Real-Life Multicenter Experience of Venetoclax in Combination with Hypomethylating Agents in Previously Untreated Adult Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia in Greece.

BACKGROUND: The landscape of first-line treatment for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients ineligible for intensive chemotherapy has changed remarkably after venetoclax approval. Accumulating real-world data further apprises us with more knowledgeable use. To assess the efficacy and safety challenges in the real-life setting of the combination of hypomethylated agent (HMA) and venetoclax, we conducted a multi-center retrospective study. METHODS: Forty adult AML patients treated with the combination of HMA and venetoclax as a first-line treatment after full approval (2020) were included. To confirm VIALE-A results, this group was compared to a historical cohort of 17 chemotherapy-ineligible AML patients treated with HMA monotherapy before 2020. RESULTS: The combination of HMA-venetoclax achieved a composite complete response rate of 86.8% (p < 0.001), median overall survival, and event-free survival of 33.8 and 19.7 months, respectively, in a median follow-up of 17.8 months (pos < 0.001, HR = 0.276, CI: 0.132-0.575, pEFS = 0.004, HR = 0.367, CI: 0.174-0.773). High rates of neutropenia (90%) and consequent infection rates (57.5%) were noted. Only 55% of our patients received antifungal prophylaxis, as its use remains controversial, and invasive fungal infections were presented in 7.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Evidently, venetoclax-HMA yields high response rates and profound survival benefits in real life and has changed our approach to alternative chemotherapy options.

Nocebo-Prone Behavior Associated with SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Hesitancy in Healthcare Workers.

Among healthcare workers (HCWs), SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy may be linked to a higher susceptibility to nocebo effects, i.e., adverse events (AEs) experienced after medical treatments due to negative expectations. To investigate this hypothesis a cross-sectional survey was performed with a self-completed questionnaire that included a tool (Q-No) for the identification of nocebo-prone individuals. A total of 1309 HCWs (67.2% women; 43.4% physicians; 28.4% nurses; 11.5% administrative staff; 16.6% other personnel) completed the questionnaires, among whom 237 (18.1%) had declined vaccination. Q-No scores were ≥15 in 325 participants (24.8%) suggesting nocebo-prone behavior. In a multivariate logistic regression model with Q-No score, age, gender, and occupation as independent variables, estimated odds ratios (ORs) of vaccination were 0.43 (i.e., less likely, p < 0.001) in participants with Q-No score ≥ 15 vs. Q-No score < 15, 0.58 in females vs. males (p = 0.013), and 4.7 (i.e., more likely) in physicians vs. other HCWs (p < 0.001), independent of age, which was not significantly associated with OR of vaccination. At least one adverse effect (AE) was reported by 67.5% of vaccinees, mostly local pain and flu-like symptoms. In a multivariate logistic regression model, with Q-No score, age, gender, and occupation as independent variables, estimated ORs of AE reporting were 2.0 in females vs. males (p < 0.001) and 1.47 in physicians vs. other HCWs (p = 0.017) independently of age and Q-No score, which were not significantly associated with OR of AE. These findings suggest that nocebo-prone behavior in HCWs is associated with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination hesitancy indicating a potential benefit of a campaign focused on nocebo-prone people.