Military Blood Service in Poland.

Introduction: On 24 February 2022, the Russia-Ukraine military conflict unfolded just across the eastern border of the European Union. It made everyone realize how important it is to secure blood supplies to health-care units in the event of an armed conflict. This paper presents the principles of functioning of the Military Blood Donation Service and the Military Center for Blood Donation and Hemotherapy in Poland. Methods: The study used data collected in the "Military Blood Bank" information processing system and data from annual reports (2010-2021) sent to the Minister of Health of the Republic of Poland. The reports concerned, among others: demographic data on donors, reasons of permanent disqualifications, numbers of complete and incomplete donations, etc. Results: Since 2005, the number of donors registered in military blood donation centers ranged between 15 and 35 thousand/year. The most dramatic declines in donors were observed in 2010 and 2020. Successful donations accounted for more than 98% of all donations/year (except 2015), and their number varied between 20 and 32 thousand/year. Among the blood donors, men always predominated and the dominant age group (except for 2010) was 25-44 years. The reasons for permanent disqualification have varied over time: their proportions decreased for viral hepatitis and cardiovascular disease, and increased for respiratory and endocrine/metabolic diseases. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020/2021, these proportions have sometimes been reversed. Discussion: The Military Blood Donation Service has been functioning in Poland for several decades. It is specialized in supplying blood and blood products to the Armed Forces. Unfortunately, it was not possible to refer to the functioning of similar institutions in other countries. Therefore, when evaluating the functioning of Polish military blood donation, we had to rely on numerical values (eg, number of donors/year, donor profile, etc.), which prove a very good organization of blood donation centers. However, it should be noted that, as in other countries, a more active promotion of blood donation in the media is advisable in order to encourage as many young people as possible to donate blood.

Seroconversion and outcomes after initial and booster COVID-19 vaccination in adults with hematologic malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Patients with hematologic malignancies have impaired humoral immunity secondary to their malignancy and its treatment, placing them at risk of severe coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) infection and reduced response to vaccination. METHODS: The authors retrospectively analyzed serologic responses to initial and booster COVID-19 vaccination in 378 patients with hematologic malignancy and subsequently tracked COVID-19-related outcomes. RESULTS: Seroconversion occurred in 181 patients (48%) after initial vaccination; patients who had active malignancy or those who were recently treated with a B-cell-depleting monoclonal antibody had the lowest rates of seroconversion. For initial nonresponders to vaccination, seroconversion after a booster dose occurred in 48 of 85 patients (56%). The seroconversion rate after the booster was similar for patients on (53%) and off (58%) active therapy (p = .82). Thirty-three patients (8.8%) developed a COVID-19 infection, and there were three COVID-19-related deaths (0.8%). Although no significant association was observed between postvaccination seroconversion and the incidence of COVID-19 infection, no patient with seroconversion died from COVID-19, and no patient who received tixagevimab/cilgavimab (N = 25) was diagnosed with a COVID-19 infection. CONCLUSIONS: Booster vaccinations can promote seroconversion in a significant proportion of patients who are seronegative after the initial vaccination course regardless of the specific vaccine or on/off treatment status at the time of revaccination. Although postvaccination seroconversion may not be associated with a decrease in any (including asymptomatic) COVID-19 infection, the authors' experience suggested that effective vaccination (including a booster), supplemented by passive immunization using tixagevimab/cilgavimab in case of lack of seroconversion, effectively eliminated the risk of COVID-19 death in the otherwise high-risk population. LAY SUMMARY: Patients with hematologic malignancy, especially lymphoma, have an impaired response to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination. In this single-institution review, less than one half of the patients studied made detectable antibodies. For those who did not make detectable antibodies after initial vaccination, over one half (65%) were able to produce antibodies after booster vaccination. By the end of February 2022, 33 of the original 378 patients had a documented COVID-19 infection. The only deaths from COVID-19 were in those who had undetectable antibodies, and no patient who received prophylactic antibody therapy developed a COVID-19 infection.

Patients Recently Treated for B-lymphoid Malignancies Show Increased Risk of Severe COVID-19.

Patients with B-lymphoid malignancies have been consistently identified as a population at high risk of severe COVID-19. Whether this is exclusively due to cancer-related deficits in humoral and cellular immunity, or whether risk of severe COVID-19 is increased by anticancer therapy, is uncertain. Using data derived from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19), we show that patients treated for B-lymphoid malignancies have an increased risk of severe COVID-19 compared with control populations of patients with non-B-lymphoid malignancies. Among patients with B-lymphoid malignancies, those who received anticancer therapy within 12 months of COVID-19 diagnosis experienced increased COVID-19 severity compared with patients with non-recently treated B-lymphoid malignancies, after adjustment for cancer status and several other prognostic factors. Our findings suggest that patients recently treated for a B-lymphoid malignancy are at uniquely high risk for severe COVID-19. SIGNIFICANCE: Our study suggests that recent therapy for a B-lymphoid malignancy is an independent risk factor for COVID-19 severity. These findings provide rationale to develop mitigation strategies targeted at the uniquely high-risk population of patients with recently treated B-lymphoid malignancies. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 171.

Coinfections in Patients With Cancer and COVID-19: A COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) Study.

BACKGROUND: The frequency of coinfections and their association with outcomes have not been adequately studied among patients with cancer and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a high-risk group for coinfection. METHODS: We included adult (≥18 years) patients with active or prior hematologic or invasive solid malignancies and laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) infection, using data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19, NCT04354701). We captured coinfections within ±2 weeks from diagnosis of COVID-19, identified factors cross-sectionally associated with risk of coinfection, and quantified the association of coinfections with 30-day mortality. RESULTS: Among 8765 patients (hospitalized or not; median age, 65 years; 47.4% male), 16.6% developed coinfections: 12.1% bacterial, 2.1% viral, 0.9% fungal. An additional 6.4% only had clinical diagnosis of a coinfection. The adjusted risk of any coinfection was positively associated with age >50 years, male sex, cardiovascular, pulmonary, and renal comorbidities, diabetes, hematologic malignancy, multiple malignancies, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, progressing cancer, recent cytotoxic chemotherapy, and baseline corticosteroids; the adjusted risk of superinfection was positively associated with tocilizumab administration. Among hospitalized patients, high neutrophil count and C-reactive protein were positively associated with bacterial coinfection risk, and high or low neutrophil count with fungal coinfection risk. Adjusted mortality rates were significantly higher among patients with bacterial (odds ratio [OR], 1.61; 95% CI, 1.33-1.95) and fungal (OR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.28-3.76) coinfections. CONCLUSIONS: Viral and fungal coinfections are infrequent among patients with cancer and COVID-19, with the latter associated with very high mortality rates. Clinical and laboratory parameters can be used to guide early empiric antimicrobial therapy, which may improve clinical outcomes.

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.

Intensity of anticoagulation and survival in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 infection has noted derangements in coagulation markers along with significant thrombotic complications. Post-mortem examinations show severe endothelial injury and widespread thrombotic microangiopathy in the pulmonary vasculature. Early reports describing the use of prophylactic anticoagulation demonstrated improved survival, leading to the adoption of prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulation guided by D-dimer levels. The clinical usefulness of D-dimer values, trends, and more intensive anticoagulation remains an area of clinical interest. OBJECTIVES: Assess the outcomes and laboratory trends in COVID-19 patients stratified by intensity of anticoagulation at time of admission. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospectively review the differences in clinical outcomes and laboratory trends in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in the Lifespan Health System. RESULTS: Between 27 February and 24 April 2020, 468 patients were hospitalized. Initial use of high-intensity thromboprophylaxis was associated with improved 30-day mortality (adjusted RR 0.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.07-0.97; p = 0.045) without a significant increased rate of bleeding (p = 0.11). In severe COVID-19, D-dimer significantly increased during hospitalization with standard thromboprophylaxis (p < 0.001) but remained stable or decreased with high-intensity prophylaxis or therapeutic anticoagulation. CONCLUSION: Patients who received high-intensity prophylactic anticoagulation had a downtrend in D-dimer levels and improved 30-day mortality. This suggests a role in anticoagulation in mitigating adverse outcomes associated with COVID-19; however, further randomized, prospective studies are needed.