Remdesivir or Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir Therapy for Omicron SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Hematological Patients and Cell Therapy Recipients.

BACKGROUND: Scarce data exist that analyze the outcomes of hematological patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection during the Omicron variant period who received treatment with remdesivir or nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. METHODS: This study aims to address this issue by using a retrospective observational registry, created by the Spanish Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation and Cell Therapy Group, spanning from 27 December 2021 to 30 April 2023. RESULTS: This study included 466 patients, 243 (52%) who were treated with remdesivir and 223 (48%) with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was primarily used for mild cases, resulting in a lower COVID-19-related mortality rate (1.3%), while remdesivir was preferred for moderate to severe cases (40%), exhibiting a higher mortality rate (9%). A multivariate analysis in the remdesivir cohort showed that male gender (odds ratio (OR) 0.35, p = 0.042) correlated with a lower mortality risk, while corticosteroid use (OR 9.4, p < 0.001) and co-infection (OR 2.8, p = 0.047) were linked to a higher mortality risk. Prolonged virus shedding was common, with 52% of patients shedding the virus for more than 25 days. In patients treated with remdesivir, factors associated with prolonged shedding included B-cell malignancy as well as underlying disease, severe disease, a later onset of and shorter duration of remdesivir treatment and a higher baseline viral load. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir demonstrated a comparable safety profile to remdesivir, despite a higher risk of drug interactions. CONCLUSIONS: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir proved to be a safe and effective option for treating mild cases in the outpatient setting, while remdesivir was preferred for severe cases, where corticosteroids and co-infection significantly predicted worse outcomes. Despite antiviral therapy, prolonged shedding remains a matter of concern.

SARS-CoV-2-reactive antibody waning, booster effect and breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection in hematopoietic stem cell transplant and cell therapy recipients at one year after vaccination.

The kinetics of SARS-CoV-2 reactive IgG antibodies after full vaccination and booster in allogeneic and autologous stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT, ASCT) and chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CAR-T) are of utmost importance for estimating risk of infection. A prospective multicenter registry-based cohort study, conducted from December 2020 to July 2022 was used to analyze antibody waning over time, booster effect and the relationship of antibody response and breakthrough infection in 572 recipients (429 allo-HSCT, 121 ASCT and 22 CAR-T cell therapy). A significant decline in antibody titers was observed at 3 and 6 months after full vaccination in recipients without pre-vaccine SARS-CoV-2 infection, whereas recipients infected prior to vaccination showed higher and stable antibody titers over time. In poor responders, a booster dose was able to increase antibody titers in 83% of allo-HSCT and 58% of ASCT recipients but not in CART-T cell recipients [0%] (p < 0.01). One-year cumulative incidence of breakthrough infection was 15%, similar among cell therapy procedures. Immunosuppressive drugs at the time of vaccination [hazard ratio (HR) 1.81, p = 0.0028] and reduced intensity conditioning (HR 0.49, p = 0.011) were identified as the only conditions associated with different risk of breakthrough infection in allo-HSCT recipients. Antibody titers were associated with breakthrough infection and disease severity. No death was observed among the 72 breakthrough infections. Antibody level decay after the first two vaccine doses was common except in recipients with pre-vaccination SARS-CoV-2 infection. Poorly responding allo-HSCT recipients showed a response advantage with the booster as compared to ASCT and, especially, the null response found in CAR-T cell recipients. Antibody titers were positively correlated with the risk of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection which was mainly driven by the immunosuppression status.

One-year breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection and correlates of protection in fully vaccinated hematological patients.

The long-term clinical efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines according to antibody response in immunosuppressed patients such as hematological patients has been little explored. A prospective multicenter registry-based cohort study conducted from December 2020 to July 2022 by the Spanish Transplant and Cell Therapy group, was used to analyze the relationship of antibody response over time after full vaccination (at 3-6 weeks, 3, 6 and 12 months) (2 doses) and of booster doses with breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection in 1551 patients with hematological disorders. At a median follow-up of 388 days after complete immunization, 266 out of 1551 (17%) developed breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection at median of 86 days (range 7-391) after full vaccination. The cumulative incidence was 18% [95% confidence interval (C.I.), 16-20%]. Multivariate analysis identified higher incidence in chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients (29%) and with the use of corticosteroids (24.5%), whereas female sex (15.5%) and more than 1 year after last therapy (14%) were associated with a lower incidence (p < 0.05 for all comparisons). Median antibody titers at different time points were significantly lower in breakthrough cases than in non-cases. A serological titer cut-off of 250 BAU/mL was predictive of breakthrough infection and its severity. SARS-CoV-2 infection-related mortality was encouragingly low (1.9%) in our series. Our study describes the incidence of and risk factors for COVID-19 breakthrough infections during the initial vaccination and booster doses in the 2021 to mid-2022 period. The level of antibody titers at any time after 2-dose vaccination is strongly linked with protection against both breakthrough infection and severe disease, even with the Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant.

Outcomes of patients with chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia treated with non-curative therapies: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Approval of hypomethylating agents in patients with chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia is based on trials done in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes. We aimed to investigate whether hypomethylating agents provide a benefit in subgroups of patients with chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia compared with other treatments. METHODS: For this retrospective cohort study, data were retrieved between Nov 30, 2017, and Jan 5, 2019, from 38 centres in the USA and Europe. We included non-selected, consecutive patients diagnosed with chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia, who received chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia-directed therapy. Patients with acute myeloid leukaemia according to 2016 WHO criteria at initial diagnosis (ie, ≥20% blasts in the bone marrow or peripheral blood) or with unavailability of treatment data were excluded. Outcomes assessed included overall survival, time to next treatment, and time to transformation to acute myeloid leukaemia. Analyses were adjusted by age, sex, platelet count, and Chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia-Specific Prognostic Scoring System (CPSS). Patients were grouped by first received treatment with either hydroxyurea, hypomethylating agents, or intensive chemotherapy, and stratified by risk according to blast count, French-American-British subtype, CPSS, WHO 2016 subtype, and the eligibility criteria of the DACOTA trial (NCT02214407). FINDINGS: 949 patients diagnosed with chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia between April 13, 1981, and Oct 26, 2018, were included. Median follow-up was 23·4 months (IQR 11·5-42·3) from diagnosis and 16·2 months (6·6-31·6) from start of first-line treatment. 412 (43%) of 949 patients received hypomethylating agents as first treatment, 391 (41%) hydroxyurea, and 83 (9%) intensive chemotherapy. Adjusted median overall survival for patients treated with hydroxyurea versus hypomethylating agents was 15·6 months (95% CI 13·1-17·3) versus 20·7 months (17·9-23·4); hazard ratio (HR) 1·39 (1·17-1·65; p=0·0002) and 14·0 months (9·8-17·2) versus 20·7 months (17·9-23·4; HR 1·55 [1·16-2·05]; p=0·0027) for those treated with intensive chemotherapy versus hypomethylating agents. In patients with myeloproliferative chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia (myeloproliferative CMML), median overall survival was 12·6 months (10·7-15·0) versus 17·6 months (14·8-21·5; HR 1·38 [1·12-1·70]; p=0·0027) for patients treated with hydroxyurea versus hypomethylating agents, and 12·3 months (8·4-16·6) versus 17·6 months (14·8-21·5; HR 1·44 [1·02-2·03]; p=0·040) for intensive chemotherapy versus hypomethylating agents. Hypomethylating agents did not confer an overall survival advantage for patients classified as having lower-risk disease (ie, myelodysplastic chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia with <10% blasts, CMML-0, or lower-risk CPSS). INTERPRETATION: These data suggest hypomethylating agents as the preferred therapy for patients with higher-risk chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia and those with myeloproliferative CMML. Our findings also suggest that CPSS is a valuable tool to identify patients who are most likely to benefit from hypomethylating agents. Further evidence from prospective cohorts would be desirable. FUNDING: The Austrian Group for Medical Tumor Therapy.