Cytomegalovirus Therapy: Role of Letermovir in Prophylaxis and Treatment in Transplant Recipients.

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is a common viral pathogen in the transplant population and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. CMV prevention is paramount; however, selecting the best preventive strategy depends on many factors including donor-recipient CMV serostatus, transplant-specific risks, antiviral toxicities and cost. Novel CMV therapeutics such as letermovir (LTV) are desperately needed to optimize CMV management. Uniquely among CMV antiviral therapies, LTV inhibits the viral terminase complex in the CMV DNA synthesis pathway and disrupts viral genome packaging. Further, it lacks side effects frequently associated with other CMV antiviral therapies and evades common mechanisms of resistance. LTV is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for CMV prevention in adult CMV-seropositive hematopoietic cell transplant recipients but is increasingly applied off-label for prophylaxis and treatment. This review summarizes important concepts of CMV management in transplantation, with a specific focus on LTV pharmacology and clinical experience to date alongside future prospects for its application.

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.

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.

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.

Revisiting Cytomegalovirus Serology in Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplant Recipients.

BACKGROUND: Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant recipients (allo-HCTRs) with positive cytomegalovirus (CMV) serology may have false-positive results due to blood product transfusion-associated passive immunity. METHODS: This single-center cohort study included allo-HCTRs with negative baseline (at malignancy diagnosis) CMV serology and indeterminate/low-positive (CMV IgG titer, ≥0.6-<50 U/mL) pretransplant CMV serology with negative pretransplant plasma CMV DNAemia. The CMV status of those patients was reclassified from R+ to R- (CMVR- reclassification group). We compared those patients to allo-HCTRs with negative (CMV IgG titer <0.6 U/mL) pretransplant CMV IgG (CMVR- group). We describe the number and type of patients whose pretransplant CMV status was reclassified from indeterminate/positive to negative. We reviewed all plasma CMV DNAemia tests performed during the first 6 months posttransplant in both groups to assess the safety of this approach. RESULTS: Among 246 (84.5%) of 291 transplanted patients identified as CMVR+ pretransplant, 60 (24.4%) were reclassified from CMV serology indeterminate (N:10)/low-positive (N:50) to R-. Only 1 of 60 patients (1.67%) in the CMVR- reclassification group versus 3 of 44 (6.8%; P = .30) in the CMVR- group developed CMV DNAemia during the follow-up period. There were no significant differences in the number of CMV DNAemia tests performed, CMV DNAemia range, and time posttransplant between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: One of 4 allo-HCT CMVR+ may be falsely flagged as R+, with significant impact on donor selection and prophylaxis administration. A 2-step approach including CMV serology testing at hematologic malignancy diagnosis in allo-HCT candidates and careful review of pretransplant CMV IgG titers may help correctly classify CMV serology status.

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 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 use may impact on the Cytomegalovirus DNA fragmentation profile in plasma from allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients.

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) DNA in plasma is mainly unprotected and highly fragmented. The size of the amplicon largely explains the variation in CMV DNA loads quantified across PCR platforms. In this proof-of-concept study, we assessed whether the CMV DNA fragmentation profile may vary across allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients (allo-SCT), within the same patient over time, or is affected by letermovir (LMV) use. A total of 52 plasma specimens from 14 nonconsecutive allo-SCT recipients were included. The RealTime CMV PCR (Abbott Molecular), was used to monitor CMV DNA load in plasma, and fragmentation was assessed with a laboratory-designed PCR generating overlapping amplicons (around 90-110 bp) within the CMV UL34, UL80.5, and UL54 genes. Intrapatient, inter-patient, and LMV-associated qualitative and quantitative variations in seven amplicons were observed. These variations were seemingly unrelated to the CMV DNA loads measured by the Abbott PCR assay. CMV DNA loads quantified by UL34_4, UL54.5, and UL80.5_1 PCR assays discriminate between LMV and non-LMV patients. Our observations may have relevant implications in the management of active CMV infection in allo-SCT recipients, either treated or not with LMV, although the data need further validation.

Outcomes of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation under letermovir prophylaxis for cytomegalovirus infection.

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is a major infectious complication following allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT). Although letermovir (LMV) prophylaxis dramatically reduces the incidence of early clinically significant CMV (csCMV) infection, it remains unclear whether it has a beneficial effect on nonrelapse mortality (NRM) and overall survival (OS). Herein, we evaluated the impact of LMV prophylaxis on posttransplant outcomes using the registry database of the Japanese Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy. Adult patients who underwent allo-HCT between 2017 and 2019 were analyzed (n = 6004). LMV prophylaxis was administered to 1640 patients (LMV group) and it significantly reduced the incidence of csCMV infection compared with those not administered LMV prophylaxis (15.4% vs 54.1%; p < 0.01). However, it did not improve the 1-year NRM (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93; p = 0.40) and OS (HR, 0.96; p = 0.49). In the LMV group, 74 patients had breakthrough csCMV infection and showed inferior NRM (HR, 3.44; p < 0.01) and OS (HR, 1.93; p = 0.02) compared with those without infection. After completing LMV prophylaxis, 252 patients had late csCMV infection and showed inferior NRM (HR, 1.83; p < 0.01) and OS (HR, 1.58; p < 0.01). Our findings suggest that managing breakthrough and late csCMV infections is important for improving long-term outcomes.

Impact of letermovir prophylaxis in CMV reactivation and disease after allogenic hematopoietic cell transplantation: a real-world, observational study.

Letermovir for CMV prevention in CMV-seropositive adults undergoing allo-HCT was implemented at our program in 2021. This study investigates the results from the use of letermovir. The study includes all the 140 CMV-seropositive patients who underwent an allo-HCT during the years 2020, 2021, and 2022 at our institution. Thirty-eight (27.4%) of these patients received letermovir, administered from day + 7 to day + 100 and restarted if patients were on treatment with steroids. The day + 180 and 1-year cumulative incidences of CMV reactivation were 5.3% and 12.1% for patients who received letermovir and 52.9% and 53.9% for those who did not (P < 0.001) (HR 0.19, P < 0.001). Four (10.5%) of these thirty-eight patients had a CMV reactivation, but only 2 (5.3%) cases occurred during the administration of letermovir. During the first year after allo-HCT, 13 (9.2%) patients had CMV disease; the day + 180 and 1-year cumulative incidences were 2.6% and 6.0% for patients who received letermovir and 9.9% and 12.3% for those who did not (P = 0.254) (HR 1.01, P = 0.458). Two (4.2%) of the patients included in the letermovir group had CMV disease, but both of them after letermovir discontinuation. Letermovir induced a protective effect on CMV reactivation risk, but its use was not associated with a significant reduction of CMV disease. The fact that the CMV disease in patients who received letermovir occurred after the discontinuation of the drug, questions whether CMV prophylaxis should be used in patients with high risk for CMV reactivation or disease.

Letermovir prophylaxis for cytomegalovirus reactivation in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant recipients: Single center Canadian data.

BACKGROUND: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is associated with morbidity and mortality following allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT). Letermovir is a novel antiviral agent that prevents CMV reactivation in alloHCT patients, with limited data regarding influence on post-alloHCT outcomes. METHODS: We retrospectively examined 273 alloHCT recipients, 158 in the non-letermovir cohort (NLC), and 115 in the cohort using letermovir prophylaxis (LC). Patients that received letermovir were CMV-seropositive and met criteria for high risk of CMV reactivation. RESULTS: Median start of letermovir was 21 days post-alloHCT, median duration of prophylaxis was 86 days. Letermovir prophylaxis demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in first CMV reactivation (at 200 days post 63.9% in the NLC vs. 35.7% in the LC; p < .001). On univariate analysis at 1 year, overall survival (OS) for NLC was 79.6% and 79.5% for LC (p = .54). Non relapse mortality (NRM) at 1 year for NLC was 12% and 12.3% for LC (p = .69). Cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR) at 1 year was 13.9% for NLC versus 17.1 for the LC (p = .27). On multivariable analysis, there was no significant difference between the two cohorts for OS, NRM, and CIR. CONCLUSIONS: Letermovir prophylaxis started at day +21 post-alloHCT reduced CMV reactivation, with no impact on posttransplant outcomes.

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.

Risk factors for hemorrhagic cystitis after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in a letermovir-exposed CMV-free population receiving PTCy.

Hemorrhagic cystitis (HC) is a highly impacting complication in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), occurring in 12%-37% of patients. The impact of transplant- and patient-specific variables has been described, with a possible role for JCV and BKV, which may be cooperating with cytomegalovirus (CMV). Here, we analyze 134 letermovir-exposed, CMV-free patients, treated with the same cyclophosphamide-based graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis, describing risk factors for HC. The overall incidence of HC was 23%. Patients with HLA mismatched transplant, higher comorbidity score, and receiving three alkylating agents with TBF (thiotepa, busulfan, and fludarabine) conditioning regimen had a higher risk of HC in multivariate analysis (OR: 4.48, 6.32, and 1.32, respectively). A HC-score including male gender, TBF conditioning, and HLA-mismatch stratifies the risk of HC in the first 100 days after HSCT. The role of BKV and JCV was not highly impacting in those patients, suggesting a possible synergistic effect between CMV and JCV in causing HC. HC can be interpreted as the combination of patient-related factors, chemotherapy-related toxicities-especially due to alkylating agents-and immunological elements.

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.

Molecular monitoring of viral infections in immunocompromised patients in a large university hospital in Italy: reflections after thirteen years of real-life activity.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to investigate the prevalence and viral reactivations of clinical interest in the immunocompromised patient with particular focus on hematologic and solid organ transplant recipients. METHODS: Molecular screening data of CMV, EBV, JCV and BKV from 2011 to 2023 were analyzed. This extensive time span allowed the access to more than 100,000 samples from over 20,000 patients treated at Policlinico Umberto I. It was possible to temporally investigate patient attendance patterns, average age distribution, seasonality of infections, and positivity rates of the analyzed viruses. RESULTS: Between 2019 and 2022 a significant reduction in organ transplants performed and in the positive molecular detection of EBV, JCV and BKV was observed. Additionally, there has been a noteworthy decrease in CMV reactivations, with a reduction of up to 50% starting in 2019. A remarkable reduction of 39% in the rate of CMV viral reactivation has been also achieved in SOT between 2016 and 2023. CONCLUSION: The years following 2019 were profoundly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic era. This period resulted in a substantial reduction in healthcare services and hospital visits. Furthermore, the introduction of the drug Letermovir in Italy in 2019 demonstrated remarkable efficacy, evidenced by a reduction in CMV reactivations. Additionally, the adoption of a novel clinical approach centered on personalized therapy facilitated improved management of immunocompromised patients.

Which allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant recipients have an increased risk for delayed-onset clinically significant cytomegalovirus infection after letermovir prophylaxis?

INTRODUCTION: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) reactivation is one of the most common complications after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Letermovir is approved for CMV prophylaxis among high-risk recipients. However, delayed-onset post-prophylaxis clinically significant CMV infection (csCMVi) has been observed, suggesting the potential for extending letermovir prophylaxis beyond the first one hundred days post-HSCT. METHODS: Retrospective multicenter cohort study of allogeneic HSCT patients from August 2018 to March 2023. The primary aim of this study was to identify the risk factors at day 100 associated with delayed onset csCMVi, in patients who received letermovir prophylaxis up to day 100. Competing risk analysis was used to evaluate incidence with specific risk factors, using Gray's Test comparing groups for each event. RESULTS: Among 166 eligible allogeneic HSCT recipients, the most common primary hematological diagnosis was acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) (42.2%). Twenty-six (15.7%) developed a breakthrough csCMVi. Delayed-onset csCMVi occurred in 23.5%, at a median time of 133 days after SCT. On multivariate analysis, having a matched unrelated donor (odds ratio [OR] 2.46) and a CMV donor negative/recipient positive status (OR 3.47) were associated with delayed onset csCMVi. In contrast, AML had a lower odd of having delayed-onset csCMVi (OR 0.23). CONCLUSIONS: Having a matched unrelated donor, a CMV donor negative/recipient positive status, and a non-AML underlying disease were associated with delayed onset csCMVi. Prospective studies are needed to evaluate whether extended letermovir prophylaxis is beneficial for these patients.

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.

Five-year single-center analysis of cytomegalovirus viremia in kidney transplant recipients and possible implication for novel prophylactic therapy approaches.

BACKGROUND: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infections are a common complication after kidney transplantation (KTx) and negatively affecting patient outcome. Valganciclovir (VGC) prophylaxis is often limited by drug-induced side effects and dose reduction due to decline in kidney function. METHOD: In the present study, episodes of CMV viremia in the first year after KTx in a cohort of 316 recipients were analyzed retrospectively to identify risk factors linked to persistent infections. RESULTS: In the studied cohort, 18.7% of patients showed a high-risk (HR) constellation (D+/R-) for CMV infections. CMV viremia affected 22% of our cohort, with HR patients being the most affected cohort (44.1%). Within this group, most viremic events (65.3%) occurred while patients were still on prophylactic therapy, showing significantly higher viral loads and a longer duration compared to seropositive recipients. CONCLUSION: The analysis at hand revealed that detection of viremia under ongoing antiviral prophylaxis bears an increased risk for sustained viral replication and antiviral drug resistance in HR patients. We identified low estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and lower dose VGC prophylaxis post-KTx as a risk factor for breakthrough infections in HR patients in our single center cohort. These patients might benefit from a closer CMV monitoring or novel prophylactic agents as letermovir.

Pharmacokinetic analysis driven letermovir dosing in pediatric hematopoietic cell transplantation patients with resistant CMV disease.

BACKGROUND: Reactivation of cytomegalovirus (CMV) in CMV-seropositive patients after haploidentical T-cell receptor αß+ /CD19+ depleted hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) is common. Due to delayed CMV-specific immune reconstitution, patients may require prolonged antiviral therapy, including secondary prophylaxis (SP). We present our clinical experience with the off-label use of letermovir for SP in a severely immunocompromised 2-year-old toddler with refractory pre-B-cell ALL and bilateral retinitis caused by resistant CMV (A594V UL97 mutation) following a haploidentical TCRαß+ /CD19+ depleted HCT. METHODS: The patient underwent measurement of two separate sets of letermovir serum concentrations, drawn at pre-dose, 1 and 4 h (and 8 h during the second therapeutic drug monitoring) post-dose. Pharmacokinetic parameters, including AUC0-24 were calculated, and dose adjustment was performed based on the drug level. RESULTS: While receiving oral letermovir 240 mg once daily without cyclosporine, the observed AUC0-24 was high (75 815 ng h/mL) with a Cmin of 209 ng/mL. The dose was reduced by 25% to 180 mg once daily. Despite the dose reduction, both AUC0-24 and Cmin values further increased to 119 095 ng h/L and 959 ng/mL, respectively. The patient continued oral letermovir 180 mg once daily for about 3 months, with adequate viral suppression (CMV viral load in plasma <150 IU/mL) and no recurrent CMV end-organ disease or adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Given limited options for anti-CMV therapy in young children with resistant CMV, letermovir could be considered as an alternative antiviral for SP. Further studies are warranted to evaluate the pharmacokinetics of letermovir in pediatric allogeneic HCT recipients.

Letermovir at a Prophylactic Dose for Cytomegalovirus Infection in Children Undergoing Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation: A Single-Center Retrospective Study in Japan.

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is a major complication of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Previous studies in adults demonstrated that letermovir prophylaxis for 100 d after HSCT reduces the occurrence of CMV infection; however, studies in children are limited. In this study, we aimed to examine the incidence of CMV infection in children who underwent allogeneic HSCT with prophylactic letermovir therapy. A single-center retrospective study was conducted among patients aged ≤17 who underwent allogeneic HSCT. We compared the cumulative incidence of CMV infection, mainly monitored by pp65-antigenemia, after HSCT between patients with and without letermovir prophylaxis (10-12 or 5-6 mg/kg/d when co-administered with cyclosporine) using Gray's test. We analyzed 79 patients with a median follow-up period of 126 d. The median age of these patients was 8.3 years (Interquartile range, 3.7-12.4). Prophylactic letermovir was used in 25 patients. Twenty-five patients developed CMV infection, and the cumulative incidence was 38.9% (95% confidence intervals, 25.0-52.5). The cumulative incidence of CMV infection was not significantly different between the letermovir and no-letermovir groups (33.1 vs. 36.6%, p = 0.228). Meanwhile, the cumulative incidence of CMV infection up to 100 d following HSCT was significantly lower in the letermovir group than in the no-letermovir group (8.0 vs. 32.8%, p = 0.026). Most patients experienced no noticeable adverse effects associated with letermovir; however, one patient discontinued letermovir because of nausea and anorexia. In conclusion, the results of this study suggest that letermovir prophylaxis against CMV infection may be effective in children without severe adverse effects.