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.

No changes in hemostasis after COVID-19-heterologous vaccination schedule: A subanalysis of the phase 2 CombiVacS study.

Background: Several cases of unusual thrombotic events and thrombocytopenia were described after vaccination with recombinant adenoviral vectors encoding the spike protein antigen of SARS-CoV-2. Objectives: The objective of this study was to elucidate the impact of a COVID-19 heterologous vaccination schedule, including priming with adenovirus vaccine, on hemostasis profiles. Methods: The present study is a subanalysis of the CombiVacS clinical trial initiated in April 2021 that included adult participants previously vaccinated with a single dose of ChAdOx1-S. Between 8 and 12 weeks after vaccination, they were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive either BNT162b2 vaccine (intervention group, n = 99) or continue observation (control group, n = 50). Samples drawn before and 28 days after a vaccination with BNT162b2 were analyzed for platelet count and markers of hemostasis (D-dimer, anti-PF4 antibodies, cfDNA, PAI-1, thrombin generation, and serum capacity to activate platelets). Results: Platelet count from all participants after receiving BNT162b2 was within the normal range. Anti-PF4 antibodies were present in 26% and 18% of the subjects from the control and intervention groups, respectively, at day 28. In most cases, the levels of anti-PF4 antibodies were high before receiving BNT162b2. Serum from these participants did not activate platelets from healthy controls. There were no differences between the groups in PAI-1 and cfDNA plasma levels. According to the D-dimer plasma concentration, the thrombin generation test showed that none of the participants had a procoagulant profile. Conclusion: Our data suggest that the heterologous vaccination against COVID-19 with ChAdOx1-S and a second dose with BNT162b2 might be safe in terms of haemostasis.