An international multicenter study comparing COVID-19 omicron outcomes in patients with hematological malignancies treated with obinutuzumab versus rituximab.

OBJECTIVES: Hematological malignancy (HM) patients treated with anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies are at higher risk for severe COVID-19. A previous single-center study showed worse outcomes in patients treated with obinutuzumab compared to rituximab. We examined this hypothesis in a large international multicenter cohort. METHODS: We included HM patients from 15 centers, from five countries treated with anti-CD20, comparing those treated with obinutuzumab (O-G) to rituximab (R-G) between December 2021 and June 2022, when Omicron lineage was dominant. RESULTS: We collected data on 1048 patients. Within the R-G (n = 762, 73%), 191 (25%) contracted COVID-19 compared to 103 (36%) in the O-G. COVID-19 patients in the O-G were younger (61 ± 11.7 vs. 64 ± 14.5, p = 0.039), had more indolent HM diagnosis (aggressive lymphoma: 3.9% vs. 67.0%, p < 0.001), and most were on maintenance therapy at COVID-19 diagnosis (63.0% vs. 16.8%, p < 0.001). Severe-critical COVID-19 occurred in 31.1% of patients in the O-G and 22.5% in the R-G. In multivariable analysis, O-G had a 2.08-fold increased risk for severe-critical COVID-19 compared to R-G (95% CI 1.13-3.84), adjusted for Charlson comorbidity index, sex, and tixagevimab/cilgavimab (T-C) prophylaxis. Further analysis comparing O-G to R-G demonstrated increased hospitalizations (51.5% vs. 35.6% p = 0.008), ICU admissions (12.6% vs. 5.8%, p = 0.042), but the nonsignificant difference in COVID-19-related mortality (n = 10, 9.7% vs. n = 12, 6.3%, p = 0.293). CONCLUSIONS: Despite younger age and a more indolent HM diagnosis, patients receiving obinutuzumab had more severe COVID-19 outcomes than those receiving rituximab. Our findings underscore the need to evaluate the risk-benefit balance when considering obinutuzumab therapy for HM patients during respiratory viral outbreaks.

Are Healthcare Workers Infected with SARS-CoV-2 at Home or at Work? A Comparative Prevalence Study.

Prior to the widespread use of vaccinations, healthcare workers (HCWs) faced the double burden of caring for unprecedented numbers of critically ill COVID-19 patients while also facing the risk of becoming infected themselves either in healthcare facilities or at home. In order to assess whether SARS-CoV-2-positivity rates in HCWs reflected or differed from those in their residential areas, we compared the SARS-CoV-2-positivity rates during 2020 among HCWs in Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Centers (HHUMC), a tertiary medical center in Jerusalem, Israel, to those of the general population in Jerusalem, stratified by neighborhood. Additionally, we compared the demographic and professional parameters in every group. Four percent of the adult population (>18 years) in Jerusalem tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during 2020 (24,529/605,426) compared to 7.1% of HHUMC HCWs (317/4470), rate ratio 1.75 (95% CI 1.57-1.95), with wide variability (range 0.38-25.0) among different neighborhoods. Of the 30 neighborhoods with more than 50 infected HCWs, 25 showed a higher positivity rate for HCWs compared to the general population. The higher risk of HCWs compared to residents representing the general population in most neighborhoods in Jerusalem may be explained by their behavior in and out of the hospital.