Effective elimination of high-dose methotrexate by repeated hemodiafiltration and high-flux hemodialysis in patients with acute kidney injury.

INTRODUCTION: Acute kidney injury (AKI) after high dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) is associated with delayed MTX-excretion and life-threatening toxicity. Glucapridase, the recommended therapy, is expensive and not always available. CASE SERIES: We describe 3 cases (69, 67, 73 years) with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma who developed AKI and early-onset severely delayed MTX elimination after HD-MTX. MTX serum concentrations were 101 and 69 µmol/L at 24 h after administration in two patients and 34 µmol/L at 32 h in the third. MANAGEMENT AND OUTCOME: Since glucarpidase was unavailable, we performed daily high-flux hemodialysis (HF-HD) or online hemodiafiltration (HDF) sessions (median duration, 6 h). The median serum MTX elimination half-life during HDF/HF-HD sessions was similar in all patients (median, 4.4 h; IQR, 3.8-5.3 h), but serum MTX concentrations rebounded after each dialysis by a median of 40% of the trough concentrations. The three patients underwent multiple dialysis sessions, until MTX serum concentrations remained sufficiently low to be neutralized by leucovorin. Only 1 patient developed severe pancytopenia, and renal function normalized in all patients after 3-6 weeks. DISCUSSION: In conclusion, when glucarpidase is unavailable or delayed, early, repeated and prolonged HDF/HF-HD effectively enhance MTX elimination and prevent toxicity in patients with AKI and severely delayed MTX elimination after HD-MTX.

Daratumumab for relapsed AL amyloidosis-When cumulative real-world data precedes clinical trials: A multisite study and systematic literature review.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with relapsed/refractory AL amyloidosis (RRAL) have poor prognosis, but emerging data shows promising results with the use daratumumab. We evaluated daratumumab treatment in RRAL in real-world setting. METHODS: A retrospective multisite study of RRAL patients treated with daratumumab alone and in combinations. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients, diagnosed between 1.1.2008 and 1.2.2018 were included; 27% also had multiple myeloma (MM). Revised Mayo score was ≥ 3 in 67%. Hematologic overall response rate was 81%, 64% achieved very good partial response (VGPR) or better. Concurrent active MM was associated with lower rates of VGPR (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04-0.81; P = .03) in a multi-variate analysis. Cardiac and renal responses were 74% and 73%, respectively. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 28.4 months and median overall survival (OS) was not reached; 2-year PFS and OS were 68.6 ± 7.5% and 90.4 ± 4.6%, respectively. Hematologic response correlated with prolonged PFS and OS. Daratumumab was safe and well tolerated, no patients discontinued therapy due to toxicity. Our data was aligned with outcomes from a systematic literature review, which identified 10 case series (n = 517) and 2 clinical trials (n = 62) meeting prespecified criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Our data support favorable safety tolerability and efficacy of daratumumab among non-selective RRAL patients in a real-world setting.

Ixazomib-based regimens for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: are real-world data compatible with clinical trial outcomes? A multi-site Israeli registry study.

Ixazomib, the first oral proteasome inhibitor (PI), has been approved for the treatment of relapsed refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone, based on the TOURMALINE-MM1 phase 3 trial, which demonstrated the efficacy and safety of this all-oral triplet, compared with lenalidomide-dexamethasone. However, clinical trial outcomes do not always translate into real-world outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess the outcomes of ixazomib-based combination for treatment of patients with RRMM in a real-world setting. All consecutive RRMM patients who received at least one cycle of ixazomib-based treatment combination between June 2013 and June 2018 were identified. Data was extracted from medical charts focusing on demographics, disease characteristics, prior treatment, and responses. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), safety, and tolerability. A total of 78 patients across 7 sites were retrospectively included. Median follow-up was 22 months. Median age was 68 (range 38-90). Sixty-four percent received ixazomib in 2nd line, 19% in 3rd line. Overall, 89% of patients had been exposed to PIs (bortezomib 87%) prior to IRd, 41% to IMiDs. Twenty-nine (48%, of 60 available) had high (t(4:14), t(14:16), del17p) or intermediate (+1q21) risk aberrations. Most patients (82%) received ixazomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone. An exploratory assessment for disease aggressiveness at diagnosis was classified by a treating physician as indolent (rapid control to protect from target organ damage not required) vs aggressive (imminent target organ damage) in 63% vs 37%, respectively. Treatment was well tolerated, with a low discontinuation rate (11%). Median PFS on ixazomib therapy was 24 months (95% CI 17-30). PFS was 77% and 47% at 12 and 24 months, respectively. Median OS was not reached; OS was 91% and 80% at 12 and 24 months, respectively. Higher LDH, older age, and worse clinical aggressiveness were associated with worse PFS, whereas a deeper response to ixazomib (≥ VGPR) and a longer response to first-line bortezomib (≥ 24 m) were associated with an improved PFS on ixazomib. No effect on PFS was found for cytogenetic risk by FISH, ISS/rISS, and prior anti-myeloma treatment. Ixazomib-based combinations are efficacious and safe regimens in RRMM patients in the real-world setting, regardless to cytogenetic risk, with a PFS of 24 months comparable with clinical trial data. This regimen had most favorable outcomes among patients who remained progression-free more than 24 months after a bortezomib induction and for those who have a more indolent disease phenotype.

Immunogenicity and SARS-CoV-2 Infection following the Fourth BNT162b2 Booster Dose among Health Care Workers.

INTRODUCTION: The fourth SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose was found to protect against infection and more importantly against severe disease and death. It was also shown that the risk of symptomatic or severe disease was related to the antibody levels after vaccination or infection, with lower protection against the BA.4 BA.5 Omicron variants. The aim of our study was to assess the impact of the fourth dose on infection and perception of illness seriousness among healthcare workers (HCWs) at a tertiary health care campus in Haifa, Israel, and to investigate the possible protective effect of antibody levels against infection. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study among fully vaccinated HCWs and retired employees at Rambam Healthcare Campus (RHCC), a tertiary hospital in northern Israel. Participants underwent serial serological tests at 1, 3, 6, 9, 12 and 18 months following the second BNT162b2 vaccine dose. Only a part of the participants chose to receive the fourth vaccine. A multivariable logistic regression was conducted to test the adjusted association between vaccination, and the risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2. Kaplan-Meier SARS-CoV-2 free "survival" analysis was conducted to compare the waning effect of the first and second, third and fourth vaccines. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve was plotted for different values of the sixth serology to identify workers at risk for disease. RESULTS: Disease occurrence was more frequent among females, people age 40-50 years old and those with background chronic lung disease. The fourth vaccine was found to have better protection against infection, compared to the third vaccine; however, it also had a faster waning immunity compared to the third vaccine dose. Antibody titer of 955 AU/mL was found as a cutoff protecting from infection. CONCLUSIONS: We found that the fourth vaccine dose had a protective effect, but shorter than the third vaccine dose. Cutoff point of 955 AU/mL was recognized for protection from illness. The decision to vaccinate the population with a booster dose should consider other factors, including the spread of disease at the point, chronic comorbidities and age, especially during shortage of vaccine supply.

Immunogenicity trends 1 and 3 months after second BNT162B2 vaccination among healthcare workers in Israel.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the antibody response to the BNT162B2 vaccine among healthcare workers (HCWs) to identify factors associated with decreased immunogenicity. METHODS: This prospective cohort study included consenting HCWs who completed a questionnaire regarding background illnesses, medications, and post-vaccination allergic reactions or rash. All HCWs were tested for anti-spike antibodies (LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG assay) 1 and 3 months after the second vaccine dose. A multivariate mixed linear model was adjusted to participants' data and fit to predict antibody levels after the second BNT162B2 vaccine dose, based on antibody levels at 1 month and the slope between 3 months and 1 month. Multivariate analyses identified factors associated with lower antibody levels. RESULTS: In total 1506 HCWs were tested for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies. Older age was associated with lower mean antibody levels (-1.22 AU/mL, p < 0.001, 95%CI -1.43 to -1.01). In addition, male sex (-22.16 AU/mL, p < 0.001, 95%CI -27.93 to -16.39), underlying condition (-10.86 AU/mL, p 0.007, 95%CI -18.81 to -2.91) and immunosuppressive treatment (-28.57 AU/mL, p 0.002, 95%CI -46.85 to -10.29) were associated with significantly lower mean antibody levels. Allergic reactions after vaccine administration or peri-vaccination glucocorticosteroid treatment were not correlated with antibody levels. CONCLUSIONS: Most HCWs had measurable antibodies at 3 months. Risk factors for lower antibody levels were older age, male sex, underlying condition, and immunosuppressive treatment. These factors may be considered when planning booster doses during vaccine shortages.

Third BNT162b2 Vaccine Booster Dose against SARS-CoV-2-Induced Antibody Response among Healthcare Workers.

This study assessed humoral response to the third BNT162b2 dose among healthcare workers (HCW). This prospective cohort study of HCW tested for anti-spike antibodies (LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG assay) at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after receiving the second BNT162b2 vaccine dose (tests 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively). A third (booster) vaccination dose was introduced before test 4. Linear regression model was used to determine the humoral response following vaccine doses. For each serology test, changes in log-transformed antibody concentrations over time, adjusted for age, sex, underlying diseases, steroid treatment, and smoking were described using the general linear mix model. Serology tests were performed at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after the second vaccine dose in 1113, 1058, 986, and 939 participants, respectively. The third dose was received by 964 participants before the 9-month tests, 797 of whom participated in the 9- and 12-month serology tests. A significant inverse correlation was noted between time from third dose and antibody concentrations (Spearman correlation −0.395; p < 0.001). Age (p < 0.0001; CI 95% −0.005−−0.004), heart disease (p < 0.0001; CI 95% −0.177−−0.052), immunodeficiency (p < 0.0001; CI 95% 0.251−−0.106), and smoking (p < 0.0001; CI 95% −0.122−−0.040) were significantly associated with decreased antibody concentrations. Female sex (p = 0.03; CI 95% 0.013−0.066) was associated with increased antibody concentrations. The third booster dose had a better effect on immunogenicity, with higher antibody concentrations among tested HCW. Heart disease, smoking, and other known risk factors were associated with decreased antibody concentrations.