The Effect of Vaccination against COVID-19 in Cancer Patients: Final Results of the COICA Trial.

Background: The COICA study is an ambispective, observational trial that was conceived to assess the clinical course of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in cancer patients. A recently published, population-based, case-control study reported a reduced vaccine efficacy at 3-6 months in cancer patients compared to individuals without cancer. Objectives: The aim of the study was to describe coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) outcomes in cancer patients and analyze differences in SARS-CoV-2 outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients. Methods: Descriptive statistics and frequency counts were used to summarize characteristics of the study population. χ2 test and the log-rank test were used to compare outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients. Results: A total of 141 cancer patients (80 males, 61 females) were recruited at two participating Institutions from March 2020 until April 2022 and observed from the time of positive SARS-CoV-2 test to the time of negativization or death. Approximately 35% of patients had been vaccinated at the time of infection with 2 (16 patients) or 3 (33 patients) vaccine doses. Vaccinated patients consistently and significantly showed improved COVID-19 outcomes compared to unvaccinated patients, with CT-diagnosed pneumonia, hospitalization, O2 therapy, and death reported in 0% versus 48.6%, 2.0% versus 15.2%, 0% versus 14.1%, and 0% versus 7.6%, respectively, of assessable patients (p < 0.05). Vaccinated versus unvaccinated patients showed a significantly shorter time to negativization, with a median (95% confidence interval) time of 12 (10-14) versus 20 (17-23) days, respectively (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Vaccination consistently improved all COVID-19 outcomes. No death was recorded among vaccinated patients. Additional research is especially warranted to establish optimal timing and patient selection for administration of the fourth vaccination dose.

The Impact of Routine Molecular Screening for SARS-CoV-2 in Patients Receiving Anticancer Therapy: An Interim Analysis of the Observational COICA Study.

Introduction: Cancer aggravates COVID-19 prognosis. Nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is particularly frequent in cancer patients, who need to attend hospitals regularly. Since March 2020, all cancer patients having access to the Oncology Unit at the "Andrea Tortora" Hospital (Pagani, Salerno - referred to as "the Hospital") as inpatients or outpatients receiving intravenous therapy have been screened for SARS-CoV-2 using RT-PCR nasal swab. The ongoing COICA (COVID-19 infection in cancer patients) study is an ambispective, multicenter, observational study designed to assess the prognosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in cancer patients. The aim of the study presented here was to explore potential differences in COVID-19-related outcomes among screening-detected versus nonscreening-detected SARS-CoV-2-infected patients. Methods: The COICA study enrolled cancer patients who had received any anticancer systemic therapy within 3 months since the day they tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 on RT-PCR. The target accrual is 128 patients, and the study was approved by the competent Ethics Committee. Only the subgroup of patients enrolled at the Hospital was considered in this unplanned interim analysis. Logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the association of screening-based versus nonscreening-based diagnosis. Results: Since March 15, 2020, until August 15, 2021, a total of 931 outpatients and 230 inpatients were repeatedly screened for SARS-CoV-2 using RT-PCR nasal swab at the Hospital. Among these, 71 asymptomatic patients were positive on routine screening and 5 patients were positive for SARS-CoV-2 outside the institutional screening. Seven patients died because of COVID-19. At univariate analysis, nonscreening- versus screening-detected SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with significantly higher odds of O2 therapy (OR = 16.2; 95% CI = 2.2-117.1; p = 0.006), hospital admission (OR = 31.5; 95% CI = 3.1-317.8; p = 0.003), admission to ICU (OR = 23.0; 95% CI = 2.4-223.8; p = 0.007), and death (OR = 8.8; 95% CI = 1.2-65.5; p = 0.034). Conclusion: Routine screening with RT-PCR may represent a feasible and effective strategy in reducing viral circulation and possibly COVID-19 mortality in patients with active cancer having repeated access to hospital facilities.

Hematological Toxicity During Concomitant Treatment With Ruxolitinib and Avelumab for Merkel Cell Carcinoma.

Background: Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a rare neuroendocrine skin cancer. It frequently emerges in the presence of immunosuppression states such as myeloproliferative syndrome (MS). MS is treated with ruxolitinib, a selective JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitor. Avelumab, an anti PDL-1 inhibitor, is the standard treatment for MCC. To date it is unknown if avelumab and ruxolitinib have a synergistic or antagonistic effect when used together. Methods: We have identified all patients diagnosed with MCC, treated with avelumab, concomitant ruxolitinib, belonging to Tortora Hospital, Pagani and Santa Maria La Pietà Hospital, Nola, Italy between June 1 2019 and April 1 2020. Results: Among six MCC patients, we have found two patients in treatment with concomitant drugs. Both patients were being treated with ruxolitinib for MS as a standard regimen without suffering any hematological side effects. After starting doses of avelumab, we found thrombocytopenia, leukopenia, and anemia after cycle 1 and cycle 4, respectively, and decided to suspend both treatments. Following the suspension, the hematological values improved allowing us to restart treatment with avelumab without the need to resume ruxolitinib treatment. Conclusions: The combined treatment of ruxolitinib and avelumab demonstrated severe toxicity. Modifying the schedule or reducing the dose of both drugs needs to be studied in order to be able to treat both pathologies.

Clinical Characteristics of Metastatic Prostate Cancer Patients Infected with COVID-19 in South Italy.

BACKGROUND: To date, the clinical characteristics of coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19)-infected urologic cancer patients are unknown. METHODS: We have analyzed all patients with prostate cancer undergoing hormonal or chemotherapy treatment and receiving telephone and in person pre-triage between March 1 and 27, 2020, at the Tortora Hospital, Pagani, Italy. RESULTS: Among 72 patients, 48 and 24 were hormone-sensitive (HS) and castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), respectively; 0 HS and 2 (8.3%) CRPC (p < 0.05) were positive for COVID-19. Both patients were receiving LHRH agonist therapy, and 1 patient was receiving enzalutamide. Urgent intensive care unit admission was required due to clinical worsening. Blood tests showed severe lymphopenia, anemia, and an increase in platelets. Retroviral therapy, antibiotics, heparin, and chloroquine were prescribed at the beginning. One patient also received tocilizumab as a salvage treatment. After 3 weeks of hospitalization, the patients were discharged from the hospital. Both patients suffered from an aggressive COVID-19 course due to concomitant comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: Investigating whether hormonal therapy, especially in advanced disease, acts as a protective factor or a risk factor during COVID-19 could be useful.

COVID 19 therapies and anti-cancer drugs: A systematic review of recent literature.

BACKGROUND: It is reasonable to think that cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, targeted therapy or immunotherapy could have a more aggressive course if positive for Coronavirus disease CoV-2 (COVID- 19). METHODS: We conducted a literature review on https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/, https://scholar.google.com, www.arxiv.org, www.biorxiv.org, of all articles published using the keywords COVID-19 therapy or treatment and cancer until May 2, 2020. A total of 205 articles were identified and 53 were included in this review. RESULTS: We describe the ongoing COVID-19 therapies that should be known by oncologists and highlight the potential interactions with antineoplastic drugs, commonly used in clinical practice. The main drug interactions were found with tocilizumab, ruxolitinib and colchicine. CONCLUSIONS: The literature provides an inconclusive picture on potential preferred treatments for COVID-19 and their interactions with antineoplastic agents. Future clinical trials are needed to better understand the interactions between different drugs in the context of COVID-19 pandemic.

A prospective study of acute drug-induced liver injury in patients suffering from non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.

AIM: Liver damage due to facultative hepatotoxins is scarcely foreseeable. We evaluated the prevalence of acute drug-induced liver injury (DILI) in a specific setting, assessing eventual interactions with pre-existing hepatic illnesses. METHODS: The research was carried out in an Italian tertiary care hospital, by analyzing 248 patients with non-advanced liver disease, divided into two well-matched groups: 174 patients (median age 53, 94 females) with hepatitis C virus-related chronic hepatitis; and 74 (median age 55, 39 females) with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). RESULTS: Six patients (2.4% of the whole population) belonging to the NAFLD group (chi(2)-test, P = 0.004) suffered from acute hepatoxicity related to the following drugs, that is antihypertensive, acting on platelet aggregation, antimicrobial, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory and proton pump inhibitor. The NAFLD presence was an independent risk factor in determining drug-related acute hepatitis, with an odds ratio of 3.95 (95% confidence intervals: 11.48-1.35). Central obesity was relevant in every patient with acute toxicity. Alcohol consumption and drug association did not influence the acute drug-induced liver damage. CONCLUSION: NAFLD conveys a nearly fourfold increase of DILI risk in obese middle-aged patients. NAFLD, characterized by mitochondrial dysfunction, could predispose to drug-induced hepatotoxicity that probably shares the same pathophysiological mechanism.