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.

An emergency department intervention to improve earlier detection of community-onset bloodstream infection among hospitalized patients.

BACKGROUND: Blood cultures (BCs) are essential microbiologic tests, but blood culturing diagnostic stewardship is frequently poor. We aimed to study the process-related failures and to evaluate the effect of an emergency department (ED) intervention on BCs collection practices and yield. METHODS: We implemented an ED-quality improvement intervention including educational sessions, phlebotomists addition, promoting single-site strategy for BC-collection and preanalytical data feedback. BC-bottles collected, positive BCs, blood volumes and documentation of collection times were measured, before (December 2021-August 2022) and after (September 2022-July 2023) intervention. Results were corrected to hospitalizations admissions or days. We used interrupted-time series analyses for comparisons. RESULTS: A total of 64,295 BC bottles were evaluated, 26,261 before and 38,034 postintervention. The median ED-BCs collected per week increased from 88 to 105 BCs (P < .0001), resulting from increased early sampling (P = .0001). Solitary BCs decreased (95%-28%), documented times increased (2.8%-25%), and average blood volume increased (3 mL to 4.5 mL) postintervention. Community-onset Bloodstream infections (BSIs) increased (39.6-52 bottles/1,000 admissions, P = .0001), while Health care-associated BSIs decreased (39-27 bottles/10,000 days, P = .0042). Contamination rates did not change. CONCLUSIONS: An ED-focused intervention based on the education sessions and single-site strategy improved culturing stewardship and facilitated the early identification of BSI without an increase in contamination.