Multi-institutional study evaluating clinical outcome with allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation after blinatumomab in patients with B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia: real-world data.

Safety and efficacy of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHCT) consolidation after blinatumomab is largely undetermined. To address this issue, we assembled multi-center data of relapsed refractory (RR) acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL) patients who received alloHCT after blinatumomab. From December 2014 to May 2019, 223 patients who received blinatumomab for RR ALL outside clinical trials were identified. Among them, 106 (47%) patients transplanted post blinatumomab were evaluated for response and toxicity. Ninety-two (87%) patients received alloHCT after achieving CR, while remaining received subsequent salvage prior to undergoing alloHCT. Progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) at 2 years post alloHCT was 48% (95% CI: 36-59%) and 58% (95% CI: 45-69%), respectively. The cumulative incidence of GIII-IV aGVHD at 3 months was 9.9% (95% CI: 5.0-16.6%). Similarly, cumulative incidence of moderate to severe cGVHD at 2 years was 34.4% (95% CI: 23.7-45.3%). The overall survival at 2 years was not significantly different in patient who achieved CR with MRD negative (68.4% [95% CI: 28.5-89.1%]) compared to CR with MRD positive (63.4% [95% CI: 47.8-75.4%]) prior to alloHCT (p = 0.8). Our real-world analysis suggests that alloHCT is feasible and effective post blinatumomab in patients with RR ALL.

Sequencing of novel agents in relapsed/refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia: Blinatumomab and inotuzumab ozogamicin may have comparable efficacy as first or second novel agent therapy in relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

BACKGROUND: The availability of novel agents (NAs), including blinatumomab and inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO), has improved the outcomes of patients with relapsed/refractory (RR) B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Because of the relative effectiveness, it is often a challenge for clinicians to determine how to best sequence these NAs with respect to efficacy and toxicity. METHODS: In this multicenter, retrospective study of patients with RR ALL treated with blinatumomab, InO, or both, their efficacy as a first or second NA was compared. RESULTS: Among 276 patients, 221 and 55 received blinatumomab and InO, respectively, as a first NA therapy. The complete remission (CR)/complete remission with incomplete count recovery (CRi) rate was 65% and 67% for the blinatumomab and InO groups, respectively (P = .73). The rate of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events was 4% and 7% in the blinatumomab and InO groups, respectively. Ninety-two patients (43%) in the blinatumomab group and 13 patients (29%) in the InO group proceeded with allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. The median overall survival (OS) was 15 and 11.6 months in the blinatumomab and InO groups, respectively. A subset analysis was performed for 61 patients who received both NAs (blinatumomab and then InO [n = 40] or InO and then blinatumomab [n = 21]). The CR/CRi rate was 58% for patients who received InO as the second NA and 52% for patients who received blinatumomab as the second NA. The median OS was 10.5 for patients who received InO as the second NA and 5.9 months for patients who received blinatumomab as the second NA (P = .09). CONCLUSIONS: Although the limited power of this study to detect a significant difference between subgroups is acknowledged, the data suggest that blinatumomab and InO may have comparable efficacy as a first or second NA therapy in RR ALL.

Real-world outcomes of adult B-cell acute lymphocytic leukemia patients treated with blinatumomab.

The availability and use of blinatumomab symbolizes a paradigm shift in the management of B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). We conducted a retrospective multicenter cohort analysis of 239 ALL patients (227 relapsed refractory [RR], n = 227; minimal residual disease [MRD], n = 12) who received blinatumomab outside of clinical trials to evaluate safety and efficacy in the "real-world" setting. The median age of patients at blinatumomab initiation was 48 years (range, 18-85). Sixty-one (26%) patients had ≥3 prior therapies and 46 (19%) had allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation before blinatumomab. The response rate (complete remission/complete remission with incomplete count recovery) in patients with RR disease was 65% (47% MRD-). Among 12 patients who received blinatumomab for MRD, 9 (75%) patients achieved MRD negativity. In patients with RR disease, median relapse-free survival and overall survival (OS) after blinatumomab was 32 months and 12.7 months, respectively. Among patients who received blinatumomab for MRD, median relapse-free survival was not reached (54% MRD- at 2 years) and OS was 34.7 months. Grade ≥3 cytokine release syndrome, neurotoxicity, and hepatotoxicity were observed in 3%, 7%, and 10% of patients, respectively. Among patients who achieved complete remission/complete remission with incomplete count recovery, consolidation therapy with allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation retained favorable prognostic significance for OS (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.97; P = .04). In this largest "real-world" experience published to date, blinatumomab demonstrated responses comparable to those reported in clinical trials. The optimal sequencing of newer therapies in ALL requires further study.

Real-World Outcomes of Adult B-Cell Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia Patients Treated With Inotuzumab Ozogamicin.

BACKGROUND: Inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO) is an anti-CD22 monoclonal antibody-drug (calicheamicin) conjugate that has shown superior efficacy compared to conventional chemotherapy in relapsed/refractory (RR) B-cell acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL) patients. We sought to find the safety and efficacy of InO in a real-world setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A multicenter cohort analysis on 84 RR ALL patients who received InO outside of clinical trials was conducted to evaluate response and toxicity. RESULTS: The median (range) age of patients at InO initiation was 50 (20-87) years. Forty patients (48%) had ≥ 3 therapies and 23 patients (27%) underwent allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (allo-HCT) before InO. The median (range) number of cycles of InO provided was 2 (1-6), and cumulative dose was 3.3 (1.8-9.3) mg/m2. Overall response rate (complete remission/complete remission with incomplete count recovery) was 63%; 44% had complete remission with minimal residual disease negativity. Twenty-three patients (27%) with response received allo-HCT. The median duration of response was 11.5 months and when censored at allo-HCT was not reached (51% in remission at 2 years). The median overall survival after InO was 11.6 months and when censored at time of allo-HCT was 13.6 months. The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events observed were transaminitis (16%), hyperbilirubinemia (5%), bleeding (4%), veno-occlusive disease (2%), and hyperglycemia (2%). In multivariate analysis, allo-HCT after InO did not retain favorable significance for duration of response (hazard ratio = 1.27; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.61; P = .2) or overall survival (hazard ratio = 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-3.25; P = .85). CONCLUSION: InO was well tolerated and had significant efficacy in RR B-cell ALL patients.

Itraconazole vs. posaconazole for antifungal prophylaxis in patients with acute myeloid leukemia undergoing intensive chemotherapy: A retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare itraconazole with posaconazole for antifungal prophylaxis in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients undergoing intensive chemotherapy. METHODS: Adult patients with AML received either itraconazole or posaconazole for antifungal prophylaxis while undergoing intensive chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was incidence of prophylaxis failure (change in antifungal agent due to suspected invasive fungal infection [IFI], drug intolerance, drug interaction, or adverse event). RESULTS: From February 2016 to January 2018, 90 patients were included in the itraconazole group and 45 patients in the posaconazole group. Prophylaxis failure occurred in 88% of itraconazole recipients compared with 33% of posaconazole recipients (P<0.001). The primary reason for prophylaxis failure with itraconazole was suspected IFI (58%) whereas for posaconazole, failure predominantly related to drug interaction (60%). An antifungal regimen was continued upon discharge in 47% of itraconazole recipients compared with 9% of posaconazole recipients (P<0.001). The use of breakthrough IFI diagnostic tests was not significantly different in the two groups. A larger proportion of drug concentrations were collected in the posaconazole group. CONCLUSIONS: In AML patients undergoing intensive chemotherapy, posaconazole was associated with significantly lower rates of prophylaxis failure and less need for continued antifungal therapy on discharge compared with itraconazole.

Descriptive comparison of hospital formulary decisions with published oncology valuation methods.

INTRODUCTION: As cost of cancer therapy continues to increase, several organizations have developed rubrics to ascertain treatment. No studies have evaluated these methods for hospital formulary decision-making. We applied different value measurement tools to formulary decisions from one hospital system to assess their operational utility. METHODS: We evaluated four value systems: National Comprehensive Cancer Network Evidence Blocks, DrugAbacus drug pricing, European Society for Medical Oncology clinical benefit scale, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology net health benefit. Each value score or cost was assessed against our hospital formulary requests between 2012 and 2016. Formulary requests accepted and rejected were compared with respect to their relative numbers of National Comprehensive Cancer Network blocks, difference between DrugAbacus and actual cost, and European Society for Medical Oncology and American Society of Clinical Oncology scores. RESULTS: Twenty-two chemotherapy requests were included, with 20 approvals and 2 rejections. No correlation was observed between number of evidence blocks and formulary acceptance (p = 0.13). Most drugs had a higher actual price than the DrugAbacus suggested cost (p = 0.036). No significant differences were observed in European Society for Medical Oncology (p = 0.90) or American Society of Clinical Oncology (p = 0.70) scores between drugs that were accepted or rejected. When evaluating monthly cost per point of American Society of Clinical Oncology score, a numerical difference between groups was observed (median = $369.7 versus $1256.8 per point, p = 0.61). CONCLUSIONS: Existing oncology value assessment systems only variably inform hospital formulary decisions. The American Society of Clinical Oncology net health benefit score deserves further study as a method to systematically quantify the clinical safety and efficacy of formulary medication addition relative to cost.

Comparison of serum concentrations between different dosing strategies of posaconazole delayed-release tablet at a large academic medical centre.

It is unclear if the prophylaxis dose of 300 mg/day is sufficient for achieving serum concentrations targeting the treatment of invasive fungal infections. To evaluate differences between PCZ serum concentrations in patients receiving the DRT vs the OS and in patients receiving higher doses than 300 mg/day of the DRT, a retrospective review was conducted on inpatients who received PCZ for either treatment or prophylaxis. Baseline demographics including comorbid conditions, indication and dose of therapy were collected. Serum trough concentrations were collected at steady state. Fifty-seven patients received PCZ during the study period. A total of 35 levels were collected (DRT n = 18, OS n = 17). Patients receiving the DRT had levels >0.7 mcg/mL 100% of the time compared to 58.8% in those receiving the OS. No significant difference was seen in serum concentrations at 300 mg/day (n = 14) vs 400 mg/day (n = 8) of the DRT (1.55 mcg/mL (1.08-2.50) vs 2.5 mcg/mL (1.85-2.70), P = .19). The DRT leads to more consistent levels in the therapeutic range than the OS. Standard dosing of 300 mg/day with DRT achieves adequate concentrations for prophylaxis and treatment of IFIs, although further data are needed to determine optimal serum concentrations for treatment.