Comparing Molnupiravir to Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir (Paxlovid) in the Treatment of Mild-to-Moderate COVID-19 in Immunocompromised Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir has been shown to reduce the risk of COVID-19 progression by 88% compared to placebo, while Molnupiravir reduced it by 31%. However, these two agents have not been compared head-to-head. We therefore compared the safety and efficacy of both agents for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in immunocompromised cancer patients. METHODS: We identified 240 cancer patients diagnosed with COVID-19 and treated with Molnupiravir or Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir. Patients were matched using a 1:2 ratio based on age group (18-64 years vs. ≥65) and type of cancer. The collected data included demographics, comorbidities, and treatment outcome. RESULTS: Both groups had comparable characteristics and presenting symptoms. However, dyspnea was more prevalent in the Molnupiravir group, while sore throat was more prevalent in the Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir group. The rate of disease progression was comparable in both groups by univariate and multivariable analysis. Treatment with Molnupiravir versus Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir revealed no significant difference in disease progression by multivariable analysis (adjusted OR = 1.31, 95% CI: 0.56-3.14, p = 0.70). Patients who received Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir, however, were significantly more prone to having drug-drug interactions/adverse events (30% vs. 0%, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in cancer patients, Molnupiravir was comparable to Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir in preventing progression to severe disease/death and rebound events, and it had a superior safety profile.

Long COVID in cancer patients: preponderance of symptoms in majority of patients over long time period.

Background: An increasing number of observational studies have reported the persistence of symptoms following recovery from acute COVID-19 disease in non-cancer patients. The long-term consequences of COVID-19 are not fully understood particularly in the cancer patient population. The purpose of this study is to assess post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC) in cancer patients following acute COVID-19 recovery. Methods: We identified cancer patients at MD Anderson Cancer Center who were diagnosed with COVID-19 disease between March 1, 2020, and September 1, 2020, and followed them till May 2021. To assess PASC, we collected patients reported outcomes through questionnaires that were sent to patients daily for 14 days after COVID-19 diagnosis then weekly for 3 months, and then monthly thereafter. We also reviewed patients' electronic medical records to capture the persistence or emergence of new COVID19-related symptoms reported during any clinic or hospital encounter beyond 30 days of the acute illness and up to 14 months. Results: We included 312 cancer patients with a median age of 57 years (18-86). The majority of patients had solid tumors (75%). Of the 312 patients, 188 (60%) reported long COVID-19 symptoms with a median duration of 7 months and up to 14 months after COVID-19 diagnosis. The most common symptoms reported included fatigue (82%), sleep disturbances (78%), myalgias (67%), and gastrointestinal symptoms (61%), followed by headache, altered smell or taste, dyspnea (47%), and cough (46%). A higher number of females reported a persistence of symptoms compared to males (63% vs. 37%; p=0.036). Cancer type, neutropenia, lymphocytopenia, and hospital admission during acute COVID-19 disease were comparable in both groups. Among the 188 patients with PASC, only 16 (8.5%) were re-admitted for COVID-related reasons. Conclusions: More than one out of two cancer patients, and more likely females, report PASC that may persist beyond 6 months and even 1 year. The most common symptoms are non-respiratory and consist of fatigue, sleep disturbance, myalgia, and gastrointestinal symptoms. Most of the cancer patients with PASC were managed on outpatient basis with only 8.5% requiring a COVID-19-related re-admission. Funding: This research is supported by the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute under award number P30CA016672, which supports the MD Anderson Cancer Center Clinical Trials Office. The funders had no role in study design, data collection, and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

International multicenter study comparing COVID-19 in patients with cancer to patients without cancer: Impact of risk factors and treatment modalities on survivorship.

Background: In this international multicenter study, we aimed to determine the independent risk factors associated with increased 30 day mortality and the impact of cancer and novel treatment modalities in a large group of patients with and without cancer with COVID-19 from multiple countries. Methods: We retrospectively collected de-identified data on a cohort of patients with and without cancer diagnosed with COVID-19 between January and November 2020 from 16 international centers. Results: We analyzed 3966 COVID-19 confirmed patients, 1115 with cancer and 2851 without cancer patients. Patients with cancer were more likely to be pancytopenic and have a smoking history, pulmonary disorders, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and corticosteroid use in the preceding 2 wk (p≤0.01). In addition, they were more likely to present with higher inflammatory biomarkers (D-dimer, ferritin, and procalcitonin) but were less likely to present with clinical symptoms (p≤0.01). By country-adjusted multivariable logistic regression analyses, cancer was not found to be an independent risk factor for 30 day mortality (p=0.18), whereas lymphopenia was independently associated with increased mortality in all patients and in patients with cancer. Older age (≥65y) was the strongest predictor of 30 day mortality in all patients (OR = 4.47, p<0.0001). Remdesivir was the only therapeutic agent independently associated with decreased 30 day mortality (OR = 0.64, p=0.036). Among patients on low-flow oxygen at admission, patients who received remdesivir had a lower 30 day mortality rate than those who did not (5.9 vs 17.6%; p=0.03). Conclusions: Increased 30 day all-cause mortality from COVID-19 was not independently associated with cancer but was independently associated with lymphopenia often observed in hematolgic malignancy. Remdesivir, particularly in patients with cancer receiving low-flow oxygen, can reduce 30 day all-cause mortality. Funding: National Cancer Institute and National Institutes of Health.

Prevention of device-related infections in patients with cancer: Current practice and future horizons.

Over the past several years, multifaceted advances in the management of cancer have led to a significant improvement in survival rates. Throughout patients' oncological journeys, they will likely receive one or more implantable devices for the administration of fluids and medications as well as management of various comorbidities and complications related to cancer therapy. Infections associated with these devices are frequent and complex, often necessitating device removal, increasing health care costs, negatively affecting quality of life, and complicating oncological care, usually leading to delays in further life-saving cancer therapy. Herein, the authors comprehensively review multiple evidence-based recommendations along with best practices, expert opinions, and novel approaches for the prevention of diverse device-related infections. The authors present many general principles for the prevention of these infections followed by specific device-related recommendations in a systematic manner. The continuous involvement and meaningful cooperation between regulatory entities, industry, specialty medical societies, hospitals, and infection control-targeted interventions, along with primary care and consulting health care providers, are all vital for the sustained reduction in the incidence of these preventable infections.

In vitro activity of imipenem/releactam and comparator agents against clinical bacterial isolates from patients with cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Gram-negative bacilli (GNB) are currently the predominant bacterial pathogens in patients with cancer. Many GNB have become problematic due to the widespread emergence of resistance. Imipenem/relebactam (IMI/REL) is a combination of the carbapenem imipenem with relebactam, a non-ß-lactam ß-lactamase inhibitor. It is active against most pathogenic GNB including many that are resistant to other agents. We compared its in vitro activity to six other agents against 490 GNB recovered exclusively from patients with cancer because such data are scarce. METHODS: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) microbroth dilution methods were used for susceptibility testing. Whole genome sequencing (Illumina MiSeq) was performed on 30 selected isolates. RESULTS: IMI/REL was active against 98% of Enterobacterales and 87% of non-Enterobacterales isolates (excluding Stenotrophomonas maltophilia). It had potent activity against extended spectrum ß-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and other Enterobacterales (Enterobacter cloacae, Citrobacter Spp., and Serratia Spp.) and moderate activity against carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales. IMI/REL had potent activity against Achromobacter Spp., non-multidrug resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Sphingomonas paucimobilis and moderate activity against multidrug resistant P. aeruginosa. Overall, IMI/REL was associated with the lowest number of nonsusceptible isolates compared with six other agents (imipenem, meropenem, cefepime, piperacillin/tazobactam, amikacin, and tigecycline) commonly used in patients with cancer. Whole genome sequencing performed on 30 resistant isolates (10 each of E. coli, K. pneumonia, and P. aeruginosa) did not reveal any predominant mechanism of resistance to IMI/REL. CONCLUSION: Its in vitro activity indicates that IMI/REL might have a role to play in the treatment of Gram-negative infections in patients with cancer.

Management of enterococcal central line-associated bloodstream infections in patients with cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Enterococcus species are the third most common organisms causing central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs). The management of enterococcal CLABSI, including the need for and timing of catheter removal, is not well defined. We therefore conducted this study to determine the optimal management of enterococcal CLABSI in cancer patients. METHODS: We reviewed data for 542 patients diagnosed with Enterococcus bacteremia between September 2011 to December 2018. After excluding patients without an indwelling central venous catheter (CVC), polymicrobial bacteremia or with CVC placement less than 48 h from bacteremia onset we classified the remaining 397 patients into 3 groups: Group 1 (G1) consisted of patients with CLABSI with mucosal barrier injury (MBI), Group 2 (G2) included patients with either catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) as defined in 2009 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Intravascular Catheter-Related Infection by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) or CLABSI without MBI, and Group 3 (G3) consisted of patients who did not meet the CDC criteria for CLABSI. The impact of early (< 3 days after bacteremia onset) and late (3-7 days) CVC removal was compared. The composite primary outcome included absence of microbiologic recurrence, 90-day infection-related mortality, and 90-day infection-related complications. RESULTS: Among patients in G2, CVC removal within 3 days of bacteremia onset was associated with a trend towards a better overall outcome than those whose CVCs were removed later between days 3 to 7 (success rate 88% vs 63%). However, those who had CVCs retained beyond 7 days had a similar successful outcome than those who had CVC removal < 3 days (92% vs. 88%). In G1, catheter retention (removal > 7 days) was associated with a better success rates than catheter removal between 3 and 7 days (93% vs. 67%, p = 0.003). In non-CLABSI cases (G3), CVC retention (withdrawal > 7 days) was significantly associated with a higher success rates compared to early CVC removal (< 3 days) (90% vs. 64%, p = 0.006). CONCLUSION: Catheter management in patients with enterococcal bacteremia is challenging. When CVC removal is clinically indicated in patients with enterococcal CLABSI, earlier removal in less than 3 days may be associated with better outcomes. Based on our data, we cannot make firm conclusions about whether earlier removal (< 3 days) could be associated with better outcomes in patients with Enterococcal CLABSI whose CVC withdrawal is clinically indicated. In contrast, it seemed that catheter retention was associated to higher success outcome rates. Therefore, future studies are needed to clearly assess this aspect.

Novel antimicrobial ointment for infected wound healing in an in vitro and in vivo porcine model.

Microbial contamination of wounds is a significant problem that delays healing, particularly when bacterial biofilms are present. A novel combination of pectinic acid (PG) + caprylic acid (CAP) was previously found in vitro to be highly effective in eradicating various pathogens in biofilms with minimal cytotoxicity. In this study, a novel wound ointment was formulated with PG + CAP and first assessed in vitro using a well-established biofilm eradication model. In vitro, the PG + CAP ointment was shown to be efficacious in reducing the microbial biofilms. This ointment was then tested in vivo in two pilot porcine wound healing models, with and without Staphylococcus aureus microbial challenge. Ointments were applied to each wound daily, and healing by wound closure area measurement was assessed weekly over 4 weeks. After 4 weeks, pigs were sacrificed and wounds were scored for reepithelialization, inflammation, granulation tissue, and collagen deposition. We compared PG + CAP to hydroxyethylcellulose + glycerol ointment base (control) and MediHoney (comparator). In the porcine microbial challenge model, the novel antimicrobial PG + CAP wound ointment rapidly eradicated bacterial organisms embedded in wounds, was safe and well-tolerated, and was associated with enhanced healing compared to ointment base and MediHoney. Specifically, the cumulative histopathology, reepithelialization of epidermis, and mature granulation tissue in the wound bed was significantly better with PG + CAP than with control and MediHoney treatments. This ointment warrants further study as a non-antibiotic ointment for use in treating a wide array of infected wounds.

Breakthrough Mucormycosis Developing on Mucorales-Active Antifungals Portrays a Poor Prognosis in Patients with Hematologic Cancer.

Although breakthrough mucormycosis (BT-MCR) is known to develop on mold-active antifungals without Mucorales activity, it can also occur while on Mucorales-active antifungals. Herein, we retrospectively compared the characteristics and outcomes of patients with hematologic malignancies (HMs) or hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) who developed BT-MCR on mold-active antifungals with or without Mucorales activity. Of the patients developing BT-MCR, 16 were on Mucorales-active antifungals (9 isavuconazole, 6 posaconazole, 1 amphotericin B), and 87 were on other mold-active agents (52 voriconazole, 22 echinocandins, 8 itraconazole, 5 echinocandin + voriconazole). Both groups were largely comparable in clinical characteristics. Patients developing BT-MCR while on Mucorales-active antifungals had higher 42-day mortality, from either symptom onset (63% versus 25%, p = 0.006) or treatment initiation (69% versus 39%, p = 0.028). In multivariate Cox regression analysis, exposure to Mucorales-active antifungals prior to BT-MCR had a hazard ratio of 2.40 (p = 0.015) for 42-day mortality from treatment initiation and 4.63 (p < 0.001) for 42-day mortality from symptom onset. Intensive care unit (ICU) admission and APACHE II score at diagnosis, non-recovered severe neutropenia, active HM, and amphotericin B/caspofungin combination treatment were additional independent predictors of 42-day mortality. In summary, BT-MCR on Mucorales-active antifungals portrays poor prognosis in HM/HSCT patients. Moreover, improvements in early diagnosis and treatment are urgently needed in these patients.

The Impact of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2 (ACE2) Expression on the Incidence and Severity of COVID-19 Infection.

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to an unprecedented threat to the international community and raised major concerns in terms of public health safety. Although our current understanding of the complexity of COVID-19 pathogenesis remains limited, the infection is largely mediated by the interaction of viral spike protein and angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2). The functional importance of ACE2 in different demographic and comorbid conditions may explain the significant variation in incidence and mortality of COVID-19 in vulnerable groups, and highlights its candidacy as a potential therapeutic target. We provide evidence supporting the idea that differences in incidence and severity of COVID-19 infection may be related to ACE2. Emerging data based on the prevalence and severity of COVID-19 among those with established high levels of ACE2 expression strongly support our hypothesis. Considering the burden of COVID-19 infection in these vulnerable groups and the impact of the potential therapeutic and preventive measures that would result from adopting ACE2-driven anti-viral strategies, our hypothesis may expedite global efforts to control the current COVID-19 pandemic.

Immune reconstitution and severity of COVID-19 among hematopoietic cell transplant recipients.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 can lead to life-threatening coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections in patients with hematologic malignancies, particularly among hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) recipients. We describe two patients with COVID-19 during the pre-engraftment period after HCT and review previous reports of COVID-19 in HCT recipients. Because of significant mortality from COVID-19, primarily after allogeneic HCT, early, preemptive, and optimal directed therapy may improve outcomes and reduce the mortality rate but still needs to be established in clinical trials.

Enhanced Biofilm Eradication and Reduced Cytotoxicity of a Novel Polygalacturonic and Caprylic Acid Wound Ointment Compared with Common Antiseptic Ointments.

Antiseptic wound ointments are widely used to treat dermal wounds that are microbially contaminated. Polygalacturonic acid (PG)+caprylic acid (CAP) is a novel combination that has been shown to eradicate biofilms. We developed a novel PG+CAP ointment and compared the biofilm eradication capability and cytotoxicity of PG+CAP with that of commercially available antiseptic wound ointments. We used a well-established biofilm model to quantitatively assess the eradication of organisms following exposure to the wound ointments for 2 hours. PG+CAP ointment completely eradicated Candida albicans, multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus biofilms, whereas MediHoney, polyhexamethylene biguanide (PHMB), and benzalkonium chloride (BZK) ointments failed to eradicate all biofilms within 2 hours. We assessed cytotoxicity by exposing L-929 fibroblasts to extracts of each ointment; Trypan blue exclusion was used to assess cell viability, and Alamar blue conversion was used to assess metabolic function. After exposure to PG+CAP and MediHoney, fibroblast viability was 96.23% and 95.23%, respectively (Trypan blue), and was comparable to untreated cells (98.77%). PHMB and BZK showed reduced viability (83.25% and 77.83%, respectively, p < 0.05). Metabolic activity results followed a similar pattern. Cytotoxicity of PG+CAP ointment towards erythrocytes was comparable to saline. PG+CAP ointment seems to be safe and can rapidly eradicate microbial biofilm; thus, PG+CAP ointment merits further in vivo testing as a potential antimicrobial wound ointment.

Impact of Checkpoint Inhibitor Immunotherapy, Primarily Pembrolizumab, on Infection Risk in Patients With Advanced Lung Cancer: A Comparative Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) immunotherapy has revolutionized cancer treatment. However, immune-related adverse events and the risk of infections are not well studied. To assess the infectious risk of CPIs, we evaluated the incidence of infections in lung cancer patients treated with CPIs plus conventional chemotherapy (CC) vs CC alone. METHODS: We performed a retrospective comparative study of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer who received CPIs combined with CC and those treated with CC alone at our institution during January 2016 to February 2019. We compared clinical characteristics, treatments, and outcomes including infection rate and mortality between the groups. RESULTS: We identified 123 patients for the CPI group and 147 patients for the control (CC) group. Eighteen patients (15%) in the CPI group and 33 patients (22%) in the control group developed infections (P = .1). Pneumonia was the most common infection encountered in both groups. Urinary tract infection was higher in the CC group (40%) than in the CPI group (9%) (P = .01). On multivariable analysis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (P = .024), prior use of corticosteroids (P = .021), and neutropenia (P < .001) were independent risk factors for infection and severe infection requiring hospital admission. Chronic kidney disease (P = .02), prior cancer treatment (P = .023), and neutropenia (P < .0001) were identified as independent risk factors for all-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Lung cancer patients treated with CPIs combined with CC have a comparable risk of infection to those treated with CC alone, although there is a trend towards fewer infections in those given CPIs, particularly when it comes to urinary tract infections.

Surveillance and identification of clusters of healthcare workers with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): Multidimensional interventions at a comprehensive cancer center.

BACKGROUND: Cases of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were first reported in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. In this report, we describe 3 clusters of COVID-19 infections among healthcare workers (HCWs), not associated with patient exposure, and the interventions undertaken to halt ongoing exposure and transmission at our cancer center. METHODS: A cluster of cases was defined as 2 or more cases of severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-positive COVID-19 among HCWs who work in the same unit area at the same time. Cases were identified by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction testing. Contact tracing, facility observations, and infection prevention assessments were performed to investigate the 3 clusters between March 1 and April 30, 2020, with subsequent implementation of containment strategies. RESULTS: The initial cluster involved HCWs from an ancillary services unit, with contacts traced back to a gathering in a break room in which 1 employee was symptomatic, although not yet diagnosed with COVID-19, with subsequent transmission to 7 employees. The second cluster involved 4 employees and was community related. The third cluster involved only 2 employees with possible transmission while working in the same office at the same time. A step-up approach was implemented to control the spread of infection among employees, including universal masking, enhanced cleaning, increase awareness, and surveillance testing. No nosocomial transmission to patients transpired. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first report of a hospital-based cluster of COVID-19 infections among HCWs in a cancer hospital describing our steps to mitigate further transmission.

Prevention of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device-Related Infection in Patients With Cancer: The Role of a Comprehensive Prophylactic Bundle Approach That Includes the Antimicrobial Mesh.

BACKGROUND: Oncological patients have several additional risk factors for developing a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED)-related infection. Therefore, we evaluated the clinical impact of our comprehensive bundle approach that includes the novel minocycline and rifampin antimicrobial mesh (TYRX) for the prevention of CIED infections in patients living with cancer. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all consecutive patients who had a CIED placement at our institution during 2012-2017 who received preoperative vancomycin, intraoperative pocket irrigation with bacitracin and polymyxin B, plus TYRX antimicrobial mesh, followed by postoperative oral minocycline. RESULTS: A total of 154 patients had a CIED, with 97 permanent pacemakers (PPMs), 23 implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), and 34 cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices. An underlying solid cancer was present in 62% of patients, while 38% had a hematologic malignancy. Apart from a higher proportion of surgical interventions in the PPM group than in the ICD and CRT groups (P = .007), no other oncologic variables were statistically significantly different between groups. Despite an extensive median follow-up period (interquartile range) of 21.9 (6.7-33.8) months, 16 patients (10%) had a mechanical complication, while only 2 patients (1.3%) developed a CIED infection, requiring the device to be explanted. CONCLUSIONS: Our comprehensive prophylactic bundle approach using TYRX antimicrobial mesh in an oncologic population at high risk for infections was revealed upon extensive follow-up to be both safe and effective in maintaining the rate of CIED infection at 1.3%, well within published averages in the broader population of CIED recipients.

Successful Outcomes of Severe COVID-19 in Patient with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: Diagnostic Challenges in Immunocompromised Hosts.

The emergence and spread of 2019 novel coronavirus have led to an unprecedented public health crisis around the globe, threatening the lives of millions of people. We report a severe case of COVID-19 in a patient with chronic lymphocytic leukemia and describe primarily the clinical presentation and the challenges encountered in the COVID-19 diagnosis, treatment, and specimens sampling pitfalls. This case highlights the importance of a comprehensive diagnostic approach of pneumonia in immunocompromised hosts, including timely and safe bronchoscopy, because of the broad differential diagnosis, more challenging with the current outbreak of COVID-19.