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).

Comparison of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) symptoms at diagnosis among healthcare personnel before and after the emergence of the omicron variant.

We used a self-reporting system to compare symptom frequency of hospital personnel with coronavirus disease 2019 before and after the emergence of the Omicron variant. Omicron was more likely to result in asymptomatic carriage (7% vs 12%; P = .009), and fewer symptoms were observed in those with booster vaccination.

Predictors of COVID-19 hospitalization after sotrovimab in hematologic malignancy patients during the BA.1 Omicron surge.

BACKGROUND: Sotrovimab is an anti-spike neutralization monoclonal antibody (mAB) developed to reduce the risk of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) progression and advancement to hospitalization in high-risk patients. Currently, there is limited research describing the association of sotrovimab treatment in patients with hematologic malignancies (HM) and the predictive factors of hospitalization. METHODS: We performed an observational study of 156 consecutive cancer patients who received sotrovimab at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City during the BA.1 Omicron surge. We evaluated the demographic, clinical, and laboratory characteristics of the patients who had subsequent COVID-19-related hospitalization(s) compared to those who did not. RESULTS: Among the 156 study patients, seventeen (17, 11%) were hospitalized of which four were readmitted for COVID-19-related complications; three deaths were attributed to COVID-19. Results from multivariable logistic regression show significant factors associated with hospitalization include patients on anti-CD20 therapy (adjusted OR = 5.59, 95% CI (1.73 - 18.12), p = 0.004) and with relapse/refractory disease (adjusted OR = 5.69, 95% CI (1.69 - 19.16), p = 0.005). Additionally, whole-genome sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 detected high occurrences of mutations in the spike gene associated with treatment-related resistance longitudinal samples from 11 patients treated with sotrovimab. CONCLUSIONS: While sotrovimab is effective at reducing COVID-19 hospitalization and disease severity in HM patients when administered early, patients who received anti-CD20 antibodies showed substantial morbidity. Due to the high potential for resistance mutation to sotrovimab and increased morbidity in patients on anti-CD20 therapy, combination treatment should be explored to determine whether it provides added benefits compared to monotherapy.

The spike gene target failure (SGTF) genomic signature is highly accurate for the identification of Alpha and Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variants.

The Alpha (B.1.1.7) and Omicron (B.1.1.529, BA.1, BA.4 and BA.5) variants of concern (VOC) share several mutations in their spike gene, including mutations resulting in the deletion of two amino acids at position 69 and 70 (del 69-70) in the Spike protein. Del 69-70 causes failure to detect the S gene target on a widely used, commercial test, the TaqPath SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR (Thermo Fisher). The S gene target failure (SGTF) signature has been used to preliminarily infer the presence of Alpha and Omicron VOC. We evaluated the accuracy of the SGTF signature in identifying these two variants through analysis of all positive SARS-CoV-2 samples tested on the TaqPath RT-PCR and sequenced by next generation sequencing between December 2020 to July 2022. 2324 samples were successfully sequenced including 914 SGTF positive samples. The sensitivity and specificity of the SGTF signature was 99.6% (95% CI 96.1-99.9%) and 98.6% (95% CI 99.2-99.8%) for the Alpha variant and 99.6% (95% CI 98.9-99.9%) and 99.8% (95% CI 99.4-99.9%) for the Omicron variant. At the peak of their corresponding wave, the positive predictive value of the SGTF was 98% for Alpha and 100% for Omicron. The accuracy of the SGTF signature was high, making this genomic signature a rapid and accurate proxy for identification of these variants in real-world laboratory settings.

Effectiveness of MRNA booster vaccine among healthcare workers in New York City during the Omicron surge, December 2021 to January 2022.

OBJECTIVE: To describe effectiveness of mRNA vaccines by comparing 2-dose (2D) and 3-dose (3D) healthcare worker (HCW) recipients in the setting of Omicron variant dominance. Performance of 2D and 3D vaccine series against SARS-CoV-2 variants and the clinical outcomes of HCWs may inform return-to-work guidance. METHODS: In a retrospective study from December 15, 2020 to January 15, 2022, SARS-CoV-2 infections among HCWs at a large tertiary cancer centre in New York City were examined to estimate infection rates (aggregated positive tests / person-days) and 95% CIs over the Omicron period in 3D and 2D mRNA vaccinated HCWs and were compared using rate ratios. We described the clinical features of post-vaccine infections and impact of prior (pre-Omicron) COVID infection on vaccine effectiveness. RESULTS: Among the 20857 HCWs in our cohort, 20,660 completed the 2D series with an mRNA vaccine during our study period and 12461 had received a third dose by January 15, 2022. The infection rate ratio for 3D versus 2D vaccinated HCWs was 0.667 (95% CI 0.623, 0.713) for an estimated 3D vaccine effectiveness of 33.3% compared to two doses only during the Omicron dominant period from December 15, 2021 to January 15, 2022. Breakthrough Omicron infections after 3D + 14 days occurred in 1,315 HCWs. Omicron infections were mild, with 16% of 3D and 11% 2D HCWs being asymptomatic. DISCUSSION: Study demonstrates improved vaccine-derived protection against COVID-19 infection in 3D versus 2D mRNA vaccinees during the Omicron surge. The advantage of 3D vaccination was maintained irrespective of prior COVID-19 infection status.

Clinical and Genomic Characterization of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS CoV-2) Infections in mRNA Vaccinated Health Care Personnel in New York City.

BACKGROUND: Vaccine-induced clinical protection against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS CoV-2) variants is an evolving target. There are limited genomic level data on SARS CoV-2 breakthrough infections and vaccine effectiveness (VE) since the global spread of the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant. METHODS: In a retrospective study from 1 November 2020 to 31 August 2021, divided as pre-Delta and Delta-dominant periods, laboratory-confirmed SARS CoV-2 infections among healthcare personnel (HCP) at a large tertiary cancer center in New York City were examined to compare the weekly infection rate-ratio in vaccinated, partially vaccinated, and unvaccinated HCP. We describe the clinical and genomic epidemiologic features of post-vaccine infections to assess for selection of variants of concern (VOC)/variants of interest (VOI) in the early post-vaccine period and impact of B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant domination on VE. RESULTS: Among 13658 HCP in our cohort, 12379 received at least 1 dose of a messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine. In the pre-Delta period overall VE was 94.5%. Whole genome sequencing (WGS) of 369 isolates in the pre-Delta period did not reveal a clade bias for VOC/VOI specific to post-vaccine infections. VE in the Delta dominant phase was 75.6%. No hospitalizations occurred among vaccinated HCP in the entire study period, compared to 17 hospitalizations and 1 death among unvaccinated HCP. CONCLUSIONS: Findings show high VE among HCP in New York City in the pre-Delta phase, with moderate decline in VE post-Delta emergence. SARS CoV-2 clades were similarly distributed among vaccinated and unvaccinated infected HCP without apparent clustering during the pre-Delta period of diverse clade circulation. Strong vaccine protection against hospitalization was maintained through the entire study period.

Variable duration of viral shedding in cancer patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

In this retrospective study of 105 severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-infected cancer patients with longitudinal nasopharyngeal sampling, the duration of viral shedding and time to attain cycle threshold >30 was longer in patients with hematologic malignancy than in those with solid tumors. These findings have important public health implications.

Risk of Healthcare-Associated Transmission of Sever Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in Hospitalized Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: There is limited information on the risk of hospital-acquired coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among high-risk hospitalized patients after exposure to an infected patient or healthcare worker (HCW) in a nonoutbreak setting. METHODS: This study was conducted at a tertiary care cancer center in New York City from 10 March 2020 until 28 February 2021. In early April 2020, the study institution implemented universal severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing at admission and retesting every 3 days through the hospital stay. Contact tracing records were reviewed for all exposures to SARS-CoV-2 positive patients and HCWs. RESULTS: From 10 March 2020 to 28 February 2021, 11 348 unique patients who were SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) negative at the time of admission underwent 31 662 postadmission tests during their hospitalization, and 112 tested positive (0.98%). Among these, 49 patients housed in semiprivate rooms during admission resulted in 74 close contacts and 14 secondary infections within 14 days, for an overall attack rate of 18.9%. Among those exposed to a roommate undergoing an aerosol-generating procedure (AGP), the attack rate was 35.7%. Whole genome sequencing (WGS) corroborated transmission in 6/8 evaluated pairs. In addition, three transmission events occurred in 214 patients with significant exposure to 105 COVID-19 positive healthcare workers (1.4%). CONCLUSIONS: The overall risk of hospital-acquired COVID-19 is low for hospitalized cancer patients, even during periods of high community prevalence. However, shared occupancy with an unrecognized case is associated with a high secondary attack rate in exposed roommates.

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.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Surveillance and Exposure in the Perioperative Setting With Universal Testing and Personal Protective Equipment Policies.

BACKGROUND: New York City (NYC) experienced a surge of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases in March and April 2020. Since then, universal polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based surveillance testing and personal protective equipment (PPE) measures are in wide use in procedural settings. There is limited published experience on the utility and sustainability of PCR-based surveillance testing in areas with receding and consistently low community COVID-19 rates. METHODS: The study was conducted at a tertiary care cancer center in NYC from 22 March to 22 August 2020. Asymptomatic patients underwent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing before surgeries, interventional radiology procedures, and endoscopy. Contact tracing in procedural areas was done if a patient with an initial negative screen retested positive within 48 hours of the procedure. RESULTS: From March 22 until August 22, 2020, 11 540 unique patients underwent 14 233 tests before surgeries or procedures at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Overall, 65 patients were positive, with a peak rate of 4.3% that fell below 0.3% after April 2020. Among the 65 positive cases, 3 were presymptomatic and 38 were asymptomatic. Among asymptomatic test-positive patients, 76% had PCR cycle threshold >30 at first detection. Five patients tested newly positive in the immediate postoperative period, exposing 82 employees with 1 case of probable transmission (1.2%). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection identified on preprocedural surveillance was low in our study, which was conducted in an area with limited community spread at the later stage of the study. Universal PPE is protective in procedural settings. Optimal and flexible diagnostic strategies are needed to accomplish and sustain the goals of comprehensive preprocedure surveillance testing.

Association of Convalescent Plasma Therapy With Survival in Patients With Hematologic Cancers and COVID-19.

Importance: COVID-19 is a life-threatening illness for many patients. Prior studies have established hematologic cancers as a risk factor associated with particularly poor outcomes from COVID-19. To our knowledge, no studies have established a beneficial role for anti-COVID-19 interventions in this at-risk population. Convalescent plasma therapy may benefit immunocompromised individuals with COVID-19, including those with hematologic cancers. Objective: To evaluate the association of convalescent plasma treatment with 30-day mortality in hospitalized adults with hematologic cancers and COVID-19 from a multi-institutional cohort. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study using data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium registry with propensity score matching evaluated patients with hematologic cancers who were hospitalized for COVID-19. Data were collected between March 17, 2020, and January 21, 2021. Exposures: Convalescent plasma treatment at any time during hospitalization. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis with adjustment for potential confounders was performed. Hazard ratios (HRs) are reported with 95% CIs. Secondary subgroup analyses were conducted on patients with severe COVID-19 who required mechanical ventilatory support and/or intensive care unit admission. Results: A total of 966 individuals (mean [SD] age, 65 [15] years; 539 [55.8%] male) were evaluated in this study; 143 convalescent plasma recipients were compared with 823 untreated control patients. After adjustment for potential confounding factors, convalescent plasma treatment was associated with improved 30-day mortality (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37-0.97). This association remained significant after propensity score matching (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.29-0.92). Among the 338 patients admitted to the intensive care unit, mortality was significantly lower in convalescent plasma recipients compared with nonrecipients (HR for propensity score-matched comparison, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.20-0.80). Among the 227 patients who required mechanical ventilatory support, mortality was significantly lower in convalescent plasma recipients compared with nonrecipients (HR for propensity score-matched comparison, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.14-0.72). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cohort study suggest a potential survival benefit in the administration of convalescent plasma to patients with hematologic cancers and COVID-19.

Cellular Therapy During COVID-19: Lessons Learned and Preparing for Subsequent Waves.

An evidence-based triage plan for cellular therapy distribution is critical in the face of emerging constraints on healthcare resources. We evaluated the impact of treatment delays related to COVID-19 on patients scheduled to undergo hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) or chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy at our center. Data were collected in real time between March 19 and May 11, 2020, for patients who were delayed to cellular therapy. We evaluated the proportion of delayed patients who ultimately received cellular therapy, reasons for not proceeding to cellular therapy, and changes in disease and health status during delay. A total of 85 patients were delayed, including 42 patients planned for autologous HCT, 36 patients planned for allogeneic HCT, and 7 patients planned for CAR-T therapy. Fifty-six of these patients (66%) since received planned therapy. Five patients died during the delay. The most common reason for not proceeding to autologous HCT was good disease control in patients with plasma cell dyscrasias (75%). The most common reason for not proceeding to allogeneic HCT was progression of disease (42%). All patients with acute leukemia who progressed had measurable residual disease (MRD) at the time of delay, whereas no patient without MRD at the time of delay progressed. Six patients (86%) ultimately received CAR-T therapy, including 3 patients who progressed during the delay. For patients with high-risk disease such as acute leukemia, and particularly those with MRD at the time of planned HCT, treatment delay can result in devastating outcomes and should be avoided if at all possible.

Performance of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Real-Time RT-PCR Tests on Oral Rinses and Saliva Samples.

Access to rapid and accurate detection of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA is essential for controlling the current global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019. In this study, the use of oral rinses (ORs) and posterior oropharyngeal saliva as an alternative to swab collection methods from symptomatic and asymptomatic health care workers for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA by RT-PCR was evaluated. For saliva samples, the overall agreement with oropharyngeal swabs was 93% (Ƙ = 0.84), with a sensitivity of 96.7% (95% CI, 83.3%-99.8%). The agreement between saliva and nasopharyngeal swabs was 97.7% (Ƙ = 0.93), with a sensitivity of 94.1% (95% CI, 73.0%-99.7%). ORs were compared with nasopharyngeal swabs only, with an overall agreement of 85.7% (Ƙ = 0.65), and a sensitivity of 63% (95% CI, 46.6%-77.8%). The agreement between a laboratory-developed test based on the CDC RT-PCR and two commercial assays, the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 and the Cobas SARS-CoV-2, was also evaluated. The overall agreement was >90%. Finally, SARS-CoV-2 RNA in saliva samples was shown to be stable, with no changes in viral loads over 24 hours at both room temperature and 4°C. Although the dilution of SARS-CoV-2 in ORs precluded its acceptability as a sample type, posterior oropharyngeal saliva was an acceptable alternative sample type for SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection.

Determinants of COVID-19 disease severity in patients with cancer.

As of 10 April 2020, New York State had 180,458 cases of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and 9,385 reported deaths. Patients with cancer comprised 8.4% of deceased individuals1. Population-based studies from China and Italy suggested a higher coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) death rate in patients with cancer2,3, although there is a knowledge gap as to which aspects of cancer and its treatment confer risk of severe COVID-194. This information is critical to balance the competing safety considerations of reducing SARS-CoV-2 exposure and cancer treatment continuation. From 10 March to 7 April 2020, 423 cases of symptomatic COVID-19 were diagnosed at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (from a total of 2,035 patients with cancer tested). Of these, 40% were hospitalized for COVID-19, 20% developed severe respiratory illness (including 9% who required mechanical ventilation) and 12% died within 30 d. Age older than 65 years and treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) were predictors for hospitalization and severe disease, whereas receipt of chemotherapy and major surgery were not. Overall, COVID-19 in patients with cancer is marked by substantial rates of hospitalization and severe outcomes. The association observed between ICI and COVID-19 outcomes in our study will need further interrogation in tumor-specific cohorts.