Barreto, Jason N.

AimsHigh‐dose methotrexate (HDMTX) is an essential part of the treatment of several adult and paediatric malignancies. Despite meticulous supportive care during HDMTX administration, severe toxicities, including acute kidney injury (AKI), may occur contributing to patient morbidity. Population pharmacokinetics provide a powerful tool to predict time to clear HDMTX and adjust subsequent doses. We sought to develop and validate pharmacokinetic models for HDMTX in adults with diverse malignancies and to relate systemic exposure with the occurrence of severe toxicity.MethodsAnonymized, de‐identified data were provided from 101 US oncology practices that participate in the Guardian Research Network, a non‐profit clinical research consortium. Modelled variables included clinical, laboratory, demographic and pharmacological data. Population pharmacokinetic analysis was performed by means of nonlinear mixed effects modelling using MonolixSuite.ResultsA total of 693 HDMTX courses from 243 adults were analysed, of which 62 courses (8.8%) were associated with stage 2/3 acute kidney injury (43 stage 2, 19 stage 3). A three‐compartment model adequately fitted the data. Time‐dependent serum creatinine, baseline serum albumin and allometrically scaled bodyweight were clinically significant covariates related to methotrexate clearance. External evaluation confirmed a satisfactory predictive performance of the model in adults receiving HDMTX. Dose‐normalized methotrexate concentration at 24 and 48 hours correlated with AKI incidence.ConclusionWe developed a population pharmacometric model that considers weight, albumin and time‐dependent creatinine that can be used to guide supportive care in adult patients with delayed HDMTX elimination.

e19533 Background: Pneumocystis pneumonia (PJP) is a catastrophic infection seen in the context of low CD4 counts. Brentuximab vedotin (BV) is a drug antibody conjugate targeting CD30 and is used to treat patients with Hodgkin’s lymphoma (HL) and T-cell lymphoma (TCL). PJP prophylaxis is not currently recommended for patients receiving BV-based treatment despite co-expression of CD30 on CD4 cells. The frequency of PJP following BV remains poorly defined. Methods: We evaluated patients who received BV between January 1, 2011 and October 31, 2021 at Mayo Clinic for the development of PJP. Patient demographics and clinical characteristics including underlying disease, chemotherapy regimen, absolute lymphocyte count (ALC), and steroid exposure were collected. Patients who developed PJP more than 3 months after their last BV exposure were excluded. Results: Of 402 BV recipients identified, 63 received PJP prophylaxis and were omitted. Fourteen of the 339 (4.1%) not on prophylaxis developed PJP following BV. Those infected had a median age of 61 (22-87), 71% were male. The most common diagnoses were HL, TCL, and primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma at rates of 57%, 21%, and 14% respectively. Therapy regimens included BV monotherapy, BV-CHP, and BV-AVD at rates of 43%, 21%, and 14% respectively. BV represented median 2nd line of therapy (1-10) and patients received median of 3 doses (1-10) prior to PJP diagnosis. Patients with PJP had median ALC of 620 (370-3500). 71.4% (10/14) had an ALC less than 750 and among those with ALC greater than 1000, 75% (3/4) had underlying diagnosis of HL. Three patients had CD4 count measured at time of PJP diagnosis with median value of 157 (5-175). 57.1% (8/14) had no steroid exposure beyond the treatment regimen. 14.3% (2/14) were on chronic doses of 5mg prednisone for autoimmune conditions. Short bursts of steroids (prednisone 40 mg) prior to PJP were seen in 21.4% (3/14) with median exposure of 8 days (7-10). One patient had prolonged steroid exposure but was weaned off 17 days prior to PJP diagnosis. 71.4% were older than 50 years at time of PJP. Conclusions: We observed rates of PJP above the commonly accepted threshold of 3.5% for recommending prophylaxis. Among patients with an ALC greater than 1000, 75% had HL raising the question of a qualitative defect in immunity. Close ALC monitoring is recommended for patients receiving BV with a low threshold to institute PJP prophylaxis, especially amongst those older than 50 or with a diagnosis of HL.[Table: see text]

Abstract Background Contemporary information regarding fever and neutropenia (FN) management, including approaches to antibacterial prophylaxis, empiric therapy, and de-escalation across US cancer centers, is lacking. Methods This was a self-administered, electronic, cross-sectional survey of antimicrobial stewardship physicians and pharmacists at US cancer centers. The survey ascertained institutional practices and individual attitudes on FN management in high-risk cancer patients. A 5-point Likert scale assessed individual attitudes. Results Providers from 31 of 86 hospitals (36%) responded, and FN management guidelines existed in most (29/31, 94%) hospitals. Antibacterial prophylaxis was recommended in 27/31 (87%) hospitals, with levofloxacin as the preferred agent (23/27, 85%). Cefepime was the most recommended agent for empiric FN treatment (26/29, 90%). Most institutional guidelines (26/29, 90%) recommended against routine addition of empiric gram-positive agents except for specific scenarios. Eighteen of 29 (62%) hospitals explicitly provided guidance on de-escalation of empiric, systemic antibacterial therapy; however, timing of de-escalation was variable according to clinical scenario. Among 34 individual respondents, a majority agreed with use of antibiotic prophylaxis in high-risk patients (25, 74%). Interestingly, only 10 (29%) respondents indicated agreement with the statement that benefits of antibiotic prophylaxis outweigh potential harms. Conclusion Most US cancer centers surveyed had institutional FN management guidelines. Antibiotic de-escalation guidance was lacking in nearly 40% of centers, with heterogeneity in approaches when recommendations existed. Further research is needed to inform FN guidelines on antibacterial prophylaxis and therapy de-escalation.

AbstractHigh‐dose methotrexate (HDMTX) pharmacokinetics (PKs), including the best estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) equation that reflects methotrexate (MTX) clearance, requires investigation. This prospective, observational, single‐center study evaluated adult patients with lymphoma treated with HDMTX. Samples were collected at predefined time points up to 96 h postinfusion. MTX and 7‐hydroxy‐MTX PKs were estimated by standard noncompartmental analysis. Linear regression determined which serum creatinine‐ or cystatin C‐based eGFR equation best predicted MTX clearance. The 80 included patients had a median (interquartile range [IQR]) age of 68.6 years (IQR 59.2–75.6), 54 (67.5%) were men, and 74 (92.5%) were White. The median (IQR) dose of MTX was 7.6 (IQR 4.8–11.3) grams. Median clearance was similar across three dosing levels at 4.5–5.6 L/h and was consistent with linear PKs. Liver function, weight, age, sex, concomitant chemotherapy, and number of previous MTX doses did not impact clearance. MTX area under the curve (AUC) values varied over a fourfold range and appeared to increase in proportion to the dose. The eGFRcys (ml/min) equation most closely correlated with MTX clearance in both the entire cohort and after excluding outlier MTX clearance values (r = 0.31 and 0.51, respectively). HDMTX as a 4‐h infusion displays high interpatient pharmacokinetic variability. Population PK modeling to optimize MTX AUC attainment requires further evaluation. The cystatin C‐based eGFR equation most closely estimated MTX clearance and should be investigated for dosing and monitoring in adults requiring MTX as part of lymphoma management.

AbstractBackgroundPneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PJP) is a life‐threatening infection occurring in patients receiving bendamustine. The poorly defined incidence, particularly when utilizing polymerase chain reaction (PCR)‐based diagnostic techniques, precipitates unclear prophylaxis recommendations. Our objective was to determine the cumulative incidence of PJP diagnosed by single copy target, non‐nested PCR in patients receiving bendamustine.MethodsPatients were evaluated for PJP from initiation of bendamustine through 9 months after the last administration. The cumulative incidence of PJP was estimated using the Aalen–Johansen method. Cox proportional hazard models were used to demonstrate the strength of association between the independent variables and PJP risk.ResultsThis single‐center, retrospective cohort included 486 adult patients receiving bendamustine from 1 January 2006 through 1 August 2019. Most patients received bendamustine‐based combination therapy (n = 461, 94.9%), and 225 (46.3%) patients completed six cycles. Rituximab was the most common concurrent agent (n = 431, 88.7%). The cumulative incidence of PJP was 1.7% (95% CI 0.8%–3.3%, at maximum follow‐up of 2.5 years), after the start of bendamustine (n = 8 PJP events overall). Prior stem cell transplant, prior chemotherapy within 1 year of bendamustine, and lack of concurrent chemotherapy were associated with the development of PJP in univariate analyses. Anti‐Pneumocystis prophylaxis was not significantly associated with a reduction in PJP compared to no prophylaxis (HR 0.37, 95% CI (0.05, 3.04), p = 0.36).ConclusionsOur incidence of PJP below 3.5%, the conventional threshold for prophylaxis implementation, indicates routine anti‐Pneumocystis prophylaxis may not be necessary in this population. Factors indicating a high‐risk population for targeted prophylaxis require further investigation.

Abstract Study Objective To determine whether there is a drug‐drug interaction precluding the concomitant use of levetiracetam and high‐dose methotrexate (HDMTX). Design Retrospective analysis. Setting Large academic tertiary care medical center. Patients Adult lymphoma patients who received HDMTX as a 4‐h infusion with or without concomitant levetiracetam. Measurements and Main Results Generalized estimating equations clustered on patient were used to assess each outcome. The primary outcome was the incidence of delayed MTX elimination (MTX level >1 µmol/L at 48 h). Secondary outcomes included incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) and hospital length of stay (LOS). The 430 included patients receiving 1993 doses of HDMTX had a median (IQR) age of 66 (57.5, 72.6) years, 88 (20.5%) received concomitant levetiracetam with at least one dose of MTX, 267 (62.1%) were male, and 397 (92.3%) were Caucasian. HDMTX doses ranged from 1 to 8 g/m 2 . The most common lymphoma diagnoses were systemic diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (DLBCL; 58.5%) and systemic DLBCL with central nervous system (CNS) involvement (32.8%). Rates of delayed elimination with and without levetiracetam were 13.4% and 16.3%, respectively (OR = 0.80, 95% CI 0.47–1.34, p = 0.39). AKI occurred in 15.6% and 17.0% of patients with and without concomitant levetiracetam, respectively (OR = 0.83, 95% CI 0.52–1.33, p = 0.28). The median LOS with and without levetiracetam was 4.2 and 4.1 days, respectively ( p = 0.039). On multivariable analyses, only age, body surface area, diagnosis of systemic DLBCL with CNS involvement, serum creatinine, hemoglobin, total bilirubin, and dose of HDMTX were associated with delayed elimination. Conclusions High‐dose methotrexate administered with concomitant levetiracetam was not associated with increased risk for delayed MTX elimination or AKI. These results support that levetiracetam and HDMTX are safe for coadministration.

Background: Infection during the period of neutropenia following chemotherapy represents a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with malignancy.(Freifeld, et al, 2011, Baden LR, et al, 2012) Several guidelines recommend granulocyte colony stimulating factor (GCSF) to reduce the duration and severity of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and abate infection risk.(Lyman, et al 2018, Aapro, et al, 2011, Smith, et al, 2015). Optimal GCSF administration following chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy remains undefined and requires characterization. Methods: The Mayo Institutional Review Board approved this retrospective, single-center study. Electronic medical records for patients prescribed axicabtagene ciloleucel were reviewed until disease relapse, death, or a maximum of 60 days after infusion. Baseline characteristics and laboratory values were abstracted prior to lymphodepleting chemotherapy. GCSF support was originally prescribed when the absolute neutrophil count (ANC) declined below 500 cells/mm3 and discontinued when the ANC exceeded 1000 cells/mm3 (neutropenia) for 2 consecutive days. A practice change was made where GCSF was recommended only in those with febrile neutropenia and an increased concern for infection. The primary endpoint was the difference in the total days of neutropenia for patients receiving and not receiving GCSF. Secondary outcomes compared total days of severe neutropenia, number of neutropenia episodes, infection rates by GCSF use, and outcomes by protocol change. Neutropenia and severe neutropenia were defined as an ANC below 500 cells/mm3 and 100 cells/mm3, respectively. Updated data with more patients will be presented at the conference. Results: The 60 included patients had a median age of 59 (IQR: 44, 63) years, 38 (63%) were male and 53 (88%) were Caucasian. Significantly fewer patients were prescribed GCSF according to infection-related concerns compared to ANC-based indication, 18% vs. 94%, p<0.001. Because only 3 subjects received GCSF based on infection-related concerns, results based on GCSF use versus no use is shown here. GCSF was prescribed to 35 (58%) patients for a median of 8 (IQR: 6, 12) doses with a median cumulative dosage of 3840 mcg (IQR 2100-5400) and median time to first dose of 3 days (IQR: 1, 4) post CAR T-cell infusion. Table 1 displays additional baseline characteristics and laboratory parameters according to GCSF support utilization. GCSF prescribed: Table 2 displays outcomes by GCSF use. Total days of neutropenia were similar between groups (13 vs. 16, p=0.52) with a trend towards significantly fewer days of severe neutropenia when prescribed GCSF (6 vs. 9, p=0.129). Patients prescribed GCSF were more likely to experience multiple episodes of neutropenia (83% vs. 43% p=0.002) with a significantly greater median number of episodes (3 vs. 1, p=0.002) when compared to those not prescribed GCSF. GCSF use significantly decreased the median days of the first neutropenia episode (6 vs. 12, p=0.001). There was a trend for decreased median days of severe neutropenia in the first episode with GCSF (5.0 vs. 8.0, p=0.236). Figure 1 displays a trend towards a lower overall risk of infection (HR 0.55, 95%CI: 0.16-1.87, p=0.34) and lower risk of bacterial infection (HR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.18-1.31, p=0.15); however, these were not statistically significant. Conclusion: Patients prescribed GCSF according to ANC-based indication were significantly more likely to experience multiple neutropenia episodes; however, duration of first neutropenic episode and days of severe neutropenia during the first neutropenic episode were significantly reduced. Interestingly, the total days of neutropenia and severe neutropenia were similar between groups. It is possible that using the parameter of ANC more than 1000 cells/mm3 for 2 consecutive days is not the optimal criteria for stopping GCSF. Risk of overall and bacterial infection was lower with ANC-based initiation of GCSF, although non-significant likely due to small sample size. The potential benefit for using CSF and the optimal timing after CAR T-cell infusion requires further, rigorous, prospective investigation. Disclosures Ansell: ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Bennani:Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory Board; Kite/Gilead: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Verastem: Other: Advisory Board. Lin:Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Vineti: Consultancy; Sorrento: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gamida Cells: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Legend BioTech: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Background Fever and neutropenia (FN) is common in cancer patients after chemotherapy, and there are national guideline recommendations for FN prevention and treatment. We conducted a survey of practices across multiple US cancer centers to determine the extent to which these guidelines have been adapted. Methods US cancer centers performing 20 allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantations annually were identified from the National Marrow Donor Program’s “Be the Match” directory. Antimicrobial stewardship physicians and pharmacists at each institution were identified using institutional websites, residency or fellowship program directories, and personal contacts. A survey assessing institutional practices and individual attitudes on FN management in high-risk patients was distributed via email. Duplicate responses at the hospital level were removed. Complete surveys regarding individual attitudes were assessed using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “Strongly Agree” to “Strongly Disagree.” Results Thirty-four (23%) responses from 148 individuals were received, representing 31 of 86 hospitals (36%). 29 (94%) hospitals reported having guidelines for the management of FN. Of these, cefepime was the most commonly recommended agent for empiric treatment (26, 90%) and 16 (55%) provide guidance based on presumed site of infection. Eighteen (62%) hospitals recommend de-escalation of Gram negative therapy in certain situations, most often after being afebrile 48 – 72 hours or after neutrophil recovery (7 each, 39%). Twenty-seven (93%) hospitals recommended antibiotic prophylaxis, most often with levofloxacin (21, 78%). Of 34 respondents, attitudes were split regarding the statement “The benefit of antibiotic prophylaxis outweighs the harms in high-risk patients” (10 strongly agree or agree, 10 strongly disagree or disagree; 29% each); most agreed with the statement “I would use antibiotic prophylaxis in high-risk patients” (25, 78%). Conclusion Most cancer centers across the US have guidelines for the management of FN. While most recommend antibacterial prophylaxis, there were differences in individual perceptions regarding the risk / benefit. Significant variation exists in the approach to antibiotic de-escalation. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

Abstract Rationale Many lung transplant centers prescribe antifungal medications after transplantation to prevent invasive fungal infections (IFIs); however, the effectiveness of antifungal prophylaxis at reducing the risk of all-cause mortality or IFI has not been established. Objectives We aimed to evaluate the effect of antifungal prophylaxis on all-cause mortality and IFI in lung transplant patients. Methods Using administrative claims data, we identified adult patients who underwent lung transplantation between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2018. Propensity score analysis using inverse probability treatment–weighting approach was used to balance the differences in baseline characteristics between those receiving antifungal prophylaxis and those not receiving antifungal prophylaxis. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to compare rates of all-cause mortality and IFI in both groups. Results We identified 662 lung transplant recipients (LTRs) (387 received prophylaxis and 275 did not). All-cause mortality was significantly lower in those receiving antifungal prophylaxis compared with those not receiving antifungal prophylaxis (event rate per 100 person-years, 8.36 vs. 19.49; hazard ratio, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.26–0.71; P = 0.003). Patients receiving antifungal prophylaxis had a lower rate of IFI compared with those not receiving prophylaxis (event rate per 100 person-years, 14.94 vs. 22.37; hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.44–1.05; P = 0.079), but did not reach statistical significance. Conclusions In this real-world analysis, antifungal prophylaxis in LTRs was associated with reduced all-cause mortality compared with those not receiving antifungal prophylaxis. Rates of IFI were also lower in those receiving prophylaxis, but this was not statistically significant in our primary analysis.