1.
Letermovir for Prevention of Cytomegalovirus Reactivation in Haploidentical and Mismatched Adult Donor Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation with Post-Transplantation Cyclophosphamide for Graft-versus-Host Disease Prophylaxis
Lin, A., Flynn, J., DeRespiris, L., Figgins, B., Griffin, M., Lau, C., Proli, A., Devlin, S. M., Cho, C., Tamari, R., et al
Transplantation and cellular therapy. 2021;27(1):85.e1-85.e6
-
-
-
Free full text
Abstract
Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is serious viral infection in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) recipients. November 2017, the novel CMV DNA terminase complex inhibitor letermovir was approved for prophylaxis of CMV infection in CMV-seropositive allo-HCT recipients. Here we sought to determine the effectiveness of letermovir in preventing CMV infection in CMV-seropositive patients undergoing haploidentical or mismatched adult unrelated donor allo-HCT using post-transplantation cyclophosphamide-based graft-versus host-disease prophylaxis. Sixty-four patients underwent transplantation between 2014 and 2019, of whom 32 received letermovir and 32 did not receive letermovir. The day 180 cumulative incidence of CMV infection requiring therapy was 45.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 32.7% to 57.1%) in the entire cohort, 68.8% (95% CI, 48.9% to 82.2%) in the patients who did not receive letermovir, and 21.9% (95% CI, 9.5% to 37.6%; P < .001) in patients who received letermovir. Adjusting for regimen intensity, disease histology, and age, the hazard ratio for CMV infection was .19 (95% CI, .08 to .47; P < .001) in patients who received primary prophylaxis with letermovir. The 1-year cumulative incidence of treatment- related mortality was similar between patients with and without letermovir treatment (16.9% versus 18.9%), as was overall survival (64.0% versus 49.0%). Persistent CMV infection requiring >28 days of therapy was more common in patients who did not receive letermovir (31.2% versus 6.2%; P = .02). In summary, letermovir was effective in preventing CMV infection in this high-risk population of HLA-mismatched allo-HCT recipients.
Clinical Commentary
Next
What is known?
NIHMS1650306
What did this paper set out to examine?
What did they show?
What are the implications for practice and for future work?
2.
Maintenance Therapies for Hodgkin and Non-Hodgkin Lymphomas After Autologous Transplantation: A Consensus Project of ASBMT, CIBMTR, and the Lymphoma Working Party of EBMT
Kanate, A. S., Kumar, A., Dreger, P., Dreyling, M., Le Gouill, S., Corradini, P., Bredeson, C., Fenske, T. S., Smith, S. M., Sureda, A., et al
JAMA oncology. 2019
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
Importance: Maintenance therapies are often considered as a therapeutic strategy in patients with lymphoma following autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (auto-HCT) to mitigate the risk of disease relapse. With an evolving therapeutic landscape, where novel drugs are moving earlier in therapy lines, evidence relevant to contemporary practice is increasingly limited. The American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (ASBMT), Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR), and European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) jointly convened an expert panel with diverse expertise and geographical representation to formulate consensus recommendations regarding the use of maintenance and/or consolidation therapies after auto-HCT in patients with lymphoma. Observations: The RAND-modified Delphi method was used to generate consensus statements where at least 75% vote in favor of a recommendation was considered as consensus. The process included 3 online surveys moderated by an independent methodological expert to ensure anonymity and an in-person meeting. The panel recommended restricting the histologic categories covered in this project to Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), and follicular lymphoma. On completion of the voting process, the panel generated 22 consensus statements regarding post auto-HCT maintenance and/or consolidation therapies. The grade A recommendations included endorsement of: (1) brentuximab vedotin (BV) maintenance and/or consolidation in BV-naive high-risk HL, (2) rituximab maintenance in MCL undergoing auto-HCT after first-line therapy, (3) rituximab maintenance in rituximab-naive FL, and (4) No post auto-HCT maintenance was recommended in DLBCL. The panel also developed consensus statements for important real-world clinical scenarios, where randomized data are lacking to guide clinical practice. Conclusions and Relevance: In the absence of contemporary evidence-based data, the panel found RAND-modified Delphi methodology effective in providing a rigorous framework for developing consensus recommendations for post auto-HCT maintenance and/or consolidation therapies in lymphoma.