Efficacy and Safety of Pacritinib vs Placebo for Patients With Severe COVID-19: A Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19 remain high despite advances in standard of care therapy, and the role of anti-inflammatory agents that inhibit the interleukin 6/JAK2 pathway is still being elucidated. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the oral JAK2/IRAK1 inhibitor pacritinib vs placebo in the treatment of adults with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: This phase 2, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial enrolled hospitalized adult patients with severe COVID-19 at 21 centers across the US between June 2020 and February 2021, with approximately 1.5 months of safety follow-up per patient. Data analysis was performed from September 2021 to July 2022. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to standard of care plus pacritinib (400 mg per os on day 1 followed by 200 mg twice daily on days 2-14) vs placebo, for 14 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was death or need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) by day 28. All-cause mortality and safety were also assessed. Results: A total of 200 patients were randomized to pacritinib (99 patients; 56 men [56.6%]; median [range] age, 60 [19-87] years) or placebo (101 patients; 64 men [63.4%]; median [range] age 59 [28-94] years). The percentage requiring supplementary oxygen was 99.0% (98 patients) in the pacritinib group vs 98.0% (99 patients) in the placebo group. The percentage who progressed to IMV, ECMO, or death was 17.2% (17 patients) in the pacritinib group vs 22.8% (23 patients) in the placebo group (odds ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.28-1.35; P = .23). Among patients with elevated interleukin 6, the rate was 17.5% (11 of 63 patients) in the pacritinib group vs 30.4% (21 of 96 patients) in the placebo group. The adverse event rate was similar for pacritinib vs placebo (78.1% [75 patients] vs 80.2% [81 patients]), with no excess in infection (14.6% [14 patients] vs 19.8% [20 patients]), bleeding (8.3% [8 patients] vs 10.9% [11 patients]), or thrombosis (8.3% [8 patients] vs 7.9% [8 patients]). Rates of grade 3 or higher adverse events were lower with pacritinib than placebo (29.2% [28 patients] vs 40.6% [41 patients]). Conclusions and Relevance: The study did not meet its primary end point in patients with severe COVID-19. Subgroup analyses may indicate specific populations with hyperinflammation that could benefit from pacritinib, although further clinical trials would be needed to confirm these effects. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04404361.

Care disruptions among patients with lung cancer: A COVID-19 and cancer outcomes study.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with lung cancer (LC) are susceptible to severe outcomes from COVID-19. This study evaluated disruption to care of patients with LC during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The COVID-19 and Cancer Outcomes Study (CCOS) is a prospective cohort study comprised of patients with a current or past history of hematological or solid malignancies with outpatient visits between March 2 and March 6, 2020, at two academic cancer centers in the Northeastern United States (US). Data was collected for the three months prior to the index week (baseline period) and the following three months (pandemic period). RESULTS: 313 of 2365 patients had LC, 1578 had other solid tumors, and 474 had hematological malignancies. Patients with LC were not at increased risk of COVID-19 diagnosis compared to patients with other solid or hematological malignancies. When comparing data from the pandemic period to the baseline period, patients with LC were more likely to have a decrease in in-person visits compared to patients with other solid tumors (aOR 1.94; 95% CI, 1.46-2.58), but without an increase in telehealth visits (aOR 1.13; 95% CI 0.85-1.50). Patients with LC were more likely to experience pandemic-related treatment delays than patients with other solid tumors (aOR 1.80; 95% CI 1.13-2.80) and were more likely to experience imaging/diagnostic procedure delays than patients with other solid tumors (aOR 2.59; 95% CI, 1.46-4.47) and hematological malignancies (aOR 2.01; 95% CI, 1.02-3.93). Among patients on systemic therapy, patients with LC were also at increased risk for decreased in-person visits and increased treatment delays compared to those with other solid tumors. DISCUSSION: Patients with LC experienced increased cancer care disruption compared to patients with other malignancies during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Focused efforts to ensure continuity of care for this patient population are warranted.

Convalescent Plasma for the Treatment of Severe COVID-19 Infection in Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: Patients with malignancy are particularly vulnerable to infection with Severe Acute Respiratory Disease-Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) given their immunodeficiency secondary to their underlying disease and cancer-directed therapy. We report a case series of patients with cancer who received convalescent plasma, an investigational therapy for severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: Patients with cancer were identified who received convalescent plasma. Enrolled patients had confirmed COVID-19 with severe or life-threatening disease and were transfused with convalescent plasma from donors with a SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike antibody titer of ≥ 1:320 dilution. Oxygen requirements and clinical outcomes of interests were captured as well as laboratory parameters at baseline and 3 days after treatment. RESULTS: We identified 24 patients with cancer, 14 of whom had a hematological malignancy, who were treated with convalescent plasma. Fifteen patients (62.5%) were on cancer-directed treatment at the time of COVID-19 infection. After a median of hospital duration of 9 days, 13 patients (54.2%) had been discharged home, 1 patient (4.2%) was still hospitalized, and 10 patients had died (41.7%). Non-intubated patients, particularly those on nasal cannula alone, had favorable outcomes. Three mild febrile non-hemolytic transfusion reactions were observed. C-reactive protein significantly decreased after 3 days of treatment, while other laboratory parameters including ferritin and D-dimer remained unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: Convalescent plasma may be a promising therapy in cancer patients with COVID-19.

Admission D-dimer levels, D-dimer trends, and outcomes in COVID-19.

Observational data suggest an acquired prothrombotic state may contribute to the pathophysiology of COVID-19. These data include elevated D-dimers observed among many COVID-19 patients. We present a retrospective analysis of admission D-dimer, and D-dimer trends, among 1065 adult hospitalized COVID-19 patients, across 6 New York Hospitals. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were intubation and venous thromboembolism (VTE). Three-hundred-thirteen patients (29.4%) died, 319 (30.0%) required intubation, and 30 (2.8%) had diagnosed VTE. Using Cox proportional-hazard modeling, each 1 µg/ml increase in admission D-dimer level was associated with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.06 (95%CI 1.04-1.08, p < 0.0001) for death, 1.08 (95%CI 1.06-1.10, p < 0.0001) for intubation, and 1.08 (95%CI 1.03-1.13, p = 0.0087) for VTE. Time-dependent receiver-operator-curves for admission D-dimer as a predictor of death, intubation, and VTE yielded areas-under-the-curve of 0.694, 0.621, and 0.565 respectively. Joint-latent-class-modeling identified distinct groups of patients with respect to D-dimer trend. Patients with stable D-dimer trajectories had HRs of 0.29 (95%CI 0.17-0.49, p < 0.0001) and 0.22 (95%CI 0.10-0.45, p = 0.0001) relative to those with increasing D-dimer trajectories, for the outcomes death and intubation respectively. Patients with low-increasing D-dimer trajectories had a multivariable HR for VTE of 0.18 (95%CI 0.05-0.68, p = 0.0117) relative to those with high-decreasing D-dimer trajectories. Time-dependent receiver-operator-curves for D-dimer trend as a predictor of death, intubation, and VTE yielded areas-under-the-curve of 0.678, 0.699, and 0.722 respectively. Although admission D-dimer levels, and D-dimer trends, are associated with outcomes in COVID-19, they have limited performance characteristics as prognostic tests.

Ferritin levels in patients with COVID-19: A poor predictor of mortality and hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis.

INTRODUCTION: A hyperinflammatory environment has been a hallmark of COVID-19 infection and is thought to be a key mediator of morbidity. Elevated ferritin has been observed in many patients with COVID-19. Several retrospective studies have shown ferritin levels can be correlated and predictive of poor outcomes in COVID-19, though a rigorous analysis has been lacking. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 942 adult COVID-19 patients admitted in March 2020 at a large New York City health system with available ferritin levels. RESULTS: The primary outcome, all-cause mortality, was observed in 265 (28.1%) patients. Patients who died had a significantly higher median admission and maximum ferritin levels than those who did not. However, death was poorly predicted by admission and maximum ferritin levels on receiver operator curve (ROC) analysis, with AUCs of 0.677 and 0.638, respectively. AUCs increased when the cohort was limited to progressively younger patients. Ferritin levels were minimally better at predicting our secondary outcomes. These included mechanical ventilation, observed in 280 (29.7%) patients with an ROC yielding an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.769, and new renal replacement therapy, observed in 80 (8.5%) of patients with an ROC yielding an AUC of 0.787. We also performed a subset analysis on 22 patients with ferritins >20 000 ng/mL. None of the patients met HLH-2004 diagnostic criteria. Fifteen (68.2%) of these patients had suspected or confirmed bacterial infections. CONCLUSIONS: Though many patients with COVID-19 present with hyperferritinemia, elevated ferritin levels are not accurate predictors of outcomes and do not appear to be indicative of hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis.