Poor outcome and high prevalence of invasive fungal infections in patients with adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma exposed to zidovudine and interferon alfa.

Patients treated for adult T-Cell leukemia/lymphoma (ATL) have a poor prognosis and are prone to infectious complications which are poorly described. As the French reference center for ATL, we retrospectively analyzed 47 consecutive ATL (acute, n = 23; lymphoma, n = 14; chronic, n = 8; smoldering, n = 2) patients between 2006 and 2016 (median age 51 years, 96% Afro-Caribbean origin). The 3-year overall survival (OS) was 15.8%, 11.3%, and 85.7% for acute, lymphoma, and indolent (chronic and smoldering) forms respectively. Among aggressive subtypes, 20 patients received, as frontline therapy, high dose of zidovudine and interferon alfa (AZT-IFN⍺) resulting in an overall response rate (ORR) of 39% (complete response [CR] 33%) and 17 chemotherapy resulting of an ORR of 59% (CR 50%). Ninety-five infections occurred in 38 patients, most of whom had an acute subtype (n = 73/95; 77%). During their follow-up, patients receiving frontline chemotherapy or frontline AZT-IFNα developed infections in 74% (n = 14/19) and 89% (n = 24/27) of the cases respectively. Sixty-four (67%) of infections were microbiologically documented. Among them, invasive fungal infections (IFI, n = 11) included 2 Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia, 5 invasive aspergillosis, and 4 yeast fungemia. IFI exclusively occurred in patients with acute subtype mostly exposed to AZT-IFNα (n = 10/11) and experiencing prolonged (> 10 days) grade 4 neutropenia. Patients with aggressive subtype experiencing IFI had a lower OS than those who did not (median OS 5.4 months versus 18.4 months, p = 0.0048). ATL patients have a poor prognosis even in the modern era. Moreover, the high rate of infections impacts their management especially those exposed to AZT-IFNα.

Vascular access for optimal hematopoietic stem cell collection.

BACKGROUND: Autologous and allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation of cytokine-mobilized peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs) is increasingly used to treat patients with hematologic disorders. Different types of vascular access have been exploited for the apheresis procedure, including peripheral veins (PV) and central venous catheter (CVC). In some cases, PV access is unavailable. There are few published data on the efficiency and quality of harvesting with different types of vascular access. This study brings out complications and morbidity of this procedure linked to these different access. METHODS: We performed a comparative, retrospective, single-center study of hematopoietic stem cell collection using these two types of vascular access. We compared the efficiency and complication rate for 617 adults apheresis sessions in 401 patients and healthy donors, for PBSC collection via PV or CVC between 2010 and 2016. The quality of the HSC product was evaluated in terms of the total CD34 + count and neutrophil contamination. RESULTS: The PV and CVC groups did not differ significantly in terms of the quality of the apheresis product, mean ± SD CD34 + cells collected in PV group was 383.1 ± 402.7 × 10e6 and 298.8 ± 372.7 × 10e6 and the level of neutrophil contamination was 21.0 ± 17.8% in the PV group and 20.6 ± 18.4% in the CVC group. The complication rate did not differ between the two groups. CONCLUSION: The type of vascular access for apheresis hematopoietic stem cell harvesting must be determined by trained staff. Successful harvesting can be performed via PV then CVC is not needed or not available.

Center effect in intubation risk in critically ill immunocompromised patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory failure is the leading reason for intensive care unit (ICU) admission in immunocompromised patients, and the need for invasive mechanical ventilation has become a major clinical endpoint in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, data are lacking on whether intubation is an objective criteria that is used unbiasedly across centers. This study explores how this outcome varies across ICUs. METHODS: Hierarchical models and permutation procedures for testing multiple random effects were applied on both data from an observational cohort (the TRIAL-OH study: 703 patients, 17 ICUs) and a randomized controlled trial (the HIGH trial: 776 patients, 31 ICUs) to characterize ICU variation in intubation risk across centers. RESULTS: The crude intubation rate varied across ICUs from 29 to 80% in the observational cohort and from 0 to 86% in the RCT. This center effect on the mean ICU intubation rate was statistically significant, even after adjustment on individual patient characteristics (observational cohort: p value = 0.013, median OR 1.48 [1.30-1.72]; RCT: p value 0.004, median OR 1.51 [1.36-1.68]). Two ICU-level characteristics were associated with intubation risk (the annual rate of intubation procedure per center and the time from respiratory symptoms to ICU admission) and could partly explain this center effect. In the RCT that controlled for the use of high-flow oxygen therapy, we did not find significant variation in the effect of oxygenation strategy on intubation risk across centers, despite a significant variation in the need for invasive mechanical ventilation. CONCLUSION: Intubation rates varied considerably among ICUs, even after adjustment on individual characteristics.

High-flow nasal oxygen vs. standard oxygen therapy in immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory failure (ARF) is the leading reason for intensive care unit (ICU) admission in immunocompromised patients. High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) therapy is an alternative to standard oxygen. By providing warmed and humidified gas, HFNO allows the delivery of higher flow rates via nasal cannula devices, with FiO2 values of nearly 100%. Benefits include alleviation of dyspnea and discomfort, decreased respiratory distress and decreased mortality in unselected patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. However, in preliminary reports, HFNO benefits are controversial in immunocompromised patients in whom it has never been properly evaluated. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled superiority trial in 30 intensive care units, part of the Groupe de Recherche Respiratoire en Réanimation Onco-Hématologique (GRRR-OH). Inclusion criteria will be: (1) adults, (2) known immunosuppression, (3) ARF, (4) oxygen therapy ≥ 6 L/min, (5) written informed consent from patient or proxy. Exclusion criteria will be: (1) imminent death (moribund patient), (2) no informed consent, (3) hypercapnia (PaCO2 ≥ 50 mmHg), (4) isolated cardiogenic pulmonary edema, (5) pregnancy or breastfeeding, (6) anatomical factors precluding insertion of a nasal cannula, (7) no coverage by the French statutory healthcare insurance system, and (8) post-surgical setting from day 1 to day 6 (patients with ARF occurring after day 6 of surgery can be included). The primary outcome measure is day-28 mortality. Secondary outcomes are intubation rate, comfort, dyspnea, respiratory rate, oxygenation, ICU length of stay, and ICU-acquired infections. Based on an expected 30% mortality rate in the standard oxygen group, and 20% in the HFNO group, error rate set at 5%, and a statistical power at 90%, 389 patients are required in each treatment group (778 patients overall). Recruitment period is estimated at 30 months, with 28 days of additional follow-up for the last included patient. DISCUSSION: The HIGH study will be the largest multicenter, randomized controlled trial seeking to demonstrate that survival benefits from HFNO reported in unselected patients also apply to a large immunocompromised population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02739451 . Registered on 15 April 2016.