B-cell malignancies and COVID-19: a narrative review.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has been extensively characterized in immunocompetent hosts and to a lesser extent in immunocompromised populations. Among the latter, patients treated for B-cell malignancies have immunosuppression generated by B-cell lymphodepletion/aplasia resulting in an increased susceptibility to respiratory virus infections and poor response to vaccination. The consequence is that these patients are likely to develop severe or critical COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To examine the overall impact of COVID-19 in patients treated for a B-cell malignancy or receiving chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T) immunotherapy administered in case of relapsed or refractory disease. SOURCES: We searched in the MEDLINE database to identify relevant studies, trials, reviews, or meta-analyses focusing on SARS-CoV-2 vaccination or COVID-19 management in patients treated for a B-cell malignancy or recipients of CAR-T cell therapy up to 8 July 2022. CONTENT: The epidemiology and outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with B-cell malignancy and CAR-T cell recipients are summarized. Vaccine efficacy in these subgroups is compiled. Considering the successive surges of variants of concern, we propose a critical appraisal of treatment strategies by discussing the use of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies, convalescent plasma therapy, direct-acting antiviral drugs, corticosteroids, and immunomodulators. IMPLICATIONS: For patients with B-cell malignancy, preventive vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 remains essential and the management of COVID-19 includes control of viral replication because of protracted SARS-CoV-2 shedding. Passive immunotherapy (monoclonal neutralizing antibody therapy and convalescent plasma therapy) and direct-active antivirals, such as remdesivir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir are the best currently available treatments. Real-world data and subgroup analyses in larger trials are warranted to assess COVID-19 therapeutics in B-cell depleted populations.

Incidence and characteristics of COVID-19 in French professional football players during the 2020-2021 season.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the epidemiology of COVID-19 in French professional football players, and to compare the infection incidence with the general population across the first three waves. METHODS: During the 2020-2021 season, all professional football players (n = 1217) in the two primary French leagues underwent weekly testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection by nasopharyngeal PCR, in combination with rigorous infection control measures. RESULTS: Among all players, 572 (47%) tested positive at least once, with no COVID-19-related death or hospital admission. Monthly incidence estimates in players ranged from 1486 to 6731 per 100,000 individuals, i.e. 2-17 times higher than incidence estimates in the general population in France during the study period. CONCLUSION: Almost 50% of professional football players developed SARS-CoV-2 infection during the 2020-2021 season in France, with no severe complication.

The burden of SARS-CoV-2 in patients receiving chimeric antigen receptor T cell immunotherapy: everything to lose.

INTRODUCTION: Chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T) cell immunotherapy has revolutionized the prognosis of refractory or relapsed B-cell malignancies. CAR-T cell recipients have immunosuppression generated by B-cell aplasia, leading to a higher susceptibility to respiratory virus infections and poor response to vaccination. AREAS COVERED: This review focuses on the challenge posed by B-cell targeted immunotherapies: managing long-lasting B-cell impairment during the successive surges of a deadly viral pandemic. We restricted this report to data regarding vaccine efficacy in CAR-T cell recipients, outcomes after developing COVID-19 and specificities of treatment management. We searched in MEDLINE database to identify relevant studies until 31 March 2022. EXPERT OPINION: Among available observational studies, the pooled mortality rate reached 40% in CAR-T cell recipients infected by SARS-CoV-2. Additionally, vaccine responses seem to be widely impaired in recipients (seroconversion 20%, T-cell response 50%). In this setting of B-cell depletion, passive immunotherapy is the backbone of treatment. Convalescent plasma therapy has proven to be a highly effective curative treatment with rare adverse events. Neutralizing monoclonal antibodies could be used as pre-exposure prophylaxis or early treatment but their neutralizing activity is constantly challenged by new variants. In order to reduce viral replication, direct-acting antiviral drugs should be considered.

Influenza- and COVID-19-Associated Pulmonary Aspergillosis: Are the Pictures Different?

Invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (IPA) in intensive care unit patients is a major concern. Influenza-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and severe COVID-19 patients are both at risk of developing invasive fungal diseases. We used the new international definitions of influenza-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (IAPA) and COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) to compare the demographic, clinical, biological, and radiological aspects of IAPA and CAPA in a monocentric retrospective study. A total of 120 patients were included, 71 with influenza and 49 with COVID-19-associated ARDS. Among them, 27 fulfilled the newly published criteria of IPA: 17/71 IAPA (23.9%) and 10/49 CAPA (20.4%). Kaplan-Meier curves showed significantly higher 90-day mortality for IPA patients overall (p = 0.032), whereas mortality did not differ between CAPA and IAPA patients. Radiological findings showed differences between IAPA and CAPA, with a higher proportion of features suggestive of IPA during IAPA. Lastly, a wide proportion of IPA patients had low plasma voriconazole concentrations with a higher delay to reach concentrations > 2 mg/L in CAPA vs. IAPA patients (p = 0.045). Severe COVID-19 and influenza patients appeared very similar in terms of prevalence of IPA and outcome. The dramatic consequences on the patients' prognosis emphasize the need for a better awareness in these particular populations.

COVID-19 gender susceptibility and outcomes: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Epidemiological differences between men and women have been reported with regards to sepsis, influenza and severe coronavirus infections including SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. AIM: To systematically review the literature relating to men versus women on SARS-CoV-2 in order to seek differences in disease characteristics (e.g. infectivity, severity) and outcomes (e.g. mortality). METHODS: We searched 3 electronic databases up or observational studies reporting differences between men and women in the SARS-CoV-2 disease characteristics stated. We identified and included 47 studies, reporting data for 21,454 patients mainly from China. RESULTS: The unadjusted mortality rates of men were higher than those of women, with a mortality OR 0.51 [0.42, 0.61] (p<0.001) for women. The proportion of men presenting with severe disease and admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) was also higher than that of women (OR 0.75 [0.60-0.93] p<0.001 and OR 0.45 [0.40-0.52] p<0.001 respectively). Adjusted analyses could not be conducted due to lack of data. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 may be associated with worse outcomes in males than in females. However, until more detailed data are provided in further studies enabling adjusted analysis, this remains an unproven assumption.