Next Article in Journal
Type I Interferon Promotes Antitumor T Cell Response in CRPC by Regulating MDSC
Next Article in Special Issue
Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation in Multiple Myeloma
Previous Article in Journal
Dual Hyaluronic Acid and Folic Acid Targeting pH-Sensitive Multifunctional 2DG@DCA@MgO-Nano-Core–Shell-Radiosensitizer for Breast Cancer Therapy
Previous Article in Special Issue
Carfilzomib, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone Followed by Salvage Autologous Stem Cell Transplant with or without Maintenance for Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cancers
Volume 13
Issue 21
10.3390/cancers13215572
cancers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Letermovir Prophylaxis and Cytomegalovirus Reactivation in Adult Hematopoietic Cell Transplant Recipients with and without Acute Graft Versus Host Disease

by
Delaney Wolfe
1,2,*,
Qiuhong Zhao
1,
Emma Siegel
1,
Marcin Puto
1,
Danielle Murphy
1,3,
Julianna Roddy
1,
Yvonne Efebera
1,4 and
Justin Tossey
1
1
Comprehensive Cancer Center, James Cancer Hospital Solove Research Institute, The Ohio State University, 460 West 10th St., Columbus, OH 43210, USA
2
Franciscan Health Indianapolis, 8111 South Emerson Avenue, Indianapolis, IN 46237, USA
3
Rush University Medical Center, 1620 W Harrison St., Chicago, IL 60612, USA
4
OhioHealth Blood and Marrow Transplant, 3535 Olentangy River Road, Columbus, OH 43214, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cancers 2021, 13(21), 5572; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13215572
Submission received: 6 October 2021 / Revised: 31 October 2021 / Accepted: 6 November 2021 / Published: 8 November 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Autologous and Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplant in Cancer Therapy)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection and graft versus host disease (GVHD) both contribute to increased morbidity and mortality following allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT). Since the development of GVHD can increase a patient’s risk of developing CMV infection post-allo-HCT, the aim of our retrospective study was to assess the effectiveness of letermovir prophylaxis in preventing CMV infection in these patients at high risk for CMV reactivation. Letermovir is an antiviral approved for the prevention of CMV infection. This study demonstrated that patients with GVHD had significantly fewer CMV infections when they received letermovir prophylaxis compared to patients who did not receive letermovir.

Abstract

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is the most clinically significant infection after allogeneic hematopoietic-cell transplantation (allo-HCT) and is associated with increased mortality. The risk for CMV reactivation increases with graft versus host disease (GVHD). GVHD contributes to significant morbidity and mortality and is treated with immunosuppressive therapies that can further increase CMV infection risk. Prophylaxis with letermovir, an oral antiviral approved to prevent CMV, has been shown to decrease the incidence of CMV infection post-allo-HCT in patients at high risk of CMV reactivation, but there is a lack of data confirming this benefit in patients with GVHD. In this single-center, retrospective study, we assessed the incidence of clinically significant CMV infection (CS-CMVi) in allo-HCT patients who received letermovir prophylaxis (n = 119) and who developed aGVHD compared to a control group (n = 143) who did not receive letermovir. Among aGVHD patients, letermovir prophylaxis decreased CS-CMVi in patients with aGVHD (HR 0.08 [95% CI 0.03–0.27], p < 0.001), reduced non-relapsed mortality (p = 0.04) and improved overall survival (p = 0.04). This data suggests that letermovir prophylaxis improves outcomes by preventing CS-CMVi in patients with aGVHD.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Primary infection or reactivation of CMV occurs with highest incidence in CMV-seropositive patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT), especially if they received stem cells from CMV-seronegative donors [1]. Patients with acute or chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), patients with at least one human leukocyte antigen (HLA) mismatch, and patients with a haploidentical donor are also at an increased risk [1,2,3,4,5]. CMV reactivation occurs in 60% to 70% of CMV-seropositive patients, and primary infection affects 10% to 20% of CMV-seronegative recipients transplanted from CMV-seropositive donors [6,7,8,9]. While strategies of early detection and pre-emptive treatment have decreased the CMV disease incidence, CMV reactivation is still associated with significant morbidity and mortality and remains a significant factor associated with increased non-relapse mortality (NRM) after allo-HCT [10,11,12]. Additionally, agents used to treat CMV such as valganciclovir, ganciclovir, and foscarnet are associated with significant side effects such as nephrotoxicity and myelosuppression, which can be detrimental complications in patients post-allo-HCT [4].
Letermovir is an oral antiviral agent that inhibits the CMV-terminase complex to prevent CMV replication. Letermovir’s novel mechanism has no cross-resistance with other antiviral agents and has a favorable side effect profile, which makes it ideal for use in the prophylactic setting [13,14]. In controlled and retrospective trials, letermovir prophylaxis has demonstrated reduction in the incidence of CMV infection [15]. In a phase 3 randomized controlled trial of letermovir for CMV prophylaxis in allo-HCT patients, there was significantly less clinically significant CMV infection (CS-CMVi) in patients who received letermovir (37.5%) compared to placebo (60.6%) [11]. In a mortality analysis of the same phase 3 trial, among patients who developed CS-CMVi, the mortality rate was lower in patients who received letermovir (15.8%) compared to placebo (31%) [6]. Two retrospective studies also demonstrated reduced CS-CMVi or CMV viremia in patients who received letermovir compared to a control group [14,16]. While these studies included patients with GVHD, they were limited by a relatively small sample size and only a small portion of patients had received letermovir [14,15,16]. One small retrospective study found that extended letermovir administration beyond day 100 post allo-HCT is effective for CMV prophylaxis in patients with GVHD who require systemic immunosuppression, and that the presence of acute GVHD (aGVHD) grade ≥ 2 was associated with increased all-cause mortality [17].
Graft versus host disease is a serious but common complication associated with allo-HCT as a result of donor T-cell mediated stem cells that attack immunocompromised host tissues. Treatment of acute GVHD involves high dose corticosteroids, which suppress the immune system and put patients at even greater risk of infectious complications [5]. There is currently no standard of care for treating steroid-refractory acute GVHD, but treatment could include the newly approved ruxolitinib and/or additional immunosuppressive agents, which could contribute to increased infection risk [18]. Development of GVHD has been shown to increase the incidence of CMV reactivation, likely due to a prolonged state of immunosuppression [1,16,17]. Despite this increased risk, there is little published data focused on the efficacy of CMV prophylaxis for patients who develop aGVHD. Therefore, the goal of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of letermovir to prevent clinically significant CMV infection among allo-HCT patients who developed aGVHD.

2. Materials and Methods

This was a single-center retrospective cohort study of allo-HCT patients comparing the use of letermovir prophylaxis to a historical control group. Patients were included in this study if they were at least 18 years of age or older, CMV seropositive, and received an allo-HCT at The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center–James Cancer Hospital between 1 June 2016, through 30 June 2020. Letermovir use was incorporated into institutional infection prophylaxis guidelines at The Ohio State University for allo-HCT patients in July 2018. Therefore, patients who received allo-HCT from July 2018 through June 2020 comprised the letermovir group, while patients who received allo-HCT from June 2016 to July 2018 were included in the control group. This time frame encompasses a significant number of patients who received letermovir as standard of care and a comparable number in the control group who received an allo-HCT before letermovir was approved and widely used. Patients were followed through day +200 post-transplant.
The primary objective of this study was to determine the incidence of CS-CMVi within the first 200 days post-allo-HCT in patients who developed aGVHD grade ≥ 2. CS-CMVi was defined as CMV disease or CMV viremia leading to preemptive treatment with ganciclovir, valganciclovir, or foscarnet, as described previously [11]. Secondary outcomes included incidence of CS-CMVi in all patients, incidence of CMV viremia, duration of letermovir therapy, mortality, overall survival, and analysis of risk factors for the development of CS-CMVi. Acute GVHD was scored using the MAGIC Criteria [19].
Patient demographic and disease characteristics were summarized using descriptive statistics and compared using Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous data and Pearson’s chi-squared test or Fisher’s exact test for categorical data, respectively. Time to CS-CMVi was calculated from the date of transplant to the initiation of preemptive treatment, and time to CMV viremia was calculated from the date of transplant to the first date of detectible CMV DNA. The cumulative incidence of CMV infection was estimated and compared using Gray’s test accounting for the competing risk of early death without CMV. The proportional sub-distribution hazards models were used to evaluate the associations between the use of letermovir and the risk of CMV adjusting for potential confounding factors. Non-relapse mortality (NRM) was defined as the time from the date of transplant to the date of death due to reasons other than relapse, treating relapse as a competing risk. NRM was analyzed similarly as described above for CMV outcome. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from the date of transplant to the date of death, censoring those alive at the date of last contact. The OS rate was estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method and Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate the associations between the use of letermovir and the risk of death. Letermovir was treated as a time-dependent covariate in all the models to account for letermovir’s impact on the risk of CMV only during the time period where patients were actually taking the drug. Stata 14 was used for the analyses and all the tests were two-sided with significance level at 0.05.

3. Results

Between 1 June 2016 and 30 June 2020, a total of 262 allo-HCT events were assessed with 119 events including patients who received letermovir prophylaxis and 143 events as part of the control group. Four of the included patients received two allo-HCTs within the study time frame, and in these patients, each transplant event was assessed separately. During the first allo-HCT for these four patients, letermovir was used in one allo-HCT event, and during the second allo-HCT, letermovir was used in three allo-HCTs. The two groups were similar with regard to diagnosis, donor class, stem cell source, donor positive CMV serostatus, conditioning regimen, and development of aGVHD grade ≥ 2 (Table 1). There were significant differences in age, gender, GVHD prophylaxis, and the use of ATG or a T-cell depleted graft (Table 1). Patients in the control group were older (p = 0.01), had more males (p = 0.048), had more ATG use or T-cell depleted grafts (p = 0.004), and less post-transplant cyclophosphamide (p = 0.003).
Acute GVHD grade ≥ 2 developed in 69 patients (57.9%) in the letermovir group and 78 patients (54.5%) in the control group. Of the aGVHD patients, 26 (37.7%) in the letermovir group developed CS-CMVi compared to 71 patients (91%) in the control group. Among all transplant events, treatment for CS-CMVi was initiated in 110 allo-HCTs, which included 81 of 143 (56.6%) who did not receive letermovir compared to 29 of 119 (24.4%) who received letermovir (Table 2). The incidence of CS-CMVi was significantly reduced with the use of letermovir among patients with aGVHD grade ≥ 2 (HR 0.08 [95%CI 0.03–0.27], p < 0.001) within 200 days post-allo-HCT, adjusting for age, gender, GVHD prophylaxis and use of ATG or T-cell depleted graft (Figure 1a). A similar significant reduction in CS-CMVi was also seen in all patients within 200 days post-allo-HCT (HR 0.18 [95% CI 0.10–0.32], p < 0.001) (Figure 1c). No other variables assessed were associated with a decreased risk of CS-CMVi except letermovir (Figure 1b,d). Incidence of CMV viremia was lower in patients who received letermovir compared to those who did not receive letermovir (39.5% vs. 75.5%, p < 0.01; Table 2). The median peak CMV viremia was 770 IU/mL in patients who received letermovir compared to 1003 IU/mL in patients who did not receive letermovir (p = 0.03; Table 2).
In a multivariable analysis among all patients, letermovir reduced the risk of developing CS-CMVi, while the development of aGVHD and use of post-transplant cyclophosphamide for GVHD prophylaxis increased the risk of CS-CMVi (Figure 1d).
Non-relapsed mortality occurred in 8.4% of patients in the letermovir group compared to 9.7% of patients who did not receive letermovir (Table 2, Figure 2a). Overall survival was improved in patients who received letermovir (Figure 2b). Age and aGHVD were associated with increased risk of death (HR 1.03 [95% CI 1.02–1.05], p < 0.001 and HR 2.05 [95% CI 1.35–3.13], p = 0.001, respectively) and increased risk of NRM (HR 1.03 [95% CI 1.01–1.05], p = 0.012 and HR 3.59 [95% CI 2.01–6.40], p < 0.001, respectively).
The median duration of letermovir therapy was 95 days in all patients who received letermovir and 94 days in patients with acute GVHD grade ≥ 2. Nine patients were continued on letermovir indefinitely for recurrent CMV viremia. The most common reason for discontinuation of letermovir was due to completion of therapy at day +100 post-transplant.

4. Discussion

This single-center retrospective study showed that letermovir prophylaxis significantly reduced CS-CMVi in allo-HCT patients with aGVHD. Among patients with aGVHD, letermovir prophylaxis was the only variable that reduced CS-CMVi in a competing risk model. There was also significantly less CS-CMVi and CMV viremia in all patients who received letermovir prophylaxis. In addition, letermovir prophylaxis was also associated with significantly less risk of NRM as well as improved OS.
Current published literature has shown similar benefits with the use of letermovir for prevention of CS-CMVi, but our study adds additional analysis of patients who developed aGVHD post-transplant. The phase 3 trial of letermovir prophylaxis by Marty and colleagues included 373 patients who received letermovir and 192 patients who received placebo and found that 37.5% of patients who received letermovir developed CS-CMVi compared to 60.6% of patients who did not receive letermovir [11]. Anderson and colleagues conducted a retrospective analysis of 25 patients who received letermovir and 106 patients who did not that assessed the use of letermovir outside of a clinical trial setting. They reported that the cumulative incidence of CS-CMVi at 100 days post-allo-HCT was only 4% in patients who received letermovir compared to 59% who did not receive letermovir [14]. Studer and colleagues also published a retrospective analysis similar to Anderson and colleagues, but with a larger patient population of 432 patients [16]. This study found that 11.9% of patients who received letermovir developed CMV viremia compared to 24.6% who did not receive letermovir. Our study showed similar reduction in CS-CMVi in all patients with 24.4% who received letermovir and 56.6% in the control group developing CS-CMVi, which suggests that our data is likely generalizable. Our study also had relatively few exclusion criteria and therefore included a large number of both patients who received letermovir and those who did not, which strengthens the external validity of this data.
Most of the previously published studies did not report the outcomes of GVHD patients, and some only included a small number of these patients [6,11,14]. Although Studer and colleagues reported on a large GVHD population, this study was conducted in a time period prior to routine letermovir use, so only 42 of the 423 patients included in the study received letermovir [16]. In the mortality analysis of the phase 3 trial by Ljungman and colleagues, GVHD was associated with increased all-cause mortality, but there was no data reported about the effect of letermovir in these patients who developed GVHD [6]. While these studies have laid the foundation for the effect of letermovir on CS-CMVi rates, our study adds new information by focusing on the development of aGVHD and the incidence of CS-CMVi with and without letermovir prophylaxis.
Letermovir is approved for use up to day +100. Patients in our study were assessed over an extended time frame through day +200 post-transplant. This was intentional to capture the period of time after letermovir is typically discontinued in order to examine if the duration of letermovir was affected by CMV infection and/or the need for GVHD treatment. This study did not find any difference in the letermovir duration between patients who developed GVHD and those who did not. There were patients who received extended durations of letermovir with a range of up to 531 days of therapy. These extended durations occurred most commonly due to recurrent CMV viremia. The most appropriate duration of letermovir for patients who develop aGVHD is not well defined. It is possible that there would be benefit in continuing letermovir or considering reinitiation of letermovir while treating aGVHD. Further prospective trials are warranted to determine the extent of benefit of letermovir for CMV prophylaxis in patients who develop GVHD. We also showed that patients who received letermovir had improved OS and NRM. The improvement in OS is likely driven by the improvement in NRM. This is to be expected given that letermovir is an intervention that decreases infectious mortality.
The rates of aGVHD grade ≥ 2 reported in this study in both the letermovir group and control group (55.4% and 54.5%, respectively) are relatively high compared to averages previously published in the literature. The majority of our patient population (78%) received matched unrelated, mismatched unrelated, or haploidentical transplants, which are known to have a higher risk of GVHD compared to a matched related donor transplant [20,21]. Peripheral blood was the most common stem cell source in our patient population (77%), which also has an increased risk of GVHD compared to bone marrow or cord blood stem cell source [22]. Our high rate of aGVHD can likely be explained by the majority of our patient population having a high risk of developing aGVHD.
There are several limitations worth considering in this study. This was a retrospective chart review conducted at a single site, which inherently reduces generalizability and can be influenced by confounding factors. However, with minimal exclusion criteria, we were able to include a large sample size of patients and achieved results similar to multicenter trials, which suggests greater generalizability. There was an imbalance in gender between the two groups, which is unlikely to have impacted our results as there is no data to suggest a difference in outcomes, development of GVHD, or incidence of CS-CMVi based on gender. The median age of the control group was slightly older than the letermovir group (60 years and 56 years, respectively), which could have contributed to the lower mortality seen in the letermovir group as older patients have been shown to have a higher risk of mortality post-transplant. However, published literature has reported improved mortality rates with the use of letermovir regardless of age, which is consistent with our data and suggests that the age imbalance in our two groups is not clinically meaningful [11].
With inclusion of a historical control group, this group could have been influenced by changes in clinical practice over time. Changes in clinical practice during this study period included the decreased use of ATG and T-cell depleted graft and increased use of post-transplant cyclophosphamide for GVHD prophylaxis. Post-transplant cyclophosphamide has been shown to increase the incidence of CMV infection in CMV-seropositive recipients and was more commonly used in our letermovir group [23,24,25]. ATG has also been shown to be associated with increased risk of CMV reactivation, but it is important to consider that many of these trials including ATG were conducted before letermovir was used to prevent CMV infection [26,27,28]. ATG and T-cell depleted grafts were more commonly used in the historical control group. Given that there is a possibility for both ATG and post-cyclophosphamide to increase incidence of CMV infection, it is difficult to determine the net impact, if any, that these changes in practice may have had on the study results. However, if either the use of ATG/T-cell depleted graft or post-cyclophosphamide were to have a greater magnitude of increased risk for CMV, then that could have impacted our results by skewing the CMV infection rate in that study group. Prior studies have shown the cumulative incidence of CMV infection to be approximately 40% following allo-HCT with ATG/T-cell depleted graft or post-cyclophosphamide [25,28]. When looking at risk factors associated with CS-CMVi, GVHD prophylaxis with tacrolimus and mycophenolate appears to increase risk of CS-CMVi, but this result is likely skewed due to the small number of patients who received this prophylaxis regimen. Finally, this study was not designed to assess outpatient letermovir adherence.

5. Conclusions

Letermovir prophylaxis was effective at reducing the incidence of CS-CMVi among patients with aGVHD who are at an increased risk for CMV reactivation. Similar to other studies, letermovir prophylaxis also significantly reduced the incidence of CS-CMVi in all patients, the incidence of CMV viremia, and improved non-relapsed mortality and overall survival. This data suggests that letermovir prophylaxis should be considered in patients with aGVHD for the prevention of CMV infection.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.T., M.P., D.M., J.R. and Y.E.; methodology, J.T., D.W., M.P. and Y.E.; software, Q.Z.; validation, D.W., J.T. and Y.E.; formal analysis, Q.Z.; investigation, D.W., E.S. and J.T.; resources, D.W., E.S. and J.T.; data curation, D.W., E.S. and J.T.; writing—original draft preparation, D.W.; writing—review and editing, D.W., J.T., E.S., M.P., D.M. and Y.E.; visualization, D.W. and J.T.; supervision, J.T., M.P. and Y.E.; project administration, D.W. and J.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center (2020C0206, approved 20 November 2020).

Informed Consent Statement

Patient consent was waived due to the retrospective nature of this analysis. All patient data collected was documented in the electronic medical record as part of routine diagnosis and treatment and was deidentified prior to analysis. Only the minimal amount of data necessary was collected for each patient, and only pertinent investigators were allowed access to patient specific information.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

J.R. is currently employed by Merck Research Labs. Her contribution in early development of this project was completed while an employee at The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center–James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute.

References

  1. Meyers, J.D.; Flournoy, N.; Thomas, E.D. Risk Factors for Cytomegalovirus Infection after Human Marrow Transplantation. J. Infect. Dis. 1986, 153, 478–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Ljungman, P.; Brand, R.; Hoek, J.; de la Camara, R.; Cordonnier, C.; Einsele, H.; Styczynski, J.; Ward, K.N.; Cesaro, S. Infectious Diseases Working Party of the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. Donor cytomegalovirus status influences the outcome of allogeneic stem cell trans- plant: A study by the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2014, 59, 473–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Teira, P.; Battiwalla, M.; Ramanathan, M.; Barrett, A.J.; Ahn, K.W.; Chen, M.; Green, J.S.; Saad, A.; Antin, J.H.; Savani, B.N.; et al. Early cytomegalovirus reactivation remains associated with increased transplant-related mortality in the current era: A CIBMTR analysis. Blood 2016, 127, 2427–2438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Boeckh, M.; Ljungman, P. How we treat cytomegalovirus in hematopoietic cell transplant recipients. Blood 2009, 113, 5711–5719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Broers, A.E.; van der Holt, R.; van Esser, J.W.; Gratama, J.W.; Henzen-Logmans, S.; Kuenen-Boumeester, V.; Löwenberg, B.; Cornelissen, J.J. Increased transplant-related morbidity and mortality in CMV-seropositive patients despite highly effective prevention of CMV disease after allogeneic T-cell-depleted stem cell transplantation. Blood 2000, 95, 2240–2245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Ljungman, P.; Schmitt, M.; Marty, F.; Maertens, J.; Chemaly, R.F.; A Kartsonis, N.; Butterton, J.R.; Wan, H.; Teal, V.L.; Sarratt, K.; et al. A Mortality Analysis of Letermovir Prophylaxis for Cytomegalovirus (CMV) in CMV-seropositive Recipients of Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2019, 70, 1525–1533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Dziedzic, M.; Sadowska-krawczenko, I.; Styczynski, J. Risk factors for cytomegalovirus infection after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation in malignancies: Proposal for classification. Anticancer Res. 2017, 37, 6551–6556. [Google Scholar]
  8. Zaia, J.A.; Gallez-Hawkins, G.M.; Tegtmeier, B.R.; Ter Veer, A.; Li, X.; Niland, J.C.; Forman, S.J. Late cytomegalovirus disease in marrow transplantation is predicted by virus load in plasma. J. Infect. Dis. 1997, 176, 782–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. El Helou, G.; Razonable, R.R. Letermovir for the prevention of cytomegalovirus infection and disease in transplant recipients: An evidence-based review. Infect. Drug Resist. 2019, 12, 1481–1491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  10. Chemaly, R.F.; Ullmann, A.J.; Ehninger, G.; Romee, R.; di Persio, J.F. CMV Prophylaxis in Hematopoietic-Cell Transplantation. N. Engl. J. Med. 2014, 371, 576–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Marty, F.M.; Ljungman, P.; Chemaly, R.F.; Maertens, J.; Dadwal, S.S.; Duarte, R.F.; Haider, S.; Ullmann, A.J.; Katayama, Y.; Brown, J.; et al. Letermovir prophylaxis for cytomegalovirus in hematopoietic-cell trans-plantation. N. Engl. J. Med. 2017, 377, 2433–2444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Peric, Z.; Wilson, J.; Durakovic, N.; Ostojic, A.; Desnica, L.; Vranjes, V.R.; Marekovic, I.; Serventi-Seiwerth, R.; Vrhovac, R. Early human cytomegalovirus reactivation is associated with lower incidence of relapse of myeloproliferative disorders after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2018, 53, 1450–1456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Karam, E.; LaPorte, J.; Sizemore, C.; Zhang, X.; Holland, K.; Solh, M.; Morris, L.E.; Bashey, A.; Solomon, S.R. Real world outcomes of letermovir prophylaxis in unselected high risk CMV seropositive hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients. Blood 2019, 134, 3269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Anderson, A.; Raja, M.; Vazquez, N.; Morris, M.; Komanduri, K.; Camargo, J. Clinical “real-world” experience with letermovir for prevention of cytomegalovirus infection in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant recipients. Clin. Transplant. 2020, 34, e13866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Chen, K.; Cheng, M.P.; Hammond, S.P.; Einsele, H.; Marty, F.M. Antiviral prophylaxis for cytomegalovirus infection in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. Blood Adv. 2018, 2, 2159–2175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Studer, U.; Khanna, N.; Leuzinger, K.; Hirsch, H.H.; Heim, D.; Lengerke, C.; Tsakiris, D.A.; Halter, J.; Gerull, S.; Passweg, J.; et al. Incidence of CMV Replication and the Role of Letermovir Primary/Secondary Prophylaxis in the Early Phase After Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation—A Single Centre Study. Anticancer. Res. 2020, 10, 5909–5917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Bansal, R.; A Gordillo, C.; Abramova, R.; Assal, A.; Mapara, M.Y.; Pereira, M.R.; Reshef, R. Extended letermovir administration, beyond day 100, is effective for CMV prophylaxis in patients with graft versus host disease. Transpl. Infect. Dis. 2020, 23, e13487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zeiser, R.; Von Bubnoff, N.; Butler, J.; Mohty, M.; Niederwieser, D.; Or, R.; Szer, J.; Wagner, E.M.; Zuckerman, T.; Mahuzier, B.; et al. Ruxolitinib for Glucocorticoid-Refractory Acute Graft-versus-Host Disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 382, 1800–1810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Harris, A.C.; Young, R.; Devine, S.; Hogan, W.J.; Ayuk, F.; Bunworasate, U.; Chanwangphuwana, C.; Efebera, Y.A.; Holler, E.; Litzow, M.; et al. International, multi-center, standardization of acute graft-versus-host disease clinical data collection: A report from the MAGIC consortium. Biol. Blood Marrow Transplant. 2016, 22, 4–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  20. Flowers, M.E.D.; Inamoto, Y.; Carpenter, P.A.; Lee, S.J.; Kiem, H.-P.; Petersdorf, E.W.; Pereira, S.E.; Nash, R.A.; Mielcarek, M.; Fero, M.; et al. Comparative analysis of risk factors for acute graft-versus-host disease and for chronic graft-versus-host disease according to National Institutes of Health consensus criteria. Blood 2011, 117, 3214–3219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Sharma, N.; Zhao, Q.; Ni, B.; Elder, P.; Puto, M.; Benson, D.; Rosko, A.; Chaudhry, M.; Devarakonda, S.; Bumma, N.; et al. Effect of Early Post-Transplantation Tacrolimus Concentration on the Risk of Acute Graft-Versus-Host Disease in Allogenic Stem Cell Transplantation. Cancers 2021, 13, 613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Cutler, C.; Giri, S.; Jeyapalan, S.; Paniagua, D.; Viswaanathan, A.; Antin, J.H. Acute and Chronic Graft-Versus-Host Disease After Allogeneic Peripheral-Blood Stem-Cell and Bone Marrow Transplantation: A Meta-Analysis. J. Clin. Oncol. 2001, 19, 3685–3691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Garcia-Cadena, I.; Esquirol, A.; Bosch-Vilaseca, A.; Awol, R.; Novelli, S.; Saavedra, S.; Garrido, A.; Lopez, J.; Caballero, A.C.; Granell, M.; et al. Patterns of infection and infectious-related mortality in patients receiving post-transplant high dose cyclophosphamide as graft-versus-host-drease prophylaxis: Impact of HLA donor matching. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2021, 56, 818–827. [Google Scholar]
  24. Goldsmith, S.R.; Abid, M.B.; Auletta, J.J.; Bashey, A.; Beitinjaneh, A.; Castillo, P.; Chemaly, R.F.; Chen, M.; Ciurea, S.O.; Dandoy, C.E.; et al. Posttransplant cyclophosphamide is associated with increased cytomegalovirus infection: A CIBMTR analysis. Blood 2021, 137, 3291–3305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Crocchiolo, R.; Castagna, L.; Furst, S.; de Villier, R.; Sarina, B.; Bramanti, S.; El-Cheikh, J.; Granata, A.; Harbi, S.; Morabito, L.; et al. The patient’s CMV serological status affects clinical outcome after T-cell replete haplo-HSCT and post-transplant cyclophosphamide. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2016, 51, 1134–1136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Pidala, J.; Tomblyn, M.; Nishihori, T.; Ayala, E.; Field, T.; Fernandez, H.; Perez, L.; Locke, F.; Alsina, M.; Ochoa, J.L.; et al. ATG Prevents Severe Acute Graft-versus-Host Disease in Mismatched Unrelated Donor Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation. Biol. Blood Marrow Transplant. 2011, 17, 1237–1244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Arai, Y.; Tomoyasu, J.; Matsui, H.; Kondo, T.; Takaori-Kondo, A. Efficacy of antithymocyte globulin for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation: A systemic review and meta-analysis. Leuk. Lymphoma 2017, 58, 1840–1848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Schmidt-Hieber, M.; Schwarck, S.; Stroux, A.; Ganepola, S.; Reinke, P.; Thiel, E.; Uharek, L.; Blau, I.W. Immune reconstitution and cytomegalovirus infection after allogeneic stem cell transplantation: The important impact of in vivo T cell depletion. Int. J. Hematol. 2010, 5, 877–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cancers 13 05572 g001 550
Figure 1. Incidence of clinically significant cytomegalovirus infection (CS-CMVi) in patients with and without letermovir and potential risk factors: (a) CS-CMVi in patients with acute graft versus host disease (aGVHD) grade ≥ 2; (b) Proportional sub-distribution hazards model of potential confounding factors in patients with aGVHD ≥ 2; (c) CS-CMVi in all patients; (d) Proportional sub-distribution hazards model of potential confounding factors in all patients.
Figure 1. Incidence of clinically significant cytomegalovirus infection (CS-CMVi) in patients with and without letermovir and potential risk factors: (a) CS-CMVi in patients with acute graft versus host disease (aGVHD) grade ≥ 2; (b) Proportional sub-distribution hazards model of potential confounding factors in patients with aGVHD ≥ 2; (c) CS-CMVi in all patients; (d) Proportional sub-distribution hazards model of potential confounding factors in all patients.
Cancers 13 05572 g001
Cancers 13 05572 g002 550
Figure 2. Survival outcomes in patients treated with or without letermovir prophylaxis: (a) Gray’s test was used to estimate non-relapsed mortality; (b) Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate overall survival.
Figure 2. Survival outcomes in patients treated with or without letermovir prophylaxis: (a) Gray’s test was used to estimate non-relapsed mortality; (b) Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate overall survival.
Cancers 13 05572 g002
Table
Table 1. Baseline characteristics.
Table 1. Baseline characteristics.
No Letermovir (n = 143)Letermovir (n = 119)p-Value
Age, median (range)60 (18–76)56 (21–74)0.010
Male86 (60.1)57 (47.9)0.048
Diagnosis 0.380
 Acute Myeloid Leukemia58 (40.6)44 (37.0)
 Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia15 (10.5)20 (16.8)
 Lymphoma (NHL and HL)19 (13.3)12 (10.1)
 Multiple Myeloma2 (1.4)5 (4.2)
 Myelodysplastic Syndrome/Myeloproliferative Neoplasms37 (25.9)23 (19.3)
 Chronic Myeloid Leukemia2 (1.4)2 (1.7)
 Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia6 (4.2)6 (5.0)
 Other 14 (2.8)7 (5.9)
Donor class 0.656
 HLA-mismatched unrelated
 HLA-matched unrelated		7 (4.9)
78 (54.5)		9 (7.6)
62 (52.1)
 HLA-matched related34 (23.8)24 (20.2)
 Haploidentical24 (16.8)24 (20.2)
Stem Cell Source 0.239
 Peripheral blood115 (80.4)86 (72.3)
 Bone marrow26 (18.2)32 (26.9)
 Cord blood2 (1.4)1 (0.8)
Donor positive CMV serostatus 276 (53.1)52 (43.7)0.128
Conditioning Regimen 0.760
 Myeloablative70 (49.0)56 (47.1)
 Reduced intensity73 (51.0)63 (52.9)
GVHD Prophylaxis 0.003
 Tacrolimus + methotrexate94 (65.7)67 (56.3)
 Tacrolimus + sirolimus9 (6.3)1 (0.8)
 Tacrolimus + mycophenolate1 (0.7)3 (2.5)
 Post-cyclophosphamide36 (25.2)48 (40.3)
 Other3 (2.1)0 (0.0)
Use of ATG or T-cell depleted graft54 (37.7)25 (21.0)0.004
Acute GVHD Grade 0.86
 Grades 0–165 (45.5)50 (42.0)
 Grade 254 (37.8)48 (40.3)
 Grades 3–424 (16.8)21 (17.7)
Steroid dose ≥ 0.5 mg/kg 359 (75.6)
(n = 78)		55 (79.7)
(n = 69)		0.65
1 Including acute undifferentiated or mixed phenotype leukemia, blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm, eosinophilic leukemia, and T-cell prolymphocytic leukemia. 2 All patients had recipient positive CMV serostatus based on inclusion criteria. 3 Steroid dose reported for patients with acute GVHD grade ≥ 2.
Table
Table 2. Results.
Table 2. Results.
No Letermovir
(n = 143)		Letermovir
(n = 119)		p-Value
CS-CMVi81 (56.6)29 (24.4)<0.001
CMV viremia108 (75.5)47 (39.5)<0.01
Peak CMV viremia in IU/mL, median (range)1003 (51–81300)770 (51–18178)0.03
Mortality62 (43.4)38 (31.9)0.06
Cause of Death
 Treatment-related21 (14.6)15 (12.6)0.65
 Non-relapsed14 (9.7)10 (8.4)
 Disease-related27 (18.8)13 (10.9)
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wolfe, D.; Zhao, Q.; Siegel, E.; Puto, M.; Murphy, D.; Roddy, J.; Efebera, Y.; Tossey, J. Letermovir Prophylaxis and Cytomegalovirus Reactivation in Adult Hematopoietic Cell Transplant Recipients with and without Acute Graft Versus Host Disease. Cancers 2021, 13, 5572. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13215572

AMA Style

Wolfe D, Zhao Q, Siegel E, Puto M, Murphy D, Roddy J, Efebera Y, Tossey J. Letermovir Prophylaxis and Cytomegalovirus Reactivation in Adult Hematopoietic Cell Transplant Recipients with and without Acute Graft Versus Host Disease. Cancers. 2021; 13(21):5572. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13215572

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wolfe, Delaney, Qiuhong Zhao, Emma Siegel, Marcin Puto, Danielle Murphy, Julianna Roddy, Yvonne Efebera, and Justin Tossey. 2021. "Letermovir Prophylaxis and Cytomegalovirus Reactivation in Adult Hematopoietic Cell Transplant Recipients with and without Acute Graft Versus Host Disease" Cancers 13, no. 21: 5572. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13215572

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop