scholarly journals Outcomes of patients with hematologic malignancies and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 3377 patients

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (25) ◽  
pp. 2881-2892
Author(s):  
Abi Vijenthira ◽  
Inna Y. Gong ◽  
Thomas A. Fox ◽  
Stephen Booth ◽  
Gordon Cook ◽  
...  

Abstract Outcomes for patients with hematologic malignancy infected with COVID-19 have not been aggregated. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the risk of death and other important outcomes for these patients. We searched PubMed and EMBASE up to 20 August 2020 to identify reports of patients with hematologic malignancy and COVID-19. The primary outcome was a pooled mortality estimate, considering all patients and only hospitalized patients. Secondary outcomes included risk of intensive care unit admission and ventilation in hospitalized patients. Subgroup analyses included mortality stratified by age, treatment status, and malignancy subtype. Pooled prevalence, risk ratios (RRs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Thirty-four adult and 5 pediatric studies (3377 patients) from Asia, Europe, and North America were included (14 of 34 adult studies included only hospitalized patients). Risk of death among adult patients was 34% (95% CI, 28-39; N = 3240) in this sample of predominantly hospitalized patients. Patients aged ≥60 years had a significantly higher risk of death than patients <60 years (RR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.45-2.27; N = 1169). The risk of death in pediatric patients was 4% (95% CI, 1-9; N = 102). RR of death comparing patients with recent systemic anticancer therapy to no treatment was 1.17 (95% CI, 0.83-1.64; N = 736). Adult patients with hematologic malignancy and COVID-19, especially hospitalized patients, have a high risk of dying. Patients ≥60 years have significantly higher mortality; pediatric patients appear to be relatively spared. Recent cancer treatment does not appear to significantly increase the risk of death.

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 39-41
Author(s):  
Abi Vijenthira ◽  
Inna Gong ◽  
Thomas A Fox ◽  
Stephen Booth ◽  
Gordon Cook ◽  
...  

Introduction: Clinical outcomes for patients with hematologic malignancy and COVID-19 have not been aggregated. We completed a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the risk of death and other important outcomes for these patients. Methods: We searched Pubmed and EMBASE up to July 25, 2020, to identify reports of patients with hematologic malignancy and COVID-19 (including papers where the patients with hematologic malignancy were a subset of the total study population). The primary outcome was a pooled mortality estimate, considering all patients and only hospitalized patients. Secondary outcomes included pooled estimates for the risk of ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, and non-invasive ventilation in hospitalized patients. Mortality data were stratified by age, treatment status, and malignancy subtype. For treatment status, "systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT)" was defined as patients on any anti-cancer therapy. "Cytotoxic SACT" was defined as patients on cytotoxic therapy only. "Not on treatment" was defined as patients on observation or those who were at least 28 days beyond their last active treatment. Sensitivity analyses were conducted on the primary outcomes limiting to studies with low risk of bias, and to studies including both outpatients and hospitalized patients. Due to data limitations, only the primary outcome was assessed for pediatric studies. Pooled prevalence and risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random-effects model using MetaXL and Revman 5.4 software. Results: A total of 25 adult studies and 4 pediatric studies comprising 1847 patients from China, Europe, the United Kingdom, and North America were included (Figure 1 and Table 1). The majority of patients were hospitalized (83%). The overall risk of death amongst all patients was 36% (95% CI 31-41, N=1763), and amongst hospitalized patients was 40% (95% CI 36-45, 24 studies with 1295 patients) (Figure 2). Patients aged >60 years had a significantly higher risk of death than patients <60 years (46% vs. 26%, RR 1.56, 95%CI 1.15-2.13, N=597) (Figure 3). The pooled risk of death in pediatric patients was 4% (95% CI 1-9, N=102) (Figure 2). The risk of ICU admission among hospitalized adult patients was 23% (95% CI 17-29, N=1165); mechanical ventilation 16% (95% CI 12-21, N= 826); and non-invasive ventilation 16% (95% CI 9-26%, N=373). The estimated RR of death among patients on SACT compared to no treatment was 1.22 (95% CI 0.84-1.78; N=457, Figure 3a). The RR of death among patients on cytotoxic SACT versus no treatment was similar at 1.29 (95% CI 0.78-2.15; N=176, Figure 3b). All subgroups of hematologic malignancy had high risks of overall mortality: acquired bone marrow dysfunction syndromes 57% (95% CI 42-72, 11 studies, 42 patients); leukemias 44% (95% CI 31-58, 15 studies, 159 patients), plasma cell dyscrasias 38% (95% CI 29-47, 18 studies, 387 patients); lymphomas (including CLL) 32% (95% CI 26-38, 16 studies, 696 patients); lymphomas (excluding CLL) 32% (95% CI 18-48, 11 studies, 156 patients); CLL 31% (95% CI 24-39, 13 studies, 457 patients); myeloproliferative neoplasms 37% (95% CI 25-49, 9 studies, 62 patients). Sensitivity analysis including only studies with a low risk of bias showed a similar estimate for risk of death among all patients (37% (95% CI 31-42, 20 studies with 1412 patients)) compared to all studies. Sensitivity analysis including only studies reporting on a combination of outpatients and hospitalized patients also showed a similar estimate for risk of death among all patients (38% (95% CI 32-44), 11 studies with 1214 patients) compared to all studies. Conclusion: Adult patients with hematologic malignancy and COVID-19, especially hospitalized patients, appear to experience a high risk of dying (pooled risk estimate 36%). Older patients experience higher mortality, and pediatric patients appear to be relatively spared. Importantly, based on the observational data available to date, recent cancer treatment does not appear to significantly increase the risk of dying. These data highlight the need for robust strategies to prevent patients with hematologic malignancy from contracting COVID-19, and may help inform discussions about prevention strategies, treatment, and goals of care. Disclosures Cook: Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; IQVIA: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy. Zwicker:Dova: Honoraria, Other: Advisory board; Portola: Honoraria, Other: Advisory board; Incyte: Research Funding; Quercegen: Research Funding; Parexel: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; CSL: Consultancy; Pfizer/BMS: Honoraria, Other: Advisory board. Scarfo:Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Wood:Pfizer: Research Funding; Best Doctors/Teladoc: Consultancy; Koneksa Health: Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Elektra Labs: Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ASH Research Collaborative: Honoraria; Genentech: Research Funding. Hicks:Gilead Sciences: Research Funding.


Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 2106-2106
Author(s):  
Madiha Iqbal ◽  
Tea Reljic ◽  
Ernesto Ayala ◽  
Hemant S. Murthy ◽  
Ambuj Kumar ◽  
...  

Background: Sickle cell disease (SCD) is an inherited hemoglobinopathy which affects over 300,000 children born each year worldwide. In spite of improvement in supportive care in recent years, there is still a lack of effective treatment options. SCD leads to debilitating and cyclic episodes of erythrocyte sickling with progressive organ injury, contributing to lifetime morbidity and shortened life expectancy. Allogeneic HCT (allo-HCT) is a potentially curative therapy for SCD because engraftment is associated with resolution of the clinical phenotype of the disease and abrogation of its complications. Medical literature on allo-HCT for SCD is largely limited to children. Recent studies have evaluated the efficacy of allo-HCT in the adult population. Here, we conduct a systematic review/meta-analysis to assess the totality of evidence pertaining to the efficacy (or lack thereof) of allo-HCT in children and adults. Materials and methods: We performed a comprehensive search of the medical literature using PubMed/Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane library on July 3rd, 2019. We extracted data on clinical outcomes related to benefits (overall [OS] and disease free/event free survival [EFS/DFS]) and harms (non-relapse mortality [NRM] and graft failure [GF]), independently by two authors. Our search strategy identified 1001 references but only 30 studies (n= 1995 patients) were included in this systematic review/meta-analysis. We also performed a sub analysis on clinical outcomes for studies that included only pediatric patients (defined as <18 years) and those in patients ≥18 years of age. Results: Median age for patients enrolled in all the studies was at 10 years. Recurrent veno-occlusive crises represented the most common indication for allo-HCT followed by acute chest syndrome and stroke; nevertheless, most patients had more than one indication. Matched related donors (MRD) were the most common donor source (93%). Bone marrow was the most common source of hematopoietic stem cells (77%). Majority of patients underwent conditioning with myeloablative regimens (77%). Pooled OS rates (n=29 studies, 1681 patients) after allogeneic HCT was 95% (95%CI=93-96%) with low heterogeneity (I2=6.4%) among included studies (Figure 1). Pooled EFS/DFS rates (n=29 studies, 1894 patients) post-allografting was 90% (95%CI=87-93%) with moderate heterogeneity (I2=54%). Pooled NRM rates from 30 studies (1995 patients) was 4% (95%CI=2-6%) with low heterogeneity (I2=29.4%). Pooled GF rates from 28 studies (1851 patients) was 4% (95%CI=2-6%) with moderate heterogeneity (I2=55%). A subset analysis specifically for pediatric patients (n= 11 studies, 1009 patients, median age at 9.7 years) showed a pooled OS rate of 96% (95%CI=94-97%) with low heterogeneity (I2=0%); and for adult patients (n=3 studies, 51 patients, median age at 33.4 years) the pooled OS was 94% (95%CI=80-100%) with moderate heterogeneity (I2=52%). Pooled EFS/DFS for pediatric patients (n= 11 studies, 1009 patients) was at 89 %( 95%CI=84-93%) with moderate heterogeneity (I2=55.1%); and for adult patients (n=2 studies, 30 patients) was at 95% (95%CI=83-100%) with high heterogeneity (I2=96.5%). Pooled NRM from 10 studies with pediatric patients (281 patients) was at 6 % (95%CI=3-10%) with low heterogeneity (I2=0%); and from 3 studies with adult patients (51 patients) was at 1% (95%CI=0-7%) with low heterogeneity (I2=15.1%). Pooled GF from 10 studies with pediatric patients (281 patients) was at 3 % (95%CI=1-7%) with moderate heterogeneity (I2=40%); and from 2 studies with adult patients (30 patients) was at 5% (95%CI=0-17%) with high heterogeneity (I2=95.4%). Conclusions: The results of our systematic review/meta-analysis show excellent OS, EFS/DFS in children and adults undergoing allo-HCT with pooled OS rates exceeding 90%. The main limitation to offering an allo-HCT in SCD remains the availability of a suitable donor as 85% of patients meeting criteria do not have a MRD. We anticipate that with emergence of haploidentical transplantation the number of allo-HCT will increase in the future. GF remains a significant concern in this population and future studies should focus on novel immune suppression strategies to help reduce GF. Disclosures Kharfan-Dabaja: Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (19) ◽  
pp. 4462
Author(s):  
Konstantinos G. Kyriakoulis ◽  
Anastasios Kollias ◽  
Garyphallia Poulakou ◽  
Ioannis G. Kyriakoulis ◽  
Ioannis P. Trontzas ◽  
...  

The role of immunomodulatory agents in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 has been of increasing interest. Anakinra, an interleukin-1 inhibitor, has been shown to offer significant clinical benefits in patients with COVID-19 and hyperinflammation. An updated systematic review and meta-analysis regarding the impact of anakinra on the outcomes of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 was conducted. Studies, randomized or non-randomized with adjustment for confounders, reporting on the adjusted risk of death in patients treated with anakinra versus those not treated with anakinra were deemed eligible. A search was performed in PubMed/EMBASE databases, as well as in relevant websites, until 1 August 2021. The meta-analysis of six studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria (n = 1553 patients with moderate to severe pneumonia, weighted age 64 years, men 66%, treated with anakinra 50%, intubated 3%) showed a pooled hazard ratio for death in patients treated with anakinra at 0.47 (95% confidence intervals 0.34, 0.65). A meta-regression analysis did not reveal any significant associations between the mean age, percentage of males, mean baseline C-reactive protein levels, mean time of administration since symptoms onset among the included studies and the hazard ratios for death. All studies were considered as low risk of bias. The current evidence, although derived mainly from observational studies, supports a beneficial role of anakinra in the treatment of selected patients with COVID-19.


2021 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Melaku Bimerew ◽  
Adam Wondmieneh ◽  
Getnet Gedefaw ◽  
Teshome Gebremeskel ◽  
Asmamaw Demis ◽  
...  

Abstract Background In-hospital cardiac arrest is a major public health issue. It is a serious condition; most probably end up with death within a few minutes even with corrective measures. However, cardiopulmonary resuscitation is expected to increase the probability of survival and prevent neurological disabilities in patients with cardiac arrest. Having a pooled prevalence of survival to hospital discharge after cardiopulmonary resuscitation is vital to develop strategies targeted to increase probability of survival among patients with cardiac arrest. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis was aimed to assess the pooled prevalence of survival to hospital discharge among pediatric patients who underwent cardiopulmonary resuscitation for in-hospital cardiac arrest. Methods PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane review databases were searched. To have current (five-year) evidence, only studies published in 2016 to 2020 were included. The weighted inverse variance random-effects model at 95%CI was used to estimate the pooled prevalence of survival. Heterogeneity assessment, test of publication bias, and subgroup analyses were also employed accordingly. Results Twenty-five articles with a total sample size of 28,479 children were included in the final analysis. The pooled prevalence of survival to hospital discharge was found to be 46% (95% CI = 43.0–50.0%; I2 = 96.7%; p < 0.001). Based on subgroup analysis by “continent” and “income level”, lowest prevalence of pooled survival was observed in Asia (six studies; pooled survival =36.0% with 95% CI = 19.01–52.15%; I2 = 97.4%; p < 0.001) and in low and middle income countries (six studies, pooled survival = 34.0% with 95% CI = 17.0–51.0%, I2 = 97.67%, p < 0.001) respectively. Conclusion Although there was an extremely high heterogeneity among reported results (I2 = 96.7%), in this meta-analysis more than half of pediatric patients (54%) who underwent cardiopulmonary resuscitation for in-hospital cardiac arrest did not survived to hospital discharge. Therefore, developing further strategies and encouraging researches might be crucial.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (11) ◽  
pp. e0259514
Author(s):  
Leonard Chiu ◽  
Max Shen ◽  
Chun-Han Lo ◽  
Nicholas Chiu ◽  
Austin Chen ◽  
...  

Introduction Famotidine is a competitive histamine H2-receptor antagonist most commonly used for gastric acid suppression but thought to have potential efficacy in treating patients with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis are to summarize the current literature and report clinical outcomes on the use of famotidine for treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Methods Five databases were searched through February 12, 2021 to identify observational studies that reported on associations of famotidine use with outcomes in COVID-19. Meta-analysis was conducted for composite primary clinical outcome (e.g. rate of death, intubation, or intensive care unit admissions) and death separately, where either aggregate odds ratio (OR) or hazard ratio (HR) was calculated. Results Four studies, reporting on 46,435 total patients and 3,110 patients treated with famotidine, were included in this meta-analysis. There was no significant association between famotidine use and composite outcomes in patients with COVID-19: HR 0.63 (95% CI: 0.35, 1.16). Across the three studies that reported mortality separated from other endpoints, there was no association between famotidine use during hospitalization and risk of death—HR 0.67 (95% CI: 0.26, 1.73) and OR 0.79 (95% CI: 0.19, 3.34). Heterogeneity ranged from 83.69% to 88.07%. Conclusion Based on the existing observational studies, famotidine use is not associated with a reduced risk of mortality or combined outcome of mortality, intubation, and/or intensive care services in hospitalized individuals with COVID-19, though heterogeneity was high, and point estimates suggested a possible protective effect for the composite outcome that may not have been observed due to lack of power. Further randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may help determine the efficacy and safety of famotidine as a treatment for COVID-19 patients in various care settings of the disease.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eleni Karakike ◽  
Evangelos J. Giamarellos-Bourboulis ◽  
Miltiades Kyprianou ◽  
Carolin Fleischmann-Struzek ◽  
Mathias W. Pletz ◽  
...  

ABSTRACTImportanceCOVID-19 is a heterogenous disease most frequently causing respiratory tract infection but in its severe forms, respiratory failure and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome may occur, resembling sepsis. The prevalence of viral sepsis among COVID-19 patients is still unclear.ObjectiveWe aimed to describe this in a systematic review.Data sourcesMEDLINE(PubMed), Cochrane and Google Scholar databases were searched for studies reporting on patients hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19, diagnosed with sepsis or infection-related organ dysfunctions or receiving organ replacement therapy.Study selectionEligible were full-text English articles of randomized and non-randomized clinical trials and observational studies reporting on patients with confirmed COVID-19, who are diagnosed with sepsis or have infection-related organ dysfunctions. Systematic reviews, editorials, conference abstracts, animal studies, case reports, articles neither in English nor full-text, and studies with fewer than 30 participants were excluded.Data extraction and synthesisAll eligible studies were included in a narrative synthesis of results and after reviewing all included studies a meta-analysis was conducted. Separate sensitivity analyses were conducted per adult vs pediatric populations and per Intensive Care Unit (ICU) vs non-ICU populations.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary endpoint was the prevalence of sepsis using Sepsis-3 criteria among patients with COVID-19 and among secondary, new onset of infection-related organ dysfunction. Outcomes were expressed as proportions with respective 95% confidence interval (CI).ResultsOf 1,903 articles, 104 were analyzed. The prevalence of sepsis in COVID-19 was 39.9% (95% CI, 35.9-44.1; I2, 99%). In sensitivity analysis, sepsis was present in 25.1% (95% CI, 21.8-28.9; I2 99%) of adult patients hospitalized in non-Intensive-Care-Unit (ICU) wards (40 studies) and in 83.8 (95% CI, 78.1-88.2; I2,91%) of adult patients hospitalized in the ICU (31 studies). Sepsis in children hospitalized with COVID-19 was as high as 7.8% (95% CI, 0.4-64.9; I2, 97%). Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome was the most common organ dysfunction in adult patients in non-ICU (27.6; 95% CI, 21.6-34.5; I2, 99%) and ICU (88.3%; 95% CI, 79.7-93.5; I2, 97%)Conclusions and relevanceDespite the high heterogeneity in reported results, sepsis frequently complicates COVID-19 among hospitalized patients and is significantly higher among those in the ICU. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020202018. No funding.KEY POINTSQuestionWhat is the prevalence of viral sepsis by Sepsis-3 definition among hospitalized patients with COVID-19?FindingsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, we systematically reviewed published literature for evidence of organ failure in COVID-19, to estimate the prevalence of viral sepsis in this setting, by means of SOFA score calculation. The prevalence of sepsis in COVID-19 was 39.9% (95% CI, 35.9-44.1; I2, 99%).MeaningThis is the first study to address the burden of viral sepsis in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, a highly heterogenous infection ranging from asymptomatic cases to severe disease leading to death, as reflected in the high heterogeneity of this study.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonard Chiu ◽  
Max Shen ◽  
Ronald Chow ◽  
Chun-Han Lo ◽  
Nicholas Chiu ◽  
...  

Introduction: Famotidine is a competitive histamine H2-receptor antagonist most commonly used for gastric acid suppression but thought to have potential efficacy in treating patients with COVID-19. The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis are to summarize the current literature and report clinical outcomes on the use of famotidine for treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Methods: Five databases were searched through February 12, 2021 to identify observational studies that reported on associations of famotidine use with outcomes in COVID-19. Meta-analysis was conducted for composite primary clinical outcome (e.g. rate of death, intubation, or intensive care unit admissions) and death separately, where either aggregate odds ratio (OR) or hazard ratio (HR) was calculated. Results: Four studies, reporting on 46,435 total patients and 3,110 patients treated with famotidine, were included in this meta-analysis. There was no significant association between famotidine use and composite outcomes in patients with COVID-19: HR 0.63 (95% CI: 0.35, 1.16). Across the three studies that reported mortality separated from other endpoints, there was no association between famotidine use during hospitalization and risk of death - HR 0.67 (95% CI: 0.26, 1.73) and OR 0.79 (95% CI: 0.19, 3.34). Heterogeneity ranged from 83.69% to 88.07%. Conclusion: Based on the existing observational studies, famotidine use is not associated with a reduced risk of mortality or combined outcome of mortality, intubation, and/or intensive care services in hospitalized individuals with COVID-19, though heterogeneity was high, and point estimates suggested a possible protective effect for the composite outcome that may not have been observed due to lack of power. Further RCTs may help determine the efficacy and safety of famotidine as a treatment for COVID-19 patients in various care settings of the disease


2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (12) ◽  
pp. 2624-2643
Author(s):  
Abi Vijenthira ◽  
Inna Gong ◽  
Stephen D. Betschel ◽  
Matthew Cheung ◽  
Lisa K. Hicks

Abstract The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review of the literature on vaccine responsiveness in patients who have received anti-CD20 therapy. PubMed and EMBASE were searched up to 4 January 2021 to identify studies of vaccine immunogenicity in patients treated with anti-CD20 therapy, including patients with hematologic malignancy or autoimmune disease. The primary outcomes were seroprotection (SP), seroconversion (SC), and/or seroresponse rates for each type of vaccine reported. As the pandemic influenza vaccine (2009 H1N1) has standardized definitions for SP and SC, and represented a novel primary antigen similar to the COVID-19 vaccine, meta-analysis was conducted for SC of studies of this vaccine. Pooled estimates, relative benefit ratios (RBs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Thirty-eight studies (905 patients treated with anti-CD20 therapy) were included (19 studies of patients with hematologic malignancies). Patients on active (&lt;3 months since last dose) anti-CD20 therapy had poor responses to all types of vaccines. The pooled estimate for SC after 1 pandemic influenza vaccine dose in these patients was 3% (95% CI, 0% to 9%), with an RB of 0.05 (95% CI, 0-0.73) compared with healthy controls and 0.22 (95% CI, 0.09-0.56) compared with disease controls. SC compared with controls seems abrogated for at least 6 months following treatment (3-6 months post anti-CD20 therapy with an RB of 0.50 [95% CI, 0.24-1.06] compared with healthy and of 0.44 [95% CI, 0.23-0.84] compared with disease controls). For all vaccine types, response to vaccination improves incrementally over time, but may not reach the level of healthy controls even 12 months after therapy.


2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonardo R ◽  
Elmiro SR ◽  
Angelica LDD ◽  
Nilson PS ◽  
João Lucas OC ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document