Which allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant recipients have an increased risk for delayed‐onset clinically significant cytomegalovirus infection after letermovir prophylaxis?

Maria Alejandra Mendoza,Eric Bhaimia,Hassan B. Alkhateeb,Raymund R. Razonable,Matthew Thoendel
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/tid.14377
2024-09-30
Transplant Infectious Disease
Abstract:In a retrospective study, authors identified that having a matched unrelated donor (odds ratio [OR] 2.46) and a cytomegalovirus (CMV) donor negative/recipient positive status (OR 3.47) were associated with higher odds of having delayed‐onset post‐prophylaxis clinically significant CMV infection (csCMVi) after letermovir prophylaxis. In contrast, acute myelogenous leukemia had lower odds of having delayed‐onset csCMVi (OR 0.23). Introduction Cytomegalovirus (CMV) reactivation is one of the most common complications after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Letermovir is approved for CMV prophylaxis among high‐risk recipients. However, delayed‐onset post‐prophylaxis clinically significant CMV infection (csCMVi) has been observed, suggesting the potential for extending letermovir prophylaxis beyond the first one hundred days post‐HSCT. Methods Retrospective multicenter cohort study of allogeneic HSCT patients from August 2018 to March 2023. The primary aim of this study was to identify the risk factors at day 100 associated with delayed onset csCMVi, in patients who received letermovir prophylaxis up to day 100. Competing risk analysis was used to evaluate incidence with specific risk factors, using Gray's Test comparing groups for each event. Results Among 166 eligible allogeneic HSCT recipients, the most common primary hematological diagnosis was acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) (42.2%). Twenty‐six (15.7%) developed a breakthrough csCMVi. Delayed‐onset csCMVi occurred in 23.5%, at a median time of 133 days after SCT. On multivariate analysis, having a matched unrelated donor (odds ratio [OR] 2.46) and a CMV donor negative/recipient positive status (OR 3.47) were associated with delayed onset csCMVi. In contrast, AML had a lower odd of having delayed‐onset csCMVi (OR 0.23). Conclusions Having a matched unrelated donor, a CMV donor negative/recipient positive status, and a non‐AML underlying disease were associated with delayed onset csCMVi. Prospective studies are needed to evaluate whether extended letermovir prophylaxis is beneficial for these patients.
immunology,infectious diseases,transplantation
What problem does this paper attempt to address?