2648. Terminating the Troll of Transplantation: Letermovir for Cytomegalovirus Prophylaxis
Author(s) -
Jason Hedvat,
Patrick Lake,
Siddharth Swamy,
Julia Zecchini,
Maribel Pereiras,
Rani Sebti
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
open forum infectious diseases
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.546
H-Index - 35
ISSN - 2328-8957
DOI - 10.1093/ofid/ofz360.2326
Subject(s) - medicine , incidence (geometry) , clinical endpoint , cytomegalovirus , cytomegalovirus infection , adverse effect , transplantation , hematopoietic stem cell transplantation , clinical trial , immunology , human cytomegalovirus , human immunodeficiency virus (hiv) , virus , herpesviridae , viral disease , optics , physics
Background Letermovir is a novel antiviral that was approved for cytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylaxis after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (allo-HSCT). The objective was to assess the real-world outcomes of CMV prophylaxis with letermovir compared with preemptive therapy (PT) alone. Methods This retrospective pre- and post-study evaluated the clinical impact of using letermovir prophylaxis in CMV-seropositive allo-HSCT recipients at our institution. The electronic medical record was used to identify patients that received PT alone from July 2016 to November 2017 and letermovir prophylaxis from November 2017 to March 2019. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with CMV infection requiring PT through week 24 after transplant. Secondary endpoints included the proportion of patients with CMV infection requiring PT through week 14 after transplant, time to CMV infection requiring PT, incidence of CMV disease, CMV-related hospitalization and all-cause mortality through week 14 and 24 after transplant. Safety data included incidence and time to engraftment and adverse effects due to letermovir. Chi-squared and t-test were utilized for categorical and continuous data respectively. Results The baseline characteristics were similar (Table 1) and 78.7% of patients were high risk for CMV. Fewer patients in the letermovir group (n = 50) than in the historic control group (n = 100) had CMV infection requiring PT through week 24 after transplant (9 [18%] vs. 63 [63%], P < 0.001). The mean time to CMV infection requiring PT through week 24 after transplant was 93.4 days (28–161) in the letermovir group vs. 37.4 days (11–126) in the historic control group (P < 0.001). The all-cause mortality and incidence of CMV-related hospitalization were not statistically different between the two groups through week 24 after transplant (Table 2). The incidence and time to engraftment were not statistically different between the two groups (Table 3). Conclusion Letermovir prophylaxis in the real-world setting resulted in less CMV infection requiring PT when compared with a historic control of patients receiving PT alone. The majority of patients in the letermovir group experienced delayed-onset CMV reactivation. Letermovir was well-tolerated with no apparent myelosuppressive toxicities. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.
Accelerating Research
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom
Address
John Eccles HouseRobert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom