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

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.EPICOVIDEHA has received funds from Optics COMMITTM (COVID-19 Unmet Medical Needs and Associated Research Extension) COVID-19 RFP program by GILEAD Science, United States (Project 2020-8223)

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

Risk factors associated with adverse fetal outcomes in pregnancies affected by Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a secondary analysis of the WAPM study on COVID-19.

Objectives To evaluate the strength of association between maternal and pregnancy characteristics and the risk of adverse perinatal outcomes in pregnancies with laboratory confirmed COVID-19. Methods Secondary analysis of a multinational, cohort study on all consecutive pregnant women with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 from February 1, 2020 to April 30, 2020 from 73 centers from 22 different countries. A confirmed case of COVID-19 was defined as a positive result on real-time reverse-transcriptase-polymerase-chain-reaction (RT-PCR) assay of nasal and pharyngeal swab specimens. The primary outcome was a composite adverse fetal outcome, defined as the presence of either abortion (pregnancy loss before 22 weeks of gestations), stillbirth (intrauterine fetal death after 22 weeks of gestation), neonatal death (death of a live-born infant within the first 28 days of life), and perinatal death (either stillbirth or neonatal death). Logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate parameters independently associated with the primary outcome. Logistic regression was reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results Mean gestational age at diagnosis was 30.6+/-9.5 weeks, with 8.0% of women being diagnosed in the first, 22.2% in the second and 69.8% in the third trimester of pregnancy. There were six miscarriage (2.3%), six intrauterine device (IUD) (2.3) and 5 (2.0%) neonatal deaths, with an overall rate of perinatal death of 4.2% (11/265), thus resulting into 17 cases experiencing and 226 not experiencing composite adverse fetal outcome. Neither stillbirths nor neonatal deaths had congenital anomalies found at antenatal or postnatal evaluation. Furthermore, none of the cases experiencing IUD had signs of impending demise at arterial or venous Doppler. Neonatal deaths were all considered as prematurity-related adverse events. Of the 250 live-born neonates, one (0.4%) was found positive at RT-PCR pharyngeal swabs performed after delivery. The mother was tested positive during the third trimester of pregnancy. The newborn was asymptomatic and had negative RT-PCR test after 14 days of life. At logistic regression analysis, gestational age at diagnosis (OR: 0.85, 95% CI 0.8-0.9 per week increase; pPeer reviewe

Guideline adherence and survival of patients with candidaemia in Europe: results from the ECMM Candida III multinational European observational cohort study

© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.[Background] The European Confederation of Medical Mycology (ECMM) collected data on epidemiology, risk factors, treatment, and outcomes of patients with culture-proven candidaemia across Europe to assess how adherence to guideline recommendations is associated with outcomes.[Methods] In this observational cohort study, 64 participating hospitals located in 20 European countries, with the number of eligible hospitals per country determined by population size, included the first ten consecutive adults with culture-proven candidaemia after July 1, 2018, and entered data into the ECMM Candida Registry (FungiScope CandiReg). We assessed ECMM Quality of Clinical Candidaemia Management (EQUAL Candida) scores reflecting adherence to recommendations of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases and the Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines.[Findings] 632 patients with candidaemia were included from 64 institutions. Overall 90-day mortality was 43% (265/617), and increasing age, intensive care unit admission, point increases in the Charlson comorbidity index score, and Candida tropicalis as causative pathogen were independent baseline predictors of mortality in Cox regression analysis. EQUAL Candida score remained an independent predictor of mortality in the multivariable Cox regression analyses after adjusting for the baseline predictors, even after restricting the analysis to patients who survived for more than 7 days after diagnosis (adjusted hazard ratio 1·08 [95% CI 1·04–1·11; p<0·0001] in patients with a central venous catheter and 1·09 [1·05–1·13; p<0·0001] in those without one, per one score point decrease). Median duration of hospital stay was 15 days (IQR 4–30) after diagnosis of candidaemia and was extended specifically for completion of parenteral therapy in 100 (16%) of 621 patients. Initial echinocandin treatment was associated with lower overall mortality and longer duration of hospital stay among survivors than treatment with other antifungals.[Interpretation] Although overall mortality in patients with candidaemia was high, our study indicates that adherence to clinical guideline recommendations, reflected by higher EQUAL Candida scores, might increase survival. New antifungals, with similar activity as current echinocandins but with longer half-lives or oral bioavailability, are needed to reduce duration of hospital stay.Scynexis.Peer reviewe

Predictors for prolonged hospital stay solely to complete intravenous antifungal treatment in patients with candidemia: Results from the ECMM candida III multinational European observational cohort study

Background To date, azoles represent the only viable option for oral treatment of invasive Candida infections, while rates of azole resistance among non-albicans Candida spp. continue to increase. The objective of this sub-analysis of the European multicenter observational cohort study Candida III was to describe demographical and clinical characteristics of the cohort requiring prolonged hospitalization solely to complete intravenous (iv) antifungal treatment (AF Tx). Methods Each participating hospital (number of eligible hospitals per country determined by population size) included the first ~ 10 blood culture proven adult candidemia cases occurring consecutively after July 1st, 2018, and treating physicians answered the question on whether hospital stay was prolonged only for completion of intravenous antifungal therapy. Descriptive analyses as well as binary logistic regression was used to assess for predictors of prolonged hospitalization solely to complete iv AF Tx. Findings Hospital stay was prolonged solely for the completion of iv AF Tx in 16% (100/621) of candidemia cases by a median of 16 days (IQR 8 – 28). In the multivariable model, initial echinocandin treatment was a positive predictor for prolonged hospitalization to complete iv AF Tx (aOR 2.87, 95% CI 1.55 – 5.32, p < 0.001), while (i) neutropenia, (ii) intensive care unit admission, (iii) catheter related candidemia, (iv) total parenteral nutrition, and (v) C. parapsilosis as causative pathogen were found to be negative predictors (aOR 0.22 – 0.45; p < 0.03). Interpretation Hospital stays were prolonged due to need of iv AF Tx in 16% of patients with candidemia. Those patients were more likely to receive echinocandins as initial treatment and were less severely ill and less likely infected with C. parapsilosis

Aortic valve repair or replacement in patients with aortic regurgitation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective: To systematically compare clinical outcomes between aortic valve repair and replacement in patients with aortic regurgitation. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was undertaken among the four major databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Ovid) to identify all published data comparing clinical outcomes of aortic valve repair vs replacement. Database searched from inception to November 2018. Results: A total of 1071 patients were analyzed in eight articles. Mean age was similar in both groups of patients (47.2 ± 12.8 vs 48.3 ± 12.7 years, P = 0.83, aortic valve repair and replacement, respectively). The preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction was better in the repair group (56.7% ± 4.8 vs 53.3% ± 4.2, P = 0.005). The rate of moderate-to-severe regurgitation and bicuspid aortic valve were similar in both cohorts (81% vs 78%, P = 0.90% and 58% vs 55%, P = 0.46). In-hospital and 1-year mortality was lower in repair cohort, although not reaching statistical significance (1.3% vs 3.6%, P = 0.12; 5.9% vs 9.3%, P = 0.77). Reoperation rate was higher in repair patients at 1 year (8.8% vs 3.7%, P = 0.03). Conclusion: Aortic valve repair offers comparable perioperative outcomes to aortic valve replacement in aortic regurgitation patients at the expense of higher late reintervention rate. Larger trials with long-term follow-up are required to confirm the long-term benefits of aortic valve repair. © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc

Robotic and laparoscopic liver resection—comparative experiences at a high-volume German academic center

Purpose!#!Minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) is a feasible and safe procedure for benign and malignant tumors. There has been an ongoing debate on whether conventional laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) or robotic liver resection (RLR) is superior and if one approach should be favored over the other. We started using LLR in 2010, and introduced RLR in 2013. In the present paper, we report on our experiences with these two techniques as early adopters in Germany.!##!Methods!#!The data of patients who underwent MILS between 2010 and 2020 were collected prospectively in the Magdeburg Registry for Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery (MD-MILS). A retrospective analysis was performed regarding patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and perioperative parameters.!##!Results!#!We identified 155 patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria. Of these, 111 (71.6%) underwent LLR and 44 (29.4%) received RLR. After excluding cystic lesions, 113 cases were used for the analysis of perioperative parameters. Resected specimens were significantly bigger in the RLR vs. the LLR group (405 g vs. 169 g, p = 0.002); in addition, the tumor diameter was significantly larger in the RLR vs. the LLR group (5.6 cm vs. 3.7 cm, p = 0.001). Hence, the amount of major liver resections (three or more segments) was significantly higher in the RLR vs. the LLR group (39.0% vs. 16.7%, p = 0.005). The mean operative time was significantly longer in the RLR vs. the LLR group (331 min vs. 181 min, p = 0.0001). The postoperative hospital stay was significantly longer in the RLR vs. the LLR group (13.4 vs. LLR 8.7 days, p = 0.03). The R0 resection rate for solid tumors was higher in the RLR vs. the LLR group but without statistical significance (93.8% vs. 87.9%, p = 0.48). The postoperative morbidity ≥ Clavien-Dindo grade 3 was 5.6% in the LLR vs. 17.1% in the RLR group (p = 0.1). No patient died in the RLR but two patients (2.8%) died in the LLR group, 30 and 90 days after surgery (p = 0.53).!##!Conclusion!#!Minimally invasive liver surgery is safe and feasible. Robotic and laparoscopic liver surgery shows similar and adequate perioperative oncological results for selected patients. RLR might be advantageous for more advanced and technically challenging procedures