No abstract

Background/Aim: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) reactivation is one of the most clinically significant complications in allogeneic stem cell recipients and a frequent cause for transplantation related mortality. Letermovir is a newly available and recently approved drug for CMV prophylaxis. In a retrospective single center analysis, we investigated the benefit of letermovir as CMV prophylaxis in allogeneic stem cell recipients. Patients and Methods: We included 48 CMV-seropositive transplant recipients from January 2017 to August 2020 from our department. We compared the rate of CMV reactivation in patients who received letermovir as prophylaxis from day 0 after allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloSCT) with a control group that did not receive CMV prophylaxis. The primary endpoint was CMV reactivation and was defined as an increase of CMV copies over 1250 Ul/ml in the peripheral blood; secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS) up to 180 days, engraftment and all-cause mortality. Results: We included 21 patients in the control group and 27 patients in the letermovir group. Letermovir treatment led to a significantly reduced incidence of CMV reactivation after alloSCT (33.3% in the letermovir group versus 76.2% in the control group, p<0.001). The OS at day 180 was 80.9% in the control group versus 92.6% in the letermovir group (p<0.05). The median duration of letermovir prophylaxis was 192±104 days. Conclusion: Our results indicate that letermovir prophylaxis is associated with a significant lower risk of CMV reactivation and improved overall survival in CMV-seropositive stem cell recipients. Moreover, a prolonged use of letermovir prophylaxis might be a survival benefit.

For acute medicine physicians, distinguishing between asymptomatic bacteriuria (ABU) and clinically relevant urinary tract infections (UTI) is challenging, resulting in overtreatment of ABU and under-recognition of urinary-source bacteraemia without genitourinary symptoms (USB). We conducted a retrospective analysis of ED encounters in a university hospital between October 2013 and September 2018 who met the following inclusion criteria: Suspected UTI with simultaneous collection of paired urinary cultures and blood cultures (PUB) and determination of Procalcitonin (PCT). We sought to develop a simple algorithm based on clinical signs and PCT for the management of suspected UTI. Individual patient presentations were retrospectively evaluated by a clinical “triple F” algorithm (F1 =“ f ever”, F2 =“ f ailure”, F3 =“ f ocus”) supported by PCT and PUB. We identified 183 ED patients meeting the inclusion criteria. We introduced the term UTI with systemic involvement (SUTI) with three degrees of diagnostic certainty: bacteremic UTI (24.0%; 44/183), probable SUTI (14.2%; 26/183) and possible SUTI (27.9%; 51/183). In bacteremic UTI, half of patients (54.5%; 24/44) presented without genitourinary symptoms. Discordant bacteraemia was diagnosed in 16 patients (24.6% of all bacteremic patients). An alternative focus was identified in 67 patients, five patients presented with S . aureus bacteremia. 62 patients were diagnosed with possible UTI (n = 20) or ABU (n = 42). Using the proposed “triple F” algorithm, dichotomised PCT of < 0.25 pg/ml had a negative predictive value of 88.7% and 96.2% for bacteraemia und accordant bacteraemia respectively. The application of the algorithm to our cohort could have resulted in 33.3% reduction of BCs. Using the diagnostic categories “possible” or “probable” SUTI as a trigger for initiation of antimicrobial treatment would have reduced or streamlined antimicrobial use in 30.6% and 58.5% of cases, respectively. In conclusion, the “3F” algorithm supported by PCT and PUB is a promising diagnostic and antimicrobial stewardship tool.

Introduction Treatment with the BCL-2 inhibitor Venetoclax (VEN) in combination with hypomethylating agents (HMA) or low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) has shown encouraging results in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). In contrast to the FDA, EMA approval for unfit AML patients was given only recently, and VEN combinations have therefore often been used as off-label treatment for relapsed/refractory (r/r) AML patients. We conducted a retrospective study of 73 unfit or r/r AML patients treated with a VEN combination between 2017 and 2021 at two German university hospitals. Methods Data was collected by medical chart review and included genetics, ELN2017 risk classification, previous treatment lines, courses of VEN treatment as well as outcome. All statistical tests were performed with GraphPad Prism. The median time of follow-up was 8.3 months. Results At beginning of VEN treatment, the median age was 73 (20-85) years (Table 1). The majority of patients had a secondary (s) AML [n=34 (47%)] and was assigned to the adverse ELN2017 risk group [n=32 (44%)]. Mutations in isocitrate-dehydrogenase 1/2 genes (IDH1/2) were the most frequent alteration [n=19 (26%)]. Before VEN treatment, a total of n=58 (79%) patients had received prior treatment including intensive chemotherapy [n=36 (49%)] and allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) [n=26 (36%)]. Twenty-five (34%) patients were treated with &gt;4 cycles HMA or LDAC before VEN initiation. VEN was given as first-line treatment in n=15 (21%) patients and started during the first or second treatment cycle of HMA/LDAC. The initial VEN dosage after ramp-up during cycle 1 was in median 400mg (50-800mg). Patients received VEN in combination with azacytidine [n=34 (47%)], decitabine [n=18 (25%)] or LDAC [n=20 (28%)]. In median, patients had received 3 (1-17) VEN cycles at data cut-off. VEN was initiated after progression on HMA/LDAC treatment (&gt;2 cycles) in n=35 (48%) patients. In most patients VEN was discontinued or dose-adjusted during treatment [cycle 1 n=37 (51%), after cycle 1 n=43 (59%)]. Response assessment was available for n=58 (79%) patients, of which n=18 (25%) achieved complete remission (CR) or CR with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi), n=24 (33%) a partial remission (PR) or stable disease (SD), and n=16 (22%) were refractory to VEN combination treatment. The overall response rate (ORR) including CR/CRi/PR patients was 47% and not influenced by age or previous treatments including allo-HSCT and HMA pretreatment. Achievement of CR/CRi was significantly better in patients with IDH1/2 and/or NPM1 mutations (Figure 1). The median overall survival (OS) of the entire cohort was 6.5 months. OS was significantly better in patients achieving a CR/CRi (20.3 months) as compared to patients with PR/SD/RD. (p&lt;0.0001; Figure 2 A). OS was shorter in patients with more than two prior treatment lines (p=0.01, Figure 2 B) and in patients who had received allo-HSCT (p=0.05, Figure 2 C). There was no significant impact on OS with respect to age (&gt;=65 years), ELN2017 risk group or previous HMA treatment. OS was however significantly longer in patients harboring NPM1 and/or IDH1/2 mutations (p=0.016; Figure 2 D). Conclusions Our real-world analysis demonstrates that VEN combination treatment is feasible and effective also in r/r AML patients. Response rates and survival were lower than in patients treated with VEN combinations in first line (DiNardo, NEJM 2020) and in our cohort highly influenced by the number of previous treatment lines. As in patients treated with VEN combinations at fist line, the NPM1 and IDH1/2 genotype was associated with better response and survival. Further studies with larger cohorts are needed to investigate the role of VEN combinations in r/r AML. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Westermann: Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Stem Cell Line: Consultancy, Honoraria. Bullinger: Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Bayer: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Menarini: Consultancy; Sanofi: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Hexal: Consultancy. Keller: Abbvie: Other: Advisory Role. Krönke: BMS/Celgene: Other: Advisory board; Abbvie: Other: Advisory board. Goetze: Abbvie: Other: Advisory Board; BMS/Celgene: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Venetoclax was used "off-lable" in unfit and relapsed/refractory AML patients in combination with HMA/LDAC.

No abstract