Frontline daratumumab-based triplet and quadruplet standard-of-care regimens have demonstrated improved survival outcomes in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). For patients with transplant-ineligible NDMM, triplet therapy with either daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (D-Rd) or bortezomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (VRd) is the current standard of care. This phase 3 trial evaluated subcutaneous daratumumab plus VRd (D-VRd) in patients with transplant-ineligible NDMM or for whom transplant was not planned as the initial therapy (transplant deferred). Some 395 patients with transplant-ineligible or transplant-deferred NDMM were randomly assigned to eight cycles of D-VRd or VRd followed by D-Rd or Rd until progression. The primary endpoint was overall minimal residual disease (MRD)-negativity rate at 10^{− 5} by next-generation sequencing. Major secondary endpoints included complete response (CR) or better (≥CR) rate, progression-free survival and sustained MRD-negativity rate at 10^{− 5}. At a median follow-up of 58.7 months, the MRD-negativity rate was 60.9% with D-VRd versus 39.4% with VRd (odds ratio, 2.37; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.58–3.55; P < 0.0001). Rates of ≥CR (81.2% versus 61.6%; P < 0.0001) and sustained MRD negativity (≥12 months; 48.7% versus 26.3%; P < 0.0001) were significantly higher with D-VRd versus VRd. Risk of progression or death was 43% lower for D-VRd versus VRd (hazard ratio, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.41–0.79; P = 0.0005). Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profiles for daratumumab and VRd. Combining daratumumab with VRd produced deeper and more durable MRD responses versus VRd alone. The present study supports D-VRd quadruplet therapy as a new standard of care for transplant-ineligible or transplant-deferred NDMM. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT03652064.

Despite the good response of stem cell transplant (SCT) in the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM), most patients relapse or do not achieve complete remission, suggesting that additional treatment is needed. We assessed the impact of thalidomide in maintenance after SCT in untreated patients with MM. A hundred and eight patients (<70 years old) were randomized to receive maintenance with dexamethasone (arm A; n = 52) or dexamethasone with thalidomide (arm B; n = 56; 200 mg daily) for 12 months or until disease progression. After a median follow‐up of 27 months, an intention to treat analysis showed a 2‐year progression‐free survival (PFS) of 30% in arm A (95% CI 22–38) and 64% in arm B (95% CI 57–71; P = 0.002), with median PFS of 19 months and 36 months, respectively. In patients who did not achieve at least a very good partial response, the PFS at 2 years was significantly higher when in use of thalidomide (19 vs. 59%; P = 0.002). Overall survival at 2 years was not significantly improved (70 vs. 85% in arm A and arm B, respectively; P = 0.27). The addition of thalidomide to dexamethasone as maintenance improved the PFS mainly in patients who did not respond to treatment after SCT. Am. J. Hematol.

Background: The use of quinolone prophylaxis in high-risk neutropenic patients is considered standard of care but the development of resistance is a concern. Previous studies have focused mainly on quinolone resistance among patients receiving prophylaxis, with very few data reporting its impact on the hospital microbial epidemiology. Methods: We analyzed a cohort of 329 episodes of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in adults, and compared two periods: 2005 (period 1, no prophylaxis, n=110) and 2006-2008 (period 2, ciprofloxacin prophylaxis, n=219). Outcomes analyzed were the frequency of febrile neutropenia, bacteremia, duration of antibiotic therapy and hospitalization, and antimicrobial resistance to ciprofloxacin and extended-spectrum beta-lactamase [ESBL] production. We analyzed resistance rates (by patients-day) in the cohort, as well as in other patients (neutropenic and non-neutropenic, 11,975 patients-day) admitted to the hematology unit in the same period, taking into consideration the general resistance patterns in the hospital. Results: Quinolone prophylaxis (period 2) resulted in fewer episodes of febrile neutropenia (159/219 [73%] vs. 102/110 [93%], Chi-square 18.09, p = 0.00002), and bacteremia (49/219 [22] vs. 36/110 [33%], Chi-square 4.10, p = 0.04), shorter duration of antibiotic therapy (p = 0.0002) and hospitalization (p = 0.002), but more frequent use of carbapenems (79/219 [36%] vs. 15/110 [14%], Chi-square 18.06, p = 0.0002). In addition, period 2 was associated with higher rates of quinolone resistance (6.77 vs. 3.02 per 1,000 patients-day, p = 0.03). The rate of ESBL-producing enterobacteria in the two periods was slightly higher in patients receiving quinolone prophylaxis (1.27 vs. 0.38 per 1,000 patients-day, p = 0.26) as well as in the hematology unit overall (1.59 vs. 0.53 per 1,000 patients-day, p = 0.08), but remained stable in the whole hospital (0.53 vs. 0.56 per 1,000 patients-day, p = 0.74). Conclusions: Ciprofloxacin prophylaxis was beneficial in high risk neutropenic patients, but important modifications in the prescription of carbapenems and on antimicrobial resistance patterns of isolates were observed. The importance of hospital or ward ecology must be taken into account when deciding for quinolone prophylaxis in high-risk neutropenic patients.

Adipose tissue-derived stromal/stem cells (ASCs) and vitamin D have immunomodulatory actions that could be useful for type 1 diabetes (T1D). We aimed in this study to investigate the safety and efficacy of ASCs + daily cholecalciferol (VIT D) for 6 months in patients with recent-onset T1D. In this prospective, dual-center, open trial, patients with recent onset T1D received one dose of allogenic ASC (1 x 10⁶ cells/kg) and cholecalciferol 2,000 UI/day for 6 months (group 1). They were compared to patients who received chol-ecalciferol (group 2) and standard treatment (group 3). Adverse events were recorded; C-peptide (CP), insulin dose and HbA1c were measured at baseline (T0), after 3 (T3) and 6 months (T6). In group 1 (n = 7), adverse events included transient headache (all), mild local reactions (all), tachycardia (n = 4), abdominal cramps (n = 1), thrombophlebitis (n = 4), scotomas (n = 2), and central retinal vein occlusion at T3 (n = 1, resolution at T6). Group 1 had an increase in basal CP (p = 0.018; mean: 40.41+/-40.79 %), without changes in stimulated CP after mixed meal (p = 0.62), from T0 to T6. Basal CP remained stable in groups 2 and 3 (p = 0.58 and p = 0.116, respectively). Group 1 had small insulin requirements (0.31+/- 0.26 UI/kg) without changes at T6 (p = 0.44) and HbA1c decline (p = 0.01). At T6, all patients (100%; n = 7) in group 1 were in honeymoon vs 75% (n = 3/4) and 50% (n = 3/6) in groups 2 and 3, p = 0.01. Allogenic ASC + VIT D without immunosuppression was safe and might have a role in the preservation of β-cells in patients with recent-onset T1D. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03920397.

Patients who undergo allogeneic stem cell transplantation frequently develop an immunologic disease caused by the reactivation of the graft to the host tissues. This disease is called graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) and it is usually a systemic disorder. In a large proportion of cases, oral disorders that are related to a chronic phase of GVHD (cGVHD) occur, and their treatment involves the use of topical immunosuppressive drugs. Several medications have been studied for this purpose, but only a small number of clinical trials have been published. The present study is a randomized, double-blind clinical trial that compares topical clobetasol and dexamethasone for the treatment of symptomatic oral cGVHD. Patients were randomly assigned to treatment with clobetasol propionate .05% or dexamethasone .1 mg/mL for 28 days. In both arms, nystatin 100,000 IU/mL was administered with the corticosteroid. Oral lesions were evaluated by the modified oral mucositis rating scale (mOMRS) and symptoms were registered using a visual analogue scale. Thirty-five patients were recruited, and 32 patients were randomized into the study groups: 18 patients (56.3%) to the dexamethasone group and 14 patients (43.8%) to the clobetasol group. The use of clobetasol resulted in a significant reduction in mOMRS total score (P = .04) and in the score for ulcers (P = .03). In both groups, there was significant symptomatic improvement but the response was significantly greater in the clobetasol group (P = .02). In conclusion, clobetasol was significantly more effective than dexamethasone for the amelioration of symptoms and clinical aspects of oral lesions in cGVHD.