COVID-19 severity and cardiovascular outcomes in SARS-CoV-2-infected patients with cancer and cardiovascular disease.

Background: Data regarding outcomes among patients with cancer and co-morbid cardiovascular disease (CVD)/cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF) after SARS-CoV-2 infection are limited. Objectives: To compare Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) related complications among cancer patients with and without co-morbid CVD/CVRF. Methods: Retrospective cohort study of patients with cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2, reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from 03/17/2020 to 12/31/2021. CVD/CVRF was defined as established CVD or no established CVD, male ≥ 55 or female ≥ 60 years, and one additional CVRF. The primary endpoint was an ordinal COVID-19 severity outcome including need for hospitalization, supplemental oxygen, intensive care unit (ICU), mechanical ventilation, ICU or mechanical ventilation plus vasopressors, and death. Secondary endpoints included incident adverse CV events. Ordinal logistic regression models estimated associations of CVD/CVRF with COVID-19 severity. Effect modification by recent cancer therapy was evaluated. Results: Among 10,876 SARS-CoV-2 infected patients with cancer (median age 65 [IQR 54-74] years, 53% female, 52% White), 6253 patients (57%) had co-morbid CVD/CVRF. Co-morbid CVD/CVRF was associated with higher COVID-19 severity (adjusted OR: 1.25 [95% CI 1.11-1.40]). Adverse CV events were significantly higher in patients with CVD/CVRF (all p<0.001). CVD/CVRF was associated with worse COVID-19 severity in patients who had not received recent cancer therapy, but not in those undergoing active cancer therapy (OR 1.51 [95% CI 1.31-1.74] vs. OR 1.04 [95% CI 0.90-1.20], pinteraction <0.001). Conclusions: Co-morbid CVD/CVRF is associated with higher COVID-19 severity among patients with cancer, particularly those not receiving active cancer therapy. While infrequent, COVID-19 related CV complications were higher in patients with comorbid CVD/CVRF. (COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium Registry [CCC19]; NCT04354701).

Impact of COVID-19 in patients on active melanoma therapy and with history of melanoma.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 particularly impacted patients with co-morbid conditions, including cancer. Patients with melanoma have not been specifically studied in large numbers. Here, we sought to identify factors that associated with COVID-19 severity among patients with melanoma, particularly assessing outcomes of patients on active targeted or immune therapy. METHODS: Using the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry, we identified 307 patients with melanoma diagnosed with COVID-19. We used multivariable models to assess demographic, cancer-related, and treatment-related factors associated with COVID-19 severity on a 6-level ordinal severity scale. We assessed whether treatment was associated with increased cardiac or pulmonary dysfunction among hospitalized patients and assessed mortality among patients with a history of melanoma compared with other cancer survivors. RESULTS: Of 307 patients, 52 received immunotherapy (17%), and 32 targeted therapy (10%) in the previous 3 months. Using multivariable analyses, these treatments were not associated with COVID-19 severity (immunotherapy OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.19 - 1.39; targeted therapy OR 1.89, 95% CI 0.64 - 5.55). Among hospitalized patients, no signals of increased cardiac or pulmonary organ dysfunction, as measured by troponin, brain natriuretic peptide, and oxygenation were noted. Patients with a history of melanoma had similar 90-day mortality compared with other cancer survivors (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.62 - 2.35). CONCLUSIONS: Melanoma therapies did not appear to be associated with increased severity of COVID-19 or worsening organ dysfunction. Patients with history of melanoma had similar 90-day survival following COVID-19 compared with other cancer survivors.

Breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections among patients with cancer following two and three doses of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines: a retrospective observational study from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium.

Background: Breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections following vaccination against COVID-19 are of international concern. Patients with cancer have been observed to have worse outcomes associated with COVID-19 during the pandemic. We sought to evaluate the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with cancer who developed breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections after 2 or 3 doses of mRNA vaccines. Methods: We evaluated the clinical characteristics of patients with cancer who developed breakthrough infections using data from the multi-institutional COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19; NCT04354701). Analysis was restricted to patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 diagnosed in 2021 or 2022, to allow for a contemporary unvaccinated control population; potential differences were evaluated using a multivariable logistic regression model after inverse probability of treatment weighting to adjust for potential baseline confounding variables. Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) are reported. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality, with key secondary endpoints of hospitalization and ICU and/or mechanical ventilation (ICU/MV). Findings: The analysis included 2486 patients, of which 564 and 385 had received 2 or 3 doses of an mRNA vaccine prior to infection, respectively. Hematologic malignancies and recent receipt of systemic anti-neoplastic therapy were more frequent among vaccinated patients. Vaccination was associated with improved outcomes: in the primary analysis, 2 doses (aOR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.44-0.88) and 3 doses (aOR: 0.20, 95% CI: 0.11-0.36) were associated with decreased 30-day mortality. There were similar findings for the key secondary endpoints of ICU/MV (aOR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.45-0.82 and 0.37, 95% CI: 0.24-0.58) and hospitalization (aOR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.48-0.75 and 0.35, 95% CI: 0.26-0.46) for 2 and 3 doses, respectively. Importantly, Black patients had higher rates of hospitalization (aOR: 1.47, 95% CI: 1.12-1.92), and Hispanic patients presented with higher rates of ICU/MV (aOR: 1.61, 95% CI: 1.06-2.44). Interpretation: Vaccination against COVID-19, especially with additional doses, is a fundamental strategy in the prevention of adverse outcomes including death, among patients with cancer. Funding: This study was partly supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute grant number P30 CA068485 to C-YH, YS, SM, JLW; T32-CA236621 and P30-CA046592 to C.R.F; CTSA 2UL1TR001425-05A1 to TMW-D; ACS/FHI Real-World Data Impact Award, P50 MD017341-01, R21 CA242044-01A1, Susan G. Komen Leadership Grant Hunt to MKA. REDCap is developed and supported by Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research grant support (UL1 TR000445 from NCATS/NIH).

Outpatient anti-spike monoclonal antibody administration is associated with decreased morbidity and mortality among patients with cancer and COVID-19.

Patients with cancer have many comorbidities that increase their risk of death from Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Anti-spike monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) reduce the risk of hospitalization or death from COVID-19 in the general population. To our knowledge, no studies have focused on the clinical efficacy of mAbs compared to no outpatient treatment exclusively among patients with solid tumors and hematologic malignancies, who are often excluded from clinical trials. We studied patients with cancer who had COVID-19 between 11.9.2020 and 7.21.2022 and received mAbs in an outpatient setting. We compared hospitalization and mortality rates to those of patients with cancer concurrently diagnosed with COVID-19, who were eligible for mAbs, but did not receive any outpatient treatment. 63 patients received mAbs and 89 no outpatient treatment. Administration of mAbs was associated with lower 90-day hospitalization (20.6% vs. 60.7%, p <0.001), all-cause (6.3% vs. 19.1%, p 0.025) and COVID-19-attributed (3.2% vs. 14.6%, p 0.019) mortality rates, and lower peak O2 requirements (ordinal Odds Ratio [OR] = 0.33, 95% Confidence Intervals [CI] = 0.20-0.53). Administration of mAbs (aHR 0.21, p <0.001), age (≥ 60 years, adjusted Hazard Ratio [aHR] 1.86, p=0.033), and metastases (aHR 0.41, p 0.007) were independently associated with hospitalization. mAb treatment remained significantly associated with all-cause (aHR 0.27, p 0.019) and COVID-19-attributed (aHR 0.19, p 0.031) mortality, after adjustment for other factors. mAb administration was associated with improved clinical outcomes among vulnerable patients with cancer and COVID-19. With no mAbs approved currently for treatment against the prevalent circulating variants, the development of new mAbs should be a research priority.

mRNA Vaccination Decreases COVID-19-Associated Morbidity and Mortality Among Organ Transplant Recipients: A Contemporary Cohort Study.

Background: Organ transplant recipients (OTRs) are less protected from vaccination than immunocompetent hosts. Additional vaccine doses have shown increased immunogenicity. Few studies have assessed their clinical efficacy, particularly against Omicron variants, as most included patients from earlier phases of the pandemic, with higher base mortality rates. Methods: We studied adult OTRs who had coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) between 12/15/21 and 5/25/22. We compared clinical outcomes between those who had received 2 or ≥3 doses of an mRNA vaccine and concurrent unvaccinated controls. Results: Among 103 OTRs, vaccination was associated with lower 90-day mortality (unvaccinated vs 2 vs ≥3 doses: 25% vs 7% vs 3%; P = .003), hospital (unvaccinated vs 2 vs ≥3 doses: 56% vs 37% vs 27%; P = .018) and intensive care unit (ICU; unvaccinated vs 2 vs ≥3 doses: 25% vs 15% vs 3%; P = .001) admission rates, and peak O2 requirements (ordinal scale Kendall's tau b = -0.309 [lower scores, ie, O2 requirements with more vaccine doses]; P = .003). Age (age >60 years: adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 7.73; P = .016; administration of antispike monoclonal antibody: aHR, 0.17; P = .042) and vaccination, especially with ≥3 doses (aHR, 0.105; P = .01), were independently associated with 90-day mortality. Black (P = .021) and Hispanic (P = .016) OTRs were underrepresented among the vaccinated, especially in the ≥3-dose group. Conclusions: Despite lower mRNA vaccine efficacy in OTRs and against Omicron variants, vaccination protects this vulnerable patient population from severe COVID-19 and death. Ethnic and racial disparities in health care have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and warrant better community outreach efforts.

Elevated Tacrolimus Levels at Time of Diagnosis of COVID-19 Compared to Baseline Among Hospitalized Organ Transplant Recipients.

BACKGROUND: The effect of COVID-19 on immunosuppressant drug levels in organ transplant recipients (OTRs) has not been adequately studied. OBJECTIVE: To study the effect of COVID-19 on tacrolimus trough levels (primary outcome) in OTRs and the association of the later with acute kidney injury, bacterial infection, and oxygen requirements. METHODS: We studied adult (>18-year-old) hospitalized OTRs with COVID-19, who were receiving tacrolimus between 3/1 and 12/16/2020. RESULTS: Among 30 OTRs, 67% were men, 90% had a kidney transplant. Median age was 60.5 (interquartile range [IQR]: 45-68) years, median time from transplant 36 (IQR: 20-84) months. Tacrolimus troughs were higher on admission for COVID-19 than baseline (average over 6 months prior) (P = .001). Eighteen patients (60%) had admission tacrolimus trough >10, 5 (17%) >20 ng/mL. Patients with diarrhea had borderline higher tacrolimus troughs, compared to those without diarrhea (P = .09). Organ transplant recipients with a tacrolimus trough >10 ng/mL were more likely to have elevated aspartate aminotransferase on admission (P = .01) and require supplemental oxygen. (P = .026). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Tacrolimus trough levels were elevated in most OTRs with COVID-19 at the time of hospital admission, compared to baseline. Potential mechanisms are diarrhea and hepatic involvement in COVID-19. In OTRs with COVID-19, including outpatients, immunosuppressant drug levels should be closely followed; management of immunosuppression should be individualized.

Comparison of COVID-19 outcomes in organ transplant recipients (OTr) and non-transplant patients: a study protocol for rapid review.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has devastated the global community with nearly 4.9 million deaths as of October 2021. While organ transplant (OT) recipients (OTr) may be at increased risk for severe COVID-19 due to their chronic immunocompromised state, outcomes for OTr with COVID-19 remain disputed in the literature. This review will examine whether OTr with COVID-19 are at higher risk for severe illness and death than non-immunocompromised individuals. METHODS: MEDLINE (via Ovid and PubMed) and EMBASE (via Embase.com ) will be searched from December 2019 to October 2021 for observational studies (including cohort and case-control) that compare COVID-19 clinical outcomes in OTr to those in individuals without history of OT. The primary outcome of interest will be mortality as defined in each study, with possible further analyses of in-hospital mortality, 28 or 30-day mortality, and all-cause mortality versus mortality attributable to COVID-19. The secondary outcome of interest will be the severity of COVID-19 disease, most frequently defined as requiring intensive care unit admission or mechanical ventilation. Two reviewers will independently screen all abstracts and full-text articles. Potential conflicts will be resolved by a third reviewer and potentially discussion among all investigators. Methodological quality will be appraised using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. If data permit, we will perform random-effects meta-analysis with the Sidik-Jonkman estimator and the Hartung-Knapp adjustment for confidence intervals to estimate a summary measure of association between histories of transplant with each outcome. Potential sources of heterogeneity will be explored using meta-regression. Additional analyses will be conducted to explore the potential sources of heterogeneity (e.g., subgroup analysis) considering least minimal adjustment for confounders. DISCUSSION: This rapid review will assess the available evidence on whether OTr diagnosed with COVID-19 are at higher risk for severe illness and death compared to non-immunocompromised individuals. Such knowledge is clinically relevant and may impact risk stratification, allocation of organs and healthcare resources, and organ transplantation protocols during this, and future, pandemics. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework (OSF) registration DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/osf.io/4n9d7 .

Use of anti-spike monoclonal antibodies in kidney transplant recipients with COVID-19: Efficacy, ethnic and racial disparities.

Organ transplant recipients may not mount an adequate immune response to COVID-19 infection and therefore may benefit greatly from passive immunization with anti-spike monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), which have been shown to decrease hospitalization rates in the general outpatient population. We evaluated the efficacy of mAb therapy in decreasing hospitalizations or emergency room (ER) visits among kidney transplant recipients (KTR) with COVID-19. We identified KTR with COVID-19 between March 1, 2020 and April 30, 2021. Patients were excluded if they had multi-organ transplant or hospital-acquired COVID-19. We studied 95 KTR; 20 received mAb. mAb administration was associated with a significant decrease in hospitalizations or ER visits (15% vs. 76%, p < 0.001). This association remained significant after adjustment for potential confounders, and analysis of mAb administration as a time-dependent variable, with day of symptom onset as day 1 (adjusted HR 0.216, p = 0.04). Black or Hispanic patients were less likely to receive mAb and more likely to be admitted to the hospital or visit the ER. In our KTR population, mAb therapy for COVID-19 may have helped decrease hospitalizations and ER visits. Healthcare inequities, including access to investigational treatments, have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Antiviral mAbs are a promising therapeutic modality, especially for immunocompromised patients.

Predictors of severity and mortality among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Rhode Island.

BACKGROUND: In order for healthcare systems to prepare for future waves of COVID-19, an in-depth understanding of clinical predictors is essential for efficient triage of hospitalized patients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 259 patients admitted to our hospitals in Rhode Island to examine differences in baseline characteristics (demographics and comorbidities) as well as presenting symptoms, signs, labs, and imaging findings that predicted disease progression and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Patients with severe COVID-19 were more likely to be older (p = 0.02), Black (47.2% vs. 32.0%, p = 0.04), admitted from a nursing facility (33.0% vs. 17.9%, p = 0.006), have diabetes (53.9% vs. 30.4%, p<0.001), or have COPD (15.4% vs. 6.6%, p = 0.02). In multivariate regression, Black race (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.0, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.1-3.9) and diabetes (aOR 2.2, 95%CI: 1.3-3.9) were independent predictors of severe disease, while older age (aOR 1.04, 95% CI: 1.01-1.07), admission from a nursing facility (aOR 2.7, 95% CI 1.1-6.7), and hematological co-morbidities predicted mortality (aOR 3.4, 95% CI 1.1-10.0). In the first 24 hours, respiratory symptoms (aOR 7.0, 95% CI: 1.4-34.1), hypoxia (aOR 19.9, 95% CI: 2.6-152.5), and hypotension (aOR 2.7, 95% CI) predicted progression to severe disease, while tachypnea (aOR 8.7, 95% CI: 1.1-71.7) and hypotension (aOR 9.0, 95% CI: 3.1-26.1) were associated with increased in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Certain patient characteristics and clinical features can help clinicians with early identification and triage of high-risk patients during subsequent waves of COVID-19.

A eulogy for Dr Francisco Miguel Marty Forero.

As some of those who were lucky enough to have been mentored by Dr Francisco Marty in transplant infectious diseases, we stand with the larger medical community in mourning his untimely death and in commemorating him as a uniquely exceptional and talented physician, investigator, teacher, mentor, friend, artist, and human being.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Kidney Transplant Recipients: Single-Center Experience and Case-Control Study.

BACKGROUND: Kidney transplant recipients (KTR) are considered high-risk for morbidity and mortality from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, some studies did not show worse outcomes compared to non-transplant patients and there is little data about immunosuppressant drug levels and secondary infections in KTR with COVID-19. Herein, we describe our single-center experience with COVID-19 in KTR. METHODS: We captured KTR diagnosed with COVID-19 between March 1, 2020 and May 18, 2020. After exclusion of KTR on hemodialysis and off immunosuppression, we compared the clinical course of COVID-19 between hospitalized KTR and non-transplant patients, matched by age and sex (controls). RESULTS: Eleven KTR were hospitalized and matched with 44 controls. One KTR and 4 controls died (case fatality rate: 9.1%). There were no significant differences in length of stay or clinical outcomes between KTR and controls. Tacrolimus or sirolimus levels were >10 ng/mL in 6 out of 9 KTR (67%). Bacterial infections were more frequent in KTR (36.3%), compared with controls (6.8%, P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: In our small case series, unlike earlier reports from the pandemic epicenters, the clinical outcomes of KTR with COVID-19 were comparable to those of non-transplant patients. Calcineurin or mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor (mTOR) levels were high. Bacterial infections were more common in KTR, compared with controls.

Validation of pneumonia prognostic scores in a statewide cohort of hospitalised patients with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to externally validate the predictive performance of two recently developed COVID-19-specific prognostic tools, the COVID-GRAM and CALL scores, and prior prognostic scores for community-acquired pneumonia (CURB-65), viral pneumonia (MuBLSTA) and H1N1 influenza pneumonia (Influenza risk score) in a contemporary US cohort. METHODS: We included 257 hospitalised patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia from three teaching hospitals in Rhode Island. We extracted data from within the first 24 hours of admission. Variables were excluded if values were missing in >20% of cases, otherwise, missing values were imputed. One hundred and fifteen patients with complete data after imputation were used for the primary analysis. Sensitivity analysis was performed after the exclusion of one variable (LDH) in the complete dataset (n = 257). Primary and secondary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and critical illness (mechanical ventilation or death), respectively. RESULTS: Only the areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curves (RO-AUC) of COVID-GRAM (RO-AUC = 0.775, 95% CI 0.525-0.915) for in-hospital death, and CURB65 for in-hospital death (RO-AUC = 0.842, 95% CI 0.674-0.932) or critical illness (RO-AUC = 0.766, 95% CI 0.584-0.884) were significantly better than random. Sensitivity analysis yielded similar trends. Calibration plots showed better agreement between the estimated and observed probability of in-hospital death for CURB65, compared with COVID-GRAM. The negative predictive value (NPV) of CURB65 ≥2 was 97.2% for in-hospital death and 88.1% for critical illness. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-GRAM score demonstrated acceptable predictive performance for in-hospital death. The CURB65 score had better prognostic utility for in-hospital death and critical illness. The high NPV of CURB65 values ≥2 may be useful in triaging and allocation of resources.

Utilization of COVID-19 Treatments and Clinical Outcomes among Patients with Cancer: A COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) Cohort Study.

Among 2,186 U.S. adults with invasive cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, we examined the association of COVID-19 treatments with 30-day all-cause mortality and factors associated with treatment. Logistic regression with multiple adjustments (e.g., comorbidities, cancer status, baseline COVID-19 severity) was performed. Hydroxychloroquine with any other drug was associated with increased mortality versus treatment with any COVID-19 treatment other than hydroxychloroquine or untreated controls; this association was not present with hydroxychloroquine alone. Remdesivir had numerically reduced mortality versus untreated controls that did not reach statistical significance. Baseline COVID-19 severity was strongly associated with receipt of any treatment. Black patients were approximately half as likely to receive remdesivir as white patients. Although observational studies can be limited by potential unmeasured confounding, our findings add to the emerging understanding of patterns of care for patients with cancer and COVID-19 and support evaluation of emerging treatments through inclusive prospective controlled trials. SIGNIFICANCE: Evaluating the potential role of COVID-19 treatments in patients with cancer in a large observational study, there was no statistically significant 30-day all-cause mortality benefit with hydroxychloroquine or high-dose corticosteroids alone or in combination; remdesivir showed potential benefit. Treatment receipt reflects clinical decision-making and suggests disparities in medication access.This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1426.

Invasive Pulmonary Aspergillosis in Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

In this systematic review, we investigate the epidemiology, pathogenesis, risk factors, clinical manifestations, diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA). We identified 85 cases from 22 studies. The frequency of CAPA is currently unknown but ranges between <5% to >30% in different case series; the possibility of colonization rather than invasive disease is the most important confounder. The vast majority of patients with CAPA did not have any of the classic host risk factors, such as immunosuppression from organ transplant or neutropenia, although a significant proportion (46%) had received corticosteroids. Age, pulmonary comorbidities and male sex were associated with higher mortality. Patients treated with voriconazole had numerically lower case-fatality rate. Clinical vigilance for CAPA is advisable in critically ill patients with COVID-19 who are not improving, even those who do not meet classic host criteria for invasive mycoses, especially if they are receiving corticosteroids. A thorough, multi-faceted diagnostic work-up and early initiation of a mold-active triazole may be lifesaving. Further research studies using standardized, uniform definitions of invasive disease and colonization are urgently needed.