Wolf, Robert C

Introduction Orally administered tacrolimus is widely used in hematopoietic cell transplant patients, but multiple clinical situations may arise rendering oral administration infeasible. The undesirable sequelae of intravenous administration, including toxicity, challenges with administration and cost call for innovative solutions to conserve existing supply and optimize safety and efficacy of medication delivery. We sought to demonstrate feasibility of sublingual tacrolimus use and estimate a sublingual-to-oral (SL:PO) conversion ratio in the hematopoietic cell transplant setting. Methods Ten adults undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant received tacrolimus 0.04 mg/kg/dose twice daily. Initial doses were given via sublingual route and a steady state trough level was collected after 4 consecutive doses. Participants were then switched to oral tacrolimus, the dose adjusted for a goal trough 8-12ng/mL, and another steady state trough was drawn. Total daily dose was divided by trough concentration for each route to determine the dosing ratio of SL:PO. Results Median trough level following sublingual administration was 11.3 ng/mL. Three of these were within goal, 3 were low (4.7–6.4 ng/mL) and 4 were elevated (15.9–18.6 ng/mL). Median SL:PO ratio was 1.02. In 5 participants the SL:PO ratio was <1 (range 0.57–0.94) and in 5 the ratio was ≥1 (range 1.10–1.92). No significant barriers or intolerance to sublingual tacrolimus use were noted. Conclusions Results demonstrate reliable absorption with sublingual tacrolimus use in patients undergoing hematopoietic cell transplant. Sublingual administration may allow for avoidance of the undesirable complications of IV tacrolimus, such as increased toxicities, required hospitalization for continuous infusion, risk of dose conversion and dilution errors and increased cost. Trial Registry name: Use of Sublingual Tacrolimus in Adult Blood and Marrow Transplant Patients, NCT04041219 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04041219?term=NCT04041219&draw=2&rank=1

AbstractThe role of consolidation post autologous stem cell transplant in light chain amyloidosis is not well defined. We retrospectively identified patients who had light chain amyloidosis and underwent autologous stem cell transplant at the Mayo Clinic. Consolidation was defined as any treatment given after the day 100 evaluation post‐transplant to maintain or deepen the response. We identified 471 patients, of whom 72 (15%) received consolidation. Patients receiving consolidation had more advanced disease (Mayo 2012 stage ≥II in 67% vs 52%, P = .02), and had lower day 100 response rates (very good partial response or better: 35% vs 84%, P < .001). After consolidation, rates of very good partial response improved from 24% to 28%, and rates of complete response improved from 11% to 40%. Patients with less than very good partial response who received consolidation, had better progression‐free survival (median of 22.4 vs 8.8 months, P < .001), and the benefit was greater in those who deepened their response (median of 41 vs 8.8 months, P < .001). In patients with less than very good partial response, there was a trend for better overall survival in patients who responded to consolidation (median of 125.8 vs 74.4 months, P = .07). In patients who achieved very good partial response, or better, at day 100 post autologous stem cell transplant, consolidation did not improve progression‐free or overall survival. Consolidation after autologous stem cell transplant for light chain amyloidosis improves progression‐free survival for patients who achieve less than very good partial response.

Abstract In appropriately selected patients with AL amyloidosis, autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) is an established treatment modality with excellent outcomes and decreasing transplant related mortality (TRM) over time. We report on 15‐year overall survival (OS) in 159 patients undergoing ASCT from 1996 to 2003, with median follow up of 17.1 years. Day 100 TRM was 13.2% (n = 21). The OS of ≥15 years was observed in 30% (47/159) of patients. Patients surviving ≥15 years were younger (53 vs 56 years, P = .02), less likely to have lambda as the involved light chain (62% vs 78%, P = .03) and were less likely to have heart involvement (32% vs 56%, P = .005). Median OS of patients with heart involvement vs not was 4.0 vs 11.1 years, P = .006 and actuarial 15‐year OS was 23% vs 43%, respectively. A higher proportion of patients with OS ≥15 years received full‐dose melphalan conditioning (81% vs 61%, P = .01), and achieved day 100 complete response (CR) (64% vs 24%, P < .001). Median OS amongst patients who achieved CR vs not was 19.3 vs 5.4 years, P < .001. Heart involvement, receiving full‐dose melphalan and achieving CR remained independent predictors of OS. AL amyloidosis and related complications were the cause of death in 52% of patients overall (1‐5 years post‐transplant: 81%; 5‐10 years: 62% and 10‐15 years: 55%). These results reinforce the key role of ASCT in AL amyloidosis. With improvements in TRM and more options for relapsed disease, we expect the long‐term survival post‐transplant to improve significantly in the future.