Development and testing of a lymphoma clinical trial-specific frailty index: a secondary analysis of the NCIC-CTG LY.12 clinical trial.

The prevalence of frailty in clinical trials of lymphoma is unknown. We conducted a secondary analysis of the phase III LY.12 trial in which patients with relapsed aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma were randomized to different salvage regimens before autologous stem cell transplant. The primary objective was to construct a lymphoma clinical trials-specific frailty index (LyFI) using previously described methods. The secondary objective was to describe the association of frailty withover all and event-free survival (OS, EFS). The LyFI was constructed using 619 patients, and11% (N = 70) were classified as frail. Frailty was associated with EFS (HR 1.94, 95%CI 1.53-2.46) and OS (HR 2.01, 95%CI 1.57-2.58) in univariable analysis, but was only significant as a continuous (not binary) variable in multivariable analysis controlling for prognostic score, suggesting limitations of a FI in this trial population. Future work could validate the FI using clinical assessments and/or apply it to an older trial population.

COVID-19 vaccine immunogenicity and safety surrounding fourth and subsequent vaccine doses in patients with hematologic malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Immune response to COVID-19 vaccine is diminished in patients with hematologic malignancy. There is limited data regarding response to vaccine doses in these patients. PURPOSE: To quantify the humoral immune response engendered by 4th and subsequent doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination as measured by anti-Spike (anti-S) antibody levels, based on dried blood spot (DBS) testing, in patients with hematologic malignancies. Anti-S binds to the spike protein of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and is indicative of vaccine immunogenicity. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study of hematologic malignancies between August 2021 and January 2023 at 12 sites across Canada. Participants were followed longitudinally and submitted finger-prick DBS cards at set intervals associated with vaccination. Samples were processed via high throughput ELISA assay to detect serum antibodies against nucleocapsid (N) and spike (S) proteins. RESULTS: We obtained 3071 samples on 790 unique patients. Of these, 372 unique participants with 1840 samples had anti-S results available post-4th, 5th or 6th COVID-19 vaccine dose and were included for analysis. Three hundred thirty-three patients of the 372 participants submitted a DBS sample post 4th dose. Of these, 257 patients (77.2%) had a positive anti-S antibody. A total of 198 patients had paired samples pre- and post-dose 4, of which 59 (29.7%) had a negative anti-S antibody pre-dose 4. Of these, 20 (33.4%) developed positive anti-S antibody post-dose 4. One hundred forty-nine patients submitted a DBS sample post-dose 5. Of these, 135 patients (90.6%) had positive anti-S antibody. A total of 52 had paired samples pre- and post-dose 5. Six (8.7%) had a negative anti-S antibody pre-dose 5, of which two (33.3%) developed positive anti-S antibody post-dose 5. Of these 372 patients, 123 (34%) reported COVID-19 infection and 4 (1%) had a COVID-19 related hospitalization. There were no reported deaths from COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective cohort study showed that humoral immune response improved with subsequent doses of COVID-19 vaccines.

COVID-19 and Other Viral Infections in Patients With Hematologic Malignancies.

COVID-19 and our armamentarium of strategies to combat it have evolved dramatically since the virus first emerged in late 2019. Vaccination remains the primary strategy to prevent severe illness, although the protective effect can vary in patients with hematologic malignancy. Strategies such as additional vaccine doses and now bivalent boosters can contribute to increased immune response, especially in the face of evolving viral variants. Because of these new variants, no approved monoclonal antibodies are available for pre-exposure or postexposure prophylaxis. Patients with symptomatic, mild-to-moderate COVID-19 and risk features for developing severe COVID-19, who present within 5-7 days of symptom onset, should be offered outpatient therapy with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NR) or in some cases with intravenous (IV) remdesivir. NR interacts with many blood cancer treatments, and reviewing drug interactions is essential. Patients with severe COVID-19 should be managed with IV remdesivir, tocilizumab (or an alternate interleukin-6 receptor blocker), or baricitinib, as indicated based on the severity of illness. Dexamethasone can be considered on an individual basis, weighing oxygen requirements and patients' underlying disease and their perceived ability to clear infection. Finally, as CD19-targeted and B-cell maturation (BCMA)-targeted chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies become more heavily used for relapsed/refractory hematologic malignancies, viral infections including COVID-19 are increasingly recognized as common complications, but data on risk factors and prophylaxis in this patient population are scarce. We summarize the available evidence regarding viral infections after CAR T-cell therapy.

Antibody-drug conjugates: in search of partners of choice.

Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) have become a credentialled class of anticancer drugs for both solid and hematological malignancies, with regulatory approvals mainly as single agents. Despite extensive preclinical and clinical efforts to develop rational ADC-based combinations, to date only a limited number have demonstrated survival improvements over standard of care. The most appealing partners for ADCs are those that offer additive or synergistic effects on tumor cells or their microenvironment without unacceptable overlapping toxicities. Coadministration with antiangiogenic compounds, HER2-targeting drugs, DNA-damage response agents and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) represent active forerunners. Through the identification of targets with tumor-specific expression, improved conjugation technologies, and novel linkers and payloads offering superior therapeutic indices, the next generation of ADCs brings optimism to combinatorial approaches.

Virtual Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic for Patients With Hematologic Malignancies: A Single-Institution Experience.

PURPOSE: The use of virtual care rapidly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic and has persisted as a routine method of care delivery. Much of the literature on virtual care in oncology has focused on solid tumors, and little is known about its application in malignant hematology. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients with hematologic malignancies at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre from October 2019 to March 2021 to determine the use of virtual care during this period, cost-savings associated with virtual visits, and patient satisfaction. Patient satisfaction was assessed using the Your Voice Matters survey, a provincially administered survey to evaluate patient experience. RESULTS: Overall, 12.1% (1,122/9,295) of patients had a virtual visit during the study period (0% from October 2019 to February 2020, 36% from March to August 2020, and 30% from September 2020 to March 2021), of which 36% were in the lymphoma clinic and 46% were in the myeloma clinic. The mean two-way opportunity cost for an in-person visit was $168.00 CAD per person with public transit, and $120.40 CAD per person driving. Responses to the Your Voice Matters survey indicated that patients with a virtual visit reported that physical symptoms were discussed appropriately (mean 4.73/5), and were more likely to ask for a follow-up virtual visit compared with patients with in-person visits (mean 4.50/5 v 3.02/5, respectively; P < .01). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that virtual care may be a feasible and well-received tool for delivering care to a substantial proportion of patients with hematologic malignancies, while enabling substantial cost-savings to patients.

Association of COVID-19 Vaccination With Breakthrough Infections and Complications in Patients With Cancer.

Importance: Patients with cancer are known to have increased risk of COVID-19 complications, including death. Objective: To determine the association of COVID-19 vaccination with breakthrough infections and complications in patients with cancer compared to noncancer controls. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective population-based cohort study using linked administrative databases in Ontario, Canada, in residents 18 years and older who received COVID-19 vaccination. Three matched groups were identified (based on age, sex, type of vaccine, date of vaccine): 1:4 match for patients with hematologic and solid cancer to noncancer controls (hematologic and solid cancers separately analyzed), 1:1 match between patients with hematologic and patients with solid cancer. Exposures: Cancer diagnosis. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes occurring 14 days after receipt of second COVID-19 vaccination dose: primary outcome was SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection; secondary outcomes were emergency department visit, hospitalization, and death within 4 weeks of SARS-CoV-2 infection (end of follow-up March 31, 2022). Multivariable cumulative incidence function models were used to obtain adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) and 95% CIs. Results: A total of 289 400 vaccinated patients with cancer (39 880 hematologic; 249 520 solid) with 1 157 600 matched noncancer controls were identified; the cohort was 65.4% female, and mean (SD) age was 66 (14.0) years. SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection was higher in patients with hematologic cancer (aHR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.20-1.46; P < .001) but not in patients with solid cancer (aHR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.96-1.05; P = .87). COVID-19 severe outcomes (composite of hospitalization and death) were significantly higher in patients with cancer compared to patients without cancer (aHR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.42-1.63; P < .001). Risk of severe outcomes was higher among patients with hematologic cancer (aHR, 2.51; 95% CI, 2.21-2.85; P < .001) than patients with solid cancer (aHR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.24-1.64; P < .001). Patients receiving active treatment had a further heightened risk for COVID-19 severe outcomes, particularly those who received anti-CD20 therapy. Third vaccination dose was associated with lower infection and COVID-19 complications, except for patients receiving anti-CD20 therapy. Conclusions and Relevance: In this large population-based cohort study, patients with cancer had greater risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and worse outcomes than patients without cancer, and the risk was highest for patients with hematologic cancer and any patients with cancer receiving active treatment. Triple vaccination was associated with lower risk of poor outcomes.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Frontline Polatuzumab-Rituximab, Cyclophosphamide, Doxorubicin, and Prednisone and/or Second-Line Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy Versus Standard of Care for Treatment of Patients With Intermediate- to High-Risk Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma.

PURPOSE: Recent studies of polatuzumab vedotin and CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CAR-T) have shown significant improvements in progression-free survival over standard of care (SOC) for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. However, they are costly, and it is unclear whether these strategies, alone or combined, are cost-effective over SOC. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to compare four strategies for patients with newly diagnosed intermediate- to high-risk diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: strategy 1: polatuzumab-rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (R-CHP) plus second-line CAR-T for early relapse (< 12 months); strategy 2: polatuzumab-R-CHP plus second-line salvage therapy ± autologous stem-cell transplant; strategy 3: rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone plus second-line CAR-T for early relapse; strategy 4: SOC (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone plus second-line salvage therapy ± autologous stem-cell transplant). Transition probabilities were estimated from trial data. Lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated from US and Canadian payer perspectives. Willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of $150,000 US dollars (USD) or Canadian dollars (CAD)/QALY were used. RESULTS: In probabilistic analyses (10,000 simulations), each strategy was incrementally more effective than the previous strategy, but also more costly. Adding polatuzumab-R-CHP to the SOC had an ICER of $546,956 (338,797-1,199,923) USD/QALY and $245,381 (151,671-573,250) CAD/QALY. Adding second-line CAR-T to the SOC had an ICER of $309,813 (190,197-694,200) USD/QALY and $303,163 (221,300-1,063,864) CAD/QALY. Simultaneously adding both polatuzumab-R-CHP and second-line CAR-T to the SOC had an ICER of $488,284 (326,765-840,157) USD/QALY and $267,050 (182,832-520,922) CAD/QALY. CONCLUSION: Given uncertain incremental benefits in long-term survival and high costs, neither polatuzumab-R-CHP frontline, CAR-T second-line, nor a combination are likely to be cost-effective in the United States or Canada at current pricing compared with the SOC.

Factors associated with timely COVID-19 vaccination in a population-based cohort of patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: In many jurisdictions, cancer patients were prioritized for COVID-19 vaccination because of increased risk of infection and death. To understand sociodemographic disparities that affected timely receipt of COVID-19 vaccination among cancer patients, we undertook a population-based study in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: Patients older than 18 years and diagnosed with cancer January 2010 to September 2020 were identified using administrative data; vaccination administration was captured between approval (December 2020) up to February 2022. Factors associated with time to vaccination were evaluated using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 356 535 patients, the majority of whom had solid tumor cancers (85.9%) and were not on active treatment (74.1%); 86.8% had received at least 2 doses. The rate of vaccination was 25% lower in recent (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.72 to 0.76) and nonrecent immigrants (HR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.79 to 0.81). A greater proportion of unvaccinated patients were from neighborhoods with a high concentration of new immigrants or self-reported members of racialized groups (26.0% vs 21.3%, standardized difference = 0.111, P < .001), residential instability (27.1% vs 23.0%, standardized difference = 0.094, P < .001), or material deprivation (22.1% vs 16.8%, standardized difference = 0.134, P < .001) and low socioeconomic status (20.9% vs 16.0%, standardized difference = 0.041, P < .001). The rate of vaccination was 20% lower in patients from neighborhoods with the lowest socioeconomic status (HR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.81 to 0.84) and highest material deprivation (HR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.78 to 0.81) relative to those in more advantaged neighborhoods. CONCLUSIONS: Despite funding of vaccines and prioritization of high-risk populations, marginalized patients were less likely to be vaccinated. Differences are likely due to the interplay between systemic barriers to access and cultural or social influences affecting uptake.

Multi-national survey of transfusion experiences and preferences of patients with myelodysplastic syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Transfusion dependence on red blood cells (RBCs) is common for patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) but transfusion practice and experience for outpatients with MDS are largely unknown. METHODS: We conducted a web-based cross-sectional multi-national survey to audit real-world transfusion practices and understand the experiences and preferences of patients with MDS requiring RBC transfusion. The survey comprised 57 questions and was distributed to patients in the United States of America, Canada, and the United Kingdom. RESULTS: 447 respondents (45% female) with a median age of 72 years (IQR 66-77) were eligible on the basis of receiving an RBC transfusion in the last 8 weeks. There was wide variability in the hemoglobin thresholds for transfusion with the most common being <80 g/L. 40% of patients were transfused at a lower threshold (<70-75 g/L), with the largest proportion of these patients from the United States. Patients experienced significant symptoms prior to receiving a transfusion with fatigue and dyspnea having the most negative impacts on quality of life. Finally, patients endorsed two potential alterations to transfusion care that could improve their quality of life, including self-administered point of care testing of hemoglobin and higher hemoglobin transfusion thresholds. Of these patients, 62% preferred a threshold of at least 85 g/L, and 20% preferred a threshold of at least 100 g/L. DISCUSSION: In summary, this multi-national survey of patients with MDS requiring RBC transfusions demonstrated substantial variation in patients' experiences and preferences that differed also by country, supporting the need for further comparative clinical trials of transfusion practice interventions.

Frailty in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Receiving Curative-Intent Therapy: A Population-Based Study.

BACKGROUND: The objectives of this study were to determine whether frailty is associated with survival in a population-based sample of patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and to describe the healthcare utilization patterns of frail versus nonfrail patients during treatment. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using population-based data in Ontario, Canada. Patients aged ≥66 years diagnosed between 2006 and 2017 with DLBCL or transformed follicular lymphoma who received first-line curative-intent chemoimmunotherapy were included. Frailty was defined using a modified version of a generalizable frailty index developed for use with Ontario administrative data. Cox regression was performed to examine the association between frailty and 1-year mortality. RESULTS: A total of 5,527 patients were included (median age, 75 years [interquartile range, 70-80 years]; 48% female), of whom 2,699 (49%) were classified as frail. Within 1 year of first-line treatment, 32% (n=868) of frail patients had died compared with 20% (n=553) of nonfrail patients (unadjusted hazard ratio, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.6-2.0; P<.0001). Frail patients had higher healthcare utilization during treatment, with most hospitalizations related to infection and/or lymphoma. In multivariable modeling controlling for age, inpatient diagnosis, number of chemoimmunotherapy cycles received, comorbidity burden, and healthcare utilization, frailty remained independently associated with 1-year mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.3-1.7; P<.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In a population-based sample of older adult patients with DLBCL receiving front-line curative-intent therapy, half were classified as frail, and their adjusted relative rate of death in the first year after starting treatment was 50% higher than that of nonfrail patients. Frailty seems to be associated with poor treatment tolerance and a higher likelihood of requiring acute hospital-based care.

The Use of Virtual Care in Patients with Hematologic Malignancies: A Scoping Review.

There is increasing interest from cancer patients and their healthcare providers in the use of virtual care in routine clinical practice. In the setting of hematologic malignancy, where patients often undergo complex and immunodepleting treatments, understanding how to use virtual care safely and effectively is critically important. We aimed to describe the use of virtual care in patients with hematologic malignancies and to examine physician- and patient-reported outcomes in the form of a systematic scoping review. An electronic search of PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Elsevier Embase, Scopus, and EBSCO CINAHL was conducted from January 2000 to April 2021. A comprehensive search strategy was used to identify relevant articles, and data were extracted to assess the study design, population, setting, patient characteristics, virtual care platform, and study results. Studies were included if they described the use of virtual care for patients with hematologic malignancies; commentaries were excluded. Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria after abstract and full-text review. Three studies found that app-based tools were effective in monitoring patient symptoms and triggering alerts for more urgent follow-up. Four studies described the use of phone-based interventions. Five studies found that videoconferencing, with both physicians and oncology nurses, was highly rated by patients. Emerging themes included high levels of patient satisfaction across all domains of virtual care. Provider satisfaction scores were rated lower than patient scores, with concerns about technical issues leading to challenges with virtual care. Four studies found that virtual care allowed providers to promptly respond to patient concerns, especially when patients were experiencing side-effects or had questions about their treatment. Overall, the use of virtual care in patients with hematologic malignancies appears feasible, and resulted in high patient satisfaction. Further research is needed in order to evaluate the optimal method of integrating virtual care into clinical practice.

Addressing Barriers to Reducing Prescribing and Implementing Deprescribing of Sedative-Hypnotics in Primary Care.

OBJECTIVE: To describe interventions that target patient, provider, and system barriers to sedative-hypnotic (SH) deprescribing in the community and suggest strategies for healthcare teams. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE ALL and EMBASE Classic + EMBASE (March 10, 2021). STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: English-language studies in primary care settings. DATA SYNTHESIS: 20 studies were themed as patient-related and prescriber inertia, physician skills and awareness, and health system constraints. Patient education strategies reduced SH dose for 10% to 62% of participants, leading to discontinuation in 13% to 80% of participants. Policy interventions reduced targeted medication use by 10% to 50%. RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE: Patient engagement and empowerment successfully convince patients to deprescribe chronic SHs. Quality improvement strategies should also consider interventions directed at prescribers, including education and training, drug utilization reviews, or computer alerts indicating a potentially inappropriate prescription by medication, age, dose, or disease. Educational interventions were effective when they facilitated patient engagement and provided information on the harms and limited evidence supporting chronic use as well as the effectiveness of alternatives. Decision support tools were less effective than prescriber education with patient engagement, although they can be readily incorporated in the workflow through prescribing software. CONCLUSIONS: Several strategies with demonstrated efficacy in reducing SH use in community practice were identified. Education regarding SH risks, how to taper, and potential alternatives are essential details to provide to clinicians, patients, and families. The strategies presented can guide community healthcare teams toward reducing the community burden of SH use.

Vaccine response following anti-CD20 therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 905 patients.

The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review of the literature on vaccine responsiveness in patients who have received anti-CD20 therapy. PubMed and EMBASE were searched up to 4 January 2021 to identify studies of vaccine immunogenicity in patients treated with anti-CD20 therapy, including patients with hematologic malignancy or autoimmune disease. The primary outcomes were seroprotection (SP), seroconversion (SC), and/or seroresponse rates for each type of vaccine reported. As the pandemic influenza vaccine (2009 H1N1) has standardized definitions for SP and SC, and represented a novel primary antigen similar to the COVID-19 vaccine, meta-analysis was conducted for SC of studies of this vaccine. Pooled estimates, relative benefit ratios (RBs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Thirty-eight studies (905 patients treated with anti-CD20 therapy) were included (19 studies of patients with hematologic malignancies). Patients on active (<3 months since last dose) anti-CD20 therapy had poor responses to all types of vaccines. The pooled estimate for SC after 1 pandemic influenza vaccine dose in these patients was 3% (95% CI, 0% to 9%), with an RB of 0.05 (95% CI, 0-0.73) compared with healthy controls and 0.22 (95% CI, 0.09-0.56) compared with disease controls. SC compared with controls seems abrogated for at least 6 months following treatment (3-6 months post anti-CD20 therapy with an RB of 0.50 [95% CI, 0.24-1.06] compared with healthy and of 0.44 [95% CI, 0.23-0.84] compared with disease controls). For all vaccine types, response to vaccination improves incrementally over time, but may not reach the level of healthy controls even 12 months after therapy.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of allogeneic versus autologous stem cell transplant versus chemo-immunotherapy for early relapse of follicular lymphoma within 2 years of initial therapy.

This study compared the quality-adjusted effectiveness and costs of three treatment options for transplant-eligible patients with early progression (POD24) of follicular lymphoma. A Markov decision-analytic model using a 20-year time horizon was used to compare allogeneic stem cell transplant (alloSCT), autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), and chemo-immunotherapy (O-CHOP). For second relapse/refractory disease, novel therapy use was modeled, including lenalidomide and rituximab/obinutuzumab, and PI3K inhibitors (PI3Ki). Costs were considered from a Canadian public health payer's perspective. Probabilistic analyses (10,000 simulations) demonstrated that at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000, ASCT was most cost effective 60% of the time. ASCT resulted in more life years (10.2 vs. alloSCT 9.9 vs. O-CHOP 10.0) and quality-adjusted life years (7.5 vs. alloSCT 6.6 vs. O-CHOP 7.4), with the lowest direct costs ($190,128 CAD). In sensitivity analyses, the model was robust to key variables, including differing probabilities of progression, non-relapse mortality, graft-versus-host-disease (GVHD), costs of treating GVHD, costs of PI3Ki, and probability of secondary malignancy from ASCT. However, if patients were older than 65 years or their life expectancy was less than 10 years, chemo-immunotherapy was the preferred strategy. When considering cost, effectiveness, and toxicities, the preferred treatment strategy for most patients with POD24 follicular lymphoma is ASCT.

Predictors of intensive care unit admission in patients with hematologic malignancy.

Limited data exist on predictors of intensive care unit (ICU) admission in patients with hematologic malignancy. The objective of this study was to identify predictors of ICU admission in hospitalized patients with hematologic malignancies. A retrospective cohort study was conducted on 820 consecutive admissions of patients with a malignant hematology diagnosis at our institution between March 2009 and December 2015. Backward stepwise selection procedure was conducted for multivariable logistic regression analyses. 820 patients were included, of whom 179 (22%) were admitted to the ICU. Types of hematologic cancers included 71% (N = 578) lymphoid cancer, 18% (N = 151) myeloid cancer, and 10% (N = 80) plasma cell neoplasms. 14% (N = 111) of patients had acute leukemia. Six predictors of admission to ICU were found in multivariable analysis, including disease-related (acute leukemia, curative intent chemotherapy), laboratory-related (platelet count < 50 × 109/L, albumin below normal, LDH above normal at time of admission), and physician-related factors (having advanced directives discussion) (p < 0.0001). A significant proportion of patients with hematologic malignancies admitted to hospital are admitted to ICU. Utilizing the identified predictors of ICU admission may help guide timely informed goals of care discussions with patients before clinical deterioration occurs.

Outcomes of patients with hematologic malignancies and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 3377 patients.

Outcomes for patients with hematologic malignancy infected with COVID-19 have not been aggregated. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the risk of death and other important outcomes for these patients. We searched PubMed and EMBASE up to 20 August 2020 to identify reports of patients with hematologic malignancy and COVID-19. The primary outcome was a pooled mortality estimate, considering all patients and only hospitalized patients. Secondary outcomes included risk of intensive care unit admission and ventilation in hospitalized patients. Subgroup analyses included mortality stratified by age, treatment status, and malignancy subtype. Pooled prevalence, risk ratios (RRs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Thirty-four adult and 5 pediatric studies (3377 patients) from Asia, Europe, and North America were included (14 of 34 adult studies included only hospitalized patients). Risk of death among adult patients was 34% (95% CI, 28-39; N = 3240) in this sample of predominantly hospitalized patients. Patients aged ≥60 years had a significantly higher risk of death than patients <60 years (RR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.45-2.27; N = 1169). The risk of death in pediatric patients was 4% (95% CI, 1-9; N = 102). RR of death comparing patients with recent systemic anticancer therapy to no treatment was 1.17 (95% CI, 0.83-1.64; N = 736). Adult patients with hematologic malignancy and COVID-19, especially hospitalized patients, have a high risk of dying. Patients ≥60 years have significantly higher mortality; pediatric patients appear to be relatively spared. Recent cancer treatment does not appear to significantly increase the risk of death.

Cost-effectiveness of first-line treatment options for patients with advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Several strategies are available for the initial treatment of advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma, but the optimal strategy in terms of cost-effectiveness is unclear. The aim of this study was to compare the quality-adjusted effectiveness and costs of five modern treatment options for transplantation-eligible patients with newly diagnosed advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma. METHODS: A Markov decision-analytic model was developed using a 20-year time horizon. Five of the most common treatment approaches were selected based on clinical experience and expert opinion: (1) six cycles of doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine (ABVD), including data from the HD2000 trial, Viviani and colleagues, and EORTC trial; (2) six cycles of bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone (BEACOPP; from the HD15 trial or PET-adapted as in the HD18 trial, two initial cycles of BEACOPP followed by four additional cycles for patients with a positive PET and either two or four additional cycles of BEACOPP for patients with a negative PET); (3) PET-adapted escalation (as in the RATHL trial, two cycles of standard ABVD chemotherapy followed by an additional four cycles of ABVD or AVD in PET-negative patients and four cycles of BEACOPP in PET-positive patients); (4) six cycles of brentuximab vedotin, doxorubicin, vinblastine, dacarbazine (A-AVD) or ABVD as in the Echelon-1 trial; and (5) PET-adapted de-escalation (as in the AHL2011 trial, two cycles of BEACOPP followed by PET2 scan; PET-positive patients received two additional BEACOPP cycles and PET-negative patients received two cycles of ABVD; at PET4, PET-negative patients completed two further cycles of either ABVD or BEACOPP depending on what they received after PET2, and PET-positive patients received salvage therapy). Note that all uses of BEACOPP in these strategies were BEACOPPescalated. The randomised groups of interest from these studies comprised 4255 patients enrolled between April, 2000, and January, 2016. Baseline probability estimates and utilities were derived from the included trials in addition to a systematic review of published studies. A Canadian public health payer's perspective was considered (CAN$1=US$0·74) and adjusted for inflation for 2018. All costs and benefits were discounted by 1·5% per year because life-years now are more valuable than future potential life-years. FINDINGS: Probabilistic analyses (10 000 simulations) showed that, for a willingness-to-pay threshold of CAN$50 000, a PET-adapted de-escalation strategy based on AHL2011 was more cost-effective 87% of the time. This strategy had the highest number of life-years (14·6 years [95% CI 13·7-15·1]) and quality-adjusted life years (13·2 years [95% CI 10·2-14·4]), and the lowest direct costs ($53 129 [95% CI 31 914-94 446]) compared with the other treatment regimens. Sensitivity analyses showed that the model was robust to key variables, including probability of treatment-related mortality, relapse, frequency of secondary malignancy, death from secondary malignancy, and probability of infertility after BEACOPP. INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that, when considering cost, effectiveness, and short and long-term toxicities, the preferred treatment strategy for patients with newly diagnosed advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma is the PET-adapted de-escalation regimen starting with BEACOPP and de-escalating to ABVD as appropriate. Although our findings do not provide an absolute best treatment approach for clinicians to follow for all patients, they can contribute to shared decision making between patients and treating physicians. FUNDING: None.

An Implementation Guide to Promote Sleep and Reduce Sedative-Hypnotic Initiation for Noncritically Ill Inpatients.

Sedative-hypnotic medications are frequently prescribed for hospitalized patients with insomnia, but they can result in preventable harm such as delirium, falls, hip fractures, and increased morbidity. Furthermore, sedative-hypnotic initiation while in the hospital carries a risk of chronic use after discharge. Disrupted sleep is a major contributor to sedative-hypnotic use among patients in the hospital and other institutional settings. Numerous multicomponent studies on improving sleep quality in these settings have been described, some demonstrating an associated reduction of sedative-hypnotic prescriptions. This selected review summarizes effective interventions aimed at promoting sleep and reducing inappropriate sedative-hypnotic initiation and proposes an implementation strategy to guide quality improvement teams.