Abstract: Background: Patients (pts) with malignancies are at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. Among these pts, some of the higher case fatality ratios (CFR) reported are among pts with myeloid malignancies, ranging from 37 to 50% (Mehta V, Cancer Discov 2020; Ferrara F, Leukemia 2020). Levine Cancer Institute (LCI) has a robust hematologic malignancy and cellular therapy program that serves many pts with myeloid malignancies, seeing nearly 100 new diagnoses of acute myeloid leukemia per year. A strategy to mitigate risks associated with COVID-19 was established at LCI in partnership with Atrium Health's (AH) Hospital at Home (HAH). HAH was a system wide platform using telemedicine and home health services to assess and monitor COVID-19 + pts at high risk of complications. To augment HAH for our medically complex cancer pts, a virtual health navigation process involving expertise from across LCI, including a specialized nurse navigation team, was developed to rapidly identify LCI pts + for SARS-CoV-2, monitor them under physician supervision, and escalate care as needed with AH HAH. Along with the navigation platform, data-driven guidelines for detecting, monitoring, and managing LCI pts + for SARS-CoV-2 were swiftly employed across the extensive LCI network. Herein we report on the outcomes for LCI pts with myeloid malignancies + for SARS-CoV-2 and outline the employed risk mitigation strategies and their potential impact on these outcomes. Methods: An automated daily list of LCI pts + for SARS-CoV-2 was provided by AH Information Services. Each pt's chart was reviewed by a nurse navigator for hematologic or oncologic diagnosis, outpatient or inpatient status, and COVID-19 symptoms. Pts without a cancer diagnosis were not assigned a navigator. If hospitalized, a pt was not assigned a navigator; following discharge, if enrolled in HAH, a navigator was assigned. In collaboration with HAH, an algorithm for directing care was utilized (Figure 1). A diagnosis-specific navigator contacted and screened the pt with an assessment tool, which scored pts for surveillance and treatment needs (Table 1). Documentation was forwarded to the primary hematologist/oncologist. Comprehensive guidelines for testing, scheduling, management of + pts, research, and process changes were created, disseminated, and actively updated through LCI's EAPathways. For outcome analysis for pts with myeloid malignancies, pt vital status was updated through data cutoff (7/3/21). Results: From inception on 3/20/20 to 12/2/20, 974 LCI patients were identified as SARS-CoV-2 + and reviewed for nurse navigation. Of the 974 pts, including pts with benign and malignant diagnoses, 488 were navigated. Among all SARS-CoV-2 + LCI pts, 145 (15%) had a hematologic malignancy, including 37 (4%) pts with myeloid malignancies. Characteristics are shown in Table 2. Of the 37 pts, 18 (49%) were navigated. 70% with myeloid malignancies were on active treatment at the time of + test. Nearly 50% of those on active treatment were navigated. 46% were hospitalized with COVID-19, with this being the main reason for no assigned navigator. 24% of hospitalized pts were eventually assigned a navigator. Only 3 pts had undergone allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT) with a median time from transplant to detection of SARS-CoV-2 of 9 months (range, 7-23). 2 out of 3 cases post allo-SCT were asymptomatic. No pt died from COVID-19 following allo-SCT. Among the navigated pts with myeloid malignancies, there was no death related to COVID-19. 4 pts, all of whom were hospitalized, died from COVID-19 (N=2, myelodysplastic syndrome with 1 on azacitidine; N=2, myeloproliferative neoplasm, both on hydrea). A CFR of 11% was demonstrated for LCI pts with myeloid malignancies. Conclusions: A multidisciplinary response strategy liaising between AH HAH and LCI followed, assessed, and assisted cancer pts + for SARS-CoV-2. With our embedded nurse navigation team's specialized attention along with enhanced physician oversight and close collaboration with AH HAH, opportunities for care escalation or adjustments in cancer-focused care were promptly identified. In this setting, among the high-risk population of pts with myeloid malignancies, a lower CFR than has been reported was observed. A virtual navigation platform with HAH capabilities is a feasible, safe, and effective way to monitor and care for this high-risk population. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Moyo: Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Chai: Cardinal Health: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Avalos: JUNO: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Grunwald: Amgen: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Stemline: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; PRIME: Other; Trovagene: Consultancy; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Med Learning Group: Other; Pfizer: Consultancy; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy; MDEdge: Other; PER: Other; Cardinal Health: Consultancy; Karius: Consultancy. Copelan: Amgen: Consultancy.

Abstract: Introduction: Letermovir is a terminase complex inhibitor that was recently approved for prevention of cytomegalovirus (CMV) reactivation after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT). Its favorable side effect profile makes it an attractive alternative to other anti-CMV agents. Nevertheless, its use may present other challenges secondary to enzyme induction, leading to clinically significant drug-drug interactions. Voriconazole is widely used for prophylaxis against invasive fungal infections in the setting of HCT. By virtue of its hepatic metabolism mediated by CYP2C19, the package insert recommends close monitoring of voriconazole trough concentration when given concomitantly with letermovir. The objective of this study was to characterize the extent of interaction between voriconazole and letermovir in allogeneic HCT recipients. The study was approved by the institutional review board. Methods: Patient selection and data collection: An institutional database was queried to identify patients who underwent allogeneic HCT and received antifungal prophylaxis with voriconazole from November 2018 through July 2020. Per the institutional standard operating procedure (SOP), patients initially received intravenous micafungin 50 mg daily which was switched to voriconazole when oral drug administration became feasible. The voriconazole prophylactic dose was guided by CYP2C19 phenotype. Rapid metabolizers (harboring the gain of function variantCYP2C19*17) received 300 mg twice daily whereas others received 200 mg twice daily. Further dose adjustment was warranted if trough concentration, measured at least 5 days after starting voriconazole, did not fall within target range of 1 to 5.5 mg/L. Patients at risk for CMV reactivation who underwent HCT after SOP revision (November 2019) received prophylaxis with letermovir 480 mg daily on day +6 post HCT. After a retrospective review of electronic medical records, HCT recipients were divided into two cohorts;cohort 1included patients who received letermovir prophylaxis whereascohort 2comprised those who did not. Data extracted from medical records included: demographics, hematological disorder, voriconazole dose and trough concentration, and date of letermovir initiation. Statistical analysis: The Student's t-test was used to compare mean voriconazole trough plasma concentration between cohorts 1 and 2. The chi-squared/Fisher's exact test was used to compare rate of subtherapeutic voriconazole trough concentration. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the association between letermovir use and subtherapeutic voriconazole concentration after adjusting for age, gender, race, weight and voriconazole dose. All statistical analyses were performed in SAS (version 9.4) Results: 64 patients were identified (23 in cohort 1 and 41 in cohort 2). Baseline characteristics were comparable except for age (62.0±8.7 years in cohort 1 vs. 58.0±12.2 years, p=0.01); 39% of patients in cohort 1 and 30% in cohort 2 received voriconazole 300 mg twice daily upfront for prophylaxis due to the rapid CYP2C19 metabolizer phenotype whereas the rest received voriconazole 200 mg twice daily (p=0.6). There was no significant difference in mean voriconazole trough plasma concentration (p=0.5) or frequency of subtherapeutic trough (p=0.16) between cohorts 1 and 2 (Figure 1). Multivariate logistic regression analysis indicated that letermovir prophylaxis had no impact on subtherapeutic voriconazole concentration (OR: 0.4, 95% CI: 0.1-1.4, p=0.1). In the subgroup of patients who received voriconazole at 300 mg twice daily, the rate of subtherapeutic concentration did not differ significantly between cohorts 1 and 2 (p=1.0), whereas a non-significant trend in rate of subtherapeutic voriconazole concentration was noted in subgroup of patients who received the 200 mg dose (p=0.1,Figure 2) Conclusions: Our single center experience suggests there may not be a significant interaction between voriconazole and letermovir. Notably, patients receiving the 300 mg dose upfront may not require an additional dose increase to achieve a voriconazole trough within the recommended range despite the concomitant use of letermovir. Our group is collaborating with other centers to corroborate these findings, particularly in patients receiving the standard voriconazole prophylactic dose of 200 mg. Disclosures Grunwald: Forma Therapeutics:Research Funding;Agios:Consultancy;Abbvie:Consultancy;Trovagene:Consultancy;Daiichi Sankyo:Consultancy;Astellas:Consultancy;Daiichi Sankyo:Consultancy;Trovagene:Consultancy;Trovagene:Consultancy;Premier:Consultancy;Astellas:Consultancy;Astellas:Consultancy;Genentech/Roche:Research Funding;Premier:Consultancy;Genentech/Roche:Research Funding;Genentech/Roche:Research Funding;Premier:Consultancy;Janssen:Research Funding;Merck:Consultancy;Forma Therapeutics:Research Funding;Incyte:Consultancy, Research Funding;Celgene:Consultancy;Incyte:Consultancy, Research Funding;Incyte:Consultancy, Research Funding;Pfizer:Consultancy;Celgene:Consultancy;Celgene:Consultancy;Cardinal Health:Consultancy;Merck:Research Funding;Daiichi Sankyo:Consultancy;Agios:Consultancy;Abbvie:Consultancy;Merck:Consultancy;Amgen:Consultancy;Merck:Consultancy;Amgen:Consultancy;Abbvie:Consultancy;Pfizer:Consultancy;Amgen:Consultancy;Pfizer:Consultancy;Agios:Consultancy;Cardinal Health:Consultancy;Forma Therapeutics:Research Funding;Cardinal Health:Consultancy;Janssen:Research Funding.Ai:Incyte:Speakers Bureau;Celgene:Speakers Bureau.Knight:Foundation for Financial Planning:Research Funding.Chojecki:Incyte:Research Funding;Novartis:Other: Investigator Meeting Attendance.Avalos:Juno:Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Best Practice-Br Med J:Patents & Royalties: receives royalties from a coauthored article on evaluation of neutropenia.Copelan:Amgen:Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract: Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is the only curative therapy for myelofibrosis (MF). In this large multicenter retrospective study, overall survival (OS) in MF patients treated with allogeneic HCT (551 patients) and without HCT (non-HCT) (1377 patients) was analyzed with Cox proportional hazards model. Survival analysis stratified by the Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System (DIPSS) revealed that the first year of treatment arm assignment, due to upfront risk of transplant-related mortality (TRM), HCT was associated with inferior OS compared with non-HCT (non-HCT vs HCT: DIPSS intermediate 1 [Int-1]: hazard ratio [HR] = 0.26, P & lt; .0001; DIPSS-Int-2 and higher: HR, 0.39, P & lt; .0001). Similarly, in the DIPSS low-risk MF group, due to upfront TRM risk, OS was superior with non-HCT therapies compared with HCT in the first-year post treatment arm assignment (HR, 0.16, P = .006). However, after 1 year, OS was not significantly different (HR, 1.38, P = .451). Beyond 1 year of treatment arm assignment, an OS advantage with HCT therapy in Int-1 and higher DIPSS score patients was observed (non-HCT vs HCT: DIPSS-Int-1: HR, 2.64, P & lt; .0001; DIPSS-Int-2 and higher: HR, 2.55, P & lt; .0001). In conclusion, long-term OS advantage with HCT was observed for patients with Int-1 or higher risk MF, but at the cost of early TRM. The magnitude of OS benefit with HCT increased as DIPSS risk score increased and became apparent with longer follow-up.

Abstract: Introduction Gleevec, Imatinib mesylate, is the first in class BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase inhibitor initially approved to treat CML. In February 2016, generic imatinib products became available. As generic products are not required to offer comparative efficacy and safety data, differences may arise. Small reports have found no significant differences in response durability and tolerability in patients transitioned from Gleevec to generic imatinib. Further, lower cost of generic products often influence treatment decisions and patient compliance. We sought to evaluate response durability, tolerability, financial costs, and adherence in patients with chronic phase CML (cpCML) who switched from Gleevec to generic imatinib and newly diagnosed cpCML patients initiated on generic imatinib. Methods We conducted a single-center, retrospective chart review of adult patients who received imatinib therapy for cpCML between June 1, 2015 to November 14, 2019. Patients who received ≥6 months of brand through the Specialty Pharmacy Service (SPS) at Atrium Health prior to switching to generic were included in Group 1 (Switch). Patients who initiated therapy with generic imatinib dispensed from SPS were included in Group 2 (New Start). Durability of response was described determined via peripheral blood BCR-ABL transcripts by PCR and reported major molecular response (MMR) after 12 months generic imatinib therapy. Additional factors characterizing the durability and tolerability of therapy included adverse effects due to drug, dose modifications, adherence rate, prescription cost per month, and frequency of switch between generic products. Results Of 298 patients assessed, 12 patients were evaluable. There were 7 Switch patients and 5 New Start patients. Figure 1. All 12 patients met WHO diagnostic cpCML criteria. No patients in either group had accelerated or blast phase CML, no patients received maintenance imatinib following allogeneic HCT. In the Switch Group, 4 patients (57%) achieved MMR after 12 months of generic therapy. Of the 3 patients that did not achieve MMR, 1 patient relocated prior to 12-month assessment, 1 patient was noted to be non-compliant, and 1 patient had several treatment delays and dose reductions due to toxicities. 1 New Start patient achieved MMR at 12 months. Of those not achieving MMR, 1 was started on a reduced dose (100 mg /day) due to renal dysfunction, 1 had a PDC of 49.10% due to treatment delays while receiving treatment for a different malignancy, and 2 patients had logarithmic decreases in BCR-ABL but had not crossed the MMR threshold after 12 months of therapy. 5 Switch patients (71.4%) reported at least 1 adverse effect related to therapy, 3 of these (42.9%) required dose reduction. The adverse effects requiring dose reductions in the New Start patients included thrombocytopenia (n=2) and myalgia (n=1). All New Start patients reported at least 1 adverse effect with none of these patients requiring a dose reduction. Cost stayed the same or was reduced for 85.7% of the Switch patients, 1 patient experienced a cost increase and did not have co-pay assistance, and 2 patients received copay assistance. Cost of generic therapy was & lt;$10/month in 85.7% of the Switch and 80% of the New Start patients. No patients experienced disease progression and PDC was & gt;90% after 12 months on generic therapy for 71.4% Switch patients and 80% New Start patients. Table 1. and Table 2. Conclusion Patients with cpCML switched from brand to generic imatinib and patients newly started on generic imatinib appear to have durable responses and tolerance to generic imatinib. Dose reductions and non-adherence may have contributed to inadequate disease control in patients not achieving MMR in both groups. Patients switched from brand to generic imatinib may develop new side effects necessitating dose reduction. Thrombocytopenia may be more common in patients switched from brand to generic imatinib. Adherence to brand and generic imatinib is high and medication is affordable with most patients paying & lt;$10/month. Our study is limited by a small sample size and retrospective nature. Prospective large studies are needed to compare tolerability and durability differences between brand and generic imatinib and available imatinib generic products. Disclosures Knight: Foundation for Financial Planning: Research Funding. Ai:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Speakers Bureau. Grunwald:Premier: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Forma Therapeutics: Research Funding; Forma Therapeutics: Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy; Premier: Consultancy; Trovagene: Consultancy; Trovagene: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Trovagene: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Cardinal Health: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Cardinal Health: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Cardinal Health: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Premier: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Forma Therapeutics: Research Funding. Avalos:Juno: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Best Practice-Br Med J: Patents & Royalties: receives royalties from a coauthored article on evaluation of neutropenia. Copelan:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Chojecki:Novartis: Other: Investigator Meeting Attendance; Incyte: Research Funding.

Abstract: Introduction: Treatment options for newly diagnosed patients (pts) with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) have historically been limited. The combination of a hypomethylating agent and venetoclax (HMA/Ven) has emerged as standard of care treatment for elderly and/or unfit pts with newly diagnosed AML. Liposomal cytarabine/daunorubicin (CPX-351) has also become standard of care therapy for pts with AML with myelodysplasia related changes or therapy-related AML. Despite being an intensive regimen, CPX-351 may have a more favorable toxicity profile compared to other intensive regimens. As a result, CPX-351 may be offered to older fit pts who may not have been candidates for traditional induction regimens. As the landscape for frontline treatment options evolves, there are now overlapping pt populations who may be eligible for either frontline treatment option. A retrospective study that included clinical trial pts demonstrated similar response rates in pts treated with HMA/Ven and CPX-351 (Asghari Blood 2019). Similarly, a study of secondary AML pts receiving HMA/Ven and CPX-351 showed no difference in remission rate or survival (Salhotra Am J Hematol 2021). There remains a shortage of data describing clinical characteristics of pts selected for and treated with standard-of-care HMA/Ven and CPX-351. We present a study on our center's experience. Methods: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical characteristics and outcomes of adult pts with newly diagnosed AML who were treated with either CPX-351 or HMA/Ven as initial therapy. Consecutive pts treated with either of these two induction therapies between August 2017 and June 2021 were evaluated retrospectively. Pts were eligible for response evaluation if they received at least 3 doses of CPX-351 or 28 days (1 cycle) of venetoclax ("response cohort"). All pts treated with CPX-351 or HMA/Ven were included in survival analysis ("survival cohort"). Response assessment is based on ELN-2017 criteria. Pt characteristics were described and compared using Fisher's Exact tests. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to summarize overall survival, and log-rank tests were used for the comparison of frontline therapies. Cox proportional-hazards regression estimated hazard ratio (HR), 95% confidence interval (CI), and interactions between frontline therapy and age at induction start. Results : A total of 79 pts were identified receiving frontline HMA/Ven or CPX-351; 61 pts (77%) were evaluable for response. Of the response cohort, 21 (34%) were treated with CPX-351 and 40 (66%) with HMA/Ven; pt characteristics are described in Table 1. CPX-351 pts were younger at start of induction (P & lt;0.001); many pts in both treatment groups had unfavorable ELN risk scores at diagnosis (CPX 43%, HMA/Ven 41%; P & gt;0.99). 33% and 23% of the HMA/Ven cohort achieved CR and CRi respectively; in the CPX-351 cohort 57% and 5% achieved CR and CRi respectively. A greater fraction of CPX-351 pts proceeded to allogeneic stem cell transplant than HMA/Ven pts (67% vs 23%; P & lt;0.001). No differences were detected in achievement of MRD negativity by flow cytometry (P=0.51) or molecular profile (P=0.52). Median follow-up for all pts was 18.9 months; 42 deaths occurred. Differences in survival between the frontline therapies were not detected in the survival cohort (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.67 to 2.57; P=0.43) nor the response cohort (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.45 to 2.09; P=0.93); these results were unaffected by adjustments for age at induction, ELN risk score, and transplant status. 8 pts who initially received CPX-351 and had refractory disease later went on to receive HMA/Ven reinduction; 2 achieved CRi, 2 MLFS, 3 Refractory and 1 Death in Aplasia. 1 pt who initially received HMA/Ven with refractory disease went on to receive CPX-351. This pt was refractory to CPX-351. Conclusion: HMA/Ven and CPX-351 are effective frontline treatment options with similar response rates and survival outcomes in newly diagnosed adults with AML. Pts treated with CPX-351 were younger and more likely to proceed with allogeneic transplantation, in line with standard practice. Though there was heterogeneity in pt populations, age did not appear to affect outcomes. As the landscape for standard-of-care upfront treatment for AML continues to evolve, further studies are warranted to determine optimal therapy selection and sequencing. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Arnall: Novo Nordisk: Speakers Bureau. Symanowski: Carsgen: Consultancy; Immatics: Consultancy, Other: DSMB Member; Eli Lilly: Consultancy, Other: DSMB Member. Avalos: JUNO: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Copelan: Amgen: Consultancy. Grunwald: Cardinal Health: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; PRIME: Other; Karius: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Med Learning Group: Other; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy; MDEdge: Other; PER: Other; Trovagene: Consultancy; Stemline: Consultancy.