Current Perspectives on Letermovir and Maribavir for the Management of Cytomegalovirus Infection in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients.

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is arguably the most important infectious complication that negatively affects the outcome of solid organ transplantation. For decades, CMV management after transplantation has relied on antiviral drugs that inhibit viral DNA polymerase (ganciclovir, foscarnet, and cidofovir). However, their use has been complicated by myelosuppression, nephrotoxicity, and selection of drug-resistant viruses. During the past few years, the therapeutic armamentarium for the management of CMV in solid organ transplant recipients has expanded with the approval of letermovir for CMV prophylaxis in high-risk CMV D+/R- kidney recipients, and maribavir for the treatment of refractory and resistant CMV infection. Both drugs offer significant improvement when compared to standard anti-CMV therapies; letermovir was as efficacious for CMV prevention, whereas maribavir was more effective in treating refractory and resistant CMV infections. Both letermovir and maribavir have favorable safety profiles compared to CMV DNA polymerase inhibitors, without the risk of neutropenia and leukopenia associated with ganciclovir and renal toxicities associated with foscarnet and cidofovir. Moreover, letermovir and maribavir are orally bioavailable, which allows convenient outpatient treatment. However, letermovir and maribavir have a significant drug interaction potential in solid organ transplant recipients, resulting in higher levels of calcineurin inhibitors (cyclosporine and tacrolimus) and mTOR inhibitors (sirolimus and everolimus). Both letermovir and maribavir are CMV-specific and do not have clinical efficacy against other herpes viruses. Thus, there is a need for additional antiviral drugs to prevent herpes simplex and other herpes viruses when clinically indicated. This article provides a comprehensive review of the clinical data supporting the use of letermovir and maribavir in clinical practice. The author provides perspectives on the role of these newly approved drugs in the current management landscape of CMV infection in solid organ transplantation.

Efficacy of Letermovir for CMV Prophylaxis Following Alemtuzumab T-Cell Depleted Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant.

BACKGROUND: In vivo T-cell depletion (TCD) using alemtuzumab decreases the risk of Graft vs. Host Disease (GvHD) in recipients of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (allo-HSCT). However, this approach increases the risk of infections post-allo-HSCT, including Cytomegalovirus (CMV). Letermovir is approved for the use in CMV prophylaxis post-allo-HSCT. Few studies have investigated the efficacy of letermovir in patients receiving alemtuzumab. METHODS: This is a single-center retrospective study describing our institutional experience using letermovir in recipients of alemtuzumab TCD allo-HSCT from unrelated donors (URD). The primary outcome was the cumulative incidence of significant CMV infection (defined as viremia leading to preemptive antiviral therapy or CMV disease) within 100 days post-transplant. Secondary outcomes included the cumulative incidence of acute GvHD (grade ≥ 2), the cumulative incidence of extensive chronic GvHD, and overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 84 alemtuzumab TCD URD allo-HSCT recipients were included in the analysis, 30 of whom received letermovir (letermovir group) and 54 who did not receive letermovir (control group). The median age was 59 years (range: 26 - 75 years) and 55.5 years (range: 20 - 73 years) in the letermovir and control group, respectively. Most recipients (66.7%) in both groups received unrelated matched allografts, and myeloid neoplasms were the most common indication for allo-HSCT. A significantly lower cumulative incidence of significant CMV infection within 100 days was seen in the letermovir group compared to the control group (10.0% [95% CI: 2.5 - 23.9%] vs 55.6% [95% CI: 41.2 - 67.8%], p < 0.0001). There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of acute GvHD (grade ≥ 2) or overall survival between the two groups. However, lower rates of extensive chronic GvHD were noted in the letermovir group (10.5% [95% CI: 2.6 - 24.9%] vs. 36.5% [95% CI: 23.6 - 49.5%], p=0.0126). CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate the efficacy of letermovir in decreasing the rates of clinically significant CMV infection in patients undergoing alemtuzumab T-cell depleted allo-HSCT.

Novelties for the management of cytomegalovirus after kidney transplantation / Nouveautés dans la prise en charge du cytomégalovirus après transplantation rénale.

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is the main opportunistic infection observed after kidney transplantation. Despite the use of prevention strategies, CMV disease still occurs, especially in high-risk patients (donor seropositive/recipient seronegative). Patients may develop complicated CMV, i.e. recurrent, refractory or resistant CMV infection. CMV prevention relies on either universal prophylaxis or preemptive therapy. In high-risk patients, universal prophylaxis is usually preferred. Currently, valganciclovir is used in this setting. However, valganciclovir can be responsible for severe leucopenia and neutropenia. A novel anti-viral drug, letermovir, has been recently compared to valganciclovir. It was as efficient as valganciclovir to prevent CMV disease and induced less hematological side-effects. It is still not available in France in this indication. Recent studies suggest that immune monitoring by ELISPOT or Quantiferon can be useful to determine the duration of prophylaxis. Other studies suggest that prophylaxis may be skipped in CMV-seropositive kidney-transplant patients given mTOR inhibitors. Refractory CMV is defined by the lack of decrease of CMV DNAemia of at least 1 log10 at 2 weeks after effective treatment. In case of refractory CMV infection, drug resistant mutations should be looked for. Currently, maribavir is the gold standard therapy for refractory/resistant CMV. At 8 weeks therapy and 8 weeks later, it has been shown to be significantly more effective than other anti-viral drugs, i.e. high dose of ganciclovir, foscarnet or cidofovir. However, a high rate of relapse was observed after ceasing therapy. Hence, other therapeutic strategies should be evaluated in order to improve the sustained virological rate.

L'infection à cytomégalovirus (CMV) est la principale infection opportuniste après transplantation rénale. Malgré les stratégies préventives, il persiste des maladies à CMV, notamment chez les patients à haut risque (donneur séropositif/receveur séronégatif). Certains patients présentent des formes complexes avec des récurrences et des infections réfractaires et/ou résistantes aux antiviraux. La prévention de l'infection à CMV repose soit sur une prophylaxie universelle, soit sur une stratégie préemptive. Chez les patients à haut risque, la stratégie prophylactique est le plus souvent utilisée. Elle repose sur l'utilisation du valganciclovir, qui peut être responsable de leucopénies et de neutropénies sévères. Un nouvel antiviral, le létermovir, qui n'est pas encore disponible sur le marché en France dans cette indication, a montré une efficacité similaire au valganciclovir avec peu d'effets secondaires hématologiques. Des études récentes suggèrent l'intérêt de l'immuno-surveillance par ELISPOT ou Quantiféron pour guider la durée de la prophylaxie. D'autres études suggèrent également la possibilité de se passer d'un traitement prophylactique anti-CMV chez des transplantés rénaux CMV-séropositifs recevant des inhibiteurs de la mTOR. Le CMV réfractaire est défini par une absence de baisse de la charge virale d'au moins 1 log10 après deux semaines de traitement efficace. En cas d'absence de baisse de la charge virale, une recherche de mutations de résistance aux antiviraux doit être effectuée. Actuellement, le maribavir constitue le traitement de référence pour les formes réfractaires et résistantes. La clairance virale à la fin du traitement, ou huit semaines plus tard, est significativement supérieure à celle observée avec les autres antiviraux tels que le ganciclovir donné à forte dose, le foscarnet, ou le cidofovir. Cependant, le taux de rechute à l'arrêt du traitement par maribavir reste important. D'autres stratégies thérapeutiques doivent être évaluées pour améliorer ce taux de réponse virologique soutenue.

HerpesDRG: a comprehensive resource for human herpesvirus antiviral drug resistance genotyping.

The prevention and treatment of many herpesvirus associated diseases is based on the utilization of antiviral therapies, however therapeutic success is limited by the development of drug resistance. Currently no single database cataloguing resistance mutations exists, which hampers the use of sequence data for patient management. We therefore developed HerpesDRG, a drug resistance mutation database that incorporates all the known resistance genes and current treatment options, built from a systematic review of available genotype to phenotype literature. The database is released along with an R package that provides a simple approach to resistance variant annotation and clinical implication analysis from common sanger and next generation sequencing data. This represents the first openly available and community maintainable database of drug resistance mutations for the human herpesviruses (HHV), developed for the community of researchers and clinicians tackling HHV drug resistance.

Revealing the unseen: next generation sequencing for early detection of drug-resistant cytomegalovirus variants upon letermovir prophylaxis failure.

In allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT)-recipients, prophylactic management strategies are essential for preventing CMV-reactivation and associated disease. We report on a 63-year-old male patient with a D-/R+ CMV-serostatus, who showed ongoing low-level CMV-replication post-HCT despite receiving letermovir prophylaxis. Sanger-sequencing failed to detect drug resistance mutations (DRM) until CMV-pneumonitis developed, revealing a UL56-C325R-DRM linked to high-level letermovir resistance. Retrospective analysis with next-generation-sequencing (NGS) revealed the DRM at a low frequency of 6% two weeks prior to detection by Sanger-sequencing. This study highlights the importance of advanced NGS-methods for early detection of CMV-DRMs, allowing for faster adjustments in antiviral treatment strategies.

Letermovir as secondary prophylaxis of cytomegalovirus infection after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation: A single center experience.

Letermovir, a novel anti-cytomegalovirus (CMV) agent acts by inhibiting the viral terminase complex and is approved for primary prophylaxis in CMV seropositive patients post allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). The favorable efficacy and safety profile make it an attractive option for use as secondary prophylaxis in patients at high-risk for CMV reactivation. In this study, we report the efficacy and safety of letermovir secondary prophylaxis after at least one treated episode of CMV reactivation in a cohort of 39 high-risk patients. Thirty two (82%) patients received anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG), 27 (69%) received a combination of ATG and post-transplant cyclophosphamide for graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis. Twenty one patients (54%) received CMV seronegative grafts. In addition, 18 (46%) patients had HLA mismatched unrelated or haploidentical donors while 18 (46%) had active GVHD requiring immunosuppression at the time of commencing secondary prophylaxis. Letermovir was initiated at a median of 47 days (range, 41-56) after HCT and was administered for a median duration of 77 days (range, 46-90). A single breakthrough CMV reactivation was noted in this high-risk cohort. Four additional episodes of CMV reactivation occurred at a median of 28 days (range, 23-59 days) after discontinuation of secondary prophylaxis. The drug was well tolerated and 77% of the cohort completed the planned duration of secondary prophylaxis. None of the patients discontinued treatment due to treatment-related adverse effects. In conclusion, letermovir is effective and well tolerated and may be considered for secondary prophylaxis in patients at high risk for CMV reactivation. Prospective studies are required to validate these findings.

Refractory/Resistant Cytomegalovirus Infection in Transplant Recipients: An Update.

Despite the significant progress made, CMV infection is one of the most frequent infectious complications in transplant recipients. CMV infections that become refractory or resistant (R/R) to the available antiviral drugs constitute a clinical challenge and are associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Novel anti-CMV therapies have been recently developed and introduced in clinical practice, which may improve the treatment of these infections. In this review, we summarize the treatment options for R/R CMV infections in adult hematopoietic cell transplant and solid organ transplant recipients, with a special focus on newly available antiviral agents with anti-CMV activity, including maribavir and letermovir.

Real-world experience with letermovir for cytomegalovirus-prophylaxis after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation: A multi-centre observational study.

OBJECTIVES: Efficacy and safety of letermovir as prophylaxis for clinically significant cytomegalovirus infections (csCVMi) was evaluated in randomised controlled trials while most of the real-world studies are single-centre experiences. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, multi-centre case-control study at six German university hospitals to evaluate clinical experiences in patients receiving CMV prophylaxis with letermovir (n = 200) compared to controls without CMV prophylaxis (n = 200) during a 48-week follow-up period after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (aHCT). RESULTS: The incidence of csCMVi after aHCT was significantly reduced in the letermovir (34%, n = 68) compared to the control group (56%, n = 112; p < 0.001). Letermovir as CMV prophylaxis (OR 0.362) was found to be the only independent variable associated with the prevention of csCMVi. Patients receiving letermovir showed significantly better survival compared to the control group (HR = 1.735, 95% CI: 1.111-2.712; p = 0.014). Of all csCMVi, 46% (n = 31) occurred after discontinuation of letermovir prophylaxis. Severe neutropenia (<500 neutrophils/µL) on the day of the stem cell infusion was the only independent variable for an increased risk of csCMVi after the end of letermovir prophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights the preventive effects of letermovir on csCMVi after aHCT. A substantial proportion of patients developed a csCMVi after discontinuation of letermovir. In particular, patients with severe neutropenia require specific attention after drug discontinuation.

Cytomegalovirus antiviral resistance among participants in the phase 3 trial of letermovir vs valganciclovir prophylaxis in kidney transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: In a phase 3 trial, letermovir was non-inferior to valganciclovir for CMV disease prophylaxis in CMV-seronegative (R-) kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) who received a kidney from a CMV-seropositive donor (D+). Genotypic antiviral resistance and CMV glycoprotein B (gB) genotype are reported. METHODS: Plasma samples with detectable CMV DNA were sequenced for presence of known letermovir and valganciclovir resistance-associated amino acid substitutions (RASs) encoded by CMV gene regions (UL51, UL56, UL89, UL54, UL97) and prevalence of gB (UL55) genotypes (gB1-gB5). RESULTS: 84 of 292 participants in the letermovir and 93 of 297 in the valganciclovir group had evaluable data for ≥1 gene target. Letermovir RASs were not detected in participants who received letermovir prophylaxis; however, 3 had valganciclovir RASs (pUL97). Twelve participants in the valganciclovir group had valganciclovir RASs (pUL54, pUL97); and 1 who did not receive letermovir during the trial also had letermovir RASs (pUL56). All but 1 participant responded to valganciclovir treatment irrespective of breakthrough CMV DNAemia or frequency of RASs. gB1 was the most frequent genotype across all participants and subgroups. CONCLUSION: Letermovir RASs were not detected in the letermovir group, supporting a low risk for development of resistance with letermovir prophylaxis in CMV D+R- KTRs. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03443869, EudraCT: 2017-001055-30.

Letermovir Primary Cytomegalovirus Prophylaxis in Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplant Recipients: Real-Life Data from a University Hospital in Argentina.

Background: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection remains the most common clinically significant infection after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HCT) and is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Objectives: The present study was designed to describe and compare the incidence of untreated CMV reactivation (uCMVr), clinically significant infection (cs-CMVi) and disease (CMVd), as well as CMV-related hospitalization and outcome of allo-HCT patients, either treated with letermovir (LET) primary prophylaxis or managed with preemptive therapy (PET). Methods: This is a prospective observational cohort study of adult CMV seropositive allo-HCT patients who either received primary prophylaxis with LET within the first 100 days after HCT or were managed with PET. Results: The study population comprised 105 patients (28 in the LET group and 77 in the PET group). Compared to the PET group, patients in the LET group received more allo-HCT from alternative donors (54.5% vs. 82.14%, P=0.012). More than half of the patients in both groups were classified as high risk for CMVd. In the LET vs. PET group, cs-CMVi and CMVd developed respectively in 0 vs. 50 (64.94%), P=<0.0001, and 0 vs. 6 (7.79%), P=0.18. In the LET group, uCMVr occurred in 5 (17.8%) and were all considered blips. Hospital admissions related to cs-CMVi or CMVd in the PET group vs. LET group were 47 (61.04%) vs. 0, respectively, P=<0.0001. No differences were observed in 100-day mortality. Conclusions: LET primary prophylaxis proved effective in preventing cs-CMVi and CMVd and reducing hospitalizations in allo-HCT adults. Blips can occur during prophylaxis and do not require LET discontinuation.

Phenotypes of cytomegalovirus genetic variants encountered in a letermovir clinical trial illustrate the importance of genotyping validation.

Emergence of drug resistance is rare after use of letermovir (LMV) as prophylaxis for post-transplant cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection. In a recent study involving renal transplant recipients, no known LMV resistance mutations were detected in those receiving LMV prophylaxis. However, uncharacterized viral amino acid substitutions were detected in LMV recipients by deep sequencing in viral subpopulations of 5%-7%, at codons previously associated with drug resistance: UL56 S229Y (n = 1), UL56 M329I (n = 9) and UL89 D344Y (n = 5). Phenotypic analysis of these mutations in a cloned laboratory CMV strain showed that S229Y conferred a 2-fold increase in LMV EC50, M329I conferred no LMV resistance, and D344Y knocked out viral viability that was restored after the nonviable clone was reverted to wild type D344. As in previous CMV antiviral trials, the detection of nonviable mutations, even in multiple study subjects, raises strong suspicion of genotyping artifacts and encourages the use of replicate testing for authentication of atypical mutation readouts. The non-viability of UL89 D344Y also confirms the biologically important locus of the D344E substitution that confers resistance to benzimidazole CMV terminase complex inhibitors, but does not feature prominently in LMV resistance.

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.

Prospective comparison of cytomegalovirus quantification in whole blood and plasma samples among hematopoietic stem cell transplant and kidney transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) induces multi-organ pathogenesis in hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) and kidney transplant (KT) recipients. Effective management involves systematic monitoring for CMV reactivation by quantitative real-time PCR, allowing timely preemptive intervention. However, the optimal blood compartment for CMV surveillance remains undetermined. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare the quantification of CMV DNA in paired plasma and whole blood samples. STUDY DESIGN: From June and October 2022, we conducted a prospective study with 390 sets of paired plasma and whole blood specimens collected from 60 HSCT and 24 KT recipients. CMV DNA levels were compared between the cobas® CMV assay on the automated cobas® 6800 system for plasma and the reference assay, Abbott RealTime CMV assay on the m2000 RealTime platform for whole blood. RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity of CMV quantification in plasma using the cobas® CMV assay were 90.0 % (95 %CI: 81.5 to 95.9) and 94.8 % (95 %CI: 91.8 to 96.8), respectively, compared to whole blood quantification with the Abbott assay. The overall agreement between these two strategies was 0.89 (95 %CI: 0.86-0.91). In samples with quantifiable results, a correlation was observed between the two methods (R2 = 0.62, 95 %CI: 0.65-0.87, p < 0.0001). CMV loads were significantly higher in whole blood, with a mean bias of 0.42 log10 IU/mL (95 %CI: -0.32-1.15). CONCLUSION: The cobas® CMV assay in plasma showed significant concordance with the Abbott RealTime CMV assay in whole blood, confirming the relevance of plasma samples for CMV monitoring in HSCT and KT recipients.

Advances in pharmacotherapies for cytomegalovirus infection: what is the current state of play?

INTRODUCTION: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) remains a serious opportunistic infection in hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) and solid-organ transplant (SOT) recipients. Traditional anti-CMV drugs are limited by toxicities and the development of resistance. Letermovir and maribavir are newly approved antivirals for the prevention and treatment of CMV. AREAS COVERED: Prior reviews have discussed use of letermovir for prevention of CMV after HCT and maribavir for resistant or refractory (R/R) CMV post HCT or SOT. Subsequent data have expanded their use including letermovir for primary CMV prophylaxis in high-risk renal transplant recipients and new recommendations for extending prophylaxis through day + 200 in certain HCT patients. Data on the use of maribavir for first asymptomatic CMV infection post-HCT has also been published. This review compares the pharmacology of anti-CMV agents and discusses the updated literature of these new drugs in the prevention and treatment of CMV. EXPERT OPINION: Letermovir and maribavir are much needed tools that spare toxicities of ganciclovir, foscarnet, and cidofovir. High cost is a challenge preventing their integration into clinical practice in resource-limited countries. Transplant centers need to exercise restraint in overuse to avoid resistance, particularly in the setting of high viral loads.

Evaluating the efficacy and safety of letermovir compared to valganciclovir for the prevention of human cytomegalovirus disease in adult lung transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Lung transplant recipients are at high risk for severe cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease. Off-label use of letermovir (LET) may avert myelotoxicity associated with valganciclovir (VGCV), but data in lung transplantation are limited. This study aims to evaluate the outcomes of LET prophylaxis among lung transplant recipients. METHODS: This retrospective, matched cohort study included lung transplant recipients who received LET for primary CMV prophylaxis following VGCV intolerance. Patients were matched 1:1 to historical VGCV controls based on age, serostatus group, and time from transplant. The primary outcome was CMV breakthrough within 1 year post-LET initiation; secondary outcomes included hematologic changes. RESULTS: A total of 124 lung transplant recipients were included per group (32% CMV mismatch, D+R-), with LET initiated a median of 9.6 months post-transplantation. One CMV breakthrough event (0.8%) was observed in the LET group versus four (3.2%) in the VGCV group (p = .370). The median (interquartile range) white blood cell (WBC) count was 3.1 (2.1-5.6) at LET initiation which increased to 5.1 (3.9-7.2) at the end of follow-up (p <.001). For VGCV controls, WBC was 4.8 (3.4-7.2) at baseline and 5.4 (3.6-7.2) at the end of follow-up; this difference was not statistically significant (p = .395). Additionally, 98.4% of LET patients experienced ≥1 leukopenia episode in the year prior to LET compared to 71.8% the year after initiation (p <.001). Similar results were observed for neutropenia (48.4% and 17.7%, p <.001). CONCLUSION: LET prophylaxis was associated with a low rate of CMV reactivation and leukopenia recovery. LET may represent a reasonable prophylaxis option for lung transplant recipients unable to tolerate VGCV.

Real-life use of letermovir prophylaxis for cytomegalovirus in heart transplant recipients.

INTRODUCTION: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) remains the predominant opportunistic infection following solid organ transplantation (SOT). While valganciclovir is the drug of choice for CMV prophylaxis, its utility can be compromised due to the risk of cytopenia. Letermovir, a novel agent approved for CMV prophylaxis in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients and high-risk kidney transplant recipients, exhibits reduced toxicity. This study aims to present the practical application of letermovir as both primary and secondary prophylaxis against CMV in heart transplant recipients (HTR). METHODS: In this observational, retrospective, single-center study, we included all consecutive adult HTRs from June 2020 to January 2022 who were administered letermovir for CMV prophylaxis. We documented instances of CMV breakthrough infections, side effects related to letermovir, changes in neutropenia following the switch from valganciclovir to letermovir, and any drug interactions with the immunosuppressive regimen. RESULTS: The study comprised 10 patients: two received primary prophylaxis with letermovir due to a high risk of CMV infection (donor-positive, recipient-negative serostatus), and eight received it as secondary prophylaxis following a CMV infection. The median duration of letermovir administration was 8 months (range 3-12 months). No CMV breakthrough infections were reported while on prophylaxis. However, three patients experienced CMV breakthrough infections after discontinuing letermovir prophylaxis (30%). No significant side effects were observed, although one patient reported digestive intolerance. Among the nine patients on tacrolimus, six needed reduced doses after switching to letermovir. CONCLUSION: This real-life study appears to support the effectiveness of letermovir prophylaxis in HTR. Nonetheless, the risk of CMV infection post-treatment cessation is notable. Further drug monitoring and research on the efficacy of letermovir for CMV prophylaxis in SOT patients is warranted.

Letermovir prophylaxis reduced cytomegalovirus reactivation and resistance post umbilical cord blood transplantation.

To explore the impact of letermovir (LET) prophylaxis on cytomegalovirus (CMV) reactivation and resistance in both adult and paediatric umbilical cord blood transplantation (UCBT) patients, we retrospectively compared 43 UCBT patients who received LET as CMV prophylaxis with a historical cohort of 207 UCBT patients without LET usage. LET was administered from Day +1 to Day +100. The 180-day cumulative incidence of CMV reactivation (47.3% vs. 74.4%, p < 0.001) and the proportion of refractory CMV reactivation (15.0% vs. 42.9%, p = 0.016) were significantly lower than those in the control group. However, more frequent late CMV infection (31.0% vs. 4.3%, p = 0.002) and the 180-day cumulative incidence of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) reactivation (9.3% vs. 3.4%, p = 0.087) were observed in UCBT patients with LET prophylaxis. Meanwhile, older age (>15 years old) and the occurrence of pre-engraftment syndrome were identified as the significant risk factors for CMV reactivation, and in patients at high risk, the incidence of CMV reactivation in the LET group was lower than that in the control group (46.7% vs. 86.5%, p < 0.001), while this decline was less pronounced among patients at low risk (47.8% vs. 62.1%, p = 0.120).

Letermovir prophylaxis for cytomegalovirus in lung-transplant recipients: a comprehensive study with literature review of off-label use and real-world experiences.

Letermovir, initially approved for cytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylaxis in hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation, has gained attention for off-label use in lung-transplant (LTx) recipients. Given the high susceptibility of LTx recipients to CMV infection, this study explores the effectiveness and safety of letermovir prophylaxis. A retrospective analysis of using letermovir for LTx recipients at Tohoku University Hospital (January 2000 to November 2023) was conducted. Case summaries from other Japanese transplant centers and a literature review were included. Six cases at Tohoku University Hospital and one at Kyoto University Hospital were identified. Prophylactic letermovir use showed positive outcomes in managing myelosuppression and preventing CMV replication. The literature review supported the safety of letermovir in high-risk LTx recipients. Despite limited reports, our findings suggest letermovir's potential as prophylaxis for LTx recipients intolerant to valganciclovir. Safety, especially in managing myelosuppression, positions letermovir as a promising option. However, careful consideration is important in judiciously integrating letermovir into the treatment protocol.

Nipping cytomegalovirus in the bud for umbilical cord blood transplantation.

Real data confirm an excellent toxicity profile and effectiveness of letermovir prophylaxis with decreased cytomegalovirus reactivation and resistance in umbilical cord blood transplantation for both paediatric and adult patients. Commentary on: Yan et al. Letermovir prophylaxis reduced cytomegalovirus reactivation and resistance post umbilical cord blood transplantation. Br J Haematol 2024;204:2378-2389.

Letermovir safety and efficacy for cytomegalovirus prophylaxis in adult Japanese kidney transplant recipients: a multicenter, open-label, noncomparative Phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Letermovir is approved for cytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylaxis in adult allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation recipients worldwide and is also approved in the United States for CMV prophylaxis in adult high-risk (D+/R-) kidney transplant recipients (KTRs). The safety and efficacy of letermovir for CMV prophylaxis in adult Japanese KTRs are reported here. METHODS: In this Phase 3, single-arm, open-label study, adult Japanese KTRs with CMV serostatuses D+/R-, D+/R+, and D-/R+ received letermovir 480 mg daily orally within 7 days post-transplant through Week 28. Participants were followed through Week 52. The primary objective was to evaluate letermovir safety and tolerability. Efficacy was a secondary objective, measured by CMV disease, CMV disease or infection requiring intervention, and quantifiable CMV DNAemia. All CMV disease cases were confirmed by an independent adjudication committee. RESULTS: Among 22 participants (12 were D+/R-) who received letermovir prophylaxis, 20 (90.9%) experienced ≥ 1 AE through Week 28. Most AEs were mild to moderate in severity; no deaths were reported. During the prophylaxis period through Week 28, one transient case of quantifiable CMV DNAemia was detected, but no CMV disease or infection requiring intervention was reported. Through Week 52, four D+/R- participants met the endpoint of CMV disease or infection requiring intervention, of whom two had committee-confirmed CMV syndrome; all recovered with CMV therapy. A total of 5 participants had quantifiable CMV DNAemia through Week 52. CONCLUSION: Letermovir was generally well tolerated, and the data support its use for the prevention of CMV disease/infection in adult Japanese KTRs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04129398.