Risk factor analysis for cytomegalovirus reactivation under prophylaxis with letermovir after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Real-World Safety and Effectiveness of Letermovir in Patients Undergoing Allogenic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation: Final Results of Post-Marketing Surveillance in Japan

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is a common opportunistic infection after allogenic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT). Letermovir, an inhibitor of CMV DNA terminase, is approved for CMV prophylaxis in allo-HSCT patients. We report the final results of post-marketing surveillance of letermovir in Japan.

METHODS

The case report forms were drafted in part by the Japanese Data Center for Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation using data elements in the Transplant Registry Unified Management Program and sent to individual HSCT centers to decrease the burden of reporting. Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation patients who received letermovir between May 2018 and May 2022 were registered. Data collected included physician-assessed adverse events/adverse drug reactions and clinical effectiveness (development of CMV disease, CMV antigen status, and use of preemptive therapy).

RESULTS

A total of 821 HSCT patients were included in the safety analyses. Adverse drug reactions occurred in 11.33% of patients, with serious adverse drug reactions in 3.05%. The five most common adverse drug reactions were nausea (1.58%), renal impairment (1.46%), and acute graft versus host disease, CMV test positive, and hepatic function abnormal (0.61% each). A total of 670 patients were eligible for effectiveness analyses. Among these patients, 16.57% and 28.66% required preemptive therapy through week 14 and week 48, respectively. In addition, relatively few patients developed CMV disease throughout the follow-up period (1.34% at week 14 and 3.85% at week 48).

CONCLUSIONS

This final analysis of post-marketing surveillance with up to 48 weeks follow-up period in Japan provides further evidence supporting the safety profile and effectiveness of letermovir for CMV prophylaxis in patients undergoing allo-HSCT in real-world settings.

Mortality in recipients of allogeneic haematopoietic cell transplantation in the era of cytomegalovirus primary prophylaxis: a single-centre retrospective experience

OBJECTIVES

Allogeneic haematopoietic cell transplant (allo-HCT) recipients who are cytomegalovirus (CMV)-seronegative have better post-transplant outcomes than CMV-seropositive recipients. Letermovir (LTV) is approved for CMV primary prophylaxis in adults who are CMV-seropositive after allo-HCT, and its use is associated with improved long-term post-transplant outcomes. We analysed whether LTV has affected the relationship between CMV serostatus and post-transplant outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective single-centre cohort study of allo-HCT recipients, stratified according to donor (D) and recipient (R). CMV serostatus and the use of LTV: D-/R-, R+/LTV-, and R+/LTV+. Outcomes measured were all-cause and non-relapse mortality, clinically significant CMV infection, graft-versus-host disease, and relapse up to week 48 after allo-HCT. The D-/R- group served as the reference for comparisons in univariate, competing risk regression, and cumulative incidence functions.

RESULTS

The analysis included 1071 consecutive allo-HCT recipients: 131 D-/R-, 557 R+/LTV-, and 383 R+/LTV+. All-cause mortality by day 100 was 6.1% for the D-/R- group, compared with 14.0% (p 0.024) and 7.8% (p 0.7) for the R+/LTV- and R+/LTV + groups, respectively. Non-relapse mortality by day 100 was 11.0%, 6.8% and 3.8% for R+/LTV-, R+/LTV+, and D-/R- groups, respectively, without significant difference. When including relapse as a competing event, the hazard ratio for non-relapse mortality was 1.83 (95% CI: 1.12-2.99, p 0.017) for R+/LTV- compared with D-/R- and 1.05 (95% CI 0.62-1.77, p 0.85) for R+/LTV + compared with D-/R-.

DISCUSSION

CMV primary prophylaxis with LTV abrogated the mortality gap based on CMV serostatus, a protective effect that persisted after discontinuation of primary prophylaxis.

Differential clinical impact of letermovir prophylaxis according to graft sources: a KSGCT multicenter retrospective analysis

ABSTRACT

Clinically significant cytomegalovirus infection (csCMVi) is frequently observed after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) and prophylaxis with letermovir is commonly adopted. However, the clinical benefit of letermovir prophylaxis according to graft sources has not been sufficiently elucidated. We retrospectively analyzed 2194 recipients of HSCT who were CMV-seropositive (236 with letermovir prophylaxis and 1958 without prophylaxis against CMV). csCMVi was significantly less frequent in patients with letermovir prophylaxis than in those without (23.7% vs 58.7% at 100 days after HSCT, P < .001) and the same trend was seen when recipients of bone marrow (BM), peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC), or cord blood (CB) transplantation were separately analyzed. In recipients of BM, nonrelapse mortality (NRM) was significantly lower in the letermovir group at 6 months after HSCT (5.0% vs 14.9%, P = .018), and the same trend was observed in recipients of PBSCs (14.7% vs 24.8%, P = .062); however, there was no statistical significance at 1 year (BM, 21.1% vs 30.4%, P = .67; PBSCs, 21.2% vs 30.4%, P = .096). In contrast, NRM was comparable between recipients of CB with and without letermovir prophylaxis throughout the clinical course (6 months, 23.6% vs 24.3%, P =.92; 1 year, 29.3% vs 31.0%, P = .77), which was confirmed by multivariate analyses. In conclusion, the impact of letermovir prophylaxis on NRM and csCMVi should be separately considered according to graft sources.

Efficacy and safety of letermovir prophylaxis for cytomegalovirus infection after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Letermovir is a specific inhibitor of cytomegalovirus (CMV) terminase complex. Several studies have reported that letermovir can effectively prevent CMV activation after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT). We aimed to identify the efficacy and safety of letermovir prophylaxis for CMV infection after allo-HSCT with a systemic review and meta-analysis. A literature search was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement. PubMed and Embase databases were searched. A total of 28 studies were included. The incidence of CMV activation at 14 weeks after HSCT was 0.10 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.06-0.18), which was 0.10 (95% CI, 0.04-0.21) and 0% in adult and children (2 studies were included and both of them were 0%). In addition, the incidence of CMV activation at 14 weeks after allo-HSCT was 0.11 (95% CI, 0.06-0.21) and 0.07 (only 1 study included), respectively, in retrospective and prospective studies. The incidence of CMV activation at 100 and 200 days after HSCT was 0.23 (95% CI, 0.16-0.33) and 0.49 (95% CI, 0.32-0.67), respectively. The incidence of CMV disease at 14 weeks and at 6 months after HSCT was 0.01 (95% CI, 0.01-0.02) and 0.03 (95% CI, 0.01-0.09), respectively. Thus, our systemic review and meta-analysis suggested that letermovir prophylaxis was safe and effective for CMV activation after allo-HSCT.

Effectiveness of letermovir for cytomegalovirus prophylaxis in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients: A global systematic review

OBJECTIVE(S)

Letermovir (LET), a novel antiviral, has largely supplanted more traditional preemptive therapy (PET) for cytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylaxis in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (allo-HCT) patients. Use of LET demonstrated efficacy against placebo in phase III randomized controlled trials, but is considerably more expensive than PET. This review aimed to evaluate the real-world effectiveness of LET in preventing clinically significant CMV infection (csCMVi) for allo-HCT recipients and related outcomes.

DESIGN

A systematic literature review was performed using an a priori protocol using PubMed, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov from January 2010 to October 2021.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Studies were included if they met the following criteria: LET compared with PET, CMV-related outcomes, patients aged 18 years or older, and English language-only articles. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize study characteristics and outcomes.

OUTCOME MEASURES

CMV viremia, csCMVi, CMV end-organ disease, graft-versus-host-disease, all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 233 abstracts were screened, with 30 included in this review. Randomized trials demonstrated efficacy of LET prophylaxis in preventing csCMVi. Observational studies demonstrated varying degrees of effectiveness of LET prophylaxis compared with use of PET alone. All studies with a comparator group resulted in lower rates of csCMVi for patients using LET. Included studies varied widely by CMV viral load threshold cutoff and CMV test units, limiting synthesis of results owing to high heterogeneity.

CONCLUSION

LET reduces risk of csCMVi, but lack of standardized clinical definitions on how to evaluate csCMVi and related outcomes largely prevent synthesis of results. Clinicians must consider this limitation in the context of evaluating the effectiveness of LET to other antiviral therapies, especially for patients at risk of late-onset CMV. Future studies should focus on prospective data collection through registries and concordance of diagnostic definitions to mitigate study heterogeneity.

Cytomegalovirus breakthrough and resistance during letermovir prophylaxis

Letermovir is a relatively new antiviral for prophylaxis against cytomegalovirus (CMV) after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). CMV-seropositive HCT recipients who received letermovir prophylaxis from 2018 to 2020 at our center were evaluated for letermovir resistance and breakthrough CMV reactivation. Two-hundred twenty-six letermovir recipients were identified and 7/15 (47%) with CMV DNAemia ≥200 IU/mL were successfully genotyped for UL56 resistance. A single C325Y resistance mutation was identified in an umbilical cord blood recipient. Ninety-five (42%), 43 (19%), and 15 (7%) patients had breakthrough CMV at any level, ≥150 IU/mL, and ≥500 IU/mL, respectively. Risk factors for breakthrough CMV reactivation at each viral threshold were examined. Cumulative steroid exposure was the strongest risk factor for CMV at all evaluated viral thresholds. Graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis with post-transplantation cyclophosphamide (aHR 2.34, 95% CI 1.28-4.28, p = 0.001) or calcineurin inhibitors plus mycophenolate (aHR 2.24, 95% CI 1.30-3.86, p = 0.004) were also associated with an increased risk of CMV reactivation at any level. De novo letermovir resistance is rare and can be successfully treated using other antivirals. Letermovir effectively prevents clinically significant CMV, however, subclinical CMV reactivation occurs frequently at our center.

Features of cytomegalovirus DNAemia and virus-specific T-cell responses in allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplant recipients during prophylaxis with letermovir

BACKGROUND

There is scarce information on the natural kinetics of cytomegalovirus (CMV) DNAemia and dynamics of CMV-specific T-cell reconstitution in allogeneic hematopoietic transplant recipients (allo-HSCT) undergoing letermovir (LMV) prophylaxis.

METHODS

Twelve adult CMV-seropositive high-risk recipients (median age, 53 years; 9 males/3 females) undergoing LMV prophylaxis and 13 non-LMV allo-HSCT controls (median age, 58 years; 7 males/6 females) were included. CMV DNAemia in plasma was monitored by real-time polymerase chain reaction. Preemptive antiviral therapy (PET) was administered upon detection of ≥1500 IU/ml. CMV-specific interferon-gamma (IFN-γ)-producing CD8⁺ and CD4⁺ T cells were enumerated by flow cytometry around days +30, +60, and +90 after allo-HSCT. Ex vivo experiments assessing of the potential effect of LMV on CMV-specific T-cell expansion in a single CMV-seropositive donor were also conducted.

RESULTS

Five LMV patients (41.6%) developed CMV DNAemia that cleared spontaneously. Four patients (33.3%) developed CMV DNAemia after LMV cessation, of which two required PET. Nine non-LMV patients (69.2%) developed CMV DNAemia (five required PET). The percentage of LMV and non-LMV patients exhibiting detectable CMV-specific T-cell responses was comparable (7/10 vs. 10/13; p = .71). Nevertheless, median CMV-specific CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T-cell counts were lower in LMV patients by days +60 (p = .006 and .02, respectively) and +90 (p = .08 and .02). Ex vivo, CMV-specific CD8⁺ T cells expanded to the same level either in the presence (19.8%) or in the absence of LMV (20.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

In our series, episodes of CMV DNAemia in LMV patients cleared spontaneously. A diminished degree of CMV-specific T-cell reconstitution in LMV patients compared to non-LMV patients was observed.