A Randomized, Placebo-controlled Trial of Preemptive Antifungal Therapy for the Prevention of Invasive Candidiasis Following Gastrointestinal Surgery for Intra-abdominal Infections

Patients undergoing emergency gastrointestinal surgery for intra-abdominal infection are at high risk for invasive candidiasis. This exploratory clinical trial could not provide evidence that a preemptive antifungal treatment strategy was effective in this patient grou

Baseline Chest Computed Tomography as Standard of Care in High-Risk Hematology Patients

Baseline chest computed tomography (BCT) in high-risk hematology patients allows for the early diagnosis of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (IPA). The distribution of BCT implementation in hematology departments and impact on outcome is unknown. A web-based questionnaire was designed. International scientific bodies were invited. The estimated numbers of annually treated hematology patients, chest imaging timepoints and techniques, IPA rates, and follow-up imaging were assessed. In total, 142 physicians from 43 countries participated. The specialties included infectious diseases (n = 69; 49%), hematology (n = 68; 48%), and others (n = 41; 29%). BCT was performed in 57% (n = 54) of 92 hospitals. Upon the diagnosis of malignancy or admission, 48% and 24% performed BCT, respectively, and X-ray was performed in 48% and 69%, respectively. BCT was more often used in hematopoietic cell transplantation and in relapsed acute leukemia. European centers performed BCT in 59% and non-European centers in 53%. Median estimated IPA rate was 8% and did not differ between BCT (9%; IQR 5-15%) and non-BCT centers (7%; IQR 5-10%) (p = 0.69). Follow-up computed tomography (CT) for IPA was performed in 98% (n = 90) of centers. In high-risk hematology patients, baseline CT is becoming a standard-of-care. Chest X-ray, while inferior, is still widely used. Randomized, controlled trials are needed to investigate the impact of BCT on patient outcome

COVID-19 infection in adult patients with hematological malignancies:a European Hematology Association Survey (EPICOVIDEHA)

Background: Patients with hematological malignancies (HM) are at high risk of mortality from SARS-CoV-2 disease 2019 (COVID-19). A better understanding of risk factors for adverse outcomes may improve clinical management in these patients. We therefore studied baseline characteristics of HM patients developing COVID-19 and analyzed predictors of mortality. Methods: The survey was supported by the Scientific Working Group Infection in Hematology of the European Hematology Association (EHA). Eligible for the analysis were adult patients with HM and laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 observed between March and December 2020. Results: The study sample includes 3801 cases, represented by lymphoproliferative (mainly non-Hodgkin lymphoma n = 1084, myeloma n = 684 and chronic lymphoid leukemia n = 474) and myeloproliferative malignancies (mainly acute myeloid leukemia n = 497 and myelodysplastic syndromes n = 279). Severe/critical COVID-19 was observed in 63.8% of patients (n = 2425). Overall, 2778 (73.1%) of the patients were hospitalized, 689 (18.1%) of whom were admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). Overall, 1185 patients (31.2%) died. The primary cause of death was COVID-19 in 688 patients (58.1%), HM in 173 patients (14.6%), and a combination of both COVID-19 and progressing HM in 155 patients (13.1%). Highest mortality was observed in acute myeloid leukemia (199/497, 40%) and myelodysplastic syndromes (118/279, 42.3%). The mortality rate significantly decreased between the first COVID-19 wave (March–May 2020) and the second wave (October–December 2020) (581/1427, 40.7% vs. 439/1773, 24.8%, p value < 0.0001). In the multivariable analysis, age, active malignancy, chronic cardiac disease, liver disease, renal impairment, smoking history, and ICU stay correlated with mortality. Acute myeloid leukemia was a higher mortality risk than lymphoproliferative diseases. Conclusions: This survey confirms that COVID-19 patients with HM are at high risk of lethal complications. However, improved COVID-19 prevention has reduced mortality despite an increase in the number of reported cases

MOLNUPIRAVIR COMPARED TO NIRMATRELVIR/RITONAVIR FOR COVID-19 IN HIGH-RISK PATIENTS WITH HAEMATOLOGICAL MALIGNANCY IN EUROPE. A MATCHED-PAIRED ANALYSIS FROM THE EPICOVIDEHA REGISTRY

Introduction: Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir are antivirals used to prevent progression to severe SARS-CoV-2 infections, which reduce both hospitalization and mortality rates. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was authorised in Europe in December 2021, while molnupiravir is not yet licensed in Europe as of February 2022. Molnupiravir may be an alternative to nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, because it displays less frequent drug-drug interactions and contraindications. A caveat connected to molnupiravir derives from the mode of action inducing viral mutations. In clinical trials on patients without haematological malignancy, mortality rate reduction of molnupiravir appeared less pronounced than that of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Little is known about the comparative efficacy of the two drugs in patients with haematological malignancy at high-risk of severe COVID-19. Thus, we here assess the effectiveness of molnupiravir compared to nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in our cohort of patients with haematological malignancies. Methods: Clinical data of patients treated either with molnupiravir or nirmatrelvir/ritonavir monotherapy for COVID-19 were retrieved from the EPICOVIDEHA registry. Patients treated with molnupiravir were matched by sex, age (±10 years), and baseline haematological malignancy severity to controls treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Results: A total of 116 patients receiving molnupiravir for the clinical management of COVID-19 were matched to an equal number of controls receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. In each of the groups, 68 (59%) patients were male; with a median age of 64 years (IQR 53-74) for molnupiravir recipients and 64 years (IQR 54-73) for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir recipients; 57% (n=66) of the patients had controlled baseline haematological malignancy, 13% (n=15) stable, and 30% (n=35) had active disease at COVID-19 onset in each of the groups. During COVID-19 infection, one third of patients from each group were admitted to hospital. Although a similar proportion of vaccinated patients was observed in both groups (molnupiravir n=77, 66% vs nirmatrelvir/ritonavir n=87, 75%), those treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir had more often received four doses (n=27, 23%) as compared to patients treated with molnupiravir (n=5, 4%, p&lt;0.001). No differences were detected in COVID-19 severity (p=0.39) or hospitalization (p=1.0). No statistically significant differences were identified in overall mortality rate (p=0.78) or in survival probability (d30 p=0.19, d60 p=0.67, d90 p=0.68, last day of follow up p=0.68). In all patients, deaths were either attributed to COVID-19 or the infection contributed to death as per treating physician's judgement. Conclusions: In high-risk patients with haematological malignancies and COVID-19, molnupiravir showed rates of hospitalization and mortality comparable to those of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in this matched-pair analysis. Molnupiravir appears to be a plausible alternative to nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for COVID-19 treatment in patients with haematological malignancy

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in COVID-19 patients with haematological malignancies: a report from the EPICOVIDEHA registry

Background: 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. Methods: 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. Findings: 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&nbsp;=&nbsp;0.036). No factor was observed explaining the mortality difference in patients after nirmatrelvir/ritonavir administration. Interpretation: 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. Funding: 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)

Age, Successive Waves, Immunization, and Mortality in Elderly COVID-19 Haematological Patients: EPICOVIDEHA Findings

Introduction: elderly patients with haematologic malignancies face the highest risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes. The infection impact in different age groups remains unstudied in detail. Methods: We analysed elderly patients (age groups: 65-70, 71-75, 76-80 and &gt;80 years old) with hematologic malignancies included in the EPICOVIDEHA registry between January 2020 and July 2022. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression models were conducted to identify factors influencing death in COVID-19 patients with haematological malignancy. results: the study included data from 3,603 elderly patients (aged 65 or older) with haematological malignancy, with a majority being male (58.1%) and a significant proportion having comorbidities. The patients were divided into four age groups, and the analysis assessed COVID-19 outcomes, vaccination status, and other variables in relation to age and pandemic waves.tThe 90-day survival rate for patients with COVID-19 was 71.2%, with significant differences between groups. The pandemic waves had varying impacts, with the first wave affecting patients over 80 years old, the second being more severe in 65-70, and the third being the least severe in all age groups. factors contributing to 90-day mortality included age, comorbidities, lymphopenia, active malignancy, acute leukaemia, less than three vaccine doses, severe COVID-19, and using only corticosteroids as treatment. Conclusions: These data underscore the heterogeneity of elderly haematological patients, highlight the different impact of COVID waves and the pivotal importance of vaccination, and may help in planning future healthcare efforts

Training in infectious diseases across Europe in 2021 - a survey on training delivery, content and assessment

Objectives: To define the status of infectious diseases (ID) as an approved specialty in Europe; to enumerate the number of specialists (in general and in relation to the overall population) and specialist trainees and describe the content, delivery and evaluation of postgraduate training in ID in different countries.Methods: Structured web-based questionnaire surveys in March 2021 of responsible national authorities, specialist societies and individual country representatives to the Section of Infectious Diseases of the European Union for Medical Specialties. Descriptive analysis of quantitative and qualitative responses.Results: In responses received from 33/35 (94.3%) countries, ID is recognized as a specialty in 24 and as a subspecialty of general internal medicine (GIM) in eight, but it is not recognized in Spain. The number of ID specialists per country varies from <5 per million inhabitants to 78 per million inhabitants. Median length of training is 5 years (interquartile range 4.0–6.0 years) with variable amounts of preceding and/or concurrent GIM. Only 21.2% of countries (7/33) provide the minimum recommended training of 6 months in microbiology and 30% cover competencies such as palliative care, team working and leadership, audit, and quality control. Training is monitored by personal logbook or e-portfolio in 75.8% (25/33) and assessed by final examinations in 69.7% (23/33) of countries, but yearly reviews with trainees only occur in 54.5% (18/33) of countries.Conclusions: There are substantial gaps in modernization of ID training in many countries to match current European training requirements. Joint training with clinical microbiology (CM) and in multidisciplinary team working should be extended. Training/monitoring trainers should find greater focus, together with regular feedback to trainees within many national training programmes.peer-reviewe