Real World Use of Tixagevimab/Cilgavimab Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis of COVID-19 in Immunocompromised Individuals: Data from the OCTOPUS Study.

Objective. We aimed to report the real-world use and outcomes over time in immunocompromised individuals receiving tixagevimab/cilgavimab (T/C) pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). Methods. This observational study included participants who received T/C PrEP, categorized into three groups: (i) No COVID-19 (NoC), i.e., participants who never had COVID-19; (ii) Hybrids (H), i.e., participants who had COVID-19 before PrEP; and (iii) Break-through Infections (BTIs), i.e., participants who had COVID-19 after PrEP. The study measured several immune markers at the administration of T/C (T0) at 3 (T1), 6 (T2), and 9 (T3) months afterward. These markers included: anti-receptor-binding domain (RBD) IgG antibodies; BA.5-neutralizing antibodies (nAbs); mucosal IgG; and T cell immunity. The incidence rate ratios for BTIs were analyzed using a Poisson regression model. Results. A total of 231 participants with a median age of 63 years (IQR 54.0-73.0). were included. Among these, 84% had hematological diseases and received a median of three vaccine doses. N = 72 participants belonged to the NoC group, N = 103 to the H group, and n = 56 to the BTI group (24%), with most BTIs being mild/moderate. The incidence rate (IR) of BTIs was 4.2 per 100 patient-months (95% CI 3.2-5.4), with no associated risk factors identified. There was a significant increase in anti-RBD IgG levels 3 months after the T/C administration in all groups, followed by a decline at 6 months, whereas at the same time points, geometric mean titers (GMTs) of anti-BA.5 nAbs were low for all groups and were around or below the detection threshold. No significant changes were observed in IFN-γ levels. The mucosal immune response was observed only 3 months after the PrEP administration. Conclusion. We provided a real-world experience model on the clinical efficacy of T/C PrEP in preventing severe COVID-19 during the Omicron wave through a comprehensive virological and immunological study. While waiting for the arrival of new monoclonal antibodies that can effectively neutralize the most recent variants, T/C PrEP remains the only viable strategy in the available armamentarium today to prevent COVID-19 complications in an extremely fragile population with suboptimal immune responses to COVID-19 vaccines.

Risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with hematologic diseases receiving tixagevimab/cilgavimab as pre-exposure prophylaxis in most recent Omicron sublineages era.

OBJECTIVES: Whether pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) with tixagevimab/cilgavimab 150 mg/150 mg (T/C) in individuals with hematologic disease (HD) may lead to a reduced risk of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection (BTI)/hospitalization, or death in the Omicron era remains to be established. METHODS: An observational study included participants with HD who received PrEP. BTIs were defined as SARS-CoV-2 positivity by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction. The incidence of BTIs (95% CI) and of BTIs/hospitalization/death was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and as the number of BTIs per 100 person-years of follow-up according to the circulating variant of concern (VoC). A Poisson regression model was used to evaluate the association between the rate of incidence and circulating VoCs after controlling for demographics and clinical factors. RESULTS: We included 550 HD patients: 71% initiated T/C PrEP when BA.5 was the most prevalent, followed by XBB/EG, BA.2, and BA.1 (19%, 7%, and 3%, respectively). Overall, the 1-year incidence estimate of BTIs/hospitalization/death was 24% (18.7-29.4%). A greater risk of incident infections was observed when BA.5 and XBB/EG sub-lineages circulated (aRR 5.05 [2.17, 11.77]; P < .001 and 3.82 [1.50, 9.7]; P = 0.005, compared to BA.1, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The 1-year incidence of SARS-CoV-2 BTIs/hospitalization/death was 24% which is in line with what was observed in other similar studies. The risk appeared to be higher when more recent Omicron sub-lineages were circulating suggesting a reduction of in vitro neutralization.

Daratumumab combined with dexamethasone and lenalidomide or bortezomib in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients: Report from the multiple myeloma GIMEMA Lazio group.

The multiple myeloma (MM) treatment has changed over the last years due to the introduction of novel drugs. Despite improvements in the MM outcome, MM remains an incurable disease. Daratumumab is a human IgGK monoclonal antibody targeting CD38 with tumor activity associated with immunomodulatory mechanism. In combination with standard of care regimens, including bortezomib (Vd) or lenalidomide (Rd), daratumumab prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) in patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) and in new diagnosis MM. We report the data of the MM GIMEMA Lazio group in 171 heavily treated pts who received daratumumab, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (DRd) or daratumumab, velcade and dexamethasone (DVd). The overall response rate was 80%, and the overall survival (OS) and PFS were 84% and 77%, respectively. In addition, pts treated with DRd showed a better median PFS compared to pts treated with DVd, at 12 and 24 months, respectively. The most common hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events (TAEs) were neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and anemia. The most common nonhematologic TAEs were peripheral sensory neuropathy and infections. Our data confirmed that DRd or DVd therapy is effective and safe in RRMM pts, and our real-life analysis could support the physicians regarding the choice of optimal therapy in this setting of pts.

Pulmonary arterial hypertension in a patient with multiple myeloma during carfilzomib treatment: in search of better management.

BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma is a plasma cell dyscrasia accounting for 1% of neoplastic diseases and is the second most common hematologic malignancy after lymphoma. Pulmonary arterial hypertension is characterized by increased blood pressure in the pulmonary circulation and the development of pulmonary vascular remodeling. Increased resistance in the pulmonary vessels strains the right ventricle, leading to right heart failure. AIM: To report a case of a 65-year-old man who presented in 2017 with immunoglobulin G-kappa multiple myeloma characterized by pulmonary arterial hypertension during carfilzomib and dexamethasone treatment that resolved after stopping therapy. DISCUSSION: Pulmonary arterial hypertension represents one of the main problems of carfilzomib and dexamethasone treatment, especially in patients with predisposing conditions such as hypertension. Therefore, monitoring and management of patients starting therapy with carfilzomib remains a critical issue. Although cardiac and vascular related adverse events were not frequent, a preemptive strategy prior to initiating carfilzomib appears advisable, particularly in patients at risk. CONCLUSION: The mechanism responsible for cardiac and vascular events during carfilzomib therapy is unclear. This case report highlights that it is important to define at baseline the appropriate screening of patients undergoing carfilzomib therapy with specific monitoring and symptom management and that future large prospective controlled studies are needed to define the correct monitoring strategy in refractory and relapsed multiple myeloma and the potential mechanism of vascular events.

Carfilzomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone for newly diagnosed, high-risk myeloma patients not eligible for transplant: a pooled analysis of two studies.

Despite remarkable advances in the treatment of multiple myeloma in the last decades, the prognosis of patients harboring high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities remains dismal as compared to that of standard-risk patients. Proteasome inhibitors demonstrated to partially ameliorate the prognosis of high-risk patients. We pooled together data from two phase I/II trials on transplant-ineligible patients with multiple myeloma receiving upfront carfilzomib cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone followed by carfilzomib maintenance. The aim of this analysis was to compare treatment outcomes in patients with standard- versus high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis. High risk was defined by the presence of at least one chromosomal abnormality, including t(4;14), del17p and t(14;16). Overall, 94 patients were included in the analysis: 57 (61%) in the standard-risk and 37 (39%) in the high-risk group. Median follow-up was 38 months. In standard- vs. high-risk patients, we observed similar progression-free survival (3-year PFS: 52% vs. 43%, respectively; p=0.50), overall survival (3-year OS: 78% vs. 73%; p=0.38), and overall response rate (88% vs 95%; p=0.47), with no statistical differences between the two groups. No difference in terms of progression-free survival was observed between patients with or without del17p. Carfilzomib, used both as induction and maintenance agent for transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients, mitigated the poor prognosis carried by high-risk cytogenetics and resulted into similar progression-free survival and overall survival, as compared to standard-risk patients. ClinicalTrials.gov IDs: NCT01857115 (IST-CAR-561) and NCT01346787 (IST-CAR-506).

Continuous therapy in standard- and high-risk newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma: A pooled analysis of 2 phase III trials.

BACKGROUND: Risk-adapted therapy is a common strategy in curable hematologic malignancies: standard-risk patients receive less intensive treatment, whereas high-risk patients require a more intensive approach. This model cannot be applied in multiple myeloma (MM), which is still incurable. Continuous treatment (CT) is a key strategy for MM treatment, since it improves duration of remission. However, the role of CT according to standard- or high-risk baseline prognosis remains an open question. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a pooled analysis of 2 phase III trials (GIMEMA-MM-03-05 and RV-MM-PI-209) that randomized patients to CT vs fixed-duration therapy (FDT). RESULTS: In the overall patient population (n = 550), CT improved progression-free survival1 (PFS1) (HR 0.54), PFS2 (HR 0.61) and overall survival (OS) (HR 0.71) vs FDT. CT improved PFS1 both in R-ISS I (HR 0.49) and R-ISS II/III patients (HR 0.55). Four-year PFS1 was 38% in R-ISS II/III patients receiving CT and 25% in R-ISS I patients receiving FDT, with similar trends for PFS2 and OS. High-risk patients benefited more from proteasome-inhibitor plus immunomodulatory-based CT than immunomodulatory alone. CONCLUSION: Good prognosis patients receiving FDT lose their prognostic advantage over high-risk patients receiving CT and high-risk patients may benefit from more intensive maintenance including proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulators.

Early mortality in myeloma patients treated with first-generation novel agents thalidomide, lenalidomide, bortezomib at diagnosis: A pooled analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Early toxic death (≤60 days of diagnosis) in elderly multiple myeloma (MM) patients is attributable to active disease, age and co-morbidities. Rate of early toxic deaths is 10% with conventional chemotherapy mainly due to infection and renal failure. Novel agents have improved MM outcome at the expense of newer toxicity. METHODS: We analyzed 1146 individual patient data to assess toxic deaths during induction treatment with first-generation novel agents thalidomide, lenalidomide, bortezomib. RESULTS: During first-line therapy, 119/1146 patients (10%) died for any cause, and 47/1146 (4%) due to toxicity, including 12/1146 (1%) early deaths. The 24-month cumulative incidence was 4.1% without any difference between bortezomib (18/503 patients, 4%) and lenalidomide (29/643patients, 5%; p = 0.31). Toxic deaths occurred in 34/1039 (3%) patients <80 years and 13/107 (12%) patients ≥80 years. Causes were cardiac events (28%), infections (26%) and vascular complications (15%). In a multivariate analysis, older age and unfavorable ISS stage increased the risk of death. CONCLUSION: First-generation novel agents significantly reduced toxic deaths compared to conventional chemotherapy. One third of deaths during first-line therapy were due to cumulative drug-related toxicities, thus supportive approaches and prevention strategies should be optimized. The higher mortality rate for toxicity in octogenarians confirms the need for a careful frailty assessment.

Cyclophosphamide's addition in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma patients with biochemical progression during lenalidomide-dexamethasone treatment.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the addition of cyclophosphamide in relapsed-refractory multiple myeloma patients (RRMM) who experienced biochemical relapse or progression without CRAB, during treatment with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd), to slow down the progression in active relapse. METHODS: This analysis included 31 patients with RRMM treated with Rd who received cyclophosphamide (CRd) at biochemical relapse. The CRd regimen was continued until disease progression. RESULTS: The median number of CRd cycles administered was 8 (range: 1-35). A response was observed in 9 (29%) patients. After a median observation time of 11 months, the median overall survival (OS) from the beginning of CRd was 17.7 months. The median progression-free survival (PFS) from the beginning of CRd was 13.1 months. CONCLUSION: The addition of cyclophosphamide delays the progression in patients who present a biochemical relapse during Rd treatment. The response rate and the duration of PFS obtained with minimal toxicities and low costs induced us to setting up a randomized clinical trial.

Chemotherapy plus lenalidomide versus autologous transplantation, followed by lenalidomide plus prednisone versus lenalidomide maintenance, in patients with multiple myeloma: a randomised, multicentre, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: High-dose melphalan plus autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) is the standard approach in transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. Our aims were to compare consolidation with high-dose melphalan plus ASCT versus chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone) plus lenalidomide, and maintenance with lenalidomide plus prednisone versus lenalidomide alone. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised, multicentre, phase 3 study at 59 centres in Australia, Czech Republic, and Italy. We enrolled transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed myeloma aged 65 years or younger. Patients received a common induction with four 28-day cycles of lenalidomide (25 mg, days 1-21) and dexamethasone (40 mg, days 1, 8, 15, and 22) and subsequent chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide (3 g/m(2)) followed by granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for stem-cell mobilisation and collection. Using a 2 × 2 partial factorial design, we randomised patients to consolidation with either chemotherapy plus lenalidomide (six cycles of cyclophosphamide [300 mg/m(2), days 1, 8, and 15], dexamethasone [40 mg, days 1, 8, 15, and 22], and lenalidomide [25 mg, days 1-21]) or two courses of high-dose melphalan (200 mg/m(2)) and ASCT. We also randomised patients to maintenance with lenalidomide (10 mg, days 1-21) plus prednisone (50 mg, every other day) or lenalidomide alone. A simple randomisation sequence was used to assign patients at enrolment into one of the four groups (1:1:1:1 ratio), but the treatment allocation was disclosed only when the patient reached the end of the induction and confirmed their eligibility for consolidation. Both the patient and the treating clinician did not know the consolidation and maintenance arm until that time. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by intention-to-treat. The trial is ongoing and some patients are still receiving maintenance. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01091831. FINDINGS: 389 patients were enrolled between July 6, 2009, and May 6, 2011, with 256 eligible for consolidation (127 high-dose melphalan and ASCT and 129 chemotherapy plus lenalidomide) and 223 eligible for maintenance (117 lenalidomide plus prednisone and 106 lenalidomide alone). Median follow-up was 52·0 months (IQR 30·4-57·6). Progression-free survival during consolidation was significantly shorter with chemotherapy plus lenalidomide compared with high-dose melphalan and ASCT (median 28·6 months [95% CI 20·6-36·7] vs 43·3 months [33·2-52·2]; hazard ratio [HR] for the first 24 months 2·51, 95% CI 1·60-3·94; p<0·0001). Progression-free survival did not differ between maintenance treatments (median 37·5 months [95% CI 27·8-not evaluable] with lenalidomide plus prednisone vs 28·5 months [22·5-46·5] with lenalidomide alone; HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·59-1·20; p=0·34). Fewer grade 3 or 4 adverse events were recorded with chemotherapy plus lenalidomide than with high-dose melphalan and ASCT; the most frequent were haematological (34 [26%] of 129 patients vs 107 [84%] of 127 patients), gastrointestinal (six [5%] vs 25 [20%]), and infection (seven [5%] vs 24 [19%]). Haematological serious adverse events were reported in two (2%) patients assigned chemotherapy plus lenalidomide and no patients allocated high-dose melphalan and ASCT. Non-haematological serious adverse events were reported in 13 (10%) patients assigned chemotherapy plus lenalidomide and nine (7%) allocated high-dose melphalan and ASCT. During maintenance, adverse events did not differ between groups. The most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (nine [8%] of 117 patients assigned lenalidomide plus prednisone vs 14 [13%] of 106 allocated lenalidomide alone), infection (eight [8%] vs five [5%]), and systemic toxicities (seven [6%] vs two [2%]). Non-haematological serious adverse events were reported in 13 (11%) patients assigned lenalidomide plus prednisone versus ten (9%) allocated lenalidomide alone. Four patients died because of adverse events, three from infections (two during induction and one during consolidation) and one because of cardiac toxic effects. INTERPRETATION: Consolidation with high-dose melphalan and ASCT remains the preferred option in transplant-eligible patients with multiple myeloma, despite a better toxicity profile with chemotherapy plus lenalidomide. FUNDING: Celgene.

Azacitidine in chronic myelomonocytic leukemia: an effective and manageable approach.

Chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) is an uncommon neoplastic hematological disorder, typically affecting the elderly, and characterized by a marked clinical heterogeneity and a remarkable propensity for transformation into acute myeloid leukemia. Hypomethylating agents represent the most innovative management approach in this difficult setting. At our institution, between 2010 and 2012, we have treated with azacitidine 10 CMML patients with a median age of 75 (62-86) years. The overall response rate of 70% was achieved without remarkable toxicities; in particular, most therapy-induced side effects were managed on outpatient basis. With a median follow-up of 12,5 (2-27) months, 6 patients are alive, and 4 of them continue to receive the treatment; the median survival from the start of therapy was not reached. In conclusion, also in the light of our encouraging experience, azacitidine can offer new chances of treatment also in the difficult setting of elderly CMML.

Bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone in elderly patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: a multicenter, open label phase 1/2 study.

BACKGROUND: In elderly patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM), the addition of bortezomib to standard, combined oral melphalan and prednisone (MP) significantly increases the response rate and event-free survival compared with MP alone. METHODS: In this phase 1/2 trial, the authors assessed the dosing, efficacy, and safety of a lower dose-intensity MP schedule plus weekly bortezomib as salvage treatment for elderly patients with MM. To assess the maximum tolerated dose, 19 patients who had relapsed/refractory MM after 1 or 2 lines of treatment entered the first phase of the study. They received melphalan at a dose of 24 mg for 28 days; bortezomib 1.3 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22; and prednisone at a dose of 50 mg every other day of a 28-day cycle for a total of 9 cycles. At the end of the first phase, based on the good efficacy and acceptable toxicity of this combination, an additional 23 patients were enrolled. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 21 months, of 42 patients who relapsed, 24 (57%) obtained at least a partial response, 4 had stable disease, and 11 had progressive disease. The median time to progression was 18 months, and the median overall survival was 30 months. Grade 3 and 4 toxicity was observed in 16 of 42 patients (38%) and was more frequent during the early cycles. CONCLUSIONS: A weekly infusion of bortezomib associated with lower dose-intensity MP induced a high proportion of responses and was well tolerated in elderly patients with relapsed/refractory MM.