Mobilization failure is an important issue in stem cell transplantations. Stem cells are yielded from the peripheral blood via apheresis. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is the most commonly used mobilization agent among patients and donors. G-CSF is administered subcutaneously for multiple days. However, patients with mobilization failure cannot receive autologous stem cell transplantation and, therefore, cannot be treated adequately. The incidence rate of mobilization failure among patients is about 6– 23%. Plerixafor is a molecule that inhibits the binding of chemokine receptor-4 with stromal-cell-derived factor-1, thereby resulting in the release of CD34+ cells in the peripheral blood. Currently, plerixafor is used in patients with mobilization failure with G-CSF and is administered subcutaneously. Several studies conducted on different clinical settings have shown that plerixafor is effective and well tolerated by patients. However, more studies should be conducted to explore the optimal approach for plerixafor in patients with mobilization failure. The incidence of mobilization failure among donors is lower. However, plerixafor is not approved among donors with mobilization failure. Moreover, several clinical studies in donors have shown a beneficial effect of plerixafor. In addition, the adverse events of plerixafor are mild and transient, which can overcome the adverse events due to G-CSF. This review assessed the current role and effects of plerixafor in stem cell mobilization for autologous and allogeneic stem cell transplantations.

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment decreases the hospitalisation rate in immunocompetent patients with COVID-19, but data on efficacy in patients with haematological malignancy are scarce. Here, we describe the outcome of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment in a large cohort of the latter patients. This is a retrospective cohort study from the multicentre EPICOVIDEHA registry (NCT04733729) on patients with haematological malignancy, who were diagnosed with COVID-19 between January and September 2022. Patients receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir were compared to those who did not. A logistic regression was run to determine factors associated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir administration in our sample. Mortality between treatment groups was assessed with Kaplan–Meier survival plots after matching all the patients with a propensity score. Additionally, a Cox regression was modelled to detect factors associated with mortality in patients receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. A total of 1859 patients were analysed, 117 (6%) were treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, 1742 (94%) were treated otherwise. Of 117 patients receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, 80% had received ≥1 anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose before COVID-19 onset, 13% of which received a 2nd vaccine booster. 5% were admitted to ICU. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment was associated with the presence of extrapulmonary symptoms at COVID-19 onset, for example anosmia, fever, rhinitis, or sinusitis (aOR 2.509, 95%CI 1.448–4.347) and 2nd vaccine booster (aOR 3.624, 95%CI 1.619–8.109). Chronic pulmonary disease (aOR 0.261, 95%CI 0.093–0.732) and obesity (aOR 0.105, 95%CI 0.014–0.776) were not associated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir use. After propensity score matching, day-30 mortality rate in patients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was 2%, significantly lower than in patients with SARS-CoV-2 directed treatment other than nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (11%, p = 0.036). No factor was observed explaining the mortality difference in patients after nirmatrelvir/ritonavir administration. Haematological malignancy patients were more likely to receive nirmatrelvir/ritonavir when reporting extrapulmonary symptoms or 2nd vaccine booster at COVID-19 onset, as opposed to chronic pulmonary disease and obesity. The mortality rate in patients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was lower than in patients with targeted drugs other than nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. EPICOVIDEHA has received funds from Optics COMMIT (COVID-19 Unmet Medical Needs and Associated Research Extension) COVID-19 RFP program by GILEAD Science, United States (Project 2020-8223).

Community‐acquired respiratory viral infections (CARV) significantly impact patients with hematological malignancies (HM), leading to high morbidity and mortality. However, large‐scale, real‐world data on CARV in these patients is limited. This study analyzed data from the EPICOVIDEHA‐EPIFLUEHA registry, focusing on patients with HM diagnosed with CARV during the 2023–2024 autumn–winter season. The study assessed epidemiology, clinical characteristics, risk factors, and outcomes. The study examined 1312 patients with HM diagnosed with CARV during the 2023–2024 autumn–winter season. Of these, 59.5% required hospitalization, with 13.5% needing ICU admission. The overall mortality rate was 10.6%, varying by virus: parainfluenza (21.3%), influenza (8.8%), metapneumovirus (7.1%), RSV (5.9%), or SARS‐CoV‐2 (5.0%). Poor outcomes were significantly associated with smoking history, severe lymphopenia, secondary bacterial infections, and ICU admission. This study highlights the severe risk CARV poses to patients with HM, especially those undergoing active treatment. The high rates of hospitalization and mortality stress the need for better prevention, early diagnosis, and targeted therapies. Given the severe outcomes with certain viruses like parainfluenza, tailored strategies are crucial to improving patient outcomes in future CARV seasons.

Only few studies have analyzed the efficacy of tixagevimab/cilgavimab to prevent severe Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and related complications in hematologic malignancies (HM) patients. Here, we report cases of breakthrough COVID-19 after prophylactic tixagevimab/cilgavimab from the EPICOVIDEHA registry). We identified 47 patients that had received prophylaxis with tixagevimab/cilgavimab in the EPICOVIDEHA registry. Lymphoproliferative disorders (44/47, 93.6%) were the main underlying HM. SARS-CoV-2 strains were genotyped in 7 (14.9%) cases only, and all belonged to the omicron variant. Forty (85.1%) patients had received vaccinations prior to tixagevimab/cilgavimab, the majority of them with at least two doses. Eleven (23.4%) patients had a mild SARS-CoV-2 infection, 21 (44.7%) a moderate infection, while 8 (17.0%) had severe infection and 2 (4.3%) critical. Thirty-six (76.6%) patients were treated, either with monoclonal antibodies, antivirals, corticosteroids, or with combination schemes. Overall, 10 (21.3%) were admitted to a hospital. Among these, two (4.3%) were transferred to intensive care unit and one (2.1%) of them died. Our data seem to show that the use of tixagevimab/cilgavimab may lead to a COVID-19 severity reduction in HM patients; however, further studies should incorporate further HM patients to confirm the best drug administration strategies in immunocompromised patients.

The British Journal of Haematology publishes original research papers in clinical, laboratory and experimental haematology. The Journal also features annotations, reviews, short reports, images in haematology and Letters to the Editor.

The introduction of rituximab significantly improved the prognosis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), emphasizing the importance of evaluating the long-term consequences of exposure to radiotherapy, alkylating agents and anthracycline-containing (immuno)chemotherapy among DLBCL survivors. Long-term risk of subsequent malignant neoplasms (SMNs) was examined in a multicenter cohort comprising 2373 5-year DLBCL survivors treated at ages 15-61 years in 1989-2012. Observed SMN numbers were compared with expected cancer incidence to estimate standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) and absolute excess risks (AERs/10 000 person-years). Treatment-specific risks were assessed using multivariable Cox regression. After a median follow-up of 13.8 years, 321 survivors developed one or more SMNs (SIR 1.5, 95% CI 1.3-1.8, AER 51.8). SIRs remained increased for at least 20 years after first-line treatment (SIR ≥20-year follow-up 1.5, 95% CI 1.0-2.2, AER 81.8) and were highest among patients ≤40 years at first DLBCL treatment (SIR 2.7, 95% CI 2.0-3.5). Lung (SIR 2.0, 95% CI 1.5-2.7, AER 13.4) and gastrointestinal cancers (SIR 1.5, 95% CI 1.2-2.0, AER 11.8) accounted for the largest excess risks. Treatment with >4500 mg/m² cyclophosphamide/>300 mg/m² doxorubicin versus ≤2250 mg/m²/≤150 mg/m², respectively, was associated with increased solid SMN risk (hazard ratio 1.5, 95% CI 1.0-2.2). Survivors who received rituximab had a lower risk of subdiaphragmatic solid SMNs (hazard ratio 0.5, 95% CI 0.3-1.0) compared with survivors who did not receive rituximab. Five-year DLBCL survivors have an increased risk of SMNs. Risks were higher for survivors ≤40 years at first treatment and survivors treated with >4500 mg/m² cyclophosphamide/>300 mg/m² doxorubicin, and may be lower for survivors treated in the rituximab era, emphasizing the need for studies with longer follow-up for rituximab-treated patients.