Clinical analysis of the usefulness of letermovir for prevention of cytomegalovirus infection after haploidentical hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.
10.3760/cma.j.cn112138-20221204-00904
- Author:
Rui MA
1
;
Yun HE
1
;
Hui Fang WANG
1
;
Lu BAI
1
;
Wei HAN
1
;
Yi Fei CHENG
1
;
Kai Yan LIU
1
;
Lan Ping XU
1
;
Xiao Hui ZHANG
1
;
Yu WANG
1
;
Yuan Yuan ZHANG
1
;
Feng Rong WANG
1
;
Xiao Dong MO
1
;
Chen Hua YAN
1
;
Xiao Jun HUANG
1
;
Yu Qian SUN
1
Author Information
1. Peking University People's Hospital, Peking University Institute of Hematology, National Clinical Research Center for Hematologic Disease, Beijing Key Laboratory of Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation, Beijing 100044, China.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- MeSH:
Humans;
Cytomegalovirus;
Retrospective Studies;
Cohort Studies;
Prospective Studies;
Cytomegalovirus Infections/prevention & control*;
Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation/adverse effects*;
Graft vs Host Disease/prevention & control*;
Recurrence;
Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use*
- From:
Chinese Journal of Internal Medicine
2023;62(7):826-832
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective: To analyze the efficacy and safety of letermovir in primary prophylaxis of cytomegalovirus (CMV) reactivation in patients receiving haploidentical hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Methods: This retrospective, cohort study was conducted using data of patients who underwent haploidentical transplantation at Peking University Institute of Hematology and received letermovir for primary prophylaxis between May 1, 2022 and August 30, 2022. The inclusion criteria of the letermovir group were as follows: letermovir initiation within 30 days after transplantation and continuation for≥90 days after transplantation. Patients who underwent haploidentical transplantation within the same time period but did not receive letermovir prophylaxis were selected in a 1∶4 ratio as controls. The main outcomes were the incidence of CMV infection and CMV disease after transplantation as well as the possible effects of letermovir on acute graft versus host disease (aGVHD), non-relapse mortality (NRM), and bone marrow suppression. Categorical variables were analyzed by chi-square test, and continuous variables were analyzed by Mann-Whitney U test. The Kaplan-Meier method was used for evaluating incidence differences. Results: Seventeen patients were included in the letermovir prophylaxis group. The median patient age in the letermovir group was significantly greater than that in the control group (43 yr vs. 15 yr; Z=-4.28, P<0.001). The two groups showed no significant difference in sex distribution and primary diseases, etc. (all P>0.05). The proportion of CMV-seronegative donors was significantly higher in the letermovir prophylaxis group in comparison with the control group (8/17 vs. 0/68, χ2=35.32, P<0.001). Three out of the 17 patients in the letermovir group experienced CMV reactivation, which was significantly lower than the incidence of CMV reactivation in the control group (3/17 vs. 40/68, χ2=9.23, P=0.002), and no CMV disease development observed in the letermovir group. Letermovir showed no significant effects on platelet engraftment (P=0.105), aGVHD (P=0.348), and 100-day NRM (P=0.474). Conclusions: Preliminary data suggest that letermovir may effectively reduce the incidence of CMV infection after haploidentical transplantation without influencing aGVHD, NRM, and bone marrow suppression. Prospective randomized controlled studies are required to further verify these findings.
