COVID-19 infection in patients with haematological disease - A tertiary centre experience from north India.

This retrospective study was aimed to understand the clinical, laboratory, radiological parameters and the outcome of COVID-19 patients with underlying haematological disease. All patients with known haematological disease admitted with COVID-19-positive status from April to August 2020 in the COVID-19 facility of a tertiary care centre in north India, were included. Their medical records were analyzed for outcome and mortality risk factors. Fifty four patients, 37 males, were included in the study. Of these, 36 patients had haematological malignancy and 18 had benign disorder. Fever (95.5%), cough (59.2%) and dyspnoea (31.4%) were the most common symptoms. Nine patients had severe disease at diagnosis, mostly malignant disorders. Overall mortality rate was 37.0 per cent, with high mortality seen in patients with aplastic anaemia (50.0%), acute myeloid (46.7%) and lymphoblastic leukaemia (40.0%). On univariate analysis, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status >2 [odd ratio (OR) 11.6], COVID-19 severity (OR 8.2), dyspnoea (OR 5.7) and blood product transfusion (OR 6.4) were the predictors of mortality. However, the presence of moderate or severe COVID-19 (OR 16.6, confidence interval 3.8-72.8) was found significant on multivariate analysis. The results showed that patients with haematological malignancies and aplastic anaemia might be at increased risk of getting severe COVID-19 infection and mortality as compared to the general population.

Efficacy and safety of antivirals for Covid-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) has led to a severe medical, social and economic crisis globally. Use of antivirals has given inconsistent results; thus systematic summaries of available evidence are required for any recommendations for treatment. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on the use of antivirals for Covid-19. Methods: The databases we searched were-Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL and Medrxiv. Title/abstract screening, full-text screening and data abstraction were carried out in duplicate by two researchers. Pooled effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel method of random effects for meta-analysis. Results: Twenty studies were found eligible for inclusion: 6 randomized controlled trials, 9 cohort studies and 5 case series. Moderate-quality evidence suggests a likely clinical benefit from the use of remdesivir in improving the number of recoveries (RR 1.18; 95% CI 1.07-1.31; I2 = 0%) and time to recovery in days (median -3.02; 95% CI -4.98 to -1.07; I2 = 97%). A possibility of lower mortality is suggested by low-quality evidence with remdesivir (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.40-1.37, I2 = 58%). Moderate-quality evidence suggests no certain benefit of using lopinavir/ritonavir for Covid-19 compared to arbidol, lopinavir/ritonavir combined with arbidol or other medications used as controls. Conclusion: Further evidence from randomized controlled trials is required for all antivirals to treat Covid-19. At present, remdesivir seems more promising than other antivirals.

Convalescent plasma therapy for Covid-19: A systematic review.

Background: Covid-19 has emerged as a pandemic affecting more than 20 million people till date with few, if any, proven therapy. Convalescent plasma (CP) containing antibodies against the virus has been used with some success. We did a systematic review to synthesize the available data on CP therapy for treatment of Covid-19 to study the efficacy and safety outcomes. Methods: Two reviewers searched the published and pre-published literature between 1 January 2019 and 23 June 2020 for studies comparing the use of CP with standard therapy for Covid-19 patients. Data from the selected studies were abstracted and analysed for efficacy and safety outcomes. Critical appraisal of the evidence was done by using the Joanna Briggs Institute tool and the quality of evidence was graded as per GRADE. Results: We found 13 case series and 1 randomized trial that fulfilled our search criteria. Of the 12 case series with a total of 264 patients that reported the efficacy outcomes, 11 studies showed favourable results with survival benefit. The only RCT with 103 patients did not show any mortality benefit but was terminated early prior to complete enrolment. A single large study of 5000 patients reported safety outcomes and showed no major adverse events in patient streated with CP. Conclusion: There is very low-quality evidence to suggest efficacy and safety of CP in patients with Covid-19 infection. Well-designed randomized trials are urgently needed to provide robust data.

Anti-interleukin-6 therapies for Covid-19: A systematic review, critical appraisal and meta-analysis.

Background: . Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) has emerged as a pandemic by end-January 2020. Of the infected patients, 10%-15% may develop severe or critical illness. So far, no definite treatment is available for Covid-19. Cytokine release syndrome may underlie the pathogenesis of severe and critical disease. Anti-interleukin (IL)-6 therapies are being tried to improve clinical outcomes. Methods: . We did a systematic review to identify the available literature on anti-IL-6 therapies in the treatment of Covid-19 and used the GRADE method to assess the quality of evidence. Results: . Four case series and 10 case reports were identified. On critical assessment, we found that these studies reported some beneficial effect of anti-IL-6 therapy, but all the studies had a high risk of bias. The pooled estimate showed that 42% of patients improved but with a very wide confidence interval (CI) (95% CI 1%-91%) and substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 95%). The overall quality of evidence was graded as 'very low'. Conclusions: . Although promising, anti-IL-6 therapy for Covid-19 needs to be tested in randomized controlled trials to provide robust evidence.

Efficacy and Safety of Convalescent Plasma for COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Convalescent plasma is currently being used in the treatment of COVID-19. Recommendations regarding use convalescent plasma in COVID-19 requires systematic summaries of available evidence. We searched the databases Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Epistomonikos, Medrxiv and Biorxiv. Title/abstract screening, full text screening and data abstraction were carried out in duplicate by two reviewers. Pooled effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using random effects meta-analysis. GRADE tool was used to rate the certainty of evidence. Twenty two studies were found eligible for inclusion: nine randomized controlled trials and thirteen cohort studies. Low certainty evidence from eight RCTs showed inconclusive effects of convalescent plasma on mortality at 28 days (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.18). Low certainty evidence from thirteen cohort studies showed a reduction in mortality at 28 days (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.82). The pooled OR for clinical improvement was 1.07 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.34) representing low certainty evidence. Evidence from three RCTs showed inconclusive effect of CP on the need for mechanical ventilation (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.98). Four cohort studies reporting unadjusted estimates suggested a reduction in the need for mechanical ventilation with convalescent plasma (OR 0.80 95% CI 0.71 to 0.91, low certainty). Pooled estimates from 2 RCTs showed inconclusive effects of convalescent plasma on the proportion of patients with nondetectable levels of virus in nasopharyngeal specimens on day 3 (OR 3.62, 95% CI 0.43, 30.49, very low-quality evidence). The present review reports uncertain estimates on the efficacy of convalescent plasma in the treatment of COVID-19. There is low certainty evidence of a possible reduction in mortality and mechanical ventilation, a faster viral clearance and the absence of any serious adverse events. However, its efficacy for these outcomes requires evidence from good quality and adequately powered randomized controlled trials. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12288-021-01417-w.

Tele-health and cancer care in the era of COVID-19: New opportunities in low and middle income countries (LMICs).

In the current era of COVID-19 pandemic where at least some degree of social distancing is the norm and hospitals have emerged as hotspots for acquiring the infection, it has become important for oncologists to devise methods of providing care to cancer patients while minimizing patients' exposure to healthcare settings. In light of the on-going pandemic, it has been recommended that in-patient visits for cancer patients should be substituted by virtual visits and patients should be advised to proceed directly for infusion treatment. Telemedicine and tele-health based interventions have emerged as reasonably practical solutions to these impediments in the delivery of care to cancer patients. Technological advancements have resolved the issue of connectivity for telemedicine even to the remotest places. Teleconsultation is becoming an acceptable alternative for patients and health care providers in this era of information technology. Albeit the challenges that we are facing are diverse and therefore cannot have a singular full proof answer, telemedicine and tele-health based interventions seem to offer promise in effectively complementing our efforts in that direction. Telemedicine is beneficial for both patients and doctors in term to provide quality care without shifting to physical location.

Transfusion practices during the COVID-19 pandemic: An experience from a hematology daycare in India.

The Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic has in multiple ways affected healthcare delivery to non-COVID patients throughout the world. Adequate transfusion services are fundamental in ongoing therapy of patients with hematological ailments. We present the transfusion services in the hematology daycare under the department of Hematology and supported by the Blood Bank at our institution for the period 12th April 2020-30th June 2020, which saw the stringent lockdown and unlocking Phase I in India, declared in lieu of the pandemic. A 56 % reduction in total transfusion sessions was observed in 2020 (588 sessions given to 176 patients) compared to 1336 sessions in 516 patients over the same period in 2019. The reductions were seen across the different blood components (packed red blood cells [PRBC]: 585 vs. 1840, platelet rich plasma: 372 vs. 1313, single donor platelet 18 vs. 16), with a significant reduction in the mean PRBC transfused per PRBC transfusion session (1.11 vs 1.99, p<0.001) in 2020, compared to 2019. There were however no major differences in the transfusion practices across the different phases of the lockdown. Our study highlights the detrimental reduction in transfusion services due to the COVID-19 pandemic and related lockdown and showcases the remedial strategies taken to maximize transfusion support to patients during this period. Our observations might help to provide insights to adequately combat possible similar adverse situations in the future.

Tele-Medicine Services in Hematological Practice During Covid Pandemic: Its Feasibility and Difficulties.

In COVID 19 pandemic, delivery and access of health care services have become challenging. Telemedicine services can be considered for management of patients with hematological diseases. This study included all patients who enrolled for telemedicine facility for hematology from May 15 to July 15, 2020. Patient's demographic and disease related parameters were recorded during the teleconsultation call. Overall satisfaction of attending doctor and patients were also recorded. A total of 1187 teleconsultation appointments were taken, of which 944 (79.6%) were successfully attended. Median age of patients was 38 years (range- 0.5-78 years), with 38% females. 55% of successful calls were from patients suffering a malignant hematological disorder. 24% had an active complaint pertaining to their disease or treatment. Of these, 162 (17%) were asked for a physical consultation. A significant association was found between the requirement of physical consultation and diagnosis (p < 0.001), absence of active complaint (< 0.0001) and education level of responder (p = 0.008). Patients understand that teleconsultation is helpful in preventing COVID-19 infection (71.4%) and avoids outpatient department rush (14.5%) associated with physical appointments; and around 80% patients were satisfied with the teleconsult. With the emergence of COVID 19, many localities under partial lockdown with constant fear of contacting virus amongst patients and health care providers, we can clearly see the advantages as well as feasibility of telemedicine services for our patients. The acute surge in telemedicine could be harnessed in the future to provide comprehensive and integrated care to patients of hematological disorders.

Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine for the Treatment of COVID-19: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is no effective therapy for COVID-19. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) have been used for its treatment but their safety and efficacy remain uncertain. OBJECTIVE: We performed a systematic review to synthesize the available data on the efficacy and safety of CQ and HCQ for the treatment of COVID-19. METHODS: Two reviewers searched for published and pre-published relevant articles between December 2019 and 8 June 2020. The data from the selected studies were abstracted and analyzed for efficacy and safety outcomes. Critical appraisal of the evidence was done by Cochrane risk of bias tool and Newcastle Ottawa Scale. The quality of evidence was graded as per the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We reviewed 12 observational and 3 randomized trials which included 10,659 patients of whom 5713 received CQ/HCQ and 4966 received only standard of care. The efficacy of CQ/HCQ for COVID-19 was inconsistent across the studies. Meta-analysis of included studies revealed no significant reduction in mortality with HCQ use [RR 0.98 95% CI 0.66-1.46], time to fever resolution (mean difference - 0.54 days (- 1.19-011)) or clinical deterioration/development of ARDS with HCQ [RR 0.90 95% CI 0.47-1.71]. There was a higher risk of ECG abnormalities/arrhythmia with HCQ/CQ [RR 1.46 95% CI 1.04 to 2.06]. The quality of evidence was graded as very low for these outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSION: The available evidence suggests that CQ or HCQ does not improve clinical outcomes in COVID-19. Well-designed randomized trials are required for assessing the efficacy and safety of HCQ and CQ for COVID-19.