Makary, Mina S.

ImportanceSystematic data on the association between anticancer therapies and thromboembolic events (TEEs) in patients with COVID-19 are lacking.ObjectiveTo assess the association between anticancer therapy exposure within 3 months prior to COVID-19 and TEEs following COVID-19 diagnosis in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included patients who were hospitalized and had active cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data were accrued from March 2020 to December 2021 and analyzed from December 2021 to October 2022.ExposureTreatments of interest (TOIs) (endocrine therapy, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors/tyrosine kinase inhibitors [VEGFis/TKIs], immunomodulators [IMiDs], immune checkpoint inhibitors [ICIs], chemotherapy) vs reference (no systemic therapy) in 3 months prior to COVID-19.Main Outcomes and MeasuresMain outcomes were (1) venous thromboembolism (VTE) and (2) arterial thromboembolism (ATE). Secondary outcome was severity of COVID-19 (rates of intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, 30-day all-cause mortality following TEEs in TOI vs reference group) at 30-day follow-up.ResultsOf 4988 hospitalized patients with cancer (median [IQR] age, 69 [59-78] years; 2608 [52%] male), 1869 had received 1 or more TOIs. Incidence of VTE was higher in all TOI groups: endocrine therapy, 7%; VEGFis/TKIs, 10%; IMiDs, 8%; ICIs, 12%; and chemotherapy, 10%, compared with patients not receiving systemic therapies (6%). In multivariable log-binomial regression analyses, relative risk of VTE (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.69) but not ATE (aRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.56-1.16) was significantly higher in those exposed to all TOIs pooled together vs those with no exposure. Among individual drugs, ICIs were significantly associated with VTE (aRR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.01-2.07). Also noted were significant associations between VTE and active and progressing cancer (aRR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.01-2.03), history of VTE (aRR, 3.10; 95% CI, 2.38-4.04), and high-risk site of cancer (aRR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.14-1.75). Black patients had a higher risk of TEEs (aRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03-1.50) than White patients. Patients with TEEs had high intensive care unit admission (46%) and mechanical ventilation (31%) rates. Relative risk of death in patients with TEEs was higher in those exposed to TOIs vs not (aRR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.91-1.38) and was significantly associated with poor performance status (aRR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.30-2.40) and active/progressing cancer (aRR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.13-2.13).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, relative risk of developing VTE was high among patients receiving TOIs and varied by the type of therapy, underlying risk factors, and demographics, such as race and ethnicity. These findings highlight the need for close monitoring and perhaps personalized thromboprophylaxis to prevent morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19–related thromboembolism in patients with cancer.

ImportanceCytokine storm due to COVID-19 can cause high morbidity and mortality and may be more common in patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy (IO) due to immune system activation.ObjectiveTo determine the association of baseline immunosuppression and/or IO-based therapies with COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included 12 046 patients reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from March 2020 to May 2022. The CCC19 registry is a centralized international multi-institutional registry of patients with COVID-19 with a current or past diagnosis of cancer. Records analyzed included patients with active or previous cancer who had a laboratory-confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction and/or serologic findings.ExposuresImmunosuppression due to therapy; systemic anticancer therapy (IO or non-IO).Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was a 5-level ordinal scale of COVID-19 severity: no complications; hospitalized without requiring oxygen; hospitalized and required oxygen; intensive care unit admission and/or mechanical ventilation; death. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of cytokine storm.ResultsThe median age of the entire cohort was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 54-74) years and 6359 patients were female (52.8%) and 6598 (54.8%) were non-Hispanic White. A total of 599 (5.0%) patients received IO, whereas 4327 (35.9%) received non-IO systemic anticancer therapies, and 7120 (59.1%) did not receive any antineoplastic regimen within 3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Although no difference in COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm was found in the IO group compared with the untreated group in the total cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56-1.13, and aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.41-1.93, respectively), patients with baseline immunosuppression treated with IO (vs untreated) had worse COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm (aOR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.38-8.01, and aOR, 4.41; 95% CI, 1.71-11.38, respectively). Patients with immunosuppression receiving non-IO therapies (vs untreated) also had worse COVID-19 severity (aOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.36-2.35) and cytokine storm (aOR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.42-3.79).Conclusions and RelevanceThis cohort study found that in patients with cancer and COVID-19, administration of systemic anticancer therapies, especially IO, in the context of baseline immunosuppression was associated with severe clinical outcomes and the development of cytokine storm.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04354701

Abstract Objectives Two pilot studies of AR‐42, a pan‐histone deacetylase inhibitor, in human neurofibromatosis type 2 (NF2), vestibular schwannomas (VS), and meningiomas are presented. Primary endpoints included safety, and intra‐tumoral pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD). Methods Pilot 1 is a subset analysis of a phase 1 study of AR‐42 in solid tumors, which included NF2 or sporadic meningiomas. Tumor volumes and treatment‐related adverse events (TRAEs) are reported (NCT01129193). Pilot 2 is a phase 0 surgical study of AR‐42 assessing intra‐tumoral PK and PD. AR‐42 was administered for 3 weeks pre‐operatively. Plasma and tumor drug concentrations and p‐AKT expression were measured (NCT02282917). Results Pilot 1: Five patients with NF2 and two with sporadic meningiomas experienced a similar incidence of TRAEs to the overall phase I trial. The six evaluable patients had 15 tumors (8 VS, 7 meningiomas). On AR‐42, tumor volume increased in six, remained stable in eight, and decreased in one tumor. The annual percent growth rate decreased in eight, remained stable in three, and increased in four tumors. Pilot 2: Four patients with sporadic VS and one patient with meningioma experienced no grade 3/4 toxicities. Expression of p‐AKT decreased in three of four VS. All tumors had higher AR‐42 concentrations than plasma. Conclusions AR‐42 is safe. Tumor volumes showed a mixed response, but most slowed growth. On a 40‐mg regimen, drug concentrated in tumors and growth pathways were suppressed in most tumors, suggesting this may be a well‐tolerated and effective dose. A phase 2 study of AR‐42 for NF2‐associated tumors appears warranted. Level of Evidence 1b, 4.

AbstractBackgroundThe leadless Micra transcatheter‐pacing system (Micra‐TPS) is implanted via a femoral approach using a 27‐French introducer sheath. The Micra Transcutaneous Pacing Study excluded patients with inferior vena cava (IVC) filters.ObjectiveTo examine the feasibility and safety of Micra‐TPS implantation through an IVC filter.MethodsThis multicenter retrospective study included patients with an IVC filter who underwent a Micra‐TPS implantation. Data for clinical and IVC filter characteristics, preprocedure imaging, and procedural interventions were collected. The primary outcome was a successful leadless pacemaker (LP) implantation via a femoral approach in the presence of an IVC filter. Periprocedural and delayed clinical complications were also evaluated.ResultsOf the 1528 Micra‐TPS implants attempted, 23 patients (1.5%) had IVC filters. The majority (69.6%) of IVC filters were permanent. Six (26.1%) patients underwent preprocedural imaging to assess for filter patency. One patient's filter was retrieved before LP implantation. The primary outcome was achieved in 21 of 22 patients (95.5%) with an existing IVC filter. An occluded IVC precluded LP implantation in one patient. Difficulty advancing the stiff guidewire or the 27‐Fr sheath was encountered in five patients. These cases required repositioning of the wire (n = 2), gradual sheath upsizing (n = 2), or balloon dilation of the filter (n = 1). Postprocedure fluoroscopy revealed intact filters in all cases. During a median 6‐month follow‐up, there were no clinical complications related to the filter or the Micra‐TPS.ConclusionThis multicenter experience demonstrates the feasibility and safety of Micra‐TPS implantation via an IVC filter without acute procedural or delayed clinical complications.