TY - JOUR
T1 - Infections in patients with lymphoproliferative diseases treated with targeted agents
T2 - SEIFEM multicentric retrospective study
AU - for Sorveglianza Epidemiologica Infezioni nelle Emopatie (SEIFEM)
AU - Marchesini, Gessica
AU - Nadali, Gianpaolo
AU - Facchinelli, Davide
AU - Candoni, Anna
AU - Cattaneo, Chiara
AU - Laurenti, Luca
AU - Fanci, Rosa
AU - Farina, Francesca
AU - Lessi, Federica
AU - Visentin, Andrea
AU - Marchesi, Francesco
AU - Prezioso, Lucia
AU - Spolzino, Angelica
AU - Tisi, Maria Chiara
AU - Trastulli, Fabio
AU - Picardi, Marika
AU - Verga, Luisa
AU - Dargenio, Michelina
AU - Busca, Alessandro
AU - Pagano, Livio
N1 - © 2020 The Authors. British Journal of Haematology published by British Society for Haematology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
PY - 2020/10/15
Y1 - 2020/10/15
N2 - We describe the opportunistic infections occurring in 362 patients with lymphoproliferative disorders treated with ibrutinib and idelalisib in clinical practice. Overall, 108 of 362 patients (29·8%) developed infections, for a total of 152 events. Clinically defined infections (CDI) were 49·3% (75/152) and microbiologically defined infections (MDI) were 50·7% (77/152). Among 250 patients treated with ibrutinib, 28·8% (72/250) experienced one or more infections, for a total of 104 episodes. MDI were 49% (51/104). Bacterial infections were 66·7% (34/51), viral 19·6% (10/51) and invasive fungal diseases (IFD) 13·7% (7/51). Among the 112 patients treated with idelalisib, 32·1% (36/112) experienced one or more infections, for a total of 48 episodes. MDI were 54·2% (26/48). Bacterial infections were 34·6% (9/26), viral 61·5% (16/26) and IFD 3·8% (1/26). With ibrutinib, the rate of bacterial infections was significantly higher compared to idelalisib (66·7% vs. 34·6%; P = 0·007), while viral infections were most frequent in idelalisib (61·5% vs. 19·6%; P < 0·001). Although a higher rate of IFD was observed in patients treated with ibrutinib, the difference was not statistically significant (13·7% vs. 3·8% respectively; P = 0·18). Bacteria are the most frequent infections with ibrutinib, while viruses are most frequently involved with idelalisib.
AB - We describe the opportunistic infections occurring in 362 patients with lymphoproliferative disorders treated with ibrutinib and idelalisib in clinical practice. Overall, 108 of 362 patients (29·8%) developed infections, for a total of 152 events. Clinically defined infections (CDI) were 49·3% (75/152) and microbiologically defined infections (MDI) were 50·7% (77/152). Among 250 patients treated with ibrutinib, 28·8% (72/250) experienced one or more infections, for a total of 104 episodes. MDI were 49% (51/104). Bacterial infections were 66·7% (34/51), viral 19·6% (10/51) and invasive fungal diseases (IFD) 13·7% (7/51). Among the 112 patients treated with idelalisib, 32·1% (36/112) experienced one or more infections, for a total of 48 episodes. MDI were 54·2% (26/48). Bacterial infections were 34·6% (9/26), viral 61·5% (16/26) and IFD 3·8% (1/26). With ibrutinib, the rate of bacterial infections was significantly higher compared to idelalisib (66·7% vs. 34·6%; P = 0·007), while viral infections were most frequent in idelalisib (61·5% vs. 19·6%; P < 0·001). Although a higher rate of IFD was observed in patients treated with ibrutinib, the difference was not statistically significant (13·7% vs. 3·8% respectively; P = 0·18). Bacteria are the most frequent infections with ibrutinib, while viruses are most frequently involved with idelalisib.
U2 - 10.1111/bjh.17145
DO - 10.1111/bjh.17145
M3 - Article
C2 - 33058237
JO - British Journal of Haematology
JF - British Journal of Haematology
SN - 0007-1048
ER -