Survival after allogeneic transplantation according to pretransplant minimal residual disease and conditioning intensity in patients with acute myeloid leukemia.

Background: The measurement of minimal residual disease (MRD) by multiparametric flow cytometry (MFC) before hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a powerful prognostic factor. The interaction of pretransplant MRD and the conditioning intensity has not yet been clarified. Objective: The aim of this study is to analyze the transplant outcomes of patients with AML who underwent HSCT in complete remission (CR), comparing patients with positive MRD (MRD+) and negative MRD (MRD-) before HSCT, and the interaction between conditioning intensity and pre-HSCT MRD. Study design: We retrospectively analyzed the transplant outcomes of 118 patients with AML who underwent HSCT in CR in a single institution, comparing patients with MRD+ and MRD- before HSCT using a cutoff of 0.1% on MFC, and the interaction between conditioning intensity and pre-HSCT MRD. Results: Patients with MRD+ before HSCT had a significantly worse 2-year (2y) event-free survival (EFS) (56.5% vs. 32.0%, p = 0.018) than MRD- patients, due to a higher cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR) at 2 years (49.0% vs. 18.0%, p = 0.002), with no differences in transplant-related mortality (TRM) (2y-TRM, 19.0% and 25.0%, respectively, p = 0.588). In the analysis stratified by conditioning intensity, in patients who received MAC, those with MRD- before HSCT had better EFS (p = 0.009) and overall survival (OS) (p = 0.070) due to lower CIR (p = 0.004) than MRD+ patients. On the other hand, the survival was similar in reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) patients regardless of the MRD status. Conclusions: Patients with MRD+ before HSCT have worse outcomes than MRD- patients. In patients who received MAC, MRD- patients have better EFS and OS due to lower CIR than MRD+ patients, probably because they represent a more chemo-sensitive group. However, among RIC patients, results were similar regardless of the MRD status.

ADAMTS13 recovery in acute thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura after caplacizumab therapy.

ABSTRACT: Caplacizumab prevents the interaction between von Willebrand factor and platelets and is used to treat immune thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (iTTP). Its administration has been associated with a delay in ADAMTS13 activity restoration after plasma exchange (PEX) suspension. We analyzed the outcomes of 113 iTTP episodes, 75 of which were treated with caplacizumab, in 108 patients from the Spanish Registry of Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Purpura. Caplacizumab shortened the time to platelet count normalization and reduced PEX requirement, exacerbations, and relapses. There was no difference in the time to achieve ADAMTS13 activity ≥20% after PEX end between caplacizumab-treated and nontreated episodes (median [interquartile range], 14.5 [7.7-27.2] vs 13.0 [8.0-29.0] days, P = .653). However, considering the 36 episodes in which caplacizumab was started ≤3 days after iTTP diagnosis, the time for ADAMTS13 restoration from PEX end was higher than in those episodes in which caplacizumab was started >3 days after iTTP diagnosis (20.0 [12.0-43.0] vs 11.0 [3.5-20.0] days, P = .003) or than in non-caplacizumab-treated episodes (P = .033). This finding could be related to a significantly shorter duration of PEX in early caplacizumab-treated episodes than in late caplacizumab-treated episodes (5.5 [4.0-9.0] vs 15.0 [11.0-21.5] days, P < .001) or non-caplacizumab-treated episodes (11.0 [6.0-26.0] days, P < .001). There were no differences in time to ADAMTS-13 restoration from PEX start (28.0 [17.2-47.5], 27.0 [19.0-37.5] and 29.5 [15.2-45.0] days in early caplacizumab-treated, late caplacizumab-treated and non-caplacizumab-treated episodes). Early administered caplacizumab does not prevent the requirement for immunosuppression but has beneficial effects by shortening PEX requirement without major safety concerns.

Patients with secondary acute myeloid leukemia undergoing allogeneic stem-cell transplant have inferior outcomes than de novo acute myeloid leukemia regardless minimal residual disease level by flow cytometry.

Secondary acute myeloid leukemia (s-AML) patients have a poor prognosis and currently the only curative therapy is allogeneic stem-cell transplant (HSCT). However, we do not yet know whether transplantation is sufficient to reverse the poor prognosis compared to de novo AML patients. We analyzed survival after HSCT comparing a cohort of 58 patients with s-AML versus 52 de novo patients who were transplanted between 2012 and 2020. Patients with s-AML had worse event-free survival (EFS) (p = 0.001) and overall survival (OS) (p < 0.001) compared to de novo AML due to an increased risk of relapse (p = 0.06) and non-relapse mortality (p = 0.03). The main difference in survival was observed in patients who achieved complete remission (CR) before HSCT (EFS p = 0.002 OS and <0.001), regardless minimal residual disease (MRD) by |multiparametric flow cytometry cohorts. In patients transplanted with active disease (AD), the prognosis was adverse in both s-AML and de novo AML groups (EFS p = 0.869 and OS p = 0.930). After excluding patients with AD, we stratified the cohort according to conditioning intensity, noticing that s-AML who received MAC had comparable outcomes to de novo AML, but the survival differences remained among reduce intensity conditioning group. In conclusion, transplanted s-AML patients have worse survival among patients in CR before HSCT, regardless of MRD level by flow cytometry compared to de novo AML. MAC patients had similar outcomes irrespective of leukemia ontogeny.

Motixafortide and G-CSF to mobilize hematopoietic stem cells for autologous transplantation in multiple myeloma: a randomized phase 3 trial.

Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (ASCT) improves survival in multiple myeloma (MM). However, many individuals are unable to collect optimal CD34+ hematopoietic stem and progenitor cell (HSPC) numbers with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) mobilization. Motixafortide is a novel cyclic-peptide CXCR4 inhibitor with extended in vivo activity. The GENESIS trial was a prospective, phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study with the objective of assessing the superiority of motixafortide + G-CSF over placebo + G-CSF to mobilize HSPCs for ASCT in MM. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients collecting ≥6 × 106 CD34+ cells kg-1 within two apheresis procedures; the secondary endpoint was to achieve this goal in one apheresis. A total of 122 adult patients with MM undergoing ASCT were enrolled at 18 sites across five countries and randomized (2:1) to motixafortide + G-CSF or placebo + G-CSF for HSPC mobilization. Motixafortide + G-CSF enabled 92.5% to successfully meet the primary endpoint versus 26.2% with placebo + G-CSF (odds ratio (OR) 53.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) 14.12-201.33, P < 0.0001). Motixafortide + G-CSF also enabled 88.8% to meet the secondary endpoint versus 9.5% with placebo + G-CSF (OR 118.0, 95% CI 25.36-549.35, P < 0.0001). Motixafortide + G-CSF was safe and well tolerated, with the most common treatment-emergent adverse events observed being transient, grade 1/2 injection site reactions (pain, 50%; erythema, 27.5%; pruritis, 21.3%). In conclusion, motixafortide + G-CSF mobilized significantly greater CD34+ HSPC numbers within two apheresis procedures versus placebo + G-CSF while preferentially mobilizing increased numbers of immunophenotypically and transcriptionally primitive HSPCs. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03246529.

Prediction of blood volume to be processed to achieve a target number of CD34+ cells: Development, validation and implementation of a formula.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Calculation of blood volume (BV) to be processed to achieve the target number of CD34+ cells can be accomplished by using collection efficiency 2 (CE2) formula. Our aim was to develop a BV web formula. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We calculated CE2 from aphereses performed between January 2015 and March 2020 in allogeneic donors and patients. From May 2020 to May 2021, we validated a formula: BV = ((Target CD34+ cells in the product)/(CD34+ pre-apheresis cells × CE2)) × 100. Subsequently, we compared the outcome of the procedures carried out before formula implementation (pre-formula), when standard three total BV collection was performed. RESULTS: CE2 was assessed in 384 apheresis procedures before formula implementation. CE2 was higher in allogeneic donors than in patients (53% ± 17% vs. 48% ± 15%, p = 0.008). CE2 was higher in multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma than Hodgkin's lymphoma (48% ± 15%, 48% ± 15% and 42% ± 13%, respectively; p = 0.008). Our formula (available on a website: Publisheet) was prospectively used in 54 individuals. The formula was very accurate: predicted versus observed CD34 + cells/kg collected had an r-value of 0.89 (p < 0.0001). We compared their results with 78 pre-formula individuals. In the post-formula group, a greater BV was processed in patients and less BV in allogeneic donors. Among individuals under 60 years of age, it was significantly less frequent than the need for more than one apheresis in the post-formula group. CONCLUSION: Formula calculations were accurate. Formula implementation allowed the optimization of the procedures and reduced the rate of individuals in need of apheresis for more than 1 day.

Addition of plerixafor to G-CSF in poor mobilizing healthy related donors overcame mobilization failure: An observational case series on behalf of the Grupo Español de Trasplante Hematopoyético (GETH).

Plerixafor (Mozobil, Sanofi) is approved for using in patients with lymphoma and multiple myeloma when steady-state mobilization strategies fail. Although off-label use of plerixafor in healthy related donors (HRD) is known, limited data are available and no recommendations exist to guide its use in this setting. With the aim of collecting data from HRDs who received plerixafor in our country, we designed an observational case series study within the Spanish Group of Hematopoietic Transplant and Cell Therapy (GETH). Plerixafor was administered subcutaneously to 30 HRDs at a median dose of 0.24 mg/Kg (interquartile range (IQR): 0.23-0.25) because mobilization failure after using mobilization with G-CSF (mobilization failure was defined as collection of <4.0 × 106 CD34+ cells/Kg recipient). All HRDs received G-CSF at a median dose of 11 µg/Kg/day (IQR: 10-12) for 4-5 days. Leukocytapheresis after G-CSF mobilization was performed in 23 (77 %) HRDs collecting a median of 1.6 × 106 CD34+ cells/Kg recipient weight (IQR: 0.9-2.5). Addition of plerixafor allowed the collection of a higher median number of CD34 cells (4.98 × 106 CD34+ cells/Kg recipient weight (IQR: 3.5-5.8)) when compared with the collection of CD34+ cells with G-CSF alone (p < 0.01). The final median total number of CD34+ cells collected was 6.1 × 106/Kg recipient weight (IQR: 4.8-7.3). Mild adverse events related with plerixafor administration were reported in 8 (27 %) donors. In conclusion, addition of plerixafor after G-CSF mobilization failure in HRDs allowed collecting higher number of CD34+ cells in comparison with steady-state mobilization.

Transfusion support in COVID-19 patients: Impact on hospital blood component supply during the outbreak.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 outbreak, most hospitals deferred elective surgical procedures to allow space for the overwhelming number of COVID-19 patient admissions, expecting a decrease in routine blood component requirements. However, because transfusion support needs of COVID-19 patients are not well known, its impact on hospital blood supply is uncertain. The objective of this study was to assess the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on transfusion demand. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Transfusion records during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic (March 1-April 30, 2020) were reviewed in our center to assess changes in blood requirements. RESULTS: During this period 636 patients received a total of 2934 blood components, which reflects a 17.6% reduction in transfusion requirements with regard to the same period of 2019, and blood donations in Madrid dropped by 45%. The surgical blood demand decreased significantly during the outbreak (50.2%). Blood usage in the hematology and oncology departments remained unchanged, while the day ward demand halved, and intensive care unit transfusion needs increased by 116%. A total of 6.2% of all COVID inpatients required transfusion support. COVID-19 inpatients consumed 19% of all blood components, which counterbalanced the savings owed to the reduction in elective procedures. CONCLUSION: Although only a minority of COVID-19 inpatients required transfusion, the expected reduction in transfusion needs caused by the lack of elective surgical procedures is partially offset by the large number of admitted patients during the peak of the pandemic. This fact must be taken into account when planning hospital blood supply.