Table 1 Summary of key Delphi study results.
Topic | Question to the experts | Results | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
aGvHD | Agreement % | cGvHD | Agreement % | ||
Reasons for selecting ECP | Which factors influence you to select ECP as a treatment in SR-GvHD patients? | Rank 1: Efficacy of ECP | 100 | Rank 1: Efficacy of ECP | 100 |
Rank 2: Safety profile | 100 | Rank 2: Safety profile | 100 | ||
Rank 3: Steroid-sparing effect | 100 | Rank 3: Steroid-sparing effect | 100 | ||
Combination of ECP with other GvHD therapies | What are the main reasons for choosing the combination therapy of ECP and ruxolitinib in SR-GvHD patients? | Rank 1: Severe cases | 100 | Rank 1: Increased efficacy | 100 |
Rank 2: Increased efficacy | 100 | Rank 2: Severe cases | 100 | ||
Reducing steroid treatment | Depending on the applied treatment: What is the percentage of SR-GvHD patients where steroids could be reduced by at least 50% Do you agree on the percentages, resulting from round 1? | Proportion of patients treated with ECP: 50% | 100 | Proportion of patients treated with ECP: 60% | 100 |
Proportion of patients treated with ruxolitinib: 53% | 91 | Proportion of patients treated with ruxolitinib: 65% | 91 | ||
Proportion of patients treated with ECP-ruxolitinib: 50% | 100 | Proportion of patients treated with ECP-ruxolitinib: 50% | 100 | ||
Stopping steroid treatment | Depending on the applied treatment: What is the percentage of SR-GvHD patients in your practice where steroid treatment could be stopped completely? Do you agree on these percentages, resulting from round 1? | Proportion of patients treated with ECP: 50% | 100 | Proportion of patients treated with ECP: 41% | 100 |
Proportion of patients treated with ruxolitinib: 51% | 91 | Proportion of patients treated with ruxolitinib: 40% | 91 | ||
Proportion of patients treated with ECP-ruxolitinib: 70% | 91 | Proportion of patients treated with ECP-ruxolitinib: 60% | 100 | ||
ECP monotherapy | Do you agree on the selection criteria for treating SR-GvHD (both acute and chronic) patients with ECP monotherapy? | Rank 1: Low risk (e.g. skin involvement only or upper GI only) | 91 | ||
Rank 2: Contraindication for Ruxolitinib (e.g. thrombocytopenia) | 91 | ||||
Treatment duration of ECP/ruxolitinib | What is the average treatment duration of ECP/ruxolitinib in SR-GvHD in the following scenarios? | ECP: 4 to 6 months | 91 | ECP: 10 to 12 months | 91 |
Ruxolitinib: 3 to 5 months | 91 | Ruxolitinib: 10 to 12 months | 100 | ||
ECP in combination with ruxolitinib: 4 to 6 months | 100 | ECP in combination with ruxolitinib: 8 to 10 months | 91 | ||
Ruxolitinib in combination with ECP: 3 to 5 months | 91 | Ruxolitinib in combination with ECP: 8 to 10 months | 91 | ||
Treatment schedules of ECP | When treating SR-GvHD patients with ECP alone but not with ruxolitinib - which treatment schedules do you apply? | Treatment schedule 1: 2 – 3 ECP procedures on consecutive days weekly for 4 weeks | 91 | Treatment schedule 1: 2 ECP procedures per week for approximately 9 weeks | 55 |
Treatment schedule 2: 2 ECP procedures per week at least every two weeks for approximately 8 weeks (2 months) | 82 | Treatment schedule 2: 2 ECP procedures per week, at least every two weeks for approximately 10 weeks | 64 | ||
Treatment schedule 3: 2 ECP procedures per week at least every month for approximately 8 weeks (2 months) | 36 | Treatment schedule 3: 1 – 2 ECP procedures per week at least monthly for approximately 20 weeks (5 months) | 73 | ||
