Acute GVHD classification based on the dynamics of GVHD skin involvement from its appearance to the start of systemic treatment.

We conducted a prospective study aimed at investigating the prognostic value of the dynamic of a-GVHD progression from cutaneous to visceral involvement. In 108 consecutive patients who underwent allogeneic HSCT, we classified a-GVHD according to a "GHVD skin dynamic": 18/82 patients started Corticosteroid (CS) within 48 h (Group 1); 13/82 started CS within days 3-7 (Group 2); Group 3A (n 31) was defined when Skin GVHD Overall Grade 1, left untreated for 1 week, showed an increase in involved body surface area <5 %; Group 3B (n 20), was defined when Skin GVHD Overall Grade 1, left untreated at 1 week, had an increase in involved body surface area >5%. These four groups had distinctive 2-y OS. Patients could be then grouped into "poor risk" (Group 1 and Group 3B) and "good risk" (Group 2 and Group 3A). "Poor risk" had inferior OS in univariate and multivariate analysis, (HR 2.222; 95% CL: 1.017-4.855; p 0.04). Among the patients with skin-only Grade 1 GVHD, subgroup 3A had an OS of 75.1% versus 39.8% found in subgroup 3B (p = 0.03). The dynamic of skin GVHD may be used to classify a-GVHD and guide treatment in Overall Grade 1 skin-only GVHD.

Clinical outcome of SARS-CoV-2 infections occurring in multiple myeloma patients after vaccination and prophylaxis with tixagevimab/cilgavimab.

Introduction: Patients with multiple myeloma (MM) frequently reported immune impairment with an increased risk for infection-related mortality. We aimed to evaluate the immune response in MM patients vaccinated for SARS-CoV-2 during active treatment. Methods: We enrolled 158 patients affected by active MM or smoldering MM (SMM) and 40 healthy subjects. All subjects received 2 or 3 doses of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccine, and the anti-spike IgG values were evaluated after every dose. We applied the Propensity Score Matching (PSM) as a consequence of the limited sample size and its heterogeneity to adjust for differences in baseline clinical variables between MM patients who achieved or not a vaccine response after 2 or 3 doses. Results: At 30 days from the second dose, the median antibodies level in MM was 25.2 AU/mL, lower than in SMM and in the control group. The same results were confirmed after the third dose, with lower median anti-spike IgG levels in MM, compared to SMM and control group. Following PSM, lack of response to SARS-CoV-2 complete vaccination plus boost was associated with age more than 70 years old and use of high-dose of steroids. We failed to identify an association between specific treatment types and reduced vaccine response. The use of prophylaxis with tixagevimab/cilgavimab for 40 non-responder patients after 3 doses of vaccine has proven to be an effective and safe approach in reducing the risk of serious illness in the event of a breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection, faced with a mild symptomatic course, and in providing protection instead of long-term humoral immune vaccine responses. Following PSM, only the high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities were associated with an increased risk of developing a breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection. Conclusion: Monitoring the immune response is fundamental in MM patients that remain highly vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 despite the vaccine. The use of prophylaxis with tixagevimab/cilgavimab can guarantee better protection from the severe form of the disease.