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.
Reactivation of hepatitis B virus (HBV) during immunosuppressive therapy (IST) can lead to severe and even fatal hepatitis but can be largely prevented with prophylactic antiviral therapy. Screening ...for HBV prior to starting IST is recommended. Both risk-based and universal screening have been recommended by different societies. For effective risk-based screening, physicians must be aware of risk factors for chronic HBV infection.
The HBV screening practices prior to starting IST of rheumatologists, medical and hematological oncologists were evaluated by survey and chart review. Country of origin, the primary risk factor for HBV exposure, was determined in all patients.
Of 140 rheumatology, 79 medical oncology and 53 hematology patients reviewed, 81%, 11% and 81% were deemed to be at high risk of HBV reactivation by their physicians respectively, however only 27%, 6% and 62% (p<0.0001) were actually screened for HBV prior to starting IST. For patients from HBV-endemic regions, more hematology patients (53%) were correctly identified by their physicians as being at high risk of reactivation than rheumatology patients (2.4%, p=0.0001) or medical oncology patients (15%, p=0.009). However actual screening rates were not increased in patients from endemic regions. A total of 81 patients were screened for HBsAg; 2 were positive. Of the 33 patients screened for anti-HBc, 10 (30%) were positive.
Hematologists, rheumatologists and medical oncologists had low rates of screening for HBV prior to prescribing IST, largely due to poor identification of those at risk for infection. Risk-based screening strategies are unlikely to be effective and should be replaced by universal screening.
Display omitted
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.
Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication among patients with cancer. Patients with cancer and VTE are at a markedly increased risk for morbidity and mortality.
These evidence-based ...guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in their decisions about the prevention and treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.
ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The guideline development process was supported by updated or new systematic evidence reviews. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations.
Recommendations address mechanical and pharmacological prophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients with cancer, those undergoing a surgical procedure, and ambulatory patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. The recommendations also address the use of anticoagulation for the initial, short-term, and long-term treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.
Strong recommendations include not using thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients receiving cancer chemotherapy at low risk of VTE and to use low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. Conditional recommendations include using thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients with cancer, LMWH or fondaparinux for surgical patients with cancer, LMWH or direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) in ambulatory patients with cancer receiving systemic therapy at high risk of VTE and LMWH or DOAC for initial treatment of VTE, DOAC for the short-term treatment of VTE, and LMWH or DOAC for the long-term treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.
Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are at high risk of anemia, and phlebotomy is a potentially modifiable source of blood loss. Our objective was to quantify daily phlebotomy volume for ICU patients, ...including blood discarded as waste during vascular access, and evaluate the impact of phlebotomy volume on patient outcomes.
This was a retrospective observational cohort study between September 2014 and August 2015 at a tertiary care academic medical-surgical ICU. A prospective audit of phlebotomy practices in March 2018 was used to estimate blood waste during vascular access. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate phlebotomy volume as a predictor of ICU nadir hemoglobin < 80 g/L, and red blood cell transfusion.
There were 428 index ICU admissions, median age 64.4 yr, 41% female. Forty-four patients (10%) with major bleeding events were excluded. Mean bedside waste per blood draw (144 draws) was: 3.9 mL from arterial lines, 5.5 mL central venous lines, and 6.3 mL from peripherally inserted central catheters. Mean phlebotomy volume per patient day was 48.1 ± 22.2 mL; 33.1 ± 15.0 mL received by the lab and 15.0 ± 8.1 mL discarded as bedside waste. Multivariable regression, including age, sex, admission hemoglobin, sequential organ failure assessment score, and ICU length of stay, showed total daily phlebotomy volume was predictive of hemoglobin <80 g/L (p = 0.002), red blood cell transfusion (p<0.001), and inpatient mortality (p = 0.002). For every 5 mL increase in average daily phlebotomy the odds ratio for nadir hemoglobin <80 g/L was 1.18 (95% CI 1.07-1.31) and for red blood cell transfusion was 1.17 (95% CI 1.07-1.28).
A substantial portion of daily ICU phlebotomy is waste discarded during vascular access. Average ICU phlebotomy volume is independently associated with ICU acquired anemia and red blood cell transfusion which supports the need for phlebotomy stewardship programs.
Multiple myeloma is a haematological malignancy characterized by significant morbidity and mortality. This study sought to develop an in-depth understanding of patients' lived experiences of relapsed ...or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) and its treatment, and to identify which features of treatment were most important to them.
Qualitative interviews and focus groups (FGs) were conducted with 32 people living with RRMM across Canada. In Phase 1, interviews focused on participants' accounts of their experiences with the disease and its treatment and laid the groundwork for the FGs (Phase 2). The FGs developed a deeper understanding of patients' treatment priorities. Interview and FG transcripts were coded for emergent themes and patterns.
The interviews identified important side effects that had significant impacts on patients' lives, including physical, cognitive, and psychological/emotional side effects. Participants also identified specific treatment features (attributes) that were important to them. These were compiled into a list and used in the FGs to understand patients' priorities. Higher prioritized attributes were: life expectancy, physical and cognitive side effects, and financial impact. Mode of administration, treatment intervals, psychological side effects, and sleep/mood effects were identified as lower priorities.
RRMM and its treatments impact importantly on patients' quality-of-life across a range of domains. Patients prioritized treatment features that could enhance life expectancy, minimize side effects and offset financial burdens.
A clear articulation of patient priorities can contribute to efforts to design treatment with patients' concerns in mind, thereby promoting a more patient-centered approach to care.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation is a potentially fatal complication of chemotherapy that can be largely prevented with antiviral prophylaxis. It remains unclear whether HBV screening is cost ...effective.
A decision model was developed to compare the clinical outcomes, costs, and cost effectiveness of three HBV screening strategies for patients with lymphoma before R-CHOP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) chemotherapy: screen all patients for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg; Screen-All), screen patients identified as being at high risk for HBV infection (Screen-HR), and screen no one (Screen-None). Patients testing positive were administered antiviral therapy until 6 months after completion of chemotherapy. Those not screened were initiated on antiviral therapy only if HBV hepatitis occurred. Probabilities of HBV and lymphoma outcomes were derived from systematic literature review. A third-party payer perspective was adopted, costs were expressed in 2011 Canadian dollars, and a 1-year time horizon was used.
Screen-All was the dominant strategy. It was least costly at $32,589, compared with $32,598 for Screen-HR and $32,657 for Screen-None. It was also associated with the highest 1-year survival rate at 84.99%, compared with 84.96% for Screen-HR and 84.86% for Screen-None. The analysis was sensitive to the prevalence of HBsAg positivity in the low-risk population, with Screen-HR becoming least costly when this value was ≤ 0.20%.
In patients receiving R-CHOP for lymphoma, screening all patients for HBV reduces the rate of HBV reactivation (10-fold) and is less costly than screening only high-risk patients or screening no patients.
PDF
