RESUMO
BACKGROUND: To date, there is no information on the safety and efficacy of the novel anti-sarbecoviruses monoclonal antibody sotrovimab administered, as a post-exposure prophylactic measure, during the aplastic phase of autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). METHODS: We describe the outcomes of a Multiple Myeloma (MM) patient, who was threateningly exposed to the Omicron (B.1.1.529) SARS-CoV-2 variant, two days after having received a myeloablative regimen of high-dose melphalan. The patient fulfilled all CDC criteria for prolonged close contacts with an index patient who tested positive for a molecular nasopharyngeal swab (Omicron; B.1.1.529) soon after admission to the ward. Given the high risks of morbidity and mortality in the case of COVID-19 developing during the aplastic phase of transplantation, we adopted a post-exposure prophylaxis intervention based on intravenous (i.v.) sotrovimab. RESULTS: Sotrovimab (500 mg i.v.) was administered at day + 2 from stem cells reinfusion, i.e. 4 days after myeloablative chemotherapy, and at day + 5 from the last close contact with the Omicron-positive index case. The patient was fully protected from SARS-CoV-2 infection throughout his clinical course and remained molecularly negative at the day + 30 from the transplant. We compared times to engraftment and transplant-related toxicities of the sotrovimab-treated patient with the last 15 MM patients transplanted at our Centre, evidencing no unexpected safety signals, infusion-related reactions, or alarming effects on engraftment kinetics. CONCLUSIONS: We have shown here for the first time that administration of sotrovimab during the pre-engraftment phase of ASCT is effective, safe, and not associated with delays in hemopoietic recovery. As compared to MM patients who received the same myeloablative conditioning regimen, the patient given sotrovimab during the aplastic phase did not show any significant differences in engraftment kinetics and toxicity outcomes. Post-exposure prophylaxis with sotrovimab may represent a valuable approach in the stem cell transplantation setting for patients with high-risk exposure to a confirmed COVID-19 case sustained by highly infectious SARS-CoV-2 variants escaping the vaccine-derived immunity due to antigenic shifts in the spike proteins.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Anti-programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) and anti-programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibodies are novel immunotherapies for cancer that can induce immune-related adverse events (irAEs). These adverse events can involve all organs, including the haemopoietic system. Thus far, haematological irAEs (haem-irAEs) have not been extensively characterised. This study aims to provide a comprehensive report of the haem-irAEs induced by anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1. METHODS: In this descriptive observational study, we included consecutive patients aged at least 18 years with grade 2 or worse haem-irAEs induced by anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 immunotherapy registered in three French pharmacovigilance databases: the Registre des Effets Indésirables Sévères des Anticorps Monoclonaux Immunomodulateurs en Cancérologie (REISAMIC; a prospective registry of patients treated with anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 at a single centre), the ImmunoTOX committee of Gustave Roussy (a national referral database of suspected irAEs in patients treated with immunotherapy), and the registry of the Centre de Référence des Cytopénies Auto-Immunes de l'Adulte (CeReCAI; a national database of autoimmune cytopenias). Cases were reviewed by a central committee; adverse events had to be classed as certainly or probably related to anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 therapy, and their severity was assessed according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4.03). The primary endpoint was clinical description of haem-irAEs, as reported in all databases, and their frequency, as reported in the prospective REISAMIC registry. FINDINGS: We screened 948 patients registered in the three databases from June 27, 2014, to June 29, 2018 (745 from REISAMIC, 190 from the ImmunoTOX committee, and 13 from CeReCAI). 35 patients (21 men and 14 women) with haem-irAEs related to anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 were included in the study. Of 745 patients in the REISAMIC registry treated with anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1, four had haem-irAEs, giving a frequency of 0·5%. Median age in the 35 patients was 65 years (IQR 51-75), and the most common tumour types were melanoma (15 [43%] patients), non-small-cell lung cancer (12 [34%] patients), and lymphoma (four [11%] patients). 20 (57%) patients received nivolumab, 14 (40%) received pembrolizumab, and one (3%) received atezolizumab. Among the 35 patients, neutropenia, autoimmune haemolytic anaemia, and immune thrombocytopenia were the most common types of haem-irAE (each in nine patients [26%]), followed by pancytopenia or aplastic anaemia (five patients [14%]), bicytopenia (one patients with thrombocytopenia plus anaemia and one patient with neutropenia plus anaemia [6%]), and pure red cell aplasia (one patient [3%]). The maximum grade of severity was grade 2 in three (9%) patients, grade 3 in five (14%) patients, and grade 4 in 25 (71%) patients; two (6%) patients died from febrile neutropenia during haem-irAE related to anti-PD-1. Haem-irAEs resolved in 21 (60%) of the 35 patients. INTERPRETATION: Haem-irAEs induced by PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors are rare but potentially life-threatening events. The most common clinical presentations are neutropenia, autoimmune haemolytic anaemia, immune thrombocytopenia, and aplastic anaemia. Investigations into earlier detection and better management are warranted. FUNDING: Gustave Roussy and Gustave Roussy Immunotherapy Program.