Prognostic impact of early-versus-late responses to different induction regimens in patients with myeloma undergoing autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation: Results from the CALM study by the CMWP of the EBMT.

BACKGROUND: In autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT)-eligible myeloma patients, prolonged induction does not necessarily improve the depth of response. METHOD: We analyzed 1222 ASCT patients who were classified based on (a) the interval between induction and stem cell collection, (b) the type of induction regimen: BID (Bortezomib, IMiDs, and Dexamethasone), Bortezomib-based, or CTD (Cyclophosphamide, Thalidomide, and Dexamethasone), and (c) the time to best response (Early ie, best response within 4 or 5 months, depending on the regimen vs Late; Good ie, VGPR or better vs Poor). RESULTS: The length of induction treatment required to achieve a Good response did not affect PFS (P = .65) or OS (P = .61) post-ASCT. The three types of regimen resulted in similar outcomes: median PFS 31, 27.7 and 30.8 months (P = .31), and median OS 81.7, 92.7, and 77.4 months, respectively (P = .83). On multivariate analysis, neither the type nor the duration of the induction regimen affected OS and PFS, except for Early Good Responders who had a better PFS compared to Early Poor Responders (HR = 1.21, P-value = .02). However, achieving a Good response at induction was associated with a better response (≥VGPR) post-transplant. CONCLUSION: The kinetics of response did not affect outcomes.

Ruxolitinib in refractory acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease: a multicenter survey study.

Graft-versus-host disease is the main cause of morbidity and mortality after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. First-line treatment is based on the use of high doses of corticosteroids. Unfortunately, second-line treatment for both acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease, remains a challenge. Ruxolitinib has been shown as an effective and safe treatment option for these patients. Seventy-nine patients received ruxolitinib and were evaluated in this retrospective and multicenter study. Twenty-three patients received ruxolitinib for refractory acute graft-versus-host disease after a median of 3 (range 1-5) previous lines of therapy. Overall response rate was 69.5% (16/23) which was obtained after a median of 2 weeks of treatment, and 21.7% (5/23) reached complete remission. Fifty-six patients were evaluated for refractory chronic graft-versus-host disease. The median number of previous lines of therapy was 3 (range 1-10). Overall response rate was 57.1% (32/56) with 3.5% (2/56) obtaining complete remission after a median of 4 weeks. Tapering of corticosteroids was possible in both acute (17/23, 73%) and chronic graft-versus-host disease (32/56, 57.1%) groups. Overall survival was 47% (CI: 23-67%) at 6 months for patients with aGVHD (62 vs 28% in responders vs non-responders) and 81% (CI: 63-89%) at 1 year for patients with cGVHD (83 vs 76% in responders vs non-responders). Ruxolitinib in the real life setting is an effective and safe treatment option for GVHD, with an ORR of 69.5% and 57.1% for refractory acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease, respectively, in heavily pretreated patients.

[Bacteraemia and infection of the vascular catheter in the haematology patient: positioning and management based on the Delphi method]. / Bacteriemia e infección del catéter vascular en el ámbito hematológico: posicionamiento y actitudes de manejo basados en el método Delphi.

OBJECTIVE: Infectious complications are an important cause of morbidity and mortality in haematological patients with febrile neutropenia. The aim of this study was to develop a consensus document of recommendations to optimize the management of febrile neutropenic patients with haematological or vascular catheter infections in areas where there is no solid scientific evidence. METHODS: After reviewing the scientific evidence, a scientific committee composed of experts in haematology and infectious diseases developed a survey with 55 statements. A two- round modified Delphi method was used to achieve consensus. RESULTS: The online survey was answered by 52 experts in the field of haematology and infectious diseases. After two rounds of evaluation, a consensus was possible in 43 of the 55 statements (78.2%): 40 in agreement and 3 in disagreement. Recommendations are given related to empirical antibiotic treatment of patients with febrile neutropenia, mechanisms of action, toxicity and synergism of antibiotics in this context, modifications of antibiotic treatment in the course of febrile neutropenia, and the management of central vascular catheter infections in the haematological setting. CONCLUSIONS: There is a high degree of agreement among experts on some controversial issues concerning the management of febrile neutropenia and catheter infection in hematologic patients. This agreement has resulted in recommendations that may be useful in clinical practice.

Bacteriemia e infección del catéter vascular en el ámbito hematológico: posicionamiento y actitudes de manejo basados en el método Delphi / Bacteraemia and infection of the vascular catheter in the haematology patient: positioning and management based on the Delphi method

Introducción. Las complicaciones infecciosas son una causa importante de morbi-mortalidad en los pacientes hematológicos con neutropenia febril. El objetivo del presente trabajo fue desarrollar un documento de recomendaciones consensuado para optimizar el manejo del paciente hematológico con neutropenia febril o infecciones por catéteres vasculares en áreas en las que no se dispone de una sólida evidencia científica. Material y métodos. Tras la revisión de las evidencias científico-médicas, un comité científico formado por especialistas expertos en hematología y enfermedades infecciosas elaboró una encuesta con 55 aseveraciones. Para el consenso se utilizó un método Delphi modificado con dos rondas de evaluación. Resultados. La encuesta fue respondida online por 52 especialistas en hematología y en enfermedades infecciosas. Tras las dos rondas de evaluación fue posible el consenso en 43 de los 55 ítems planteados (un 78,2%): 40 en el acuerdo y 3 en el desacuerdo. Con ello, se proporcionan una serie de recomendaciones relativas al tratamiento antibiótico empírico del paciente con neutropenia febril, a cuestiones relacionadas con mecanismos de acción, toxicidad y sinergia de los antibióticos en este contexto, a las modificaciones del tratamiento antibiótico en el curso de la neutropenia febril y al manejo de las infecciones de catéter vascular central en el ámbito hematológico. Conclusiones. Existe un alto grado de acuerdo entre los expertos consultados sobre algunos aspectos controvertidos relativos al manejo de la neutropenia febril y la infección por catéter en pacientes hematológicos. Este acuerdo se ha traducido en unas recomendaciones que pueden ser de utilidad en la práctica clínica (AU)

Introduction. Infectious complications are an important cause of morbidity and mortality in haematological patients with febrile neutropenia. The aim of this study was to develop a consensus document of recommendations to optimize the management of febrile neutropenic patients with haematological or vascular catheter infections in areas where there is no solid scientific evidence. Materials and Methods. After reviewing the scientific evidence, a scientific committee composed of experts in haematology and infectious diseases developed a survey with 55 statements. A two- round modified Delphi method was used to achieve consensus. Results. The online survey was answered by 52 experts in the field of haematology and infectious diseases. After two rounds of evaluation, a consensus was possible in 43 of the 55 statements (78.2%): 40 in agreement and 3 in disagreement. Recommendations are given related to empirical antibiotic treatment of patients with febrile neutropenia, mechanisms of action, toxicity and synergism of antibiotics in this context, modifications of antibiotic treatment in the course of febrile neutropenia, and the management of central vascular catheter infections in the haematological setting. Conclusions. There is a high degree of agreement among experts on some controversial issues concerning the management of febrile neutropenia and catheter infection in hematologic patients. This agreement has resulted in recommendations that may be useful in clinical practice (AU)

Lenograstim compared to filgrastim for the mobilization of hematopoietic stem cells in healthy donors.

BACKGROUND: Recombinant human granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is used to mobilize hematopoietic stem cells for both autologous and allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. The recombinant products clinically available are lenograstim and filgrastim, which differ from a biologic point of view as well as from their economical impact. In this regard, some studies have shown different in vitro activities although clinical studies comparing both drugs in the allogeneic transplant setting are scanty. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: In the current study we compare the efficacy of lenograstim and filgrastim in terms of number of circulating CD34+ cells/µL during the fifth day of G-CSF administration, the number of days of apheresis required to obtain the target cell dose, the median of CD34+ cells collected on the first day of apheresis, or the median number of total CD34+ cells collected at the end of the procedure, in a series of 146 healthy donors undergoing hematopoietic stem cell mobilization for allogeneic transplantation. RESULTS: We observed that, using a comparable dose for the two products, no significant differences were observed between the two groups. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the current retrospective study shows that lenograstim and filgrastim are similar in terms of efficacy for the mobilization of hematopoietic stem cells in healthy donors.