Real-Life Data on the Efficacy and Safety of Letermovir for Primary Prophylaxis of Cytomegalovirus in Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Recipients: A Single-Center Analysis

Abstract

Objective: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) reactivation is a life-threatening complication after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Introduction of letermovir (LMV) seems to improve post-transplant outcomes, but delayed-onset CMV reactivation still remains a challenge. In this study, we report on our first experience with LMV prophylaxis in 93 CMV-seropositive adult patients receiving HSCT in our center. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the data of 93 adult CMV-seropositive recipients receiving LMV as CMV prophylaxis after HSCT for hematological malignancies between 2019 and 2023. The starting LMV dose was 480 mg daily, reduced to 240 mg daily for those receiving cyclosporin A co-administration. CMV DNA in the blood was measured by real-time polymerase chain reaction weekly for the first 2 months after transplantation, then every other week until the end of immunosuppressive treatment. LMV was continued to day +100 or to CMV reactivation. Results: The median recipient age at the time of transplant was 51 (range: 20-71) years. All patients received grafts from peripheral blood, mostly for acute myeloid leukemia (60%). The median time from transplantation to LMV initiation was 3 (range: 0-24) days. While 55% of patients were transplanted from matched related donors, 32% had unrelated donors and 13% underwent haploidentical HSCT. Four patients (4%) had CMV “blips” while on LMV, but the drug was continued and repeated assays were negative. Only 2 patients (2%) experienced CMV reactivation while on LMV, on days 48 and 34 after HSCT, respectively. Seven patients (7%) developed late-onset CMV reactivation after a median of 124 days after HSCT (range: 118-152 days) and they were successfully treated with ganciclovir. CMV disease was not observed. Grade III-IV acute graft-versus-host disease occurred in 6 patients (6%) during LMV treatment. LMV treatment was free of side effects. Conclusion: LMV prophylaxis was effective in preventing CMV reactivation with a favorable safety profile. CMV reactivation occurred mostly after LMV discontinuation; thus, extending the duration of prophylaxis beyond 100 days could be beneficial.