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<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

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 >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

Current and emerging drug treatment strategies to tackle invasive community-associated methicillin-resistant <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i> (MRSA) infection: what are the challenges?

Community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (CA-MRSA) infections represent a leading cause of purulent skin and soft tissue infections in some geographical regions. Traditionally, ‘old antibiotics’ such as trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, tetracyclines, clindamycin, chloramphenicol,vancomycin, and teicoplanin have been used to treat these infections, but these were often associated with low efficacy and excessive side effects and toxicity, especially nephrotoxicity. Along with the development of new compounds, the last decade has seen substantial improvements in the management of CA-MRSA infections. In this review, the authors discuss the current and emerging drug treatment strategies to tackle invasive CA-MRSA infections. Articles reported in this review were selected from through literature searches using the PubMed database. The availability of new drugs showing a potent in vitro activity against CA-MRSA represents a unique opportunity to face the threat of resistance while potentially reducing toxicity. All these compounds represent promising options to enhance our antibiotic armamentarium. However, data regarding the use of these new drugs in real-life studies are limited and their best placement in therapy and in terms of optimization of medical resources and balance of cost-effectiveness requires further investigation.</p

Early Clinical Experience with Molnupiravir for Mild to Moderate Breakthrough COVID-19 among Fully Vaccinated Patients at Risk for Disease Progression

Information on the efficacy and safety of molnupiravir in daily clinical practice is very scarce. We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes of fully vaccinated patients with mild to moderate breakthrough COVID-19 treated with molnupiravir between January 2022 and February 2022. Overall, 145 patients were enrolled. Their median age was 71.0 years, and 60.7% were males. The most common underlying condition was a severe cardiovascular disease (37.2%), followed by primary or acquired immunodeficiency (22.8%), and oncological/onco-hematological disease in the active phase (22.1%). At 30 days after breakthrough COVID-19 diagnosis, only 4 out of 145 patients (2.7%) required hospital admission. No patients developed severe COVID-19, were admitted to the ICU, or died during the follow-up period. Adverse events, mild in intensity, occurred in 2 patients (1.4%). Our results support the current evidence establishing positive clinical and safety outcomes of molnupiravir in fully vaccinated patients with mild or moderate breakthrough COVID-19

External validation of unsupervised COVID-19 clinical phenotypes and their prognostic impact

AbstractBackground Hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can be classified into different clinical phenotypes based on their demographic, clinical, radiology, and laboratory features. We aimed to validate in an external cohort of hospitalized COVID-19 patients the prognostic value of a previously described phenotyping system (FEN-COVID-19) and to assess the reproducibility of phenotypes development as a secondary analysis.Methods Patients were classified in phenotypes A, B or C according to the severity of oxygenation impairment, inflammatory response, hemodynamic and laboratory tests according to the FEN-COVID-19 method.Results Overall, 992 patients were included in the study, and 181 (18%), 757 (76%) and 54 (6%) of them were assigned to the FEN-COVID-19 phenotypes A, B, and C, respectively. An association with mortality was observed for phenotype C vs. A (hazard ratio [HR] 3.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.81–5.30, p < 0.001) and for phenotype C vs. B (HR 2.20, 95% CI 1.50–3.23, p < 0.001). A non-statistically significant trend towards higher mortality was also observed for phenotype B vs. A (HR 1.41; 95% CI 0.92–2.15, p = 0.115). By means of cluster analysis, three different phenotypes were also identified in our cohort, with an overall similar gradient in terms of prognostic impact to that observed when patients were assigned to FEN-COVID-19 phenotypes.Conclusions The prognostic impact of FEN-COVID-19 phenotypes was confirmed in our external cohort, although with less difference in mortality between phenotypes A and B than in the original study

Bronchoalveolar lavage fluid characteristics and outcomes of invasively mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 pneumonia in Genoa, Italy

BACKGROUND: The primary objective of the study is to describe the cellular characteristics of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) of COVID-19 patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation; the secondary outcome is to describe BALF findings between survivors vs non-survivors.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients positive for SARS-CoV-2 RT PCR, admitted to ICU between March and April 2020 were enrolled. At ICU admission, BALF were analyzed by flow cytometry. Univariate, multivariate and Spearman correlation analyses were performed.RESULTS: Sixty-four patients were enrolled, median age of 64years (IQR 58-69). The majority cells in the BALF were neutrophils (70%, IQR 37.5-90.5) and macrophages (27%, IQR 7-49) while a minority were lymphocytes, 1%, TCD3+92% (IQR 82-95). The ICU mortality was 32.8%. Non-survivors had a significantly older age (p=0.033) and peripheral lymphocytes (p=0.012) were lower compared to the survivors. At multivariate analysis the percentage of macrophages in the BALF correlated with poor outcome (OR 1.336, CI95% 1.014-1.759, p=0.039).CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients, BALF cellularity is mainly composed of neutrophils and macrophages. The macrophages percentage in the BALF at ICU admittance correlated with higher ICU mortality. The lack of lymphocytes in BALF could partly explain a reduced anti-viral response

External validation of unsupervised COVID-19 clinical phenotypes and their prognostic impact

Hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can be classified into different clinical phenotypes based on their demographic, clinical, radiology, and laboratory features. We aimed to validate in an external cohort of hospitalized COVID-19 patients the prognostic value of a previously described phenotyping system (FEN-COVID-19) and to assess the reproducibility of phenotypes development as a secondary analysis. Patients were classified in phenotypes A, B or C according to the severity of oxygenation impairment, inflammatory response, hemodynamic and laboratory tests according to the FEN-COVID-19 method. Overall, 992 patients were included in the study, and 181 (18%), 757 (76%) and 54 (6%) of them were assigned to the FEN-COVID-19 phenotypes A, B, and C, respectively. An association with mortality was observed for phenotype C vs. A (hazard ratio [HR] 3.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.81–5.30, p p p = 0.115). By means of cluster analysis, three different phenotypes were also identified in our cohort, with an overall similar gradient in terms of prognostic impact to that observed when patients were assigned to FEN-COVID-19 phenotypes. The prognostic impact of FEN-COVID-19 phenotypes was confirmed in our external cohort, although with less difference in mortality between phenotypes A and B than in the original study. Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 can be classified into different clinical phenotypes based on their demographic, clinical, radiology, and laboratory featuresIn this study, we externally confirmed the prognostic impact of clinical phenotypes previously identified by Gutierrez-Gutierrez and colleagues in a Spanish cohort of hospitalized patients with COVID-19, and the usefulness of their simplified probabilistic model for phenotypes assignmentThis could indirectly support the validity of both phenotype’s development and their extrapolation to other hospitals and countries for management decisions during other possible future viral pandemics Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 can be classified into different clinical phenotypes based on their demographic, clinical, radiology, and laboratory features In this study, we externally confirmed the prognostic impact of clinical phenotypes previously identified by Gutierrez-Gutierrez and colleagues in a Spanish cohort of hospitalized patients with COVID-19, and the usefulness of their simplified probabilistic model for phenotypes assignment This could indirectly support the validity of both phenotype’s development and their extrapolation to other hospitals and countries for management decisions during other possible future viral pandemics</p

Survival in multiple myeloma and SARS‐COV‐2 infection through the COVID‐19 pandemic: Results from the epicovideha registry

Abstract Patients affected by multiple myeloma (MM) have an increased risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) infection and subsequent coronavirus (20)19 disease (COVID‐19)‐related death. The changing epidemiological and therapeutic scenarios suggest that there has been an improvement in severity and survival of COVID‐19 during the different waves of the pandemic in the general population, but this has not been investigated yet in MM patients. Here we analyzed a large cohort of 1221 patients with MM and confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2 infection observed between February 2020, and August 2022, in the EPICOVIDEHA registry from 132 centers around the world. Median follow‐up was 52 days for the entire cohort and 83 days for survivors. Three‐hundred and three patients died (24%) and COVID‐19 was the primary reason for death of around 89% of them. Overall survival (OS) was significantly higher in vaccinated patients with both stable and active MM versus unvaccinated, while only a trend favoring vaccinated patients was observed in subjects with responsive MM. Vaccinated patients with at least 2 doses showed a better OS than those with one or no vaccine dose. Overall, according to pandemic waves, mortality rate decreased over time from 34% to 10%. In multivariable analysis, age, renal failure, active disease, hospital, and intensive care unit admission, were independently associated with a higher number of deaths, while a neutrophil count above 0.5 × 10 /L was found to be protective. This data suggests that MM patients remain at risk of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection even in the vaccination era, but their clinical outcome, in terms of OS, has progressively improved throughout the different viral phases of the pandemic

Clinical characteristics, management and in-hospital mortality of patients with COVID-19 In Genoa, Italy

To describe clinical characteristics, management and outcome of COVID-19 patients; and to evaluate risk factors for all-cause in-hospital mortality