Prophylaxis In Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation Research Articles

Letermovir prophylaxis for cytomegalovirus in lung-transplant recipients: a comprehensive study with literature review of off-label use and real-world experiences

Letermovir, initially approved for cytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylaxis in hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation, has gained attention for off-label use in lung-transplant (LTx) recipients. Given the high susceptibility of LTx recipients to CMV infection, this study explores the effectiveness and safety of letermovir prophylaxis. A retrospective analysis of using letermovir for LTx recipients at Tohoku University Hospital (January 2000 to November 2023) was conducted. Case summaries from other Japanese transplant centers and a literature review were included. Six cases at Tohoku University Hospital and one at Kyoto University Hospital were identified. Prophylactic letermovir use showed positive outcomes in managing myelosuppression and preventing CMV replication. The literature review supported the safety of letermovir in high-risk LTx recipients. Despite limited reports, our findings suggest letermovir’s potential as prophylaxis for LTx recipients intolerant to valganciclovir. Safety, especially in managing myelosuppression, positions letermovir as a promising option. However, careful consideration is important in judiciously integrating letermovir into the treatment protocol.

Antiemetic prophylaxis in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a multicenter survey of the Gruppo Italiano Trapianto Midollo Osseo (GITMO) transplant programs.

A survey within hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) centers of the Gruppo Italiano Trapianto Midollo Osseo (GITMO) was performed in order to describe current antiemetic prophylaxis in patients undergoing HSCT. The multicenter survey was performed by a questionnaire, covering the main areas on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV): antiemetic prophylaxis guidelines used, antiemetic prophylaxis in different conditioning regimens, and methods of CINV evaluation. The survey was carried out in November 2016, and it was repeated 6months after the publication of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC)/European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) specific guidelines on antiemetic prophylaxis in HSCT. The results show a remarkable heterogeneity of prophylaxis among the various centers and a significant difference between the guidelines and the clinical practice. In the main conditioning regimens, the combination of a serotonin3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3-RA) with dexamethasone and neurokin1 receptor antagonist (NK1-RA), as recommended by MASCC/ESMO guidelines, increased from 0 to 15% (before the publication of the guidelines) to 9-30% (after the publication of the guidelines). This study shows a lack of compliance with specific antiemetic guidelines, resulting mainly in under-prophylaxis. Concerted strategies are required to improve the current CINV prophylaxis, to draft shared common guidelines, and to increase the knowledge and the adherence to the current recommendations for CINV prophylaxis in the specific field of HSCT.

Bridging antifungal prophylaxis with 50mg or 100mg micafungin in allogeneic stem cell transplantation: A retrospective analysis.

Fluconazole or posaconazole is a standard of care in antifungal prophylaxis for patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). However, many patients need to interrupt standard prophylaxis due to intolerability, drug-drug interactions, or toxicity. Micafungin has come to prominence for these patients. However, the optimal biological dose of micafungin stays unclear. We retrospectively evaluated the efficacy of micafungin as antifungal prophylaxis in HSCT patients. Micafungin was applied as bridging in patients who were not eligible to receive oral posaconazole. Micafungin was either given at a dose of 100mg or 50mg SID. A total of 173 patients received micafungin prophylaxis, 62 in the 100mg and 111 in the 50mg dose group. The incidence of probable or proven breakthrough IFDs during the observation period was one in the 100mg and one in the 50mg group. Fungal-free survival after 100days was 98% and 99% (P=.842), and overall survival after 365days was 60% and 63% (P=.8) respectively. In both groups, micafungin was well tolerated with no grade 3 or 4 toxicities. In this retrospective analysis, which was not powered to detect non-inferiority, micafungin is effective and complements posaconazole as fungal prophylaxis in HSCT.

Antifungal Therapy in Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant Recipients.

Invasive fungal infections (IFI) represent a major hindrance to the success of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), contributing substantially to morbidity and infection-related mortality. During the most recent years several reports indicate an overall increase of IFI among hematologic patients, in particular, invasive aspergillosis, that may be explained, at least partially, by the fact that diagnoses only suspected in the past, are now more easily established due to the application of serum biomarkers and early use of CT scan. Along with new diagnostic options, comes the recent development of novel antifungal agents that expanded the spectrum of activity over traditional treatments contributing to the successful management of fungal diseases. When introduced in 1959, Amphotericin B deoxycholate (d-AmB) was a life-saving drug, and the clinical experience over 50 years has proven that this compound is effective although toxic. Given the superior safety profile, lipid formulations of AmB have now replaced d-AmB in many circumstances. Similarly, echinocandins have been investigated as initial therapy for IA in several clinical trials including HSCT recipients, although the results were moderately disappointing leading to a lower grade of recommendation in the majority of published guidelines. Azoles represent the backbone of therapy for treating immunocompromised patients with IFI, including voriconazole and the newcomer isavuconazole; in addition, large studies support the use of mold-active azoles, namely voriconazole and posaconazole, as antifungal prophylaxis in HSCT recipients.The aim of the present review is to summarize the clinical application of antifungal agents most commonly employed in the treatment of IFI.

Comparison of Posaconazole Versus Weekly Amphotericin B Lipid Complex for the Prevention of Invasive Fungal Infections in Hematopoietic Stem-Cell Transplantation

Antifungal prophylaxis is shown to decrease the risk of invasive fungal infection (IFI) after hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT). Posaconazole has been approved for prophylaxis in HSCT. However, it is only available orally given three times per day. We evaluated once weekly intravenous amphotericin B lipid complex (ABLC), given its broad-spectrum antifungal activity and prolonged half-life (172 hr), as an alternative prophylaxis in HSCT. We prospectively randomized allogeneic HSCT patients to receive 7.5 mg/kg of intravenous ABLC weekly or 200 mg of posaconazole orally three times per day as prophylaxis for up to 6 weeks. Endpoints were the incidence of IFI and drug-related toxicities. ABLC was discontinued if creatinine level increased to two times the baseline or greater. A total of 46 patients were randomized; 40 received at least one dose of the drug and were included in the analysis: 19 received ABLC and 21 received posaconazole. All patients received tacrolimus. Apache II score, neutropenia, and creatinine, bilirubin, and alanine aminotransferase levels were similar in both groups at baseline. One patient in the ABLC arm and none in posaconazole arm developed IFI (5% vs. 0%, P=0.48). More patients in the ABLC arm doubled their serum creatinine (53% vs. 5%, P=0.001) necessitating discontinuation of the study drug. High-dose prophylactic ABLC in HSCT was associated with nephrotoxicity that could be aggravated by the concomitant use of other nephrotoxic agents. Further studies are needed to evaluate the role of weekly high-dose ABLC as antifungal prophylaxis in patients at lower risk for nephrotoxicity.

Immunoglobulin Prophylaxis in Patients Undergoing Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation - Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Many studies have evaluated the role of polyvalent immunoglobulins (IVIG) and CMV-hyperimmune IVIG (CMV-IVIG) prophylaxis in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), with inconsistent results and implications for practice.Objectives: To evaluate the role of IVIG and CMV- IVIG prophylaxis in HSCT.Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing IVIG or CMV- IVIG with placebo or no intervention (control) for prophylaxis in HSCT. The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, conference proceedings and references were searched until 2007. Primary outcome: all-cause-mortality ; Secondary outcomes: CMV infections, acute graft versus host disease (GVHD), interstitial pneumonitis (IP), veno-occlusive disease (VOD) and adverse events. Relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated and pooled.Results: Nineteen trials met inclusion criteria. IVIG was compared to control in 10 trials (7 IVIG in allogeneic HSCT, 2 allogeneic/autologous HSCT and 1 autologous HSCT). When IVIG was compared to control, there was no difference in all-cause mortality (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.89–1.18, 6 trials, Fig.). There was a reduction in the number of CMV infections (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.50–0.99, 4 trials) and in the number of episodes of IP (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.43–0.87, 6 trials). There was no significant difference in the number of episodes of acute GVHD (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.83–1.05, 6 trials). The risk for VOD was increased (RR 2.71; 95% CI 1.06–6.94, 3 trials) as were adverse events in the IVIG group (RR 8.12; 95% CI 3.15–20.9, 5 trials). CMV-IVIG was compared to control in 7 trials, all allogeneic HSCT. There was no difference in all-cause mortality (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.63–1.16, 4 trials). In addition, there were no differences in the risk for developing CMV infections (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.86–1.33, 7 trials), acute GVHD (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.72–1.44, 5 trials) or IP (0.95; 95% CI 0.58–1.56, 5 trials).Conclusions: Our review demonstrates that IVIG prophylaxis for HSCT reduces the risk for CMV infections and IP without a significant influence on mortality. The beneficial effects should be weighed against the higher incidence of adverse events, VOD, and cost associated with the use of prophylactic IVIG in HSCT patients. Conversely, the use of CMV-IVIG was not associated with a change in any of the parameters.Outcomes SummaryOutcomeIVIG vs. controlCMV-IVIG vs. controlAll Cause MortalityRR 1.03; 95% CI 0.89–1.18RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.63–1.16CMV infectionsRR 0.70; 95% CI 0.50–0.99RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.86–1.33acute GVHDRR 0.93; 95% CI 0.83–1.05RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.72–1.44IPRR 0.61; 95% CI 0.43–0.87RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.58–1.56VODRR 2.71; 95% CI 1.06–6.94No dataAdverse eventsRR 8.12; 95% CI 3.15–20.9RR 7.0; 95% CI 0.38–129.34 [Display omitted]