Ferrata Storti Foundation C himeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells are a novel class of anti-cancer therapy in which autologous or allogeneic T cells are engineered to express a CAR targeting a membrane antigen. In Europe, tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah TM ) is approved for the treatment of refractory/relapsed acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children and young adults as well as relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, while axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta TM ) is approved for the treatment of relapsed/refractory high-grade B-cell lymphoma and primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma. Both agents are genetically engineered autologous T cells targeting CD19. These practical recommendations, prepared under the auspices of the European Society of Blood and Marrow Transplantation, relate to patient

We performed a retrospective assessment of patient-and transplant-specific characteristics and outcomes for 4142 patients undergoing allogeneic haematopoietic cell transplant for myelofibrosis between 1995 and 2018 across 278 centres. Activity increased steadily across the four analysed eras (<2006, 2006-2010, 2011-2014 and 2015-2018). Median recipient age increased over time between the earliest and most recent cohort (49.4 years (range, 20.1-68) versus 59.3 years (range, 18.1-78.1). Increasing number of patients with a Karnofsky performance status <90 underwent transplant over time. Increased utilisation of matched unrelated donors was apparent (<2006, 22.5% versus 2015-18, 45.2%; p < 0.001). Decreased use of myeloablative conditioning, increased use of busulphan-based platforms and anti-thymocyte globulin was evident. Of note, rates of acute (a)GVHD grade II-IV by day +100 decreased over time (p = 0.027) as did rates of chronic (c) GVHD, predominantly extensive cGVHD (<2006, 36% (31-41%) versus 2015-18, 23% (21-25%); p = 0.001). Overall, significant factors associated with worse overall survival and non-relapse mortality (NRM) remained older age, use of donors other than matched sibling, recipient CMV seropositivity and a lower Karnofsky performance status (<90). Multivariable analysis demonstrated improvements in overall survival and reductions in relapse risk over time with stable NRM rates despite increasing numbers of older, less fit patients and use of unrelated donors.

Motivation: COVID-19 is one of the most widely affecting pandemics. As for many respiratory virusescaused diseases, diagnosis of COVID-19 relies on two main compartments: clinical and paraclinical diagnostic criteria. Rapid and accurate diagnosis is vital in such a pandemic. On one side, rapidity may enhance management effectiveness, while on the other, coupling efficiency and less costly procedures may permit more effective community-scale management. Methodology and main structure: In this review, we shed light on the most used and the most validated diagnostic tools. Furthermore, we intend to include few under-development techniques that may be potentially useful in this context. The practical intent of our work is to provide clinicians with a realistic summarized review of the essential elements in the applied paraclinical diagnosis of COVID-19.

Introduction and motivation: Since the end of 2019, the COVID-19 pandemic has affected millions of people worldwide. With the rapid spread of this virus, an immense burden has fallen upon both healthcare and economic systems. As a consequence, there is an unprecedented urgency for researchers and scientific committees from all over the world to find an effective treatment and vaccine. Review Structure: Many potential therapies are currently under investigation, with some, like Hydroxychloroquine, being authorized for emergency use in some countries. The crucial issue is now clearly to find the suitable treatment strategy for patients given comorbidities and the timeline of the illness. Vaccines are also under development and phase 1 clinical trials are rolling. Despite all efforts, no single drug or vaccine has yet been approved. In this review, we aim at presenting the proposed pathophysiological mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2 and to provide clinicians with a brief and solid overview of the current potential treatments classified according to their use at the three different currently proposed disease stages. In light of pathogenesis and proposed clinical classification, this review's purpose is to summarize and simplify the most important updates on the management and the potential treatment of this emergent disease.

Letermovir is the first approved drug for cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection prophylaxis in adult CMV-positive patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT). Since CMV infection risk varies from patient to patient, we evaluated whether a risk-based strategy could be effective. All consecutive CMV-positive adult patients (median age: 56.0 years, IQR: 43.5-64.0) who underwent allo-HCT between 2015 and 2021 (n=316) were included. Letermovir was not used in Period 1 (2015-2017, n=186), whereas during Period 2 (2018-2021, n=130), letermovir was used in high-risk patients but not in low-risk patients, except in those receiving corticosteroids. In high-risk patients, the incidence of clinically significant CMV infection (csCMVi) in Period 2 was lower as compared to Period 1 (p&lt;0.001) by week 14: 10.5% (95% CI 4.6-19.2) vs 51.6% (41.0-61.3) and week 24: 16.9% (8.9-27.0) vs 52.7% (42.0-62.3), respectively. In low-risk patients, although only 28.6% of patients received letermovir in Period 2, csCMVi incidence was also significantly lower (p=0.003) by week 14: 7.9% (2.9-16.3) vs 29.0% (20.2-38.5) and week 24: 11.2% (4.9-20.5) vs 33.3% (23.9-43.0). Among low-risk patients who did not receive letermovir (n=45), 23 (51.1%) patients experienced transient positive CMV DNA without csCMVi by week 14, while it remained negative in 17 (37.8%) patients. In both risk groups, the two periods were comparable for CMV disease, overall survival, progression-free survival, relapse, and non-relapse mortality. We concluded that a risk-based strategy for letermovir use is an effective strategy which maintains the high efficacy of letermovir in high-risk patients but allows some low-risk patients not to use letermovir.