Incidence of breakthrough fungal infections on isavuconazole prophylaxis compared to posaconazole and voriconazole.

BACKGROUND: Invasive fungal infections (IFIs) are a common infectious complication during the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia (AML), high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) or post hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). For these patients, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends posaconazole or voriconazole for IFI prophylaxis. In clinical practice, however, there has been increased use of isavuconazole due to favorable pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters despite limited data for this indication. The comparative prophylactic efficacy of antifungals in this patient population has not been reported, and an analysis is warranted. METHODS: This retrospective, matched cohort, single-center study, included AML, MDS, or HCT patients who began treatment or underwent transplant between January 1, 2015 and July 31, 2021. Isavuconazole patients were matched 1:2 with patients receiving posaconazole or voriconazole prophylaxis. RESULTS: A total of 126 patients were included, 42 received isavuconazole, 81 received posaconazole, and three received voriconazole. The majority of patients were male receiving secondary IFI prophylaxis while receiving steroids for treatment of GVHD. The incidence of possible, probable or proven IFI was 16.7% in the isavuconazole group compared to 10.7% in the posaconazole and voriconazole group (OR 1.28, 95% CI -0.9-1.4; p = .67). Hepatotoxicity occurred in 16 total patients, 14 receiving posaconazole and two receiving isavuconazole. CONCLUSION: Patients who received isavuconazole prophylaxis during AML induction therapy or post-HCT experienced a similar incidence of breakthrough fungal infections compared to those who received posaconazole or voriconazole. These results suggest no difference in antifungal prophylactic efficacy; however larger prospective comparative studies are needed.

Evaluation of the Durability of the Immune Humoral Response to COVID-19 Vaccines in Patients With Cancer Undergoing Treatment or Who Received a Stem Cell Transplant.

Importance: The durability of the antibody response to COVID-19 vaccines in patients with cancer undergoing treatment or who received a stem cell transplant is unknown and may be associated with infection outcomes. Objective: To evaluate anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein receptor binding domain (anti-RBD) and neutralizing antibody (nAb) responses to COVID-19 vaccines longitudinally over 6 months in patients with cancer undergoing treatment or who received a stem cell transplant (SCT). Design, Setting, and Participants: In this prospective, observational, longitudinal cross-sectional study of 453 patients with cancer undergoing treatment or who received an SCT at the University of Kansas Cancer Center in Kansas City, blood samples were obtained before 433 patients received a messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine (BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273), after the first dose of the mRNA vaccine, and 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months after the second dose. Blood samples were also obtained 2, 4, and 7 months after 17 patients received the JNJ-78436735 vaccine. For patients receiving a third dose of an mRNA vaccine, blood samples were obtained 30 days after the third dose. Interventions: Blood samples and BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, or JNJ-78436735 vaccines. Main Outcomes and Measures: Geometric mean titers (GMTs) of the anti-RBD; the ratio of GMTs for analysis of demographic, disease, and treatment variables; the percentage of neutralization of anti-RBD antibodies; and the correlation between anti-RBD and nAb responses to the COVID-19 vaccines. Results: This study enrolled 453 patients (mean [SD] age, 60.4 [13,1] years; 253 [56%] were female). Of 450 patients, 273 (61%) received the BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer), 160 (36%) received the mRNA-1273 vaccine (Moderna), and 17 (4%) received the JNJ-7846735 vaccine (Johnson & Johnson). The GMTs of the anti-RBD for all patients were 1.70 (95% CI, 1.04-2.85) before vaccination, 18.65 (95% CI, 10.19-34.11) after the first dose, 470.38 (95% CI, 322.07-686.99) at 1 month after the second dose, 425.80 (95% CI, 322.24-562.64) at 3 months after the second dose, 447.23 (95% CI, 258.53-773.66) at 6 months after the second dose, and 9224.85 (95% CI, 2423.92-35107.55) after the third dose. The rate of threshold neutralization (≥30%) was observed in 203 of 252 patients (80%) 1 month after the second dose and in 135 of 166 patients (81%) 3 months after the second dose. Anti-RBD and nAb were highly correlated (Spearman correlation coefficient, 0.93 [0.92-0.94]; P < .001). Three months after the second dose, anti-RBD titers were lower in male vs female patients (ratio of GMTs, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.34-0.81]), patients older than 65 years vs patients 50 years or younger (ratio of GMTs, 0.38 [95% CI, 0.25-0.57]), and patients with hematologic malignant tumors vs solid tumors (ratio of GMTs, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.20-0.81]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, after 2 doses of an mRNA vaccine, anti-RBD titers peaked at 1 month and remained stable over the next 6 months. Patients older than 65 years of age, male patients, and patients with a hematologic malignant tumor had low antibody titers. Compared with the primary vaccine course, a 20-fold increase in titers from a third dose suggests a brisk B-cell anamnestic response in patients with cancer.

Identifying the need to refine the potential patient risk factors for niraparib-induced thrombocytopenia.

OBJECTIVE: Niraparib is a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARP) approved for use in maintenance therapy for ovarian cancer that is associated with the unpredictable grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia. This study was conducted to refine patient dosing recommendations for niraparib based upon clinical practice observations of grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Six patient cases were reviewed to identify similarities in patient factors. An in vitro study was conducted using healthy volunteer blood spiked with Niraparib concentrations ranging from 0 ng/mL to 5000 ng/mL. Manual platelet counts were evaluated at different time intervals for each concentration and compared to untreated controls. Data was then analyzed based on percent change in platelet count versus untreated control for each concentration/time point. RESULTS: In three patients with body weight > 80 kg and platelet count >200 × 109/L, decreased creatinine clearance (CrCl) <60 mL/min was identified as potential signal. An additional three patients with weights below 77 kg and/or baseline platelet counts <150 × 109/L were re-evaluated, and it was observed that all had decreased CrCl of <60 mL/min. Albumin <3.5 g/dL was also observed in some patients with thrombocytopenia. The in vitro study, observed a direct concentration-dependent relationship between niraparib and thrombocytopenia. CONCLUSION: The data suggests that renal insufficiency and hypoalbuminemia may be associated with the development of niraparib-induced thrombocytopenia. Moreover, the preliminary in vitro studies also demonstrated a concentration-dependent relationship between niraparib and direct toxicity to platelets.

A Novel Use of Olaparib for the Treatment of Metastatic Castration-Recurrent Prostate Cancer.

Although mortality from prostate cancer has declined over the past 20 years as a result of early detection and treatment, the 5-year survival rate for men with prostate cancer who develop metastatic disease is only 29%. Current treatment options for metastatic castration-recurrent prostate cancer (mCRPC) are associated with toxicity and a limited durable response; therefore, additional lines of efficacious and minimally toxic therapy are needed. Olaparib, a poly(adenosine 5'-diphosphate) ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, received a U.S. Food and Drug Administration breakthrough therapy designation in January 2016 for the treatment of patients with BRCA1/2 or ATM gene-mutated mCRPC based on results of a compelling phase II trial of olaparib in patients with advanced castration-resistant prostate cancer (TOPARP-A). This study found that men with mCRPC and genetic mutations in DNA damage repair genes had an overall response rate of nearly 90% with olaparib treatment. In this review, we describe current therapies for mCRPC, the rationale for anti-PARP therapies, the pharmacology of olaparib for prostate cancer, clinical trials of olaparib for mCRPC, our clinical experience with olaparib for prostate cancer at a comprehensive cancer center, and future directions of olaparib for the treatment of mCRPC. Olaparib may constitute a promising treatment to prolong survival in patients with mCRPC, with an acceptable adverse effect profile. As the role of PARP inhibition in prostate cancer and other malignancies becomes further elucidated, olaparib may be shown to be beneficial for other patient populations.