Background Maintenance therapy following autologous stem cell transplantation can delay disease progression and prolong survival in multiple myeloma (MM). Ixazomib is ideally suited for maintenance therapy given its efficacy, convenient once-weekly oral dosing, and low toxicity profile. Methods The phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled, TOURMALINE-MM3 study randomised 656 patients with newly diagnosed MM from 227 clinical/hospital sites in 30 countries in Europe, the Middle East, Africa,

Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) have a suboptimal humoral response to vaccination. Recently, a BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine was introduced with a high efficacy of 95% in immunocompetent individuals. We investigated the safety and efficacy of BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccine in patients with CLL from nine medical centers in Israel, In total 400 patients were included, of which 373 were found to be eligible for the analysis of antibody response. The vaccine appeared to be safe and only grade 1-2 adverse events were seen in 50% of the patients. Following the second dose, antibody response was detected in 43% of the cohort. In treatment- naïve patients 61% responded to the vaccine, while only 18%, 37% and 5% of patients with CLL ongoing, previously treated with BTKi, or recent anti CD20 antibody developed responses respectively. 62% and 14% of patients treated with BCL2 monotherapy or combined with anti CD20 developed immune response respectively. Neutralizing antibodies demonstrated high concordance with positive serologic response to spike (S) protein. Based on our results a simple scoring model including recent treatment with anti-CD20, age younger than 70 years, treatment naïve status, and normal IGG, IGA, IGM and hemoglobin levels. The sum of all the above parameters can serve as a possible estimate to predict whether a given CLL patient will develop sufficient antibodies. In conclusion, the vaccine was found to be safe in patients with CLL, but its efficacy is limited particularly in treated patients.

Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) have an impaired antibody response to COVID-19 vaccination. Here, we evaluated the antibody response to a third BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine in patients with CLL/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) who failed to achieve a humoral response after standard two-dose vaccination regimen. Anti-SARS-CoV-2S and neutralizing antibodies were measured 3 weeks after administration of the third dose. In 172 patients with CLL the antibody response rate was 23.8%. Response rate among actively treated patients (12.0%, n=12/100) was lower compared to treatment-naïve patients (40.0%, n=16/40; OR=4.9, 95% CI 1.9-12.9; p<0.001) and patients off-therapy (40.6%, n=13/32; OR=5.0, 95% CI 1.8-14.1; p<0.001), (p<0.001). In those actively treated with BTK inhibitors or venetoclax ± anti-CD20 antibody, response rates were extremely low (15.3%, n=9/59 and 7.7%, n=3/39, respectively). Only one of the 28 patients (3.6%) treated with anti-CD20 antibodies <12 months prior to vaccination responded. The anti-SARS-CoV-2S antibody levels correlated linearly with neutralizing antibody titers (r=0.732, p<0.001). In a multivariate analysis, the independent variables that were associated with response included lack of active therapy (OR=5.6, 95% CI 2.3-13.8; p<0.001) and serum IgA levels ≥80 mg/dL (OR=5.8, 95% CI 2.1-15.9; p<0.001) In conclusion, in patients with CLL/SLL who failed to achieve a humoral response after standard two-dose BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination regimen, close to a quarter responded to the third dose of vaccine. The antibody response rates were lower during active treatment and in patients with a recent exposure (<12 months prior to vaccination) to anti-CD20 therapy.

No abstract

Hypomethylating agents have become the standard therapy for patients with high‐risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). In Israel, azacitidine (AZA) is routinely used. Yet, infectious complications are common during AZA therapy. The current study was aimed to evaluate the incidence and predisposing risk factors for infections in AZA‐treated patients. This retrospective study included patients treated with AZA in 18 Israeli medical institutions between 2008 and 2011. Data on 184 patients [157 high‐risk MDS and 27 acute myeloid leukemia (AML)], with a median age of 71.6 (range 29–92) were recorded. Overall, 153 infectious events were reported during 928 treatment cycles (16.5%) administered to 100 patients. One hundred fourteen, 114/153 (75%) events required hospitalization and 30 (19.6%) were fatal. In a univariate analysis, unfavorable cytogenetics, low neutrophil, hemoglobin (Hb) and platelet (PLT) counts were found to be associated with infections (24.4% vs. 12.9%, P < 0.0001; 27% vs. 13.5%, P < 0.0001; 20.4% vs. 11%, P < 0.0001 and 29.2% vs. 14.2%, P < 0.0001, respectively). In multivariate analysis, only low Hb level, low PLT count, and unfavorable cytogenetics remained significant. Prior to therapy, poor cytogenetics, PLT count below 20 × 109/L and neutrophil count below 0.5 × 109/L were predictive of the risk of infection during the first two cycles of therapy. In conclusion, patients with unfavorable cytogenetics, presenting with low neutrophil and PLT counts, are susceptible to infections. Evaluation of infection risk should be repeated prior to each cycle. Patients with poor cytogenetics in whom AZA is prescribed despite low PLT count are particularly at high risk for infections and infection prophylaxis may be considered. Am. J. Hematol. 88:130–134, 2013. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Fluconazole antifungal prophylaxis is standard care in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients, but this drug lacks anti-Aspergillus activity, the primary cause of invasive fungal infection (IFI) in many transplantation centers. We performed a randomized trial to compare itraconazole vs fluconazole, for prevention of IFIs in patients with acute leukemia (AL) and HSCT recipients. One hundred and ninety-five patients were randomly assigned to either fluconazole or itraconazole antifungal prophylaxis, after stratification into high-risk and low-risk groups. Antifungal prophylaxis was started at the beginning of chemotherapy and continued until resolution of neutropenia, or until amphotericin B treatment was started. IFI occurred in 11 (11%) of itraconazole, and in 12 (12%) fluconazole recipients. Invasive candidiasis (IC) developed in two (2%) itraconazole and one (1%) fluconazole recipients, while invasive aspergillosis (IA) developed in nine (9%) itraconazole and 11(11%) fluconazole recipients. There was no difference in the incidence of total IFI, IC and IA between the two study arms. However, there was a nonsignificant trend towards reduced mortality among patients who developed IA while receiving itraconazole prophylaxis (3/9 ¼ 33% vs 8/11 ¼ 73%, P ¼ 0.095).

No abstract

Background Melphalan flufenamide (melflufen), an alkylating peptide-drug conjugate, plus dexamethasone showed clinical activity and manageable safety in the phase 2 HORIZON study. We aimed to determine whether melflufen plus dexamethasone would provide a progression-free survival benefit compared with pomalidomide plus dexamethasone in patients with previously treated multiple myeloma. MethodsIn this randomised, open-label, head-to-head, phase 3 study (OCEAN), adult patients (aged ≥18 years) were recruited from 108 university hospitals, specialist hospitals, and community-based centres in 21 countries across Europe, North America, and Asia. Eligible patients had an ECOG performance status of 0-2; must have had relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, refractory to lenalidomide (within 18 months of randomisation) and to the last line of therapy; and have received two to four previous lines of therapy (including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), stratified by age, number of previous lines of therapy, and International Staging System score, to either 28-day cycles of melflufen and dexamethasone (melflufen group) or pomalidomide and dexamethasone (pomalidomide group). All patients received dexamethasone 40 mg orally on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each cycle. In the melflufen group, patients received melflufen 40 mg intravenously over 30 min on day 1 of each cycle and in the pomalidomide group, patients received pomalidomide 4 mg orally daily on days 1 to 21 of each cycle. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by an independent review committee in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03151811, and is ongoing. Findings Between June 12, 2017, and Sept 3, 2020, 246 patients were randomly assigned to the melflufen group (median age 68 years [IQR 60-72]; 107 [43%] were female) and 249 to the pomalidomide group (median age 68 years [IQR 61-72]; 109 [44%] were female). 474 patients received at least one dose of study drug (melflufen group n=228; pomalidomide group n=246; safety population). Data cutoff was Feb 3, 2021. Median progression-free survival was 6•8 months (95% CI 5•0-8•5; 165 [67%] of 246 patients had an event) in the melflufen group and 4•9 months (4•2-5•7; 190 [76%] of 249 patients had an event) in the pomalidomide group (hazard ratio [HR] 0•79, [95% CI 0•64-0•98]; p=0•032), at a median follow-up of 15•5 months (IQR 9•4-22•8) in the melflufen group and 16•3 months (10•1-23•2) in the pomalidomide group. Median overall survival was 19•8 months (95% CI 15•1-25•6) at a median follow-up of 19•8 months (IQR 12•0-25•0) in the melflufen group and 25•0 months (95% CI 18•1-31•9) in the pomalidomide group at a median follow-up of 18•6 months (IQR 11•8-23•7; HR 1•10 [95% CI 0•85-1•44]; p=0•47). The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse events were thrombocytopenia (143 [63%] of 228 in the melflufen group vs...