Search

Invasive fungal infections (IFIs) are commonly observed in patients, who are at high risk of severe infections during the neutropenic phase. The aim of this retrospective single-center study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of voriconazole as a fungal prophylaxis after induction chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in adult patients. Six proven/probable IFIs were diagnosed in 213 patients with AML (median age 61 years, range 18–85), who received a total of 377 induction chemotherapies. This yielded an incidence rate of 1.6% based on all induction cycles administered. Voriconazole prophylaxis was administered as intended in 317 out of 377 (84%) induction cycles until the end of neutropenia with a median duration of 20 days (range: 2–101 days). In conclusion, voriconazole demonstrates efficacy and safety as a first-line IFI prophylaxis comparable to published data on posaconazole, which is the standard fungal prophylaxis recommendation for AML patients in international guidelines today. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A multistep pathogenesis of myeloid leukemia including mutations in epigenetic, spliceosome, and signaling genes has been recently demonstrated in a preclinical model but is poorly validated in patients. Methods: Clinical, phenotypic, and biologic features were compared between three distinct molecularly defined CMML cohorts including TET2 monomutated patients (T, n = 10), TET2/SRSF2 bimutated patients (TS, n = 19), and patients who had NRAS mutations in addition to TET2/SRSF2 comutations (TSN, n = 14). Results: Median survival was 90, 45, and 9 months, respectively (p =.001). Whereas no patient in the T and TS group transformed into acute myeloid leukemia (AML), 6/14 patients in the TSN group had AML at study entry or transformed during follow‐up. Leukocyte counts, blast cell counts, and LDH levels were significantly higher in TSN vs. TS and T, respectively, whereas hemoglobin and platelet values were not significantly different. Increased growth factor‐independent myeloid colony formation was restricted to TSN but not found in T and TS, respectively. The proportion of patients showing in vitro myelomonocytic skewing in T, TS, and TSN was 0%, 56%, and 100%, respectively (p =.010). Conclusion: Our results demonstrate that the model of multistep pathogenesis in CMML can be recapitulated in patients regarding clinical, phenotypic, and biologic features. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Azacitidine is thus far the only drug shown to prolong overall survival and is, therefore, the recommended (backbone) treatment in patients diagnosed with myelodysplastic syndromes, chronic myelomonocytic leukemia and acute myeloid leukemia who are not eligible for intensive chemotherapy. Detailed reports on adverse events are often lacking. We performed a thorough analysis of the adverse events that occur during treatment with azacitidine in the largest cohort of patients treated with this drug published so far. We also compared the frequency of adverse events documented in our cohort to published data from randomized clinical trials with an azacitidine monotherapy arm. Adverse event documentation in the Austrian Registry was high. Hematologic adverse events occurred at a similar rate compared to published trials, whereas gastrointestinal toxicities were significantly less commonly reported. Our data complement results from clinical trials with real-world evidence and form a reference for future combination strategies with azacitidine. Background: Azacitidine is the treatment backbone for patients with acute myeloid leukemia, myelodysplastic syndromes and chronic myelomonocytic leukemia who are considered unfit for intensive chemotherapy. Detailed reports on adverse events in a real-world setting are lacking. Aims: To analyze the frequency of adverse events in the Austrian Registry of Hypomethylating agents. To compare real-world data with that of published randomized clinical trials. Results: A total of 1406 patients uniformly treated with a total of 13,780 cycles of azacitidine were analyzed. Hematologic adverse events were the most common adverse events (grade 3–4 anemia 43.4%, grade 3–4 thrombopenia 36.8%, grade 3–4 neutropenia 36.1%). Grade 3–4 anemia was significantly more common in the Registry compared to published trials. Febrile neutropenia occurred in 33.4% of patients and was also more common in the Registry than in published reports. Other commonly reported adverse events included fatigue (33.4%), pain (29.2%), pyrexia (23.5%), and injection site reactions (23.2%). Treatment termination due to an adverse event was rare (5.1%). Conclusion: The safety profile of azacitidine in clinical trials is reproducible in a real-world setting. With the use of prophylactic and concomitant medications, adverse events can be mitigated and azacitidine can be safely administered to almost all patients with few treatment discontinuations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Data on efficacy and safety of azacitidine in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with >30 % bone marrow (BM) blasts are limited, and the drug can only be used off-label in these patients. We previously reported on the efficacy and safety of azacitidine in 155 AML patients treated within the Austrian Azacitidine Registry (clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01595295). We herein update this report with a population almost twice as large ( n = 302). This cohort included 172 patients with >30 % BM blasts; 93 % would have been excluded from the pivotal AZA-001 trial (which led to European Medicines Agency (EMA) approval of azacitidine for high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) and AML with 20-30 % BM blasts). Despite this much more unfavorable profile, results are encouraging: overall response rate was 48 % in the total cohort and 72 % in patients evaluable according to MDS-IWG-2006 response criteria, respectively. Median OS was 9.6 (95 % CI 8.53-10.7) months. A clinically relevant OS benefit was observed with any form of disease stabilization (marrow stable disease (8.1 months), hematologic improvement (HI) (9.7 months), or the combination thereof (18.9 months)), as compared to patients without response and/or without disease stabilization (3.2 months). Age, white blood cell count, and BM blast count at start of therapy did not influence OS. The baseline factors LDH >225 U/l, ECOG ≥2, comorbidities ≥3, monosomal karyotype, and prior disease-modifying drugs, as well as the response-related factors hematologic improvement and further deepening of response after first response, were significant independent predictors of OS in multivariate analysis. Azacitidine seems effective in WHO-AML, including patients with >30 % BM blasts (currently off-label use). Although currently not regarded as standard form of response assessment in AML, disease stabilization and/or HI should be considered sufficient response to continue treatment with azacitidine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]