Efficacy and safety of tixagevimab-cilgavimab versus SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection in the hematological conditions.

BACKGROUND: Managing SARS-CoV-2 infection in frail and immunosuppressed patients still represents an open challenge, but, starting from the phase 3 PROVENT study, prophylaxis with tixagevimab-cilgavimab has improved the approach in this category of patients, guaranteeing a better outcome and inferior mortality. Real-life data in a heterogeneous cohort are few. METHODS: The aim of this study is to evaluate the benefit of prophylaxis with tixagevimab-cilgavimab in a cohort of 202 patients affected by different hematological diseases (lymphoproliferative, myeloproliferative, autoimmune, patients recently receiving a bone marrow transplant), active (with ongoing treatment), or in watch-and-wait strategy, followed in our center, during a median follow-up of 249 (45-325) days. RESULTS: An incidence of 44 breakthrough infections (21.8%) is reported, with no treatment-related adverse effects. Age ≥70 years, ongoing treatment (above all with monoclonal antibodies), baseline lymphoproliferative disorders, and prior virus exposure are identified as risk factors related to subsequent infection (p < 0.05). Moreover, the incidence is higher in low/nonresponse to prior vaccination (p = .002). Patients treated with tixagevimab-cilgavimab had a mild course of the infection and a reduction of the duration compared with preprophylaxis infection (11 vs. 15 days, p < .001). The concurrent treatment with anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies and B-non-Hodgkin lymphoma still confers a higher duration of infection despite prophylaxis. No deaths attributable to the infection occurred. CONCLUSION: Prophylaxis treatment seems to be a valid and safe strategy, although not preventing breakthrough infection, but the severe complications associated with the infection and the possible delays in administering lifesaving therapies from long positivity.

Gaucher disease prevalence in 600 patients affected by monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance.

BACKGROUND: Gaucher disease (GD) is a rare autosomal recessive inherited disorder caused by the lysosomal enzyme acid ß-glucosidase deficiency. Many patients experience a critical delay in the diagnosis of up to 8-10 years due to its rarity and variability in signs and symptoms, with the consultation of several specialists. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective observational study analyzed the prevalence of GD in 600 patients with monoclonal gammopathy of uncertain significance (MGUS) from January 2018 until February 2022. RESULTS: The mean age of participants was 66 years, with a mean monoclonal component of 0.58 g/dL. In 433 MGUS patients with available data, anemia (hemoglobin level < 10 g/dL) was present in 31 patients (7%), and thrombocytopenia (platelet count <100.000/mm3 ) in 24 (5.5%). Of 600 MGUS patients tested for acid ß-glucosidase enzyme activity, 7 patients (1.2%) had activity below 2.5 nmol/h/mL. In comparison, GBA gene analysis was executed in 110 patients. It revealed 4 patients (0.7%) affected by GD (3 patients with compound heterozygous mutation and 1 with homozygous mutation), with a prevalence of 1 every 150 MGUS patients. Furthermore, 12 out of the remaining 106 evaluated patients (11%) were carriers of a single heterozygous mutation while having regular enzyme activity. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical heterogeneity of GD and frequent lack of awareness among physicians often lead to diagnostic delays and severe clinical manifestations. The role of MGUS in the presence of at least one clinical sign, such as low platelet count, organomegaly, bone pain, or bleeding tendency, could aid in initiating GD screening with DBS, thus reducing the period between symptom onset and the diagnosis of this rare disease.

AIPSS-MF machine learning prognostic score validation in a cohort of myelofibrosis patients treated with ruxolitinib.

BACKGROUND: In myelofibrosis (MF), new model scores are continuously proposed to improve the ability to better identify patients with the worst outcomes. In this context, the Artificial Intelligence Prognostic Scoring System for Myelofibrosis (AIPSS-MF), and the Response to Ruxolitinib after 6 months (RR6) during the ruxolitinib (RUX) treatment, could play a pivotal role in stratifying these patients. AIMS: We aimed to validate AIPSS-MF in patients with MF who started RUX treatment, compared to the standard prognostic scores at the diagnosis and the RR6 scores after 6 months of treatment. METHODS AND RESULTS: At diagnosis, the AIPSS-MF performs better than the widely used IPSS for primary myelofibrosis (C-index 0.636 vs. 0.596) and MYSEC-PM for secondary (C-index 0.616 vs. 0.593). During RUX treatment, we confirmed the leading role of RR6 in predicting an inadequate response by these patients to JAKi therapy compared to AIPSS-MF (0.682 vs. 0.571). CONCLUSION: The new AIPSS-MF prognostic score confirms that it can adequately stratify this subgroup of patients already at diagnosis better than standard models, laying the foundations for new prognostic models developed tailored to the patient based on artificial intelligence.

Severe Gastrointestinal Toxicity Following the Use of Gilteritinib: A Case Series and Analysis of Postmarketing Surveillance Data.

Gilteritinib has been approved as monotherapy in adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) FLT3 mutated with relapsed or refractory disease, in light of its advantages in terms of survival and the favorable safety profile. Hepatobiliary disorders and musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders represent the most frequent adverse reactions associated with gilteritinib, whereas the most frequent serious adverse reaction is acute kidney injury. In the summary of product characteristics, gastrointestinal (GI) events are indicated as very common, in particular diarrhea, nausea and stypsis. Furthermore, serious GI disorders have been observed with gilteritinib in clinical trials, including GI hemorrhage, GI perforation and GI obstruction. However, the association with the FLT3 inhibitor has not been confirmed. Nevertheless, serious GI AEs have been recognized as an important potential risk to be monitored in postmarketing surveillance. We present three cases of serious self-limiting GI events observed in patients on gilteritinib treatment for AML, and an analysis of relevant available postmarketing surveillance data.

Myelofibrosis and Survival Prognostic Models: A Journey between Past and Future.

Among the myeloproliferative diseases, myelofibrosis is a widely heterogeneous entity characterized by a highly variable prognosis. In this context, several prognostic models have been proposed to categorize these patients appropriately. Identifying who deserves more invasive treatments, such as bone marrow transplantation, is a critical clinical need. Age, complete blood count (above all, hemoglobin value), constitutional symptoms, driver mutations, and blast cells have always represented the milestones of the leading models still used worldwide (IPSS, DIPSS, MYSEC-PM). Recently, the advent of new diagnostic techniques (among all, next-generation sequencing) and the extensive use of JAK inhibitor drugs have allowed the development and validation of new models (MIPSS-70 and version 2.0, GIPSS, RR6), which are continuously updated. Finally, the new frontier of artificial intelligence promises to build models capable of drawing an overall survival perspective for each patient. This review aims to collect and summarize the existing standard prognostic models in myelofibrosis and examine the setting where each of these finds its best application.

Prediction of Survival and Prognosis Migration from Gold-Standard Scores in Myelofibrosis Patients Treated with Ruxolitinib Applying the RR6 Prognostic Model in a Monocentric Real-Life Setting.

The wide use of ruxolitinib, approved for treating primary and secondary myelofibrosis (MF), has revolutionized the landscape of these diseases. This molecule can reduce spleen volume and constitutional symptoms, guaranteeing patients a better quality of life and survival or even a valid bridge to bone marrow transplantation. Despite a rapid response within the first 3 to 6 months of treatment, some patients fail to achieve a significant benefit or lose early response. After ruxolitinib failure, new drugs are available to provide an additional therapeutic option for these patients. However, the correct timing point for deciding on a therapy shift is still an open challenge. Recently, a clinical prognostic score named RR6 (Response to Ruxolitinib after 6 months) was proposed to determine survival after 6 months of treatment with ruxolitinib in patients affected by MF. We applied this model to a cohort of consecutive patients treated at our center to validate the results obtained in terms of median overall survival (mOS): for the low-risk class, mOS was not reached (as in the training cohort); for the intermediate-risk, mOS was 52 months (95% CI 39-106); for the high-risk, it was 33 (95% 8.5-59). Moreover, in addition to the other studies present in the literature, we evaluated how the new RR6 score could better identify primary MF patients at high risk, with a slight or no agreement compared to DIPSS, contrary to what occurs in secondary MF. Thus, we were able to confirm the predictive power of the RR6 model in our series, which might be of help in guiding future therapeutic choices.