Philadelphia-negative chronic myeloproliferative neoplasm follow-up: when the phone rings. Changes during the COVID-19 pandemic and patient satisfaction. Experience in 30 health centers in Spain.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has favored the expansion of telemedicine. Philadelphia-negative chronic myeloproliferative neoplasms (Ph-MPN) might be good candidates for virtual follow-up. In this study, we aimed to analyze the follow-up of patients with Ph-MPN in Spain during COVID-19, its effectiveness, and acceptance among patients. We present a multicenter retrospective study from 30 centers. Five hundred forty-one patients were included with a median age of 67 years (yr). With a median follow-up of 19 months, 4410 appointments were recorded. The median of visits per patient was 7 and median periodicity was 2.7 months; significantly more visits and a higher frequency of them were registered in myelofibrosis (MF) patients. 60.1% of visits were in-person, 39.5% were by telephone, and 0.3% were videocall visits, with a predominance of telephone visits for essential thrombocythemia (ET) and polycythemia vera (PV) patients over MF, as well as for younger patients (< 50 yr). The proportion of phone visits significantly decreased after the first semester of the pandemic. Pharmacological modifications were performed only in 25.7% of the visits, and, considering overall management, ET patients needed fewer global treatment changes. Telephone contact effectiveness reached 90% and only 5.4% required a complementary in-person appointment. Although 56.2% of the cohort preferred in-person visits, 90.5% of our patients claimed to be satisfied with follow-up during the pandemic, with an 83% of positive comments. In view of our results, telemedicine has proven effective and efficient, and might continue to play a complementary role in Ph-MPN patients' follow-up.

COVID-19 Outcomes in Patients with Hematologic Malignancies in the Era of COVID-19 Vaccination and the Omicron Variant.

A greater understanding of clinical trends in COVID-19 outcomes among patients with hematologic malignancies (HM) over the course of the pandemic, particularly the Omicron era, is needed. This ongoing, observational, and registry-based study with prospective data collection evaluated COVID-19 clinical severity and mortality in 1818 adult HM patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between 27 February 2020 and 1 October 2022, at 31 centers in the Madrid region of Spain. Of these, 1281 (70.5%) and 537 (29.5%) were reported in the pre-Omicron and Omicron periods, respectively. Overall, patients aged ≥70 years (odds ratio 2.16, 95% CI 1.64-2.87), with >1 comorbidity (2.44, 1.85-3.21), or with an underlying HM of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (1.64, 1.19-2.27), had greater odds of severe/critical COVID-19; odds were lower during the Omicron BA.1/BA.2 (0.28, 0.2-0.37) or BA.4/BA.5 (0.13, 0.08-0.19) periods and among patients vaccinated with one or two (0.51, 0.34-0.75) or three or four (0.22, 0.16-0.29) doses. The hospitalization rate (75.3% [963/1279], 35.7% [191/535]), rate of intensive care admission (30.0% [289/963], 14.7% [28/191]), and mortality rate overall (31.9% [409/1281], 9.9% [53/536]) and in hospitalized patients (41.3% [398/963], 22.0% [42/191]) decreased from the pre-Omicron to Omicron period. Age ≥70 years was the only factor associated with higher mortality risk in both the pre-Omicron (hazard ratio 2.57, 95% CI 2.03-3.25) and Omicron (3.19, 95% CI 1.59-6.42) periods. Receipt of prior stem cell transplantation, COVID-19 vaccination(s), and treatment with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir or remdesivir were associated with greater survival rates. In conclusion, COVID-19 mortality in HM patients has decreased considerably in the Omicron period; however, mortality in hospitalized HM patients remains high. Specific studies should be undertaken to test new treatments and preventive interventions in HM patients.

COVID-19 Severity and Survival over Time in Patients with Hematologic Malignancies: A Population-Based Registry Study.

Mortality rates for COVID-19 have declined over time in the general population, but data in patients with hematologic malignancies are contradictory. We identified independent prognostic factors for COVID-19 severity and survival in unvaccinated patients with hematologic malignancies, compared mortality rates over time and versus non-cancer inpatients, and investigated post COVID-19 condition. Data were analyzed from 1166 consecutive, eligible patients with hematologic malignancies from the population-based HEMATO-MADRID registry, Spain, with COVID-19 prior to vaccination roll-out, stratified into early (February-June 2020; n = 769 (66%)) and later (July 2020-February 2021; n = 397 (34%)) cohorts. Propensity-score matched non-cancer patients were identified from the SEMI-COVID registry. A lower proportion of patients were hospitalized in the later waves (54.2%) compared to the earlier (88.6%), OR 0.15, 95%CI 0.11-0.20. The proportion of hospitalized patients admitted to the ICU was higher in the later cohort (103/215, 47.9%) compared with the early cohort (170/681, 25.0%, 2.77; 2.01-3.82). The reduced 30-day mortality between early and later cohorts of non-cancer inpatients (29.6% vs. 12.6%, OR 0.34; 0.22-0.53) was not paralleled in inpatients with hematologic malignancies (32.3% vs. 34.8%, OR 1.12; 0.81-1.5). Among evaluable patients, 27.3% had post COVID-19 condition. These findings will help inform evidence-based preventive and therapeutic strategies for patients with hematologic malignancies and COVID-19 diagnosis.

Risk Factors and Mortality of COVID-19 in Patients With Lymphoma: A Multicenter Study.

Patients with cancer are poorly represented in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) series, and heterogeneous series concerning hematology patients have been published. This study aimed to analyze the impact of COVID-19 in patients with lymphoma. We present a multicenter retrospective study from 19 centers in Madrid, Spain, evaluating risk factors for mortality in adult patients with COVID-19 and lymphoma. About 177 patients (55.9% male) were included with a median follow-up of 27 days and a median age of 70 years. At the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, 49.7% of patients were on active treatment. The overall mortality rate was 34.5%. Age >70 years, confusion, urea concentration, respiratory rate, blood pressure, and age >65 score ≥2, heart disease, and chronic kidney disease were associated with higher mortality risk (P < 0.05). Active disease significantly increased the risk of death (hazard ratio, 2.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-4.77; P = 0.01). However, active treatment did not modify mortality risk and no differences were found between the different therapeutic regimens. The persistence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-positive polymerase chain reaction after week 6 was significantly associated with mortality (54.5% versus 1.4%; P < 0.001). We confirm an increased mortality compared with the general population. In view of our results, any interruption or delay in the start of treatment should be questioned given that active treatment has not been demonstrated to increase mortality risk and that achieving disease remission could lead to better outcomes.

Use of anti-CD20 therapy in follicular and marginal zone lymphoma: a review of the literature.

The identification of the CD20 antigen in 1979 was the first step in what would become a therapeutic milestone opening the use of immunotherapy in hematological diseases. This protein is expressed on the surface of developing B cells, but not the early progenitors or mature plasma cells. In 1997, rituximab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration, and since then it has revolutionized the treatment of B-cell malignancies. It is used as a monotherapy and in combination, at induction, at relapsed, and also in maintenance. Indolent non-Hodgkin lymphomas are characterized by a long and non-aggressive course. In this group of lymphomas, rituximab represented a great therapeutic improvement, achieving lasting responses with few adverse effects. Nowadays, second-generation molecules are emerging that may have important advantages compared to rituximab, as well as biosimilars that represent an important cost-effective option.