Search

Background: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are widely used for the treatment and secondary prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Nowadays, DOACs represent the gold standard for long-term anticoagulation, with low-intensity DOACs administration becoming increasingly used worldwide in such scenario. Albeit low-intensity apixaban and rivaroxaban are approved for clinical usage as secondary VTE prophylaxis, there are few literature data regarding their efficacy and safety with a long follow-up. Objectives: The aim of our study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of low-dose DOACs for VTE secondary prophylaxis, in patients at high risk of VTE recurrence. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated patients who required long-term anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis to prevent recurrent VTE, treated with apixaban 2.5 mg BID or rivaroxaban 10 mg daily with a follow-up ≥ 12 months. Results: The examined patients were 323. The median low-dose DOACs administration time was 25.40 months (IQR 13.93-45.90). Twelve (3.7%) VTE recurrences were observed; 21 bleeding events were registered (6.5%), including one episode of MB (0.3%), 8 CRNMB (2.5%) and 12 minor bleeding (3.7%). No statistically significant difference in the rate of VTE recurrence and/or bleeding events emerged between rivaroxaban and apixaban groups. Patients included in the study for multiple episodes of VTE presented a significant higher risk of a new VTE recurrence during low-intensity DOAC. Conclusions: Our data suggest that low-dose DOACs may be effective and safe in the secondary VTE prophylaxis in patients at high risk of VTE recurrence, but attention might be needed in their choice in such scenario for patients who experienced multiple episodes of VTE.

Anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy actually represents the standard of care for multiple relapsed or refractory primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (r/r PMBCL). Checkpoint inhibitors, such as pembrolizumab, appear to be a safe and effective treatment strategy for patients who are ineligible for or resistant to autologous stem cell transplantation. Although preclinical studies suggested that checkpoint inhibitors may enhance the vitality and anti-tumor activity of CAR T cells, there are no substantial/robust clinical data about the immune-mediated toxicity of their association. We describe a case of a severe cutaneous adverse event arising immediately after Cytokine Release Syndrome (CRS) on day +6 from CAR T cells infusion in a young r/r PMBCL patient who previously received pembrolizumab. These skin lesions were interpreted as an immune mediated adverse event, considering their prompt improvement and fully recovering achieved with the addition of immunoglobulin infusion to systemic steroid therapy. This case of life-threatening cutaneous adverse event calls for further investigations about off-target immune-related adverse events deriving from the combination of CAR T cell therapy and checkpoint inhibition, whose synergic therapeutic effect is promising.

We describe a case of second primary malignancy in a 65-year-old patient affected by polycythemia vera treated with the JAK 1/2 inhibitor ruxolitinib. The latter is recognized as a risk factor for the onset of non-melanoma skin cancers in many retrospective and perspective studies, but the concomitant use of ruxolitinib with new immunotherapies is very rarely reported, and the safety of this association is still not clear. In our case, ruxolitinib combined with the anti-PD-L1 avelumab demonstrated both safety and efficacy for hematological disease control and underlying carcinoma remission.

Patients with hematological malignancies and past serological evidence of hepatitis B are at risk for HBV reactivation. In myeloproliferative neoplasms, continuous treatment with the JAK 1/2 inhibitor ruxolitinib confers a moderate risk of reactivation (1-10%); nevertheless, no prospective randomized data are available to strongly recommend HBV prophylaxis in these patients. Here, we report a case of primary myelofibrosis and past serological evidence of HBV infection, treated with ruxolitinib and concomitant lamivudine, developing HBV reactivation due to premature withdrawal of prophylaxis. This case underlines the potential need for persistent HBV prophylaxis in the setting of ruxolitinib treatment.

Management of patients with concomitant acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and COVID-19 infection is challenging. We describe the clinical history of a 40-year-old male with relapsed B-common ALL who developed Sars-CoV2 prior to treatment initiation with inotuzumab. Since the patient was asymptomatic for COVID-19, the first dose of inotuzumab was administered, followed by remdesivir as prophylaxis. However, a worsening in respiratory findings led to a delay in administering the following doses of inotuzumab. Interestingly, even if the patient did not receive the full inotuzumab cycle, he achieved a complete hematologic remission: furthermore, he spontaneously developed anti-sars-COV2 antibodies. COVID-19 treatment also included convalescent plasma, leading to negativization of the viral load. The patient, after COVID-19 recovery, received a second full cycle of inotuzumab, underwent allogeneic transplantation, and is currently in complete hematologic and molecular remission, in good clinical conditions, five months from allograft. Keywords: acute lymphoblastic leukemia, COVID-19, inotuzumab, remdesevir, convalescent plasma