Multicenter Observational Retrospective Study on Febrile Events in Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia Treated with Cpx-351 in "Real-Life": The SEIFEM Experience

: In the present study, we aimed to evaluate the absolute risk of infection in the real-life setting of AML patients treated with CPX-351. The study included all patients with AML from 30 Italian hematology centers of the SEIFEM group who received CPX-351 from July 2018 to June 2021. There were 200 patients included. Overall, 336 CPX-351 courses were counted: all 200 patients received the first induction cycle, 18 patients (5%) received a second CPX-351 induction, while 86 patients (26%) proceeded with the first CPX-351 consolidation cycle, and 32 patients (10%) received a second CPX-351 consolidation. A total of 249 febrile events were recorded: 193 during the first or second induction, and 56 after the first or second consolidation. After the diagnostic work-up, 92 events (37%) were classified as febrile neutropenia of unknown origin (FUO), 118 (47%) were classifiable as microbiologically documented infections, and 39 (17%) were classifiable as clinically documented infections. The overall 30-day mortality rate was 14% (28/200). The attributable mortality-infection rate was 6% (15/249). A lack of response to the CPX-351 treatment was the only factor significantly associated with mortality in the multivariate analysis [p-value: 0.004, OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.01-0.39]. Our study confirms the good safety profile of CPX-351 in a real-life setting, with an incidence of infectious complications comparable to that of the pivotal studies; despite prolonged neutropenia, the incidence of fungal infections was low, as was infection-related mortality

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 = 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).</p

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

Simultaneous onset of haematological malignancy and COVID: An epicovideha survey

Background: The outcome of patients with simultaneous diagnosis of haematological malignancies (HM) and COVID-19 is unknown and there are no specific treatment guidelines.Methods: We describe the clinical features and outcome of a cohort of 450 patients with simultaneous diagnosis of HM and COVID-19 registered in the EPICOVIDEHA registry between March 2020 to February 2022.Results: Acute leukaemia and lymphoma were the most frequent HM (35.8% and 35.1%, respectively). Overall, 343 (76.2%) patients received treatment for HM, which was delayed for longer than one month since diagnosis in 57 (16.6%). An overall response rate was observed in 140 (40.8%) patients after the first line of treatment. After a median follow-up of 35 days, overall mortality was 177/450 (39.3%); 30-day mortality was significantly higher in patients not receiving HM treatment (42.1%) than in those receiving treatment (27.4%, p = 0.004), either before and/or after COVID-19, or compared to patients receiving HM treatment at least after COVID-19 (15.2%, p \u3c 0.001). Age, severe/critical COVID-19, ≥2 comorbidities, and lack of HM treatment were independent risk factors for mortality, whereas a lymphocyte count \u3e500/mcl at COVID-19 onset was protective.Conclusions: HM treatment should be delivered as soon as possible for patients with simultaneous diagnosis of COVID-19 and HM requiring immediate therapy

Simultaneous Onset of Haematological Malignancy and COVID: An Epicovideha Survey

Background: The outcome of patients with simultaneous diagnosis of haematological malignancies (HM) and COVID-19 is unknown and there are no specific treatment guidelines. Methods: We describe the clinical features and outcome of a cohort of 450 patients with simultaneous diagnosis of HM and COVID-19 registered in the EPICOVIDEHA registry between March 2020 to February 2022. Results: Acute leukaemia and lymphoma were the most frequent HM (35.8% and 35.1%, respectively). Overall, 343 (76.2%) patients received treatment for HM, which was delayed for longer than one month since diagnosis in 57 (16.6%). An overall response rate was observed in 140 (40.8%) patients after the first line of treatment. After a median follow-up of 35 days, overall mortality was 177/450 (39.3%); 30-day mortality was significantly higher in patients not receiving HM treatment (42.1%) than in those receiving treatment (27.4%, p = 0.004), either before and/or after COVID-19, or compared to patients receiving HM treatment at least after COVID-19 (15.2%, p 500/mcl at COVID-19 onset was protective. Conclusions: HM treatment should be delivered as soon as possible for patients with simultaneous diagnosis of COVID-19 and HM requiring immediate therapy

Multicenter retrospective analysis of clinical outcome of adult patients with mixed-phenotype acute leukemia treated with acute myeloid leukemia-like or acute lymphoblastic leukemia-like chemotherapy and impact of allogeneic stem cell transplantation: a Campus ALL study

: Mixed-phenotype acute leukemia (MPAL) is a rare disease. Treatment is often similar to that of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), but the outcome in adults and the role of allogeneic stem cell transplantation (AlloSCT) are not well defined. We report on 77 adult patients diagnosed with MPAL over the last 10&nbsp;years and treated with a curative intent. Median age was 49&nbsp;years; 7.6% of cases had a BCR::ABL1 rearrangement. Thirty patients (39%) were treated with an acute myeloid leukemia (AML)-like induction and 47 (61%) with an ALL-like scheme. The complete remission (CR) rate was 67.6% and an ALL-like therapy was associated with a better CR rate (P = 0.048). The median OS was 41.9&nbsp;months; age ≤ 60&nbsp;years was associated with a better OS (67 vs 26&nbsp;months, P = 0.014). An AlloSCT was performed in 50 patients (65%). The 5-year OS of transplanted patients was 54%. The OS post-AlloSCT was better in patients who were minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative prior to transplant (75.8% vs 45.2%, P = 0.06). This study shows that MPAL patients respond better to an ALL-like induction therapy; that consolidation therapy should include, whenever possible, an AlloSCT and that MRD negativity should be a primary endpoint of treatment

Bloodstream infections due to Gram-negative bacteria in patients with hematologic malignancies: updated epidemiology and risk factors for multidrug-resistant strains in an Italian perspective survey

: Bloodstream infections (BSI) caused by Gram-negative bacteria (GNB) in patients with hematological malignancies (HM) have been associated with high mortality rates, particularly with infections caused by antibiotic-resistant strains. A multicenter cohort study including all consecutive episodes of GNB BSI in HM patients was conducted to update the epidemiology and antibiotic resistance patterns (compared to our previous survey conducted between 2009 and 2012) and investigate risk factors for GNB BSI due to multidrug-resistant (MDR) isolates. A total of 834 GNB were recovered in 811 BSI episodes from January 2016 to December 2018. Compared to the previous survey, there was a significant reduction in use of fluoroquinolone prophylaxis and a significant recovery in susceptibility rates to ciprofloxacin among Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli and Enterobacter cloacae isolates. In addition, there was a shift to a significantly increased susceptibility of P. aeruginosa isolates to ceftazidime, meropenem, and gentamicin. A total of 256/834 (30.7%) isolates were MDR. In multivariable analysis, MDR bacteria culture-positive surveillance rectal swabs, previous therapy with aminoglycosides and carbapenems, fluoroquinolone prophylaxis, and time at risk were independently associated with MDR GNB BSI. In conclusion, despite the persistence of a high prevalence of MDR GNB, there was a shift to a reduced use of fluoroquinolone prophylaxis and increased rates of susceptibility to fluoroquinolones in almost all isolates and to almost all antibiotics tested among P. aeruginosa isolates, compared to our previous survey. Fluoroquinolone prophylaxis and previous rectal colonization by MDR bacteria were independent risk factors for MDR GNB BSI in the present study

Bloodstream infections caused by Escherichia coli in onco-haematological patients: Risk factors and mortality in an Italian prospective survey

Bloodstream infections (BSIs) remain life-threatening complications in the clinical course of patients with haematological malignancies (HM) and Escherichia coli represent one of the most frequent cause of such infections. In this study, we aimed to describe risk factors for resistance to third generation cephalosporins and prognostic factors, including the impact of third generation cephalosporins resistance, in patients with HM and BSIs caused by E. coli. Three hundred forty-two cases of E. coli BSIs were collected during the study period (from January 2016 to December 2017). The percentage of resistance to third generation cephalosporins was 25.7%. In multivariate analysis, the variables recent endoscopic procedures, culture-positive surveillance rectal swabs for multidrug-resistant bacteria, antibiotic prophylaxis with fluoroquinolones, and prolonged neutropenia were independently associated with bloodstream infections caused by a third generation cephalosporins resistant E. coli. The overall 30-day mortality rate was 7.1%. Cox regression revealed that significant predictors of mortality were acute hepatic failure, septic shock, male sex, refractory/relapsed HM, and third generation cephalosporins resistance by E. coli isolate. In conclusion, resistance to third generation cephalosporins adversely affected the outcomes of bloodstream infections caused by E. coli in our cohort of HM patients. We also found a significant correlation between prophylaxis with fluoroquinolones and resistance to third generation cephalosporins by E. coli isolates