Impact of Primary Letermovir Prophylaxis Versus Preemptive Antiviral Therapy for Cytomegalovirus on Economic and Clinical Outcomes after Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation.

Preemptive therapy (PET) historically has been the primary strategy to reduce early-onset cytomegalovirus (CMV) reactivation after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) but is associated with antiviral-associated toxicities and increases in healthcare resource utilization and cost. Despite its high cost, letermovir (LTV) prophylaxis has largely supplanted PET due to its effectiveness and tolerability. Direct comparisons between LTV and PET approaches on economic and clinical outcomes after allogeneic HCT remain limited. Objective: To compare total cost of care (inpatient and outpatient) between LTV prophylaxis and PET through day+180 after allogeneic HCT. Adult allogeneic CMV seropositive (R+) HCT recipients who initiated LTV <30 days after HCT between 01/01/18 and 12/31/18 were matched 1:1 to allogeneic CMV R+ HCT recipients between 01/01/15 and 12/31/17 (PET cohort). Patients were grouped into high-risk (HR) or standard-risk (SR) for CMV to compare the LTV and PET cohorts. Direct costs for each patient's index HCT admission and all subsequent inpatient and outpatient care through day+180 after HCT were determined and converted into 2021 US dollars and then to Medicare proportional dollars (MPD). A secondary analysis using 2019 average wholesale price was conducted to specifically evaluate anti-CMV medication costs. There were a total of 176 patients with 54 HR CMV pairs and 34 SR CMV pairs. No differences in survival between LTV and PET for both HR and SR CMV groups were observed. The rate of clinically significant CMV infection decreased for both HR CMV (11/54, 20.4% versus 38/54, 70.4%, P < .001) and SR CMV (1/34, 2.9% versus 12/34, 35.3%, P < .001) patients who were given LTV prophylaxis with corresponding reductions in val(ganciclovir) and foscarnet (HR CMV only) use. Among HR CMV patients, LTV prophylaxis was associated with reductions in CMV-related readmissions (3/54, 5.6% versus 18/54, 33.3%, P < .001) and outpatient visits within the first 100 days after HCT (20 versus 25, P = .002), and a decreased median total cost of care ($36,018 versus $75,525, P < .001) in MPD was observed. For SR CMV patients on LTV, a significant reduction in the median inpatient cost ($15,668 versus $27,818, P < .001) was found, but this finding was offset by a higher median outpatient cost ($26,145 versus $20,307, P = .030) that was not CMV-driven. LTV prophylaxis is highly effective in reducing clinically significant CMV reactivations for both HR and SR HCT recipients. In this study, LTV prophylaxis was associated with a decreased total cost of care for HR CMV patients through day+180. Specifically, reductions in CMV-related readmissions, exposure to CMV-directed antiviral agents, and outpatient visits in the first 100 days after HCT were observed. SR CMV patients receiving LTV prophylaxis benefited by having a reduced inpatient cost of care due to lowered room and pharmacy costs.

Predictors of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron breakthrough infection after receipt of AZD7442 (tixagevimab-cilgavimab) for pre-exposure prophylaxis among hematologic malignancy patients.

AZD7442 (tixagevimab-cilgavimab) is a combination of two human monoclonal antibodies for pre-exposure prophylaxis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among high-risk patients who do not mount a reliable vaccine response. Foremost among these are hematologic malignancy patients with limited clinical trial or realworld experience to assess the effectiveness of this combination treatment since the emergence of Omicron and its subvariants. We performed a retrospective study of 892 high-risk hematologic malignancy patients who received AZD7442 at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City from January 1, 2022 to July 31, 2022. We evaluated demographic, clinical, and laboratory characteristics and performed regression analyses to evaluate risk factors for breakthrough infection. We also evaluated the impact of updated AZD7442 dosing regimens on the risk of breakthrough infection. Among 892 patients, 98 (10.9%) had a breakthrough infection during the study period. A majority received early outpatient treatment (82%) and eventually eight (8.2%) required hospitalization for management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), with a single instance of severe COVID-19 and death. Patients who received a repeat dose or a higher firsttime dose of AZD7442 had a lower incidence of breakthrough infection. Univariate analyses did not reveal any significant predictors of breakthrough infection. While AZD7442 is effective at reducing SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection in patients with hematologic malignancies, no risk factors reliably predicted risk of infection. Patients who received updated dosing regimens as per Food and Drug Administration guidelines had better protection against breakthrough infection.

Bacterial infections and antibiotic utilization varies by coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) severity in hospitalized cancer patients: Analysis from the first phase of the pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize bacterial infections and antibiotic utilization in hospitalized cancer patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary cancer center in New York City. PATIENTS: Hospitalized cancer patients ≥18 years with COVID-19 between March 1, 2020, and May 31, 2020. METHODS: Patients were classified with mild COVID-19 (ie, with room air), moderate COVID-19 (ie, using nasal cannula oxygen), or severe COVID-19 (ie, using high-flow oxygen or mechanical ventilation). The primary outcome was bacterial infection rate within 30 days of COVID-19 onset. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients receiving antibiotics and antibiotic length of therapy (LOT). RESULTS: Of 358 study patients, 133 had mild COVID-19, 97 had moderate COVID-19, and 128 had severe COVID-19. Of 358 patients, 234 (65%) had a solid tumor. Also, 200 patients (56%) had 245 bacterial infections, of which 67 (27%) were microbiologically confirmed. The proportion of patients with bacterial infection increased with COVID-19 severity: mild (n = 47, 35%) versus moderate (n = 49, 51%) versus severe (n = 104, 81%) (P < .0001). Also, 274 (77%) received antibiotics for a median of 4 days. The median antibiotic LOTs were 7 days with 1 infection and 20 days with multiple infections (P < .0001). Antibiotic durations were 1 day for patients with mild COVID-19, 4 days for patients with moderate COVID-19, and 8 days for patients with severe COVID-19 (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalized cancer patients with COVID-19 had a high rate of bacterial infection. As COVID-19 severity increased, the proportion of patients diagnosed with bacterial infection and given antibiotics increased. In mild COVID-19 cases, antibiotic LOT was short, suggesting that empiric antibiotics can be safely avoided or discontinued in this group.

Systematic Review of the Clinical Utility of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Nasal Screening for MRSA Pneumonia.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the diagnostic performance characteristics of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) nasal screening for patients with pneumonia. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and Scopus were searched from 1 January 1990 to 12 December 2018 using terms methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus AND (screening OR active surveillance OR surveillance culture OR targeted surveillance OR chromogenic OR PCR OR polymerase chain reaction OR rapid test) AND (nares OR nasal) AND (pneumonia OR respiratory). STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Relevant studies in humans and English were considered. DATA SYNTHESIS: In all, 19 studies, including 21 790 patients, were included. Nasal screening for MRSA had a high negative predictive value (NPV; 76% to 99.4% for relevant studies) across all types of pneumonia. Time from nasal screening to culture varied across studies. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: MRSA nasal screening has a high NPV for MRSA involvement in pneumonia. Utilizing this test for antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) purposes can provide a valuable tool for reducing unwarranted anti-MRSA agents and may provide additional cost benefits. A cutoff of 7 days between nasal swab and culture or infection onset seems most appropriate for use of this test for anti-MRSA agent de-escalation for ASP purposes. CONCLUSIONS: Consideration for the inclusion of the utility of MRSA nasal screening in MRSA pneumonia should be made for future pneumonia and ASP guidelines. Additional studies are warranted to fully evaluate specific pneumonia classifications, culture types, culture timing, and clinical outcomes associated with the use of this test in patients with pneumonia.