Hsu, Emily

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 Introduction: Ibrutinib (Imbruvica®), an oral, first-in-class covalent BTK inhibitor, is a new treatment option approved by FDA for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients (pts) with ≥1 prior therapy. We previously reported results from the phase III trial, in which ibrutinib (ibr) significantly improved progression-free and overall survival vs ofatumumab (ofa) in pts with relapsed/refractory CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) (Byrd et al. NEJM, 2014). Here, we report measures of patient well-being, including hematologic, immunologic, and quality of-life parameters, at interim analysis (IA). Methods: Pts with CLL/SLL after ≥1 prior therapy were randomized 1:1 to ibr 420 mg/day until progression or unacceptable toxicity, or to ofa for up to 24 weeks. At IA, secondary efficacy endpoints of hematologic improvement (sustained improvement ≥56 days without transfusions or growth factors) and FACiT-Fatigue (FACiT-F) outcomes were analyzed, along with exploratory endpoints assessing disease-related symptoms (DRS), serum immunoglobulin, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) by EORTC QLQ-C30, and medical resource utilization (MRU). Results: Of 391 enrolled pts (ibr n=195; ofa n=196), 63% had cytopenia(s) at baseline: 45% had anemia (hemoglobin ≤11 g/dL), 35% thrombocytopenia (platelets ≤100×109/L), and 20% neutropenia (absolute neutrophil counts [ANC] ≤1.5×109/L). On the ibr arm, 69% of pts with baseline cytopenias experienced sustained improvement in blood counts compared to 43% on ofa (P<0.0001, table). There was no decrement in serum immunoglobulins (IgA, IgG, IgM) during follow-up. IgA levels increased on the ibrutinib arm only (mean change from baseline: 41% at week 24). Immune cells CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell and NK-cell levels remained relatively stable during treatment. Mean change in FACiT-F score from baseline are shown in the figure for ibr and ofa arms. At week 24, clinically meaningful (≥3 points) improvement in FACiT-F occurred in more pts on ibr than ofa (59% vs 46%, P=0.06); clinically meaningful deterioration was reported by 14% vs 24% (P=0.08), respectively. A larger proportion of ibr vs ofa pts showed clinically meaningful improvement on EORTC-QLQ-C30 global health scores (46% vs 40%). Clinically meaningful improvement (≥10 points) from baseline to week 24 in ibr vs ofa pts was observed for fatigue (median 11 vs 0). A 50% reduction in lymph node based on IRC-assessed CT was observed in 93% (177/190 evaluable) of ibr pts compared with 17% (29/174 evaluable) of ofa pts (P< 0.0001). Splenic response based on IRC-assessed CT was reported for 85% (138/163 evaluable) of ibr pts compared with 54% (82/151 evaluable) of ofa pts. Baseline DRS were comparable between groups; however, improvement by at least 1 grade (G) post-baseline was observed in ibr relative to ofa pts for weight loss (100% vs 93%), fatigue (88% vs 72%), night sweats (95% vs 86%), and anorexia (100% vs 64%), respectively. Cumulative MRU was comparable for growth factors and transfusions, with ibr pts having longer median treatment duration: 8.6 months for ibr vs 5.3 for ofa. Hospitalizations in the first 30 days occurred in 2% ibr vs 15% ofa pts. After adjusting for treatment exposure duration, diarrhea, grade 1-2 bleeding events (e.g petechiae), and atrial fibrillation were among those noted to be more frequent on the ibrutinib arm while events such as fatigue, infusion reaction, and peripheral sensory neuropathy were seen more commonly with ofa. Major hemorrhage events were uncommon, observed in 2 patients on the ibr arm vs 3 on ofa arm without adjusting for exposure time. Exposure-adjusted analysis showed no difference in any-grade infection and a 43% relative reduction for grade 3 or higher infections for ibr. Conclusions: Ibr compared to ofa when administered to previously treated CLL/SLL pts led to improvements in hematologic function and disease burden. A survival benefit with ibr, together with sustained improvements in hematologic endpoints and PRO suggest that ibr enhances quality of life while prolonging survival. Table. Sustained hematologic improvement Parameter, n (%) ITT population Pts with cytopenias at baseline Ibr n=195 Ofa n=196 P value Ibr n=195 Ofa n=196 P value Platelets 60 (31) 19 (10) <0.0001 53/74 (72) 14/64 (22) <0.0001 ANC 52 (27) 19 (10) <0.0001 26/41 (63) 12/38 (32) 0.0047 Hemoglobin 42 (22) 32 (16) 0.1883 42/89 (47) 32/86 (37) 0.1815 Figure. Improvement in FACiT-F by treatment arm. Figure. Improvement in FACiT-F by treatment arm. Disclosures Barrientos: Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Brown:Sanofi, Onyx, Vertex, Novartis, Boehringer, GSK, Roche/Genentech, Emergent, Morphosys, Celgene, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, Gilead: Consultancy. Kay:Genetech: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Hospira: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Coutre:Janssen, Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding. Tam:Pharmacyclics and Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mulligan:Roche, Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Jaeger:Janssen Cilag: Honoraria. Devereux:Pharmacyclics, Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Robak:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Schuh:Roche, Gilead, GSK, NAPP, Celgene: Honoraria. Bloor:GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dearden:Roche, GSK, Gilead, Janssen, Napp: Honoraria. Jones:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kierschniak:Pharmacyclics, GmbH: Employment. Eckert:Pharmacyclics: Employment. Suzuki:Pharmacyclics: Employment. Hsu:Pharmacyclics: Employment. James:Pharmacyclics: Employment. Byrd:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Hillmen:Pharmacyclics, Janssen, Gilead, Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding.