Clinical Outcomes in Patients With COVID-19 and Hematologic Disease.

BACKGROUND: Patients with hematologic diseases are at higher risk of the SARS-CoV-2 infection and more severe clinical outcomes of the coronavirus disease. CHRONOS19 is an observational prospective cohort study with the aim to determine the short and longer-term clinical outcomes, risk factors for disease severity and mortality, and rates of postinfectious immunity in patients with malignant and nonmalignant hematologic diseases and COVID-19. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Overall, 666 patients were enrolled in the study, of which 626 were included in the final data analysis. The primary endpoint was 30-days all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints included COVID-19 complications, rates of ICU admission and mechanical ventilation, outcomes of a hematologic disease in SARS-CoV-2 infected patients, overall survival, and risk factors for disease severity and mortality. Data from 15 centers were collected at 30, 90, and 180 days after COVID-19 was diagnosed and were managed using a web-based e-data capture platform. All evaluations were performed in the pre-omicron period of COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Thirty-days all-cause mortality was 18.9%. The predominant cause of death (in 80% of cases) were COVID-19 complications. At 180 days, the majority (70%) of additional deaths were due to hematologic disease progression. At a median follow-up of 5.7 [0.03-19.04] months, 6-months overall survival was 72% [95% CI: 0.69-0.76]. One-third of patients had severe SARS-CoV-2 disease. The rate of ICU admission was 22% with 77% of these patients requiring mechanical ventilation, with poor survival rate. A univariate analysis revealed that older age (≥ 60 years), male sex, malignant hematologic disease, myelotoxic agranulocytosis, transfusion dependence, refractory disease or relapse, diabetes among comorbidities, any complications, especially ARDS alone or in combination with CRS, admission to an ICU, and mechanical ventilation were associated with higher risks of mortality. Treatment of the hematologic disease was changed, postponed, or canceled in 63% of patients. At a longer follow-up (90 and 180 days), the status of the hematologic disease changed in 7.5% of patients. CONCLUSION: Patients with hematologic disease and COVID-19 have high mortality rates, predominantly due to COVID-19 complications. At a longer-term follow-up, no significant impact of COVID-19 on the course of a hematologic disease was revealed.

Subcutaneous versus intravenous administration of bortezomib in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma: a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority study.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous injection is the standard administration route of bortezomib; however, subcutaneous administration is an important alternative. We compared the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib at the approved 1·3 mg/m(2) dose and twice per week schedule in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma. METHODS: This randomised, phase 3 study was undertaken at 53 centres in ten countries in Europe, Asia, and South America. Patients aged 18 years and older with relapsed multiple myeloma after one to three previous lines of therapy were randomly assigned to receive up to eight 21-day cycles of bortezomib 1·3 mg/m(2), on days 1, 4, 8, and 11, by subcutaneous injection or intravenous infusion. Randomisation was by an interactive voice response system based on a computer-generated randomisation schedule, stratified by number of previous lines and disease stage. Patients and treating physicians were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary objective was to show non-inferiority of subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib in terms of overall response rate (ORR) after four cycles in all patients with a diagnosis of measurable, secretory multiple myeloma who received one or more dose of drug (response-evaluable population). Non-inferiority was defined as retaining 60% of the intravenous treatment effect. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00722566, and is ongoing for long-term follow-up. FINDINGS: 222 patients were randomly assigned to receive subcutaneous (n=148) or intravenous (n=74) bortezomib. The response-evaluable population consisted of 145 patients in the subcutaneous group and 73 in the intravenous group. Patients received a median of eight cycles (range one to ten) in both groups. ORR after four cycles was 42% in both groups (61 patients in subcutaneous group and 31 in intravenous group; ORR difference -0·4%, 95% CI -14·3 to 13·5), showing non-inferiority (p=0·002). After a median follow-up of 11·8 months (IQR 7·9-16·8) in the subcutaneous group and 12·0 months (8·1-15·6) in the intravenous group, there were no significant differences in time to progression (median 10·4 months, 95% CI 8·5-11·7, vs 9·4 months, 7·6-10·6; p=0·387) and 1-year overall survival (72·6%, 95% CI 63·1-80·0, vs 76·7%, 64·1-85·4; p=0·504) with subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib. Grade 3 or worse adverse events were reported in 84 (57%) patients in the subcutaneous group versus 52 (70%) in the intravenous group; the most common were thrombocytopenia (19 [13%] vs 14 [19%]), neutropenia (26 [18%] vs 13 [18%]), and anaemia (18 [12%] vs six [8%]). Peripheral neuropathy of any grade (56 [38%] vs 39 [53%]; p=0·044), grade 2 or worse (35 [24%] vs 30 [41%]; p=0·012), and grade 3 or worse (nine [6%] vs 12 [16%]; p=0·026) was significantly less common with subcutaneous than with intravenous administration. Subcutaneous administration was locally well tolerated. INTERPRETATION: Subcutaneous bortezomib offers non-inferior efficacy to standard intravenous administration, with an improved safety profile. FUNDING: Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development, and Millennium Pharmaceuticals.