Search

Clinical or biological parameters useful to predict progression during treatment in real-life setting with ibrutinib, idelalisib and venetoclax in relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) are still debated. We conducted a multi-center retrospective study on CLL patients treated with ibrutinib and/or idelalisib who were switched to venetoclax for progression or due to adverse events to identify any clinical and/or biological parameters useful to predict progression during treatment with venetoclax. Of all the 128 evaluable patients, 81 had received ibrutinib prior to switching to venetoclax, 35 had received idelalisib and 12 both. When comparing the three subgroups, we did not notice any statistical difference in terms of clinical or biological features. No variable at baseline and at different time points during the follow-up (at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months) was found to predict progression nor to have significance for Progression Free Survival (PFS) in the ibrutinib group and in the idelalisib group and in subgroups according to the line of treatment. Analyzing the data of the venetoclax treatment, after a median follow up of 14.3 months, median PFS was not reached and estimated 3-year PFS was 54%. Of the 128 patients treated with venetoclax, 28 (22%) experienced progressive disease. At multivariate analysis for predictive factors for progression, lymph node diameter >56.5 mm before starting treatment emerged as an independent risk factor for progression. The lymph node predictive role for progression during venetoclax treatment could be a new parameter that deserves to be investigate in future studies.

Background: Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) may be more susceptible to COVID-19 related poor outcomes, including thrombosis and death, due to the advanced age, the presence of comorbidities, and the disease and treatment-related immune deficiency. The aim of this study was to assess the risk of thrombosis and bleeding in patients with CLL affected by severe COVID-19. Methods: This is a retrospective multicenter study conducted by ERIC, the European Research Initiative on CLL, including patients from 79 centers across 22 countries. Data collection was conducted between April and May 2021. The COVID-19 diagnosis was confirmed by the real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay for SARS-CoV-2 on nasal or pharyngeal swabs. Severe cases of COVID-19 were defined by hospitalization and the need of oxygen or admission into ICU. Development and type of thrombotic events, presence and severity of bleeding complications were reported during treatment for COVID-19. Bleeding events were classified using ISTH definition. STROBE recommendations were used in order to enhance reporting. Results: A total of 793 patients from 79 centers were included in the study with 593 being hospitalized (74.8%). Among these, 511 were defined as having severe COVID: 162 were admitted to the ICU while 349 received oxygen supplementation outside the ICU. Most patients (90.5%) were receiving thromboprophylaxis. During COVID-19 treatment, 11.1% developed a thromboembolic event, while 5.0% experienced bleeding. Thrombosis developed in 21.6% of patients who were not receiving thromboprophylaxis, in contrast to 10.6% of patients who were on thromboprophylaxis. Bleeding episodes were more frequent in patients receiving intermediate/therapeutic versus prophylactic doses of low-molecular-weight heparin (LWMH) (8.1% vs. 3.8%, respectively) and in elderly. In multivariate analysis, peak D-dimer level and C-reactive protein to albumin ratio were poor prognostic factors for thrombosis occu

Introduction: Peripheral venous access for extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) may be difficult in graft versus host disease (GVHD) patients, because of previous intravenous therapies and multiple peripheral cannulations; in this population of patients, ultrasound guided midline catheters may be an alternative option to central venous access. Methods: In this single-center, prospective preliminary study, we enrolled all consecutive patients with a diagnosis of GVHD and candidate to ECP, over a period of 10 months. We used inserted power injectable, non-valved, polyurethane, 20–25 cm single lumen midline catheters (MC). Results: Sixty-nine ECP procedures were carried out in six patients, using single-lumen MCs for outflow (5Fr in 74% and 4Fr in 26% of cases). For inflow, we used 5Fr or 4Fr MCs, or central venous access devices previously placed for other clinical reasons. There were no catheter-related complications during the entire period of ECP treatment. Mean outflow was significantly higher for 5Fr than for 4Fr MCs (35.8 ± 7.3 vs 29.2 ± 7.8 ml/min; p = 0.0008) and the procedure time was significantly shorter (92.9 ± 9.2 vs 108 ± 13.2 min; p < 0.0001). Conclusion: In GVHD patients, ECP can be performed efficiently and safely using single lumen polyurethane power injectable MCs. The best results are obtained with 5Fr rather than with 4Fr catheters. This strategy of venous access should be implemented in DIVA patients requiring ECP treatments, and probably also in other types of apheresis.