ABSTRACT
Background: Community acquired respiratory viruses (CARVs) may cause severe respiratory infections in patients (pts) with cancer. To collect epidemiological and clinical data of CARV-infections the multicentric registry OncoReVir was established. Here, we present a preliminary analysis of pts with cancer infected with CARVs. Method(s): A total of 1,142 pts with cancer and CARV-infection were enrolled between Nov2018 and Jan2022. Most cases were documented for season 17/18 and 18/19. Data on demographics, comorbidities, cancer, CARVs and infection course were collected. Pre-defined endpoints were pneumonia, admission to ICU and mortality. The relationship between cancer-specific factors and outcome was evaluated by bivariate logistic regression. Result(s): The median age was 60 (IQR 50-67) years, 42% of pts were female. Solid tumors were present in < 10%, leukemia, lymphoma and multiple myeloma in 36.5%, 27% and 23%, respectively. 50% had active cancer, 40% had received chemotherapy within the last 3 months. Targeted therapy was reported in 11.5%, high-dose steroids in 16% of pts, 56% were SCTrecipients. Commonly detected CARVs were influenza (39.5%), parainfluenza (18%), respiratory syncytial virus (15%), rhinovirus (14.5%), human metapneumovirus (hMPV, 5.5%), endemic coronavirus (5.5%) and SARSCoV- 2 (2%). Among all CARVs, frequent symptoms were cough, fever, dyspnea and rhinitis. Rates of pneumonia were highest in hMPV (33%) and SARS-CoV-2 (32%), lowest in endemic coronavirus (16%, p=0.334). 8.5% required intensive care, most of them due to COVID-19 (p=0.084). Infection-associated mortality but not rate of pneumonia showed significant differences comparing CARVs. In regression analysis, active cancer was associated with all endpoints: infection-related mortality (4.02 [1.63- 9.88], p=0.002), ICU admission (1.75 [1.07-2.88], p= 0.027) and pneumonia (1.47 [1.1-1.96], 0.009). Conclusion(s): In our cohort, all CARVs could potentially lead to severe disease. Active cancer was an independent risk factor for adverse outcome in pts with cancer and CARV-infection.
ABSTRACT
Background: Active cancer has been identified as an independent risk factor for severity and mortality in COVID-19. However, direct comparisons of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients (pts) with active and non-active cancers remain scarce. Method(s): We retrospectively analyzed a cohort of pts with cancer with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, enrolled 03/16/2020 - 07/31/2021. Data on demographics, cancer and laboratory findings were collected. Descriptive and subsequent regression analysis was performed. Endpoints were progression to severe COVID-19 and infection-associated mortality. Result(s): In total, 987 pts with cancer (510 active vs 477 non-active) were included in our analysis. Majority was male and > 55 years, with a higher number of elderly pts with non-active cancer. CCI was 4.75 vs 3.85 in pts with active and non-active cancer (p<0.001). Localized solid tumors were reported in 38 vs 79% (p<0.001), metastasized in 37.5 vs 5.5% (p<0.001) and hematological diseases in 37.5 vs 19.5% (p<0.001) pts with active and non-active cancer, respectively. At virus detection, majority of pts showed mild to moderate symptoms, while deterioration to severe COVID-19 was slightly more common in pts with active cancer (19% vs 16%;p=0.284). COVID-19 related mortality was significantly higher in pts with active cancer (24% vs 17.5%, p<0.001). In line, severe cytopenia and an increase of inflammatory markers were common findings in pts with active cancer at baseline, particularly in those who developed severe infection or died. Multivariate analysis revealed that ferritin (14.24 [2.1-96], p=0.006) and CRP (2.85 [1.02-8.02], p=0.046) were associated with severe COVID-19 and infection-related mortality. In pts with non-active cancer, association was seen for ferritin only (4.1 [1.51-11.17], p=0.006). Conclusion(s): Comparing pts with active and non-active cancer, mortality rate was significantly higher in pts with active cancer. Also inflammatory markers were significantly increased assuming higher levels of inflammation may play a role in adverse outcome of COVID-19 in pts with active cancer.
ABSTRACT
Background. Numerous predictive clinical scores with varying discriminatory performance have been developed in the context of the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. To support clinical application, we test the transferability of the frequently applied 4C mortality score (4C score) to the German prospective Cross-Sectoral Platform (SUEP) of the National Pandemic Cohort Network (NAPKON) compared to the non COVID-19 specific quick sequential organ failure assessment score (qSOFA). Our project aims to externally validate these two scores, stratified for the most prevalent variants of concerns (VOCs) of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in Germany. Methods. A total of 685 adults with polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-detected SARS-CoV-2 infection were included from NAPKON-SUEP. Patients were recruited from 11/2020 to 03/2022 at 34 university and non-university hospitals across Germany. Missing values were complemented using multiple imputation. Predictive performance for in-hospital mortality at day of baseline visit was determined by area under the curve (AUC) with 95%-confidence interval (CI) stratified by VOCs of SARS-CoV-2 (alpha, delta, omicron) (Figure 1). Figure 1: Study flow chart with inclusion criteria and methodological workflow. Results. Preliminary results suggest a high predictive performance of the 4C score for in-hospital mortality (Table 1). This applies for the overall cohort (AUC 0.813 (95%CI 0.738-0.888)) as well as the VOC-strata (alpha: AUC 0.859 (95%CI 0.748-0.970);delta: AUC 0.769 (95%CI 0.657-0.882);omicron: AUC 0.866 (95%CI 0.724-1.000)). The overall mortality rates across the defined 4C score risk groups are 0.3% (low), 3.2% (intermediate), 11.6% (high), and 49.5% (very high). The 4C score performs significantly better than the qSOFA (Chi2-test: p=0.001) and the qSOFA does not seem to be a suitable tool in this context. Table 1: Discriminatory performance of the 4C Mortality Score and the qSOFA score within the validation cohort NAPKON-SUEP stratified by the Variant of Concerns of SARS-CoV- 2. Conclusion. Despite its development in the early phase of the pandemic and improved treatment, external validation of the 4C score in NAPKON-SUEP indicates a high predictive performance for in-hospital mortality across all VOCs. However, since the qSOFA was not specifically designed for this predictive issue, it shows low discriminatory performance, as in other validation studies. Any interpretations regarding the omicron stratum are limited due to the sample size.