A hybrid protocol CLAG-M, a possible player for the first-line therapy of patients with mixed phenotype acute leukemia. A Polish Adult Leukemia Group experience.

Introduction: Mixed-phenotype acute leukemia (MPAL) is a rare disease with poor prognosis. So far, no standard approach has been established as the "know-how" of MPAL is based only on retrospective analyses performed on small groups of patients. Materials and methods: In this study, a retrospective analysis of the outcomes of adult MPAL patients included in the PALG registry between 2005 and 2024 who received the CLAG-M hybrid protocol as induction or salvage therapy was performed. Results: Sixteen of 98 MPAL patients received CLAG-M: eight as first-line and eight as salvage therapy. In the first line, two patients achieved partial response (PR), and six achieved complete remission (CR), of whom four successfully underwent allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT). Two patients who did not undergo alloHSCT promptly relapsed. Within the whole group, the overall response rate (ORR) was 75% (n = 12/16). With the median follow-up of 13 months, six out of eight patients remain in CR, however, two of them died due to acute graft versus host disease. Out of eight patients who received CLAG-M in the second line, four patients (50%) obtained CR. AlloHSCT was conducted in seven cases, six of which were in CR. Only two patients remained in CR at the time of the last follow-up. Tolerance to treatment was good. The median times for severe neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were 22 days (range, 16-24) and 17 days (range, 12-24), respectively. Overall, grade 3-4 infections were observed in 12 cases, and all infections presented successful outcomes. Conclusions: CLAG-M is an effective first-line salvage regimen for MPAL with an acceptable safety profile. Early achievement of CR with prompt alloHSCT allows for satisfactory disease control.

Incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of second neoplasms in patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia: the PETHEMA-PALG experience.

The most important challenges in acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) is preventing early death and reducing long-term events, such as second neoplasms (s-NPLs). We performed a retrospective analysis of 2670 unselected APL patients, treated with PETHEMA "chemotherapy based" and "chemotherapy free" protocols. Only de novo APL patients who achieved complete remission (CR) and completed the three consolidation cycles were enrolled into the analysis. Out of 2670 APL patients, there were 118 (4.4%) who developed s-NPLs with the median latency period (between first CR and diagnosis of s-NPL) of 48.0 months (range 2.8-231.1): 43.3 (range: 2.8-113.9) for s-MDS/AML and 61.7 (range: 7.1-231.1) for solid tumour. The 5-year CI of all s-NPLs was of 4.43% and 10 years of 7.92%. Among s-NPLs, there were 58 cases of s-MDS/AML, 3 cases of other hematological neoplasms, 57 solid tumours and 1 non-identified neoplasm. The most frequent solid tumour was colorectal, lung and breast cancer. Overall, the 2-year OS from diagnosis of s-NPLs was 40.6%, with a median OS of 11.1 months. Multivariate analysis identified age of 35 years (hazard ratio = 0.2584; p < 0.0001) as an independent prognostic factor for s-NPLs. There were no significant differences in CI of s-NPLs at 5 years between chemotherapy-based vs chemotherapy-free regimens (hazard ratio = 1.09; p = 0.932). Larger series with longer follow-up are required to confirm the potential impact of ATO+ATRA regimens to reduce the incidence of s-NPLs after front-line therapy for APL.

The Usefulness of the COVID-GRAM Score in Predicting the Outcomes of Study Population with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-GRAM is a clinical risk rating score for predicting the prognosis of hospitalized COVID-19 infected patients. AIM: Our study aimed to evaluate the use of the COVID-GRAM score in patients with COVID-19 based on the data from the COronavirus in the LOwer Silesia (COLOS) registry. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study group (834 patients of Caucasian patients) was retrospectively divided into three arms according to the risk achieved on the COVID-GRAM score calculated at the time of hospital admission (between February 2020 and July 2021): low, medium, and high risk. The Omnibus chi-square test, Fisher test, and Welch ANOVA were used in the statistical analysis. Post-hoc analysis for continuous variables was performed using Tukey's correction with the Games-Howell test. Additionally, the ROC analysis was performed over time using inverse probability of censorship (IPCW) estimation. The GRAM-COVID score was estimated from the time-dependent area under the curve (AUC). RESULTS: Most patients (65%) had a low risk of complications on the COVID-GRAM scale. There were 113 patients in the high-risk group (13%). In the medium- and high-risk groups, comorbidities occurred statistically significantly more often, e.g., hypertension, diabetes, atrial fibrillation and flutter, heart failure, valvular disease, chronic kidney disease, and obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), compared to low-risk tier subjects. These individuals were also patients with a higher incidence of neurological and cardiac complications in the past. Low saturation of oxygen values on admission, changes in C-reactive protein, leukocytosis, hyperglycemia, and procalcitonin level were associated with an increased risk of death during hospitalization. The troponin level was an independent mortality factor. A change from low to medium category reduced the overall survival probability by more than 8 times and from low to high by 25 times. The factor with the strongest impact on survival was the absence of other diseases. The medium-risk patient group was more likely to require dialysis during hospitalization. The need for antibiotics was more significant in the high-risk group on the GRAM score. CONCLUSION: The COVID-GRAM score corresponds well with total mortality. The factor with the strongest impact on survival was the absence of other diseases. The worst prognosis was for patients who were unconscious during admission. Patients with higher COVID-GRAM score were significantly less likely to return to full health during follow-up. There is a continuing need to develop reliable, easy-to-adopt tools for stratifying the course of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The Usefulness of the C2HEST Risk Score in Predicting Clinical Outcomes among Hospitalized Subjects with COVID-19 and Coronary Artery Disease.

BACKGROUND: Even though coronary artery disease (CAD) is considered an independent risk factor of an unfavorable outcome of SARS-CoV-2-infection, the clinical course of COVID-19 in subjects with CAD is heterogeneous, ranging from clinically asymptomatic to fatal cases. Since the individual C2HEST components are similar to the COVID-19 risk factors, we evaluated its predictive value in CAD subjects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In total, 2183 patients hospitalized due to confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled onto this study consecutively. Based on past medical history, subjects were assigned to one of two of the study arms (CAD vs. non-CAD) and allocated to different risk strata, based on the C2HEST score. RESULTS: The CAD cohort included 228 subjects, while the non-CAD cohort consisted of 1956 patients. In-hospital, 3-month and 6-month mortality was highest in the high-risk C2HEST stratum in the CAD cohort, reaching 43.06%, 56.25% and 65.89%, respectively, whereas in the non-CAD cohort in the high-risk stratum, it reached: 26.92%, 50.77% and 64.55%. Significant differences in mortality between the C2HEST stratum in the CAD arm were observed in post hoc analysis only for medium- vs. high-risk strata. The C2HEST score in the CAD cohort could predict hypovolemic shock, pneumonia and acute heart failure during hospitalization, whereas in the non-CAD cohort, it could predict cardiovascular events (myocardial injury, acute heart failure, myocardial infract, carcinogenic shock), pneumonia, acute liver dysfunction and renal injury as well as bleedings. CONCLUSIONS: The C2HEST score is a simple, easy-to-apply tool which might be useful in risk stratification, preferably in non-CAD subjects admitted to hospital due to COVID-19.

Sex-Dependent Differences in Predictive Value of the C2HEST Score in Subjects with COVID-19-A Secondary Analysis of the COLOS Study.

Background: Since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, a growing number of evidence suggests that COVID-19 presents sex-dependent differences in clinical course and outcomes. Nevertheless, there is still an unmet need to stratify the risk for poor outcome at the beginning of hospitalization. Since individual C2HEST components are similar COVID-19 mortality risk factors, we evaluated sex-related predictive value of the score. Material and Methods: A total of 2183 medical records of consecutive patients hospitalized due to confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections were analyzed. Subjects were assigned to one of two of the study arms (male vs. female) and afterward allocated to different stratum based on the C2HEST score result. The measured outcomes included: in-hospital-mortality, three-month- and six-month-all-cause-mortality and in-hospital non-fatal adverse clinical events. Results: The C2HEST score predicted the mortality with better sensitivity in female population regarding the short- and mid-term. Among secondary outcomes, C2HEST-score revealed predictive value in both genders for pneumonia, myocardial injury, myocardial infarction, acute heart failure, cardiogenic shock, and acute kidney injury. Additionally in the male cohort, the C2HEST value predicted acute liver dysfunction and all-cause bleeding, whereas in the female arm-stroke/TIA and SIRS. Conclusion: In the present study, we demonstrated the better C2HEST-score predictive value for mortality in women and illustrated sex-dependent differences predicting non-fatal secondary outcomes.

Mortality Predictive Value of the C2HEST Score in Elderly Subjects with COVID-19-A Subanalysis of the COLOS Study.

Senility has been identified among the strongest risk predictors for unfavorable COVID-19-outcome. However, even in the elderly population, the clinical course of infection in individual patients remains unpredictable. Hence, there is an urgent need for developing a simple tool predicting adverse COVID-19-outcomes. We assumed that the C2HEST-score could predict unfavorable clinical outcomes in the elderly subjects with COVID-19-subjects. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 1047 medical records of patients at age > 65 years, hospitalized at the medical university center due to COVID-19. Subsequently, patients were divided into three categories depending on their C2HEST-score result. RESULTS: We noticed significant differences in the in-hospital and 3-month and 6-month mortality-which was the highest in high-risk-C2HEST-stratum reaching 35.7%, 54.4%, and 65.9%, respectively. The medium-risk-stratum mortalities reached 24.1% 43.4%, and 57.6% and for low-risk-stratum 14.4%, 25.8%, and 39.2% respectively. In the C2HEST-score model, a change from the low to the medium category increased the probability of death intensity approximately two-times. Subsequently, transfer from the low-risk to the high-risk-stratum raised all-cause-death-intensity 2.7-times. Analysis of the secondary outcomes revealed that the C2HEST-score has predictive value for acute kidney injury, acute heart failure, and cardiogenic shock. CONCLUSIONS: C2HEST-score analysis on admission to the hospital may predict the mortality, acute kidney injury, and acute heart failure in elderly subjects with COVID-19.

Usefulness of the C2HEST Score in Predicting the Clinical Outcomes of COVID-19 in Diabetic and Non-Diabetic Cohorts.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus is among the most frequent comorbidities worsening COVID-19 outcome. Nevertheless, there are no data regarding the optimal risk stratification of patients with diabetes and COVID-19. Since individual C2HEST components reflect the comorbidities, we assumed that the score could predict COVID-19 outcomes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 2184 medical records of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 at the medical university center were analyzed, including 473 diabetic patients and 1666 patients without any glucose or metabolic abnormalities. The variables of patients' baseline characteristics were retrieved to calculate the C2HEST score and subsequently the diabetic and non-diabetic subjects were assigned to the following categories: low-, medium- or high-risk. The measured outcomes included: in-hospital mortality; 3-month and 6-month all-cause mortality; non-fatal end of hospitalization (discharged home/sudden-deterioration/rehabilitation) and adverse in-hospital clinical events. RESULTS: A total of 194 deaths (41%) were reported in the diabetic cohort, including 115 in-hospital deaths (24.3%). The 3-month and 6-month in-hospital mortality was highest in the high-risk C2HEST stratum. The C2HEST score revealed to be more sensitive in non-diabetic-group. The estimated six-month survival probability for high-risk subjects reached 0.4 in both cohorts whereas for the low-risk group, the six-month survival probability was 0.7 in the diabetic vs. 0.85 in the non-diabetic group-levels which were maintained during whole observation period. In both cohorts, receiver operating characteristics revealed that C2HEST predicts the following: cardiogenic shock; acute heart failure; myocardial injury; and in-hospital acute kidney injury. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated the usefulness and performance of the C2HEST score in predicting the adverse COVID-19 outcomes in hospitalized diabetic subjects.