Dexamethasone treatment for COVID-19 is related to increased mortality in hematologic malignancy patients: results from the EPICOVIDEHA Registry.

Not available.

Efficacy and safety of tixagevimab/cilgavimab as passive immunisation against COVID-19 infections in patients with hematological malignancies.

Monoclonal antibodies, as tixagevimab/cilgavimab, have been introduced as prophylaxis against COVID-19 infections in high-risk populations. However, data on efficacy are limited. This study investigates efficacy and tolerability of tixagevimab/cilgavimab in hematological patients under real-life conditions. Tixagevimab/cilgavimab was administered to 155 hematological patients (March-August 2022) at two Austrian centres. S/RBD-antibody assessments were performed before (T0), four weeks (T1), and six months (T2) after application. Side effects, the occurrence of COVID-19 infections, and the course of S/RBD-antibody titres were analysed retrospectively in relation to clinical variables. 155 hematological patients, who refused tixagevimab/cilgavimab, were included as a control group to compare the frequency of COVID-19 infections. Of all immunised patients (52.3% males; 91% triple vaccinated), 25.8% had a COVID-19 breakthrough infection (76% mild) compared to 43.9% in the control group. Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL)/lymphoma were at highest risk of a COVID-19 infection (OR = 2.21; 95% CI 1.05-4.65; p = 0.037). After immunisation, a steep increase in median antibody levels (1193.4BAU/ml, IQR 0-2318.94) was observed in 67.8%, followed by a rapid decrease between T1 and T2 (465.95BAU/ml, IQR 0-1900.65.3) with the greatest declines in CLL/lymphoma (848.7BAU/ml, IQR 0-1949.6, p = 0.026). Side-effects occurred in 21.2% (CTCAE I/II). These real-world data indicate that S/RBD antibodies respond rapidly after passive immunisation in all hematological patients without safety concerns. Given the rapid decline in S/RBD antibodies, early booster immunisations should be considered for future scenarios in this vulnerable group.

Impact of familiarity with the format of the exam on performance in the OSCE of undergraduate medical students - an interventional study.

BACKGROUND: Assessments, such as summative structured examinations, aim to verify whether students have acquired the necessary competencies. It is important to familiarize students with the examination format prior to the assessment to ensure that true competency is measured. However, it is unclear whether students can demonstrate their true potential or possibly perform less effectively due to the unfamiliar examination format. Hence, we questioned whether a 10-min active familiarization in the form of simulation improved medical students´ OSCE performance. Next, we wanted to elucidate whether the effect depends on whether the familiarization procedure is active or passive. METHODS: We implemented an intervention consisting of a 10-min active simulation to prepare the students for the OSCE setting. We compared the impact of this intervention on performance to no intervention in 5th-year medical students (n = 1284) from 2018 until 2022. Recently, a passive lecture, in which the OSCE setting is explained without active participation of the students, was introduced as a comparator group. Students who participated in neither the intervention nor the passive lecture group formed the control group. The OSCE performance between the groups and the impact of gender was assessed using X2, nonparametric tests and regression analysis (total n = 362). RESULTS: We found that active familiarization of students (n = 188) yields significantly better performance compared to the passive comparator (Cohen´s d = 0.857, p < 0.001, n = 52) and control group (Cohen´s d = 0.473, p < 0.001, n = 122). In multivariate regression analysis, active intervention remained the only significant variable with a 2.945-fold increase in the probability of passing the exam (p = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: A short 10-min active intervention to familiarize students with the OSCE setting significantly improved student performance. We suggest that curricula should include simulations on the exam setting in addition to courses that increase knowledge or skills to mitigate the negative effect of nonfamiliarity with the OSCE exam setting on the students.

A human anti-matriptase-2 antibody limits iron overload, α-globin aggregates, and splenomegaly in ß-thalassemic mice.

ABSTRACT: Iron plays a major role in the deterioration of ß-thalassemia. Indeed, the high levels of transferrin saturation and iron delivered to erythroid progenitors are associated with production of α-globin precipitates that negatively affect erythropoiesis. Matriptase-2/TMPRSS6, a membrane-bound serine protease expressed in hepatocytes, negatively modulates hepcidin production and thus is a key target to prevent iron overload in ß-thalassemia. To address safety concerns raised by the suppression of Tmprss6 by antisense oligonucleotides or small interfering RNA, we tested a fully human anti-matriptase-2 antibody, RLYB331, which blocks the protease activity of matriptase-2. When administered weekly to Hbbth3/+ mice, RLYB331 induced hepcidin expression, reduced iron loading, prevented the formation of toxic α-chain/heme aggregates, reduced ros oxygen species formation, and improved reticulocytosis and splenomegaly. To increase the effectiveness of RLYB331 in ß-thalassemia treatment even further, we administered RLYB331 in combination with RAP-536L, a ligand-trapping protein that contains the extracellular domain of activin receptor type IIB and alleviates anemia by promoting differentiation of late-stage erythroid precursors. RAP-536L alone did not prevent iron overload but significantly reduced apoptosis in the erythroid populations of the bone marrow, normalized red blood cell counts, and improved hemoglobin and hematocrit levels. Interestingly, the association of RLYB331 with RAP-536L entirely reversed the ß-thalassemia phenotype in Hbbth3/+ mice and simultaneously corrected iron overload, ineffective erythropoiesis, splenomegaly, and hematological parameters, suggesting that a multifunctional molecule consisting of the fusion of RLYB331 with luspatercept (human version of RAP-536L) would allow administration of a single medication addressing simultaneously the different pathophysiological aspects of ß-thalassemia.

Survival in multiple myeloma and SARS-COV-2 infection through the COVID-19 pandemic: Results from the EPICOVIDEHA registry.

Patients affected by multiple myeloma (MM) have an increased risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and subsequent coronavirus (20)19 disease (COVID-19)-related death. The changing epidemiological and therapeutic scenarios suggest that there has been an improvement in severity and survival of COVID-19 during the different waves of the pandemic in the general population, but this has not been investigated yet in MM patients. Here we analyzed a large cohort of 1221 patients with MM and confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection observed between February 2020, and August 2022, in the EPICOVIDEHA registry from 132 centers around the world. Median follow-up was 52 days for the entire cohort and 83 days for survivors. Three-hundred and three patients died (24%) and COVID-19 was the primary reason for death of around 89% of them. Overall survival (OS) was significantly higher in vaccinated patients with both stable and active MM versus unvaccinated, while only a trend favoring vaccinated patients was observed in subjects with responsive MM. Vaccinated patients with at least 2 doses showed a better OS than those with one or no vaccine dose. Overall, according to pandemic waves, mortality rate decreased over time from 34% to 10%. In multivariable analysis, age, renal failure, active disease, hospital, and intensive care unit admission, were independently associated with a higher number of deaths, while a neutrophil count above 0.5 × 109 /L was found to be protective. This data suggests that MM patients remain at risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection even in the vaccination era, but their clinical outcome, in terms of OS, has progressively improved throughout the different viral phases of the pandemic.

[Recent findings in myelodysplastic syndrome]. / Neueste Erkenntnisse zum myelodysplastischen Syndrom.

Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) represent a heterogeneous group of myeloid disorders characterized by peripheral blood cytopenias and increased risk of transformation to acute myeloid leukemia (AML).Recent developments include the classification and the estimation of prognosis. In 2022 the former 2016 WHO classification was replaced by the ICC and WHO 2022 classification. Both classifications have included precursor lesions (CHIP and ICUS), both distinguish between three molecularly cytogenetically defined subgroups - del(5q), TP53, SF3B1 - and morphologically defined subgroups with differences in blast threshold (WHO: 20%; ICC: 10%) for the differentiation from AML. However, although prognostic factors influenced the classification-subgroups, it is important to distinguish the prognosis, which is crucial for optimal therapeutic decision making. Since 2022, the IPSS-M has been available for this purpose, which represents an expansion of the well-established IPSS-R. It could improve prognosis estimation by adding molecular data, recently this could have been confirmed in real world cohorts. The IPSS-M also represents an important extension with regard to prognosis estimation for patients with therapy-related MDS.In 2020 Luspatercept has been approved for transfusion-dependent lower risk MDS patients harboring ring sideroblasts ± an SF3B1 mutation after failure of an erythropoiesis stimulating agent. The COMMANDS trial has just reported an interim analysis, where the superiority of luspatercept in the 1st line compared to erythropoietin could be demonstrated. In addition, data from the phase III trial with Imeltelstat give reason to hope that we will be able to offer a new second-line therapy to LR-MDS patients. For higher risk MDS patients azacitidine therapy remains the standard of care, results of phase III trials of combination therapies must be awaited.

Molnupiravir compared to nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for COVID-19 in high-risk patients with haematological malignancy in Europe. A matched-paired analysis from the EPICOVIDEHA registry.

INTRODUCTION: Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir are antivirals used to prevent progression to severe SARS-CoV-2 infections and decrease hospitalisation and mortality rates. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was authorised in Europe in December 2021, whereas molnupiravir is not yet licensed in Europe as of February 2022. Molnupiravir may be an alternative to nirmatrelvir/ritonavir because it is associated with fewer drug-drug interactions and contraindications. A caveat for molnupiravir is the mode of action induces viral mutations. Mortality rate reduction with molnupiravir was less pronounced than that with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in patients without haematological malignancy. Little is known about the comparative efficacy of the two drugs in patients with haematological malignancy at high-risk of severe COVID-19. Thus, molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir were compared in a cohort of patients with haematological malignancies. METHODS: Clinical data from patients treated with molnupiravir or nirmatrelvir/ritonavir monotherapy for COVID-19 were retrieved from the EPICOVIDEHA registry. Patients treated with molnupiravir were matched by sex, age (±10 years), and severity of baseline haematological malignancy to controls treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. RESULTS: A total of 116 patients receiving molnupiravir for the clinical management of COVID-19 were matched to an equal number of controls receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. In each of the groups, 68 (59%) patients were male; with a median age of 64 years (interquartile range [IQR] 53-74) for molnupiravir recipients and 64 years (IQR 54-73) for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir recipients; 56.9% (n=66) of the patients had controlled baseline haematological malignancy, 12.9% (n=15) had stable disease, and 30.2% (n=35) had active disease at COVID-19 onset in each group. During COVID-19 infection, one third of patients from each group were admitted to hospital. Although a similar proportion of patients in the two groups were vaccinated (molnupiravir n=77, 66% vs. nirmatrelvir/ritonavir n=87, 75%), more of those treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir had received four vaccine doses (n=27, 23%) compared with those treated with molnupiravir (n=5, 4%) (P<0.001). No differences were detected in COVID-19 severity (P=0.39) or hospitalisation (P=1.0). No statistically significant differences were identified in overall mortality rate (P=0.78) or survival probability (d30 P=0.19, d60 P=0.67, d90 P=0.68, last day of follow up P=0.68). Deaths were either attributed to COVID-19, or the infection was judged by the treating physician to have contributed to death. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalisation and mortality rates with molnupiravir were comparable to those with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in high-risk patients with haematological malignancies and COVID-19. Molnupiravir is a plausible alternative to nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for COVID-19 treatment in patients with haematological malignancy.

Passive pre-exposure immunization by tixagevimab/cilgavimab in patients with hematological malignancy and COVID-19: matched-paired analysis in the EPICOVIDEHA registry.

Only few studies have analyzed the efficacy of tixagevimab/cilgavimab to prevent severe Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and related complications in hematologic malignancies (HM) patients. Here, we report cases of breakthrough COVID-19 after prophylactic tixagevimab/cilgavimab from the EPICOVIDEHA registry). We identified 47 patients that had received prophylaxis with tixagevimab/cilgavimab in the EPICOVIDEHA registry. Lymphoproliferative disorders (44/47, 93.6%) were the main underlying HM. SARS-CoV-2 strains were genotyped in 7 (14.9%) cases only, and all belonged to the omicron variant. Forty (85.1%) patients had received vaccinations prior to tixagevimab/cilgavimab, the majority of them with at least two doses. Eleven (23.4%) patients had a mild SARS-CoV-2 infection, 21 (44.7%) a moderate infection, while 8 (17.0%) had severe infection and 2 (4.3%) critical. Thirty-six (76.6%) patients were treated, either with monoclonal antibodies, antivirals, corticosteroids, or with combination schemes. Overall, 10 (21.3%) were admitted to a hospital. Among these, two (4.3%) were transferred to intensive care unit and one (2.1%) of them died. Our data seem to show that the use of tixagevimab/cilgavimab may lead to a COVID-19 severity reduction in HM patients; however, further studies should incorporate further HM patients to confirm the best drug administration strategies in immunocompromised patients.

Impact of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and monoclonal antibodies on outcome post-CD19-directed CAR T-cell therapy: an EPICOVIDEHA survey.

Patients with previous CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy have a prolonged vulnerability to viral infections. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has a great impact and has previously been shown to cause high mortality in this population. Until now, real-world data on the impact of vaccination and treatment on patients with COVID-19 after CD19-directed CAR T-cell therapy are lacking. Therefore, this multicenter, retrospective study was conducted with data from the EPICOVIDEHA survey. Sixty-four patients were identified. The overall mortality caused by COVID-19 was 31%. Patients infected with the Omicron variant had a significantly lower risk of death due to COVID-19 compared with patients infected with previous variants (7% vs 58% [P = .012]). Twenty-six patients were vaccinated at the time of the COVID-19 diagnosis. Two vaccinations showed a marked but unsignificant reduction in the risk of COVID-19-caused mortality (33.3% vs 14.2% [P = .379]). In addition, the course of the disease appears milder with less frequent intensive care unit admissions (39% vs 14% [P = .054]) and a shorter duration of hospitalization (7 vs 27.5 days [P = .022]). Of the available treatment options, only monoclonal antibodies seemed to be effective at reducing mortality from 32% to 0% (P = .036). We conclude that survival rates of CAR T-cell recipients with COVID-19 improved over time and that the combination of prior vaccination and monoclonal antibody treatment significantly reduces their risk of death. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT04733729.

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in COVID-19 patients with haematological malignancies: a report from the EPICOVIDEHA registry.

Background: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment decreases the hospitalisation rate in immunocompetent patients with COVID-19, but data on efficacy in patients with haematological malignancy are scarce. Here, we describe the outcome of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment in a large cohort of the latter patients. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study from the multicentre EPICOVIDEHA registry (NCT04733729) on patients with haematological malignancy, who were diagnosed with COVID-19 between January and September 2022. Patients receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir were compared to those who did not. A logistic regression was run to determine factors associated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir administration in our sample. Mortality between treatment groups was assessed with Kaplan-Meier survival plots after matching all the patients with a propensity score. Additionally, a Cox regression was modelled to detect factors associated with mortality in patients receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Findings: A total of 1859 patients were analysed, 117 (6%) were treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, 1742 (94%) were treated otherwise. Of 117 patients receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, 80% had received ≥1 anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose before COVID-19 onset, 13% of which received a 2nd vaccine booster. 5% were admitted to ICU. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment was associated with the presence of extrapulmonary symptoms at COVID-19 onset, for example anosmia, fever, rhinitis, or sinusitis (aOR 2.509, 95%CI 1.448-4.347) and 2nd vaccine booster (aOR 3.624, 95%CI 1.619-8.109). Chronic pulmonary disease (aOR 0.261, 95%CI 0.093-0.732) and obesity (aOR 0.105, 95%CI 0.014-0.776) were not associated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir use. After propensity score matching, day-30 mortality rate in patients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was 2%, significantly lower than in patients with SARS-CoV-2 directed treatment other than nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (11%, p = 0.036). No factor was observed explaining the mortality difference in patients after nirmatrelvir/ritonavir administration. Interpretation: Haematological malignancy patients were more likely to receive nirmatrelvir/ritonavir when reporting extrapulmonary symptoms or 2nd vaccine booster at COVID-19 onset, as opposed to chronic pulmonary disease and obesity. The mortality rate in patients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was lower than in patients with targeted drugs other than nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Funding: EPICOVIDEHA has received funds from Optics COMMIT (COVID-19 Unmet Medical Needs and Associated Research Extension) COVID-19 RFP program by GILEAD Science, United States (Project 2020-8223).

Tissue iron distribution in patients with anemia of inflammation: Results of a pilot study.

Anemia of inflammation (AI) is frequently present in subjects with inflammatory disorders, primarily caused by inflammation-driven iron retention in macrophages. So far, only limited data on qualitative and quantitative estimates of tissue iron retention in AI patients exist. We performed a prospective cohort study analyzing splenic, hepatic, pancreatic, and cardiac iron content with MRI-based R2*-relaxometry in AI patients, including subjects with concomitant true iron deficiency (AI+IDA) hospitalized between 05/2020-01/2022. Control groups were individuals without inflammation. Spleen R2* values in AI patients with ferritin ≤200 µg/L (AI+IDA) were comparable with those found in controls. In AI patients with ferritin >200 µg/L, spleen (47.6 s-1 vs. 19.3 s-1 , p < .001) and pancreatic R2* values (32.5 s-1 vs. 24.9 s-1 , p = .011) were significantly higher compared with controls, while liver and heart R2*-values did not differ. Higher spleen R2* values were associated with higher ferritin, hepcidin, CRP, and IL-6 concentrations. Spleen R2* values normalized in AI patients after recovery (23.6 s-1 vs. 47.6 s-1 , p = .008), while no changes were found in patients with baseline AI+IDA. This is the first study investigating tissue iron distribution in patients with inflammatory anemia and AI with concomitant true iron deficiency. The results support the findings in animal models demonstrating iron retention in macrophages, which are primarily accumulating in the spleen under inflammatory conditions. MRI-related iron measurement may help to better characterize actual iron needs and to define better biomarker thresholds in the diagnosis of true ID in patients with AI. It may qualify as a useful diagnostic method to estimate the need for iron supplementation and to guide therapy.

Outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Ph-neg chronic myeloproliferative neoplasms: results from the EPICOVIDEHA registry.

Background: Patients with Philadelphia-negative chronic myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) typically incur high rates of infections and both drugs and comorbidities may modulate infection risk. Objectives: The present study aims to assess the effect of immunosuppressive agents on clinical outcomes of MPN patients affected by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Design: This is an observational study. Methods: We specifically searched and analyzed MPN patients collected by EPICOVIDEHA online registry, which includes individuals with hematological malignancies diagnosed with COVID-19 since February 2020. Results: Overall, 398 patients with MPN were observed for a median of 76 days [interquartile range (IQR): 19-197] after detection of SARS-CoV2 infection. Median age was 69 years (IQR: 58-77) and 183 individuals (46%) had myelofibrosis (MF). Overall, 121 patients (30%) of the whole cohort received immunosuppressive therapies including steroids, immunomodulatory drugs, or JAK inhibitors. Hospitalization and consecutive admission to intensive care unit was required in 216 (54%) and 53 patients (13%), respectively. Risk factors for hospital admission were identified by multivariable logistic regression and include exposure to immunosuppressive therapies [odds ratio (OR): 2.186; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.357-3.519], age ⩾70 years, and comorbidities. The fatality rate was 22% overall and the risk of death was independently increased by age ⩾70 years [hazard ratio (HR): 2.191; 95% CI: 1.363-3.521], previous comorbidities, and exposure to immunosuppressive therapies before the infection (HR: 2.143; 95% CI: 1.363-3.521). Conclusion: COVID-19 infection led to a particularly dismal outcome in MPN patients receiving immunosuppressive agents or reporting multiple comorbidities. Therefore, specific preventive strategies need to be tailored for such individuals. Plain language summary: EPICOVIDEHA registry reports inferior outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with Philadelphia-negative chronic myeloproliferative neoplasms receiving immunosuppressive therapies. Patients with Philadelphia-negative chronic myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) incur high rates of infections during the course of their disease.The present study was aimed at assessing which patient characteristics predicted a worse outcome of SARS-COV-2 infection in individuals with MPN.To pursue this objective, the researchers analyzed the data collected by EPICOVIDEHA, an international online registry, which includes individuals with hematological malignancies diagnosed with COVID-19 since February 2020.The database provided clinical data of 398 patients with MPN incurring COVID-19:Patients were mostly elderly (median age was 69 years);Forty-six percent of them were affected by myelofibrosis, which is the most severe MPN;Moreover, 32% were receiving immunosuppressive therapies (JAK inhibitors, such as ruxolitinib, steroids, or immunomodulatory IMID drugs, such as thalidomide) before COVID-19.Hospitalization was required in 54% of the patients, and the risk of being hospitalized for severe COVID-19 was independently predicted byOlder age;Comorbidities;Exposure to immunosuppressive therapies.Overall, 22% of MPN patients deceased soon after COVID-19 and the risk of death was independently increased over twofold byOlder age;Comorbidities;Exposure to immunosuppressive therapies before the infection.In conclusion, COVID-19 infection led to a particularly dismal outcome in MPN patients receiving immunosuppressive agents, including JAK inhibitors, or reporting multiple comorbidities. Therefore, specific preventive strategies need to be tailored for such individuals.

Outcome of COVID-19 in allogeneic stem cell transplant recipients: Results from the EPICOVIDEHA registry.

Background: The outcome of COVID-19 in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) recipients is almost uniformely considered poor. The aim of present study was to retrospectively analyse the outcome and risk factors for mortality in a large series of patients who developed COVID-19 infection after an allogeneic HSCT. Methods: This multicenter retrospective study promoted by the European Hematology Association - Infections in Hematology Study Working Group, included 326 adult HSCT patients who had COVID-19 between January 2020 and March 2022. Results: The median time from HSCT to the diagnosis of COVID-19 was 268 days (IQR 86-713; range 0-185 days). COVID-19 severity was mild in 21% of the patients, severe in 39% and critical in 16% of the patients. In multivariable analysis factors associated with a higher risk of mortality were, age above 50 years, presence of 3 or more comorbidities, active hematologic disease at time of COVID-19 infection, development of COVID-19 within 12 months of HSCT, and severe/critical infections. Overall mortality rate was 21% (n=68): COVID-19 was the main or secondary cause of death in 16% of the patients (n=53). Conclusions: Mortality in HSCT recipients who develop COVID-19 is high and largely dependent on age, comorbidities, active hematologic disease, timing from transplant and severity of the infection.

Comparative analysis of oral and intravenous iron therapy in rat models of inflammatory anemia and iron deficiency.

Anemia is a major health issue and associated with increased morbidity. Iron deficiency anemia (IDA) is the most prevalent, followed by anemia of chronic disease (ACD). IDA and ACD often co-exist, challenging diagnosis and treatment. While iron supplementation is the first-line therapy for IDA, its optimal route of administration and the efficacy of different repletion strategies in ACD are elusive. Female Lewis rats were injected with group A streptococcal peptidoglycan-polysaccharide (PG-APS) to induce inflammatory arthritis with associated ACD and/or repeatedly phlebotomized and fed with a low iron diet to induce IDA, or a combination thereof (ACD/IDA). Iron was either supplemented by daily oral gavage of ferric maltol or by weekly intravenous (i.v.) injection of ferric carboxymaltose for up to 4 weeks. While both strategies reversed IDA, they remained ineffective to improve hemoglobin (Hb) levels in ACD, although oral iron showed slight amelioration of various erythropoiesis-associated parameters. In contrast, both iron treatments significantly increased Hb in ACD/IDA. In ACD and ACD/IDA animals, i.v. iron administration resulted in iron trapping in liver and splenic macrophages, induction of ferritin expression and increased circulating levels of the iron hormone hepcidin and the inflammatory cytokine interleukin-6, while oral iron supplementation reduced interleukin-6 levels. Thus, oral and i.v. iron resulted in divergent effects on systemic and tissue iron homeostasis and inflammation. Our results indicate that both iron supplements improve Hb in ACD/IDA, but are ineffective in ACD with pronounced inflammation, and that under the latter condition, i.v. iron is trapped in macrophages and may enhance inflammation.

Breakthrough COVID-19 in vaccinated patients with hematologic malignancies: results from the EPICOVIDEHA survey.

Limited data are available on breakthrough COVID-19 in patients with hematologic malignancy (HM) after anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination. Adult patients with HM, ≥1 dose of anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, and breakthrough COVID-19 between January 2021 and March 2022 were analyzed. A total of 1548 cases were included, mainly lymphoid malignancies (1181 cases, 76%). After viral sequencing in 753 cases (49%), the Omicron variant was prevalent (517, 68.7%). Most of the patients received ≤2 vaccine doses before COVID-19 (1419, 91%), mostly mRNA-based (1377, 89%). Overall, 906 patients (59%) received COVID-19-specific treatment. After 30-day follow-up from COVID-19 diagnosis, 143 patients (9%) died. The mortality rate in patients with the Omicron variant was 7.9%, comparable to other variants, with a significantly lower 30-day mortality rate than in the prevaccine era (31%). In the univariable analysis, older age (P < .001), active HM (P < .001), and severe and critical COVID-19 (P = .007 and P < .001, respectively) were associated with mortality. Conversely, patients receiving monoclonal antibodies, even for severe or critical COVID-19, had a lower mortality rate (P < .001). In the multivariable model, older age, active disease, critical COVID-19, and 2-3 comorbidities were correlated with a higher mortality, whereas monoclonal antibody administration, alone (P < .001) or combined with antivirals (P = .009), was protective. Although mortality is significantly lower than in the prevaccination era, breakthrough COVID-19 in HM is still associated with considerable mortality. Death rate was lower in patients who received monoclonal antibodies, alone or in combination with antivirals.