Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Letermovir prophylaxis through day 100 post transplant is safe and effective compared with alternative CMV prophylaxis strategies following adult cord blood and haploidentical cord blood transplantation

Abstract

We compared CMV outcomes of three prophylactic approaches used for CBT and haploidentical cord transplants from December 2009 through 2018: letermovir (n = 32) through day 100 post transplant, “valacyclovir day 100” (valacyclovir 2 g orally three times daily through day 100) (n = 60), and “valacyclovir hospital discharge” (valacyclovir 2 g orally three times daily through hospital discharge then acyclovir 800 mg twice daily) (n = 41). Through day 100, none in the letermovir group, six (10%) in the “valacyclovir day 100,” and nine (22%) in the “valacyclovir hospital discharge” group required CMV directed treatment (p = 0.005 and 0.06 comparing letermovir to “valacyclovir hospital discharge” and “valacyclovir day 100”). Fewer patients in the letermovir group (n = 7, 22%) had any CMV reactivation versus the “valacyclovir day 100” group (n = 20, 33%) versus the “valacyclovir hospital discharge” group (n = 23, 57%) (p = 0.003 and 0.21 comparing letermovir to “valacyclovir hospital discharge” and “valacyclovir day 100”). Among patients not reactivating CMV before 100 days, reactivation rates between day 100 and 180 were higher in the letermovir and “valacyclovir day 100” groups than the “valacyclovir hospital discharge” group. Letermovir is safe and effective compared with alternative prophylaxis approaches following CBT through day 100. Reactivation and monitoring after day 100 remain potential concerns.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Milano F, Pergam SA, Xie H, Leisenring WM, Gutman JA, Riffkin I, et al. Intensive strategy to prevent CMV disease in seropositive umbilical cord blood transplant recipients. Blood. 2011;118:5689–96.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Dahi PB, Perales MA, Devlin SM, Olson A, Lubin M, Gonzales AM, et al. Incidence, nature and mortality of cytomegalovirus infection after double-unit cord blood transplant. Leuk Lymphoma. 2015;56:1799–805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Takami A, Mochizuki K, Asakura H, Yamazaki H, Okumura H, Nakao S. High incidence of cytomegalovirus reactivation in adult recipients of an unrelated cord blood transplant. Haematol-Hematol J. 2005;90:1290–2.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Beck JC, Wagner JE, DeFor TE, Brunstein CG, Schleiss MR, Young JA, et al. Impact of cytomegalovirus (CMV) reactivation after umbilical cord blood transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2010;16:215–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Lau C, Politikos I, Maloy M, Naputo K, Afuye A, Devlin SM, et al. Letermovir prophylaxis demonstrates high efficacy in adult cytomegalovirus (CMV) seropositive cord blood transplant (CBT) recipients: a comparison with pre-letermovir era CBT controls. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2019;25:S94–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Marty FM, Ljungman P, Chemaly RF, Maertens J, Dadwal SS, Duarte RF, et al. Letermovir prophylaxis for cytomegalovirus in hematopoietic-cell transplantation. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:2433–44.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Hill JA, Mayer BT, Xie H, Leisenring WM, Huang ML, Stevens-Ayers T, et al. The cumulative burden of double-stranded DNA virus detection after allogeneic HCT is associated with increased mortality. Blood. 2017;129:2316–25.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Ballen K, Woo Ahn K, Chen M, Abdel-Azim H, Ahmed I, Aljurf M, et al. Infection rates among acute leukemia patients receiving alternative donor hematopoietic cell transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2016;22:1636–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Brown JA, Boussiotis VA. Umbilical cord blood transplantation: basic biology and clinical challenges to immune reconstitution. Clin Immunol. 2008;127:286–97.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Komanduri KV, St John LS, de Lima M, McMannis J, Rosinski S, McNiece I, et al. Delayed immune reconstitution after cord blood transplantation is characterized by impaired thymopoiesis and late memory T-cell skewing. Blood. 2007;110:4543–51.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Ljungman P, de La Camara R, Milpied N, Volin L, Russell CA, Crisp A, et al. Randomized study of valacyclovir as prophylaxis against cytomegalovirus reactivation in recipients of allogeneic bone marrow transplants. Blood. 2002;99:3050–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Winston DJ, Yeager AM, Chandrasekar PH, Snydman DR, Petersen FB, Territo MC, et al. Randomized comparison of oral valacyclovir and intravenous ganciclovir for prevention of cytomegalovirus disease after allogeneic bone marrow transplantation. Clin Infect Dis. 2003;36:749–58.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Hill JA, Pergam SA, Cox E, Xie H, Leisenring WM, Boeckh M, et al. A modified intensive strategy to prevent cytomegalovirus disease in seropositive umbilical cord blood transplantation recipients. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2018;24:2094–2100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Knoll BM, Peixoto D, Koo S, Hammond SP, Ho VT, Antin JH, et al. Cytomegalovirus infection among cord blood allogeneic transplantation recipients: low incidence of cytomegalovirus events without high-dose valacyclovir prophylaxis. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2018;24:2164–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Liu H, van Besien K. Alternative donor transplantation—“mixing and matching”: the role of combined cord blood and haplo-identical donor transplantation (haplo-cord SCT) as a treatment strategy for patients lacking standard donors? Curr Hematol Malig Rep. 2015;10:1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kwon M, Bautista G, Balsalobre P, Sanchez-Ortega I, Serrano D, Anguita J, et al. Haplo-cord transplantation using CD34+ cells from a third-party donor to speed engraftment in high-risk patients with hematologic disorders. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2014;20:2015–22.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Ljungman P, Boeckh M, Hirsch HH, Josephson F, Lundgren J, Nichols G, et al. Definitions of cytomegalovirus infection and disease in transplant patients for use in clinical trials. Clin Infect Dis. 2017;64:87–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kroll JL, Beam C, Li S, Viscidi R, Dighero B, Cho A, et al. Reactivation of latent viruses in individuals receiving rituximab for new onset type 1 diabetes. J Clin Virol. 2013;57:115–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Jain N, Liu H, Artz AS, Anastasi J, Odenike O, Godley LA, et al. Immune reconstitution after combined haploidentical and umbilical cord blood transplant. Leuk Lymphoma. 2013;54:1242–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Kwon M, Balsalobre P, Serrano D, Perez Corral A, Buno I, Anguita J, et al. Single cord blood combined with HLA-mismatched third party donor cells: comparable results to matched unrelated donor transplantation in high-risk patients with hematologic disorders. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2013;19:143–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Liu H, Rich ES, Godley L, Odenike O, Joseph L, Marino S, et al. Reduced-intensity conditioning with combined haploidentical and cord blood transplantation results in rapid engraftment, low GVHD, and durable remissions. Blood. 2011;118:6438–45.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonathan A. Gutman.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sharma, P., Gakhar, N., MacDonald, J. et al. Letermovir prophylaxis through day 100 post transplant is safe and effective compared with alternative CMV prophylaxis strategies following adult cord blood and haploidentical cord blood transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant 55, 780–786 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41409-019-0730-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41409-019-0730-y

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links