Real world experience: Examining outcomes using letermovir for CMV prophylaxis in high-risk allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell patients in the setting of using T-cell depletion as GVHD prophylaxis
Sami Dwabe,Mindy Hsiao,Amir Ali,Jack Rodman,Lakshmi Savitala-Damerla,Samvel Nazaretyan,N P Kimberly Schiff,Eric Tam,Abdulla Ladha,Karrune Woan,Preet Chaudhary,George Yaghmour
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trim.2022.101769
Abstract:Background: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection significantly impacts the morbidity and mortality of patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT). Despite monitoring and pharmacologic prophylaxis with drugs such as valganciclovir or ganciclovir, rates of early CMV reactivation have continually persisted, contributing to increased rates of morbidity and mortality in allogeneic-HSCT patients. This study evaluates the outcomes of letermovir in preventing CMV reactivation and CMV-related complications in HSCT recipients with initiation of therapy at +21 days in high-risk patients. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed adult patients at University of Southern California (USC) Norris Cancer Hospital who received allogeneic-HSCT from 2018 to 2020 with subsequent serial CMV monitoring and treatment. CMV reactivation was determined in patients if they had clinically significant serum CMV viremia (viremia requiring treatment) or organ involvement by day+100. Primary endpoint assessed was day+100 rates of CMV reactivation. Secondary end-points included 1-year OS, 1-year RFS, and incidence of GVHD. Descriptive statistics were used to compare characteristics between groups used in this study, with a significance level of α = 0.05. Results: Between 2018 and 2020, 116 adult HSCT recipients were reviewed. 51% were male and 49% were female; donor sources consisted of 27% match related donor (MRD) 28% match-unrelated donor (MUD), and 45% haploidentical donor. Of the 116 patients, 92 were identified as high-risk for CMV reactivation. 71 patients received letermovir prophylaxis, and 21 patients received no prophylaxis. In high-risk patients, after adjusting for GVHD status and transplant type, patients that received letermovir had no statistically significant difference of having D + 100 CMV reactivation compared to patients that did not receive letermovir. 1.02 (95% CI: 0.35, 3.20) (p = 0.97). Moreover, there were no statistically significant difference observed between letermovir treatment and 1-year OS, 1-year RFS, and incidence of GVHD. Conclusion: Patients in the high-risk letermovir group had outcomes that were comparable to the lower risk "non-letermovir" group. There was no significant difference in CMV D + 100 reactivation between high-risk patients who did not receive letermovir compared to the patients who did. While other studies have shown that early initiation of letermovir may be associated with improved outcomes, our study shows that the use of letermovir with initiation at 21 days may not necessarily translate to improved secondary outcomes such as overall survival. Further prospective studies evaluating the time of initiating therapy and outcomes are needed.