteroid treatment.
54
Randomized trials, however, showed
no bene�t from adding azathioprine,
57
thalidomide,
58
mycopheno-
late mofetil,
56
or hydroxychloroquine
59
to initial treatment of chronic
GVHD. A trial comparing cyclosporine plus prednisone vs pred-
nisone alone showed no statistically signi�cant differences in sur-
vival or the duration of treatment.
60
The incidence of avascular necrosis
was lower in the cyclosporine plus prednisone arm, suggesting that
cyclosporine could have had a steroid-sparing effect, but steroid
doses across time were not measured in this study. Results are
pending from a recent randomized, multicenter phase 2 to 3 clinical
trial comparing prednisone and sirolimus with or without a calci-
neurin inhibitor for initial treatment of chronic GVHD. Premature
closure of this trial at the end of phase 2 suggests that the expected
bene�t of omitting the calcineurin inhibitor was not observed.
Wherever possible, clinical trials should be considered as the �rst
option for initial systemic treatment of chronic GVHD.
Secondary systemic treatment
Approximately 50% to 60% of patients with chronic GVHD require
secondary treatment within 2 years after initial systemic treatment.
61,62
Indications for secondary treatment include worsening manifes-
tations of chronic GVHD in a previously affected organ, devel-
opment of signs and symptoms of chronic GVHD in a previously
unaffected organ, absence of improvement after 1 month of standard
primary treatment, inability to decrease prednisone below 1 mg/kg
per day within 2 months, or signi�cant treatment-related toxicity. Nu-
merous clinical trials have been carried out to evaluate approaches for
secondary treatment of chronic GVHD. Reports from retrospective
and prospective studies often indicate high response rates, but results
are dif�cult to interpret because of de�ciencies in study design.
54
No consensus has been reached regarding the optimal choice of
agents for secondary treatment of chronic GVHD, and the published
Table 4. General guidelines for monitoring and management of new
airflow obstruction
Guidelines
A. Significant new airflow obstruction with a % predicted FEV1 $70%
1. Initiate inhaled corticosteroid therapy
? Fluticasone (Flovent) 440 mcg BID, or
? Advair 500/50 mcg BID (if symptoms of airway obstruction are present)
? Treatment should continue until either % FEV1 becomes ,70% (see below),
or until GVHD resolves (ie, resolution of all reversible manifestations of GVHD
without exacerbation after at least 6 mo after discontinuation of all systemic
immunosuppressive treatment)
2. Other immunosuppressive treatment as indicated to control GVHD in other
organs
? Treatment should continue until either % FEV1 becomes ,70% (see below),
or until GVHD resolves (ie, resolution of all reversible manifestation of GVHD
without exacerbation after at least 12 mo after discontinuation of all systemic
treatments)
3. Monitor PFTs or spirometry monthly for at least 3 mo
? If % FEV1 stabilizes, PFTs or spirometry every 3 mo for 1 y, then if stable
continue at 6-mo intervals for 1 y and at 6-12 mo intervals thereafter
? If % FEV1 continues to decrease, go to B below
B. Significant airflow obstruction with a % FEV1 ,70% with/without significant air-
trapping by high resolution chest CT
1. Consider bronchoscopy to rule out an undetected infectious etiology for airflow
obstruction, even if no infiltrate is apparent
2. After infection has been ruled out, evaluate the patient eligibility for clinical trial
for treatment of BOS and initiate (or increase) prednisone dose to 1 mg/kg/d
? Start standard chronic GVHD taper at 2 wk (Table 5)
? Consider continuing inhaled corticosteroids throughout prednisone therapy
3. If % FEV1 decreases further to ,70% during treatment, discuss changes of
immunosuppressive treatment with transplant physician
4. CMV monitoring in blood per standard practice
5. Monitor PFTs or spirometry monthly for at least 3 mo
? If % FEV1 stabilizes, continue PFTs or spirometry every 3 mo for 1 y
? If % FEV1 continues to decrease, go to C below
C. Corticosteroid-resistant airflow obstruction defined as progressive decline of
FEV1 by $10% despite treatment with 1 mg/kg/d of prednisone (or similar
corticosteroids)
1. May consider increasing the dose of prednisone to 2 mg/kg/d for a maximum of
2 wk, followed by a taper to reach a dose of 1 mg/kg/d by 2-4 wk
2. Another treatment must be considered and discussed with the transplant team
3. Monitor CMV in blood per standard practice
4. Monitor PFTs monthly for at least 3 mo
? If % FEV1 stabilizes, monitor PFTs every 3 mo for 1 y
D. Additional considerations
1. Consider changing prophylaxis for encapsulated bacterial infection to
azithromycin 250 mg on Mondays-Wednesdays-Fridays
? Assure patient is receiving adequate prophylaxis for Pneumocystis, varicella
virus, and herpes simplex virus infections
? Fungal prophylaxis per standard practice
2. Monitor CMV in blood per standard practice
3. May continue inhaled corticosteroids throughout prednisone therapy
4. Discontinuation of inhaled corticosteroid treatment can be considered 12 mo
after treatment with prednisone has been discontinued
Before considering treatment, all potential infectious etiologies of airflow obstruction
must be investigated and treated if present. Investigations that should be considered
(directed by clinical symptoms), include sinus CT scan, nasal washes, sinus aspiration,
high-resolution chest CT scan, sputum culture, bronchoalveolar lavage, and lung biopsy.
BID, twice daily; CT, computed tomography scan.
BLOOD, 22 JANUARY 2015 x VOLUME 125, NUMBER 4 HOW WE TREAT CHRONIC GVHD 611
For personal use only.on August 29, 2016. by guest www.bloodjournal.orgFrom

literature provides little useful guidance. Therefore, clinical man-
agement requires an empirical approach, as illustrated in “Case
summary.”Treatment choices are based on physician experience, ease
of use, need for monitoring, risk of toxicity, and potential exacerba-
tion of preexisting comorbidity.
63,64
Options for secondary treatment
have been recently reviewed and are summarized in Table 6.
36
Ancillary and supportive care
Ancillary and supportive care therapies are commonly used in
addition to systemic treatment of GVHD, although in some cases,
their use may circumvent the need for systemic treatment or allow
doses of systemic agents to be reduced. A detailed list of site-speci�c
therapies has been reported elsewhere.
2,13
Speci�c dispensary in-
formation for topical therapies is available online (http://asbmt.
af�niscape.com/associations/11741/�les/DispensaryGuidelines.pdf).
Symptoms caused by ocular sicca can be relieved by the frequent
application of arti�cial lubricant tears or by plugging or ligation of
the tear ducts. Symptoms can be relieved by using specializedmoisture-
chamber eyewear available from several vendors. Permanent punctal
ligation is usually necessary in more severe cases of ocular sicca. Many
patients with severe sicca keratitis have reported signi�cant relief of
symptoms with prosthetic replacement of the ocular surface ecosystem
(PROSE), which refers to a gas-permeable scleral lens.
65
Involvement
of an ophthalmologist with expertise in the management of dry eye and
corneal and conjunctival disease is strongly recommended for patients
with ocular manifestations of chronic GVHD.
Oral cavity erythema, ulceration, and gingivitis are often treated
with topical steroid rinses or ointments.Vaginal GVHDmay respond
to topical steroids and dilator therapy, but management should also
address any coexisting estrogen de�ciency or coexisting yeast or
bacterial infection. Sialogogue therapy (to increase the �ow rate of
saliva) with agents such as cevimeline or pilocarpine may improve
symptoms of oral,
66
ocular, and vaginal dryness.
Consistent weight-bearing exercise for 30 minutes daily at least
5 days per week and daily stretching are particularly important for
preserving bone health, muscle strength, and mobility. Physical
therapy to maintain strength and joint mobility can prevent the
development of disability during immunosuppressive treatment of
chronic GVHD. Deep tissue massage is a helpful adjunct to preserve
or improve range of motion in patients with fasciitis or scleroderma.
Close attention must be paid to complications of glucocorticoid
treatment through management of hyperglycemia, hypertension,
and bone loss. A balanced, healthy diet low in sodium and free sugars
and high in calcium with adequate �uid intake is essential. Calcium
(1500 mg per day) and vitamin D (1000 IU per day) intake between
food and supplements is recommended to retard the development of
osteoporosis during glucocorticoid treatment. Clinical trials have
not yet been carried out to determinewhether bisphosphonates are
effective for prevention of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis, but
some experts recommend the use of these agents for patients with
osteopenia.
Both the disease and its treatment with immunosuppressive
agents increase the riskof infection inpatientswith chronicGVHD.
2,51
Antibiotic prophylaxis for Pneumocystis pneumonia and encapsulated
bacterial infections should be given until 6 months after discontinua-
tion of all systemic treatment. IV administration of g globulin may help
prevent infection in patients who have serum immunoglobulin G (IgG)
concentrations ,400 mg/dL or IgG2 or IgG4 subclass de�ciencies.
Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection poses risks of CMV disease in
patients with a history of viral reactivation and in those with low CD4
counts or cord blood donors. All patients with chronic GVHD
who are at risk of CMV infection should have regular blood tests
for surveillance of viral reactivation. Preemptive antiviral therapy
should be instituted whenever surveillance tests show viral re-
activation, before the onset of overt CMVdisease. CMV-seronegative
recipients with CMV-seronegative donors should receive screened or
�ltered leukocyte-depletedbloodproducts. In addition, long-term
administration of valacyclovir or acyclovir is recommended to
prevent reactivation of varicella-zoster virus in patients previously
infected with this virus.
Prognosis and outcomes
Duration of treatment
Approximately 50%of patients are curedwithin 7 years after starting
systemic treatment, as indicated by resolution of disease manifes-
tations and permanent withdrawal of systemic treatment. Approx-
imately 10% require continued systemic treatment of an inde�nite
Figure 2. Appropriate management of chronic GVHD requires continuous re-
calibration of immunosuppressive treatment in order to avoid overtreatment
or undertreatment. The intensity of treatment required to control the disease de-
creases across time. Manifestations of chronic GVHD improve or are absent when
the intensity of treatment is above the threshold shown as the orange curve, and they
worsen or recur when the intensity of treatment is below the threshold. The slope of
the threshold varies among patients and can be determined only by serial attempts
to decrease the intensity of treatment. Clinical tolerance is defined by the ability to
withdraw all systemic treatment without recurrence of chronic GVHD.
Table 5. Prednisone taper schedule
Week Dose, mg/kg body weight
01.0
2 1.0/0.5* (to begin within 2 wk after objective improvement)
4 1.0/0.25*
6 1.0 qod (continued until resolution of all clinical manifestations)
8 0.70 qod (to begin after resolution of all clinical manifestations)
10 0.55 qod
12 0.45 qod
14 0.35 qod
16 0.25 qod
18 0.20 qod
20 0.15 qod
22 0.10 qod
qod, every other day.
*Alternate-day administration.
612 FLOWERS and MARTIN BLOOD, 22 JANUARY 2015 x VOLUME 125, NUMBER 4
For personal use only.on August 29, 2016. by guest www.bloodjournal.orgFrom

period beyond 7 years, and the remaining 40% have recurrent ma-
lignancy or die within 7 years during treatment of chronic GVHD.
30
Growth factor–mobilized apheresis products have replaced
marrow as the most frequent source of cells for allogeneic HCT with
both related and unrelated donors. The use of mobilized blood cells
has been associated with 3 detrimental outcomes with respect to
chronic GVHD: a higher incidence, a higher risk of fasciitis and
development of �brotic manifestations affecting the skin and joints,
and a longer time to resolution of the disease, development of im-
munologic tolerance, and withdrawal of systemic treatment.
48
The
median duration of systemic treatment of chronic GVHD is;2 years
in patients who had HCT with marrow cells and;3.5 years in those
who had HCT with mobilized blood cells.
Graft-versus-leukemia associated with chronic GVHD
Chronic GVHD is associated with a reduced risk of recurrent
malignancy after hematopoietic cell transplantation, raising the
question of whether the intensity of immunosuppression should be
attenuated when patients at high risk of recurrent malignancy
develop chronic GVHD. This question has not been addressed
directly in clinical trials, but several observations are pertinent.
First, chronic GVHD increases the risk of nonrelapse mortality,
thereby offsetting any bene�t gained through the effects on
malignant cells in the recipient. The tradeoff between risks of
nonrelapse mortality and recurrent malignancy is balanced, such
that mortality rates are not affected by the presence or absence of
chronic GVHD.
67,68
Second, a single-institution study showed that
withdrawal of immunosuppression decreased the subsequent risk of
recurrent malignancy in patients without prior GVHD but not in
those with prior GVHD.
67
These results suggest that attenuation of immunosuppression in
patients with active manifestations of chronic GVHD might like-
wise not decrease the risk of recurrent malignancy. Nonetheless,
unnecessary immunosuppressive treatment could increase the risk
of recurrent malignancy, as suggested by trends in a prospective
study evaluating the use of mycophenolate mofetil added to �rst-
line treatment of chronic GVHD.
56
Therefore, the intensity of
treatment should be calibrated periodically by lowering the dose
of immunosuppressive medications to levels that allow disease
manifestations to begin emerging before increasing the dose, as
describedinFigure2.
Future perspectives
Participation in a clinical trial represents the �rst option to consider
for eligible patients with chronic GVHD. Novel strategies directed
toward depleting or modulating B cells, expanding T or B regulatory
cells, and targeting the processes implicated in �brosis are under
active investigation and could lead to future advances in treatment of
chronic GVHD. Progress toward decreasing the impact of chronic
GVHD after HCTwill bemade not only through improved treatment
but also through development of prevention strategies that do not
impair the immunological activity of donor cells against malignant
cells in the recipient. In the absence of speci�c interventions to
decrease the risk of chronic GVHD, marrow should be preferred over
mobilized blood as a source of stem cells for HCTwithmyeloablative
conditioning regimens.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Anne Thompson for assistance with preparing the
manuscript and Kevin Bray for assistance with hyperlinks.
This work was supported in part by grant CA18029 from the
National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health.
Authorship
Contribution: M.E.D.F. and P.J.M. wrote the manuscript.
Con�ict-of-interest disclosure: The authors declare no competing
�nancial interests.
Correspondence: Mary E. D. Flowers, Fred Hutchinson Cancer
Research Center, 1100 Fairview Ave N, D5-290, PO Box 19024,
Seattle, WA 98109-1024; e-mail: m�owers@fredhutch.org.
References
1. Center for International Blood and Marrow
Transplant Research. CIBMTR 2014. http://
www.cibmtr.org. Accessed August 5, 2014.
2. Lee SJ, Vogelsang G, Flowers ME. Chronic
graft-versus-host disease. Biol Blood Marrow
Transplant. 2003;9(4):215-233.
3. Flowers ME, Parker PM, Johnston LJ, et al.
Comparison of chronic graft-versus-host
disease after transplantation of peripheral blood
stem cells versus bone marrow in allogeneic
recipients: long-term follow-up of a randomized
trial. Blood. 2002;100(2):415-419.
4. Anasetti C, Logan BR, Lee SJ, et al. Peripheral-
blood stem cells versus bone marrow from
unrelated donors. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(16):
1487-1496.
5. Gooley TA, Chien JW, Pergam SA, et al. Reduced
mortality after allogeneic hematopoietic-cell
transplantation. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(22):
2091-2101.
6. Stem Cell Trialists’ Collaborative Group.
Allogeneic peripheral blood stem-cell compared
with bone marrow transplantation in the
management of hematologic malignancies: an
individual patient data meta-analysis of nine
randomized trials. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(22):
5074-5087.
Table 6. Agents used for secondary treatment of chronic GVHD*
Treatment % Overall response* Survival
ECP 65-70 70%-78% at 1 y
Rituximab 66-86 72% at 1 y
Imatinib 22-79 75%-84% at 1.5 y
Pentostatin 53-56 34%-60% at 1-3 y
Mesenchymal stem cells 50-74 78% at 2 y
Mycophenolate mofetil 26-64 67%-96% at 1 y
mTOR inhibitor 76 72% at 3 y
Interleukin-2 52 Not reported
Other therapies summarized in other reviews**
Calcineurin inhibitor
High-dose methylprednisolone
Methotrexate
Thalidomide
Hydroxychloroquine
Clofazimine
Thoracoabdominal irradiation
Alefacept
Infliximab
Etanercept
70
mTOR, mammalian target of rapamycin.
*Simplified from Inamoto and Flowers
36
; see Flowers et al,
35
Wolff et al,
63
and
Flowers and Deeg
64
for other reviews.
**20%-82% overall response rates reported.
BLOOD, 22 JANUARY 2015 x VOLUME 125, NUMBER 4 HOW WE TREAT CHRONIC GVHD 613
For personal use only.on August 29, 2016. by guest www.bloodjournal.orgFrom

7. Schroeder MA, DiPersio JF. Mouse models
of graft-versus-host disease: advances
and limitations. Dis Model Mech. 2011;4(3):
318-333.
8. Socie´ G, Ritz J. Current issues in chronic graft-
versus-host disease. Blood. 2014;124(3):374-384.
9. Vogelsang GB. How I treat chronic graft-versus-
host disease. Blood. 2001;97(5):1196-1201.
10. 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;11(12):
945-956.
11. Pavletic S, Martin P, Lee SJ, et al. Measuring
therapeutic response in chronic graft-versus-host
disease: National Institutes of Health consensus
development project on criteria for clinical trials in
chronic graft-versus-host disease: IV. Response
Criteria Working Group report. Biol Blood Marrow
Transplant. 2006;12(3):252-266.
12. Martin PJ, Weisdorf D, Przepiorka D, et al.
National Institutes of Health consensus
development project on criteria for clinical trials in
chronic graft-versus-host disease: VI. Design of
Clinical Trials Working Group report. Biol Blood
Marrow Transplant. 2006;12(5):491-505.
13. Couriel D, Carpenter PA, Cutler C, et al. Ancillary
therapy and supportive care of chronic graft-
versus-host disease: National Institutes of Health
consensus development project on criteria for
clinical trials in chronic graft-versus-host disease:
V. Ancillary Therapy and Supportive Care
Working Group report. Biol Blood Marrow
Transplant. 2006;12(4):375-396.
14. Palmer JM, Lee SJ, Chai X, et al. Poor agreement
between clinician response ratings and calculated
response measures in patients with chronic graft-
versus-host disease. Biol Blood Marrow
Transplant. 2012;18(11):1649-1655.
15. Inamoto Y, Martin PJ, Storer BE, et al.
Association of severity of organ involvement with
mortality and recurrent malignancy in patients
with chronic graft-versus-host disease.
Haematologica. 2014;99(10):1618-1623.
16. Inamoto Y, Jagasia M, Wood WA, et al.
Investigator feedback about the 2005 NIH
diagnostic and scoring criteria for chronic GVHD.
Bone Marrow Transplant. 2014;49(4):532-538.
17. Arora M, Pidala J, Cutler CS, et al. Impact of prior
acute GVHD on chronic GVHD outcomes:
a chronic graft versus host disease consortium
study. Leukemia. 2013;27(5):1196-1201.
18. Baird K, Steinberg SM, Grkovic L, et al. National
Institutes of Health chronic graft-versus-host
disease staging in severely affected patients:
organ and global scoring correlate with
established indicators of disease severity and
prognosis. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2013;
19(4):632-639.
19. Pidala J, Chai X, Kurland BF, et al. Analysis of
gastrointestinal and hepatic chronic graft-versus-
host disease manifestations on major outcomes:
a Chronic Graft-Versus-Host Disease Consortium
study. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2013;19(5):
784-791.
20. Kuzmina Z, Eder S, Bohm A, et al. Significantly
worse survival of patients with NIH-defined
chronic graft-versus-host disease and
thrombocytopenia or progressive onset type:
results of a prospective study. Leukemia. 2012;
26(4):746-756.
21. Jacobsohn DA, Kurland BF, Pidala J, et al.
Correlation between NIH composite skin score,
patient reported skin score, and outcome: results
from the Chronic GVHD Consortium. Blood. 2012;
120(13):2545-2552.
22. Pidala J, Vogelsang G, Martin P, et al. Overlap
subtype of chronic graft-versus-host disease is
associated with an adverse prognosis, functional
impairment, and inferior patient-reported
outcomes: a Chronic Graft-versus-Host Disease
Consortium study. Haematologica. 2012;97(3):
451-458.
23. Pidala J, Kurland B, Chai X, et al. Patient-reported
quality of life is associated with severity of chronic
graft-versus-host disease as measured by NIH
criteria: report on baseline data from the Chronic
GVHD Consortium. Blood. 2011;117(17):
4651-4657.
24. Arai S, Jagasia M, Storer B, et al. Global and
organ-specific chronic graft-versus-host disease
severity according to the 2005 NIH Consensus
Criteria. Blood. 2011;118(15):4242-4249.
25. Pidala J, Kurland BF, Chai X, et al. Sensitivity of
changes in chronic graft-versus-host disease
activity to changes in patient-reported quality of
life: results from the Chronic Graft-versus-Host
Disease Consortium. Haematologica. 2011;
96(10):1528-1535.
26. Grkovic L, Baird K, Steinberg SM, et al. Clinical
laboratory markers of inflammation as
determinants of chronic graft-versus-host disease
activity and NIH global severity. Leukemia. 2012;
26(4):633-643.
27. Greinix HT, Loddenkemper C, Pavletic SZ, et al.
Diagnosis and staging of chronic graft-versus-
host disease in the clinical practice. Biol Blood
Marrow Transplant. 2011;17(2):167-175.
28. Herzberg PY, Heussner P, Mumm FH, et al.
Validation of the human activity profile
questionnaire in patients after allogeneic
hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Biol
Blood Marrow Transplant. 2010;16(12):
1707-1717.
29. Cho B-S, Min C-K, Eom K-S, et al. Feasibility of
NIH consensus criteria for chronic graft-versus-
host disease. Leukemia. 2009;23(1):78-84.
30. Vigorito AC, Campregher PV, Storer BE, et al.
Evaluation of NIH consensus criteria for
classification of late acute and chronic GVHD.
Blood. 2009;114(3):702-708.
31. Jagasia M, Giglia J, Chinratanalab W, et al.
Incidence and outcome of chronic graft-versus-
host disease using National Institutes of Health
consensus criteria. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant.
2007;13(10):1207-1215.
32. Arora M, Nagaraj S, Witte J, et al. New
classification of chronic GVHD: added clarity
from the consensus diagnoses. Bone Marrow
Transplant. 2009;43(2):149-153.
33. Pe´rez-Simo´n JA, Encinas C, Silva F, et al.
Prognostic factors of chronic graft-versus-host
disease following allogeneic peripheral blood
stem cell transplantation: the National Institutes
Health Scale plus the type of onset can
predict survival rates and the duration of
immunosuppressive therapy. Biol Blood Marrow
Transplant. 2008;14(10):1163-1171.
34. Clements PJ, Lachenbruch PA, Seibold JR, et al.
Skin thickness score in systemic sclerosis: an
assessment of interobserver variability in 3
independent studies. J Rheumatol. 1993;20(11):
1892-1896.
35. Flowers ME, Apperley JF, van Besien K, et al.
A multicenter prospective phase II randomized
study of extracorporeal photopheresis for
treatment of chronic graft-versus-host disease.
Blood. 2008;112(7):2667-2674.
36. Inamoto Y, Flowers ME. Treatment of chronic
graft-versus-host disease in 2011. Curr Opin
Hematol. 2011;18(6):414-420.
37. Koreth J, Matsuoka K, Kim HT, et al. Interleukin-2
and regulatory T cells in graft-versus-host
disease. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(22):2055-2066.
38. Greinix HT, van Besien K, Elmaagacli AH, et al.
Progressive improvement in cutaneous and
extracutaneous chronic graft-versus-host disease
after a 24-week course of extracorporeal
photopheresis-results of a crossover randomized
study. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2011;
17(12):1775-1782.
39. Bacigalupo A, Lamparelli T, Bruzzi P, et al.
Antithymocyte globulin for graft-versus-host
disease prophylaxis in transplants from unrelated
donors: 2 randomized studies from Gruppo
Italiano Trapianti Midollo Osseo (GITMO). Blood.
2001;98(10):2942-2947.
40. Finke J, Bethge WA, Schmoor C, et al. Standard
graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis with or
without anti-T-cell globulin in haematopoietic cell
transplantation from matched unrelated donors:
a randomised, open-label, multicentre phase 3
trial. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10(9):855-864.
41. Socie G, Schmoor C, Bethge WA, et al. Chronic
graft-versus-host disease: long-term results from
a randomized trial on graft-versus-host disease
prophylaxis with or without anti-T-cell globulin
ATG-Fresenius. Blood. 2011;117(23):6375-6382.
42. Soiffer RJ, Lerademacher J, Ho V, et al. Impact of
immune modulation with anti-T-cell antibodies on
the outcome of reduced-intensity allogeneic
hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for
hematologic malignancies. Blood. 2011;117(25):
6963-6970.
43. Devine SM, Carter S, Soiffer RJ, et al. Low risk of
chronic graft-versus-host disease and relapse
associated with T cell-depleted peripheral blood
stem cell transplantation for acute myelogenous
leukemia in first remission: results of the Blood
and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network
protocol 0303. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant.
2011;17(9):1343-1351.
44. Luznik L, Bolanos-Meade J, Zahurak M, et al.
High-dose cyclophosphamide as single-agent,
short-course prophylaxis of graft-versus-host
disease. Blood. 2010;115(16):3224-3230.
45. Raj K, Pagliuca A, Bradstock K, et al. Peripheral
blood hematopoietic stem cells for transplantation
of hematological diseases from related,
haploidentical donors after reduced-intensity
conditioning. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2014;
20(6):890-895.
46. Flowers ME, Inamoto Y, Carpenter PA, et al.
Comparative analysis of risk factors for acute
graft-versus-host disease and for chronic graft-
versus-host disease according to National
Institutes of Health consensus criteria. Blood.
2011;117(11):3214-3219.
47. Lee SJ, Flowers MED. Recognizing and
managing chronic graft-versus-host disease.
In: Gewirtz AM, Muchmore EA, Burns LJ, eds.
Hematology 2008: American Society of
Hematology Education Program Book.
Washington, DC: American Society of
Hematology; 2008:134-141.
48. Inamoto Y, Storer BE, Petersdorf EW, et al.
Incidence, risk factors and outcomes of sclerosis
in patients with chronic graft-versus-host disease.
Blood. 2013;121(25):5098-5103.
49. Carpenter PA. How I conduct a comprehensive
chronic graft-versus-host disease assessment.
Blood. 2011;118(10):2679-2687.
50. Carpenter PA. GVHD Assessment Video: How
to Conduct a Comprehensive Chronic GVHD
Assessment. http://www.fhcrc.org/en/labs/clinical/
projects/gvhd.html. Accessed July 31, 2014.
51. Flowers MED. Emerging strategies in the
treatment of chronic graft-versus-host disease:
traditional treatment of chronic graft-versus-host
disease (symposium report). Blood Marrow
Transplant Rev. 2002;12(1):5-8.
52. Wolff D, Gerbitz A, Ayuk F, et al. Consensus
conference on clinical practice in chronic
614 FLOWERS and MARTIN BLOOD, 22 JANUARY 2015 x VOLUME 125, NUMBER 4
For personal use only.on August 29, 2016. by guest www.bloodjournal.orgFrom

graft-versus-host disease (GVHD): first-line and
topical treatment of chronic GVHD. Biol Blood
Marrow Transplant. 2010;16(12):1611-1628.
53. Martin PJ, Gilman AL. Front line treatment of
chronic graft versus host disease. In: Vogelsang
GB, Pavletic SZ, eds. Chronic Graft Versus Host
Disease: Interdisciplianry Management. New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2009:
124-133.
54. Martin PJ, Inamoto Y, Carpenter PA, Lee SJ,
Flowers ME. Treatment of chronic graft-versus-
host disease: past, present and future. Korean J
Hematol. 2011;46(3):153-163.
55. Jabs K, Sullivan EK, Avner ED, Harmon WE.
Alternate-day steroid dosing improves growth
without adversely affecting graft survival or long-
term graft function. A report of the North American
Pediatric Renal Transplant Cooperative Study.
Transplantation. 1996;61(1):31-36.
56. Martin PJ, Storer BE, Rowley SD, et al. Evaluation
of mycophenolate mofetil for initial treatment of
chronic graft-versus-host disease. Blood. 2009;
113(21):5074-5082.
57. Sullivan KM, Witherspoon RP, Storb R, et al.
Prednisone and azathioprine compared with
prednisone and placebo for treatment of chronic
graft-versus-host disease: prognostic influence of
prolonged thrombocytopenia after allogeneic
marrow transplantation. Blood. 1988;72(2):
546-554.
58. Flowers ME, Martin PJ. Evaluation of thalidomide
for treatment or prevention of chronic graft-
versus-host disease. Leuk Lymphoma. 2003;
44(7):1141-1146.
59. Gilman AL, Schultz KR, Goldman FD, et al.
Randomized trial of hydroxychloroquine for newly
diagnosed chronic graft-versus-host disease in
children: a Children’s Oncology Group study. Biol
Blood Marrow Transplant. 2012;18(1):84-91.
60. Koc S, Leisenring W, Flowers ME, et al.
Therapy for chronic graft-versus-host disease:
a randomized trial comparing cyclosporine plus
prednisone versus prednisone alone. Blood.
2002;100(1):48-51.
61. Flowers ME, Storer B, Carpenter P, et al.
Treatment change as a predictor of outcome
among patients with classic chronic graft-versus-
host disease. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant.
2008;14(12):1380-1384.
62. Inamoto Y, Flowers ME, Sandmaier BM, et al.
Failure-free survival after initial systemic
treatment of chronic graft-versus host disease.
Blood. 2014;124(8):1363-1371.
63. Wolff D, Schleuning M, von Harsdorf S, et al.
Consensus Conference on Clinical Practice in
Chronic GVHD: second-line treatment of chronic
graft-versus-host disease. Biol Blood Marrow
Transplant. 2011;17(1):1-17.
64. Flowers MED, Deeg HJ. Chronic graft-versus-
host disease. In: Treleaven J, Barrett AJ, eds.
Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation in
Clinical Practice. Edinburgh, UK: Elsevier Ltd;
2009:401-407.
65. Takahide K, Parker PM, Wu M, et al. Use of
fluid-ventilated, gas-permeable scleral lens for
management of severe keratoconjunctivitis sicca
secondary to chronic graft-versus-host disease.
Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2007;13(9):
1016-1021.
66. Carpenter PA, Schubert MM, Flowers ME.
Cevimeline reduced mouth dryness and
increased salivary flow in patients with xerotomia
complicating chronic graft-versus-host disease.
Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2006;12(7):
792-794.
67. Inamoto Y, Flowers ME, Lee SJ, et al. Influence of
immunosuppressive treatment on risk of recurrent
malignancy after allogeneic hematopoietic cell
transplantation. Blood. 2011;118(2):456-463.
68. Gyurkocza B, Storb R, Storer BE, et al.
Nonmyeloablative allogeneic hematopoietic cell
transplantation in patients with acute myeloid
leukemia. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(17):2859-2867.
69. Flowers MED, Vogelsang GB. Clinical
manifestations and natural history. In: Vogelsang
GB, Pavletic SZ, eds. Chronic Graft Versus Host
Disease: Interdisciplinary Management. New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2009:
56-69.
70. Yanik GA, Mineishi S, Levine JE, et al.
Soluble tumor necrosis factor receptor: enbrel
(etanercept) for subacute pulmonary dysfunction
following allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Biol
Blood Marrow Transplant. 2012;18(7):1044-1054.
BLOOD, 22 JANUARY 2015 x VOLUME 125, NUMBER 4 HOW WE TREAT CHRONIC GVHD 615
For personal use only.on August 29, 2016. by guest www.bloodjournal.orgFrom

online November 14, 2014
originally publisheddoi:10.1182/blood-2014-08-551994
2015 125: 606-615


Mary E. D. Flowers and Paul J. Martin

How we treat chronic graft-versus-host disease

http://www.bloodjournal.org/content/125/4/606.full.html
Updated information and services can be found at:
(2154 articles)Transplantation
(180 articles)How I Treat
(4013 articles)Free Research Articles
Articles on similar topics can be found in the following Blood collections
http://www.bloodjournal.org/site/misc/rights.xhtml#repub_requests
Information about reproducing this article in parts or in its entirety may be found online at:
http://www.bloodjournal.org/site/misc/rights.xhtml#reprints
Information about ordering reprints may be found online at:
http://www.bloodjournal.org/site/subscriptions/index.xhtml
Information about subscriptions and ASH membership may be found online at:

Copyright 2011 by The American Society of Hematology; all rights reserved.
of Hematology, 2021 L St, NW, Suite 900, Washington DC 20036.
Blood (print ISSN 0006-4971, online ISSN 1528-0020), is published weekly by the American Society
For personal use only.on August 29, 2016. by guest www.bloodjournal.orgFrom