Background Patients with hematological malignancies (HM) are at high risk of mortality from SARS-CoV-2 disease 2019 (COVID-19). A better understanding of risk factors for adverse outcomes may improve clinical management in these patients. We therefore studied baseline characteristics of HM patients developing COVID-19 and analyzed predictors of mortality. Methods The survey was supported by the Scientific Working Group Infection in Hematology of the European Hematology Association (EHA). Eligible for the analysis were adult patients with HM and laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 observed between March and December 2020. Results The study sample includes 3801 cases, represented by lymphoproliferative (mainly non-Hodgkin lymphoma n = 1084, myeloma n = 684 and chronic lymphoid leukemia n = 474) and myeloproliferative malignancies (mainly acute myeloid leukemia n = 497 and myelodysplastic syndromes n = 279). Severe/critical COVID-19 was observed in 63.8% of patients (n = 2425). Overall, 2778 (73.1%) of the patients were hospitalized, 689 (18.1%) of whom were admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). Overall, 1185 patients (31.2%) died. The primary cause of death was COVID-19 in 688 patients (58.1%), HM in 173 patients (14.6%), and a combination of both COVID-19 and progressing HM in 155 patients (13.1%). Highest mortality was observed in acute myeloid leukemia (199/497, 40%) and myelodysplastic syndromes (118/279, 42.3%). The mortality rate significantly decreased between the first COVID-19 wave (March–May 2020) and the second wave (October–December 2020) (581/1427, 40.7% vs. 439/1773, 24.8%, p value < 0.0001). In the multivariable analysis, age, active malignancy, chronic cardiac disease, liver disease, renal impairment, smoking history, and ICU stay correlated with mortality. Acute myeloid leukemia was a higher mortality risk than lymphoproliferative diseases. Conclusions This survey confirms that COVID-19 patients with HM are at high risk of lethal complications. However, improved COVID-19 prevention has reduced mortality despite an increase in the number of reported cases.

Pneumonia caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 emerged in China at the end of 2019. Because of the severe immunomodulation and lymphocyte depletion caused by this virus and the subsequent administration of drugs directed at the immune system, we anticipated that patients might experience fungal superinfection. We collected data from 186 patients who had coronavirus disease–associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) worldwide during March–August 2020. Overall, 182 patients were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), including 180 with acute respiratory distress syndrome and 175 who received mechanical ventilation. CAPA was diagnosed a median of 10 days after coronavirus disease diagnosis. Aspergillus fumigatus was identified in 80.3% of patient cultures, 4 of which were azole-resistant. Most (52.7%) patients received voriconazole. In total, 52.2% of patients died; of the deaths, 33.0% were attributed to CAPA. We found that the cumulative incidence of CAPA in the ICU ranged from 1.0% to 39.1%.

Objectives Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) has emerged as a complication in critically ill COVID-19 patients. The objectives of this multinational study were to determine the prevalence of CAPA in patients with COVID-19 in intensive care units (ICU) and to investigate risk factors for CAPA as well as outcome. Methods The European Confederation of Medical Mycology (ECMM) conducted a multinational study including 20 centers from nine different countries to assess epidemiology, risk factors, and outcome of CAPA. CAPA was defined according to the 2020 ECMM/ISHAM consensus definitions. Results A total of 592 patients were included in this study, including 11 (1.9%) patients with histologically proven CAPA, 80 (13.5%) patients with probable CAPA, 18 (3%) with possible CAPA and 483 (81.6%) without CAPA. CAPA was diagnosed a median of 8 days (range 0-31) after ICU admission predominantly in older patients [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.04 per year; 95%CI 1.02-1.06] with any form of invasive respiratory support (HR 3.4; 95%CI 1.84-6.25) and receiving tocilizumab (HR 2.45; 95%CI 1.41-4.25). Median prevalence of CAPA per center was 10.7% (range 1.7%-26.8%). CAPA was associated with significantly lower 90-day ICU survival rate (29% in patients with CAPA versus 57% in patients without CAPA; Mantel-Byar p<0.001 ) and remained an independent negative prognostic variable after adjusting for other predictors of survival (HR=2.14; 95%CI: 1.59-2.87, p<=0.001 ). Conclusion Prevalence of CAPA varied between centers. CAPA was significantly more prevalent among older patients, patients receiving invasive ventilation and patients receiving tocilizumab, and was an independent strong predictor of ICU mortality.

Objectives Information on the recently COVID‐19‐associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) entity is scarce. We describe eight CAPA patients, compare them to colonised ICU patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19), and review the published literature from Western countries. Methods Prospective study (March to May, 2020) that included all COVID‐19 patients admitted to a tertiary hospital. Modified AspICU and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Mycoses Study Group (EORTC/MSG) criteria were used. Results COVID‐19‐associated pulmonary aspergillosis was diagnosed in eight patients (3.3% of 239 ICU patients), mostly affected non‐immunocompromised patients (75%) with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) receiving corticosteroids. Diagnosis was established after a median of 15 days under mechanical ventilation. Bronchoalveolar lavage was performed in two patients with positive Aspergillus fumigatus cultures and galactomannan (GM) index. Serum GM was positive in 4/8 (50%). Thoracic CT scan findings fulfilled EORTC/MSG criteria in one case. Isavuconazole was used in 4/8 cases. CAPA‐related mortality was 100% (8/8). Compared with colonised patients, CAPA subjects were administered tocilizumab more often (100% vs. 40%, p = .04), underwent longer courses of antibacterial therapy (13 vs. 5 days, p = .008), and had a higher all‐cause mortality (100% vs. 40%, p = .04). We reviewed 96 similar cases from recent publications: 59 probable CAPA (also putative according modified AspICU), 56 putative cases and 13 colonisations according AspICU algorithm; according EORTC/MSG six proven and two probable. Overall, mortality in the reviewed series was 56.3%. Conclusions COVID‐19‐associated pulmonary aspergillosis must be considered a serious and potentially life‐threatening complication in patients with severe COVID‐19 receiving immunosuppressive treatment.

Background Elevated proinflammatory cytokines are associated with greater COVID-19 severity. We aimed to assess safety and efficacy of sarilumab, an interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor, in patients with severe (requiring supplemental oxygen by nasal cannula or face mask) or critical (requiring greater supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal support) COVID-19. Methods We did a 60-day, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational phase 3 trial at 45 hospitals in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Russia, and Spain. We included adults (≥18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and pneumonia, who required oxygen supplementation or intensive care. Patients were randomly assigned (2:2:1 with permuted blocks of five) to receive intravenous sarilumab 400 mg, sarilumab 200 mg, or placebo. Patients, care providers, outcome assessors, and investigators remained masked to assigned intervention throughout the course of the study. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement of two or more points (seven point scale ranging from 1 [death] to 7 [discharged from hospital]) in the modified intention-to-treat population. The key secondary endpoint was proportion of patients alive at day 29. Safety outcomes included adverse events and laboratory assessments. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04327388 ; EudraCT, 2020-001162-12; and WHO, U1111-1249-6021. Findings Between March 28 and July 3, 2020, of 431 patients who were screened, 420 patients were randomly assigned and 416 received placebo (n=84 [20%]), sarilumab 200 mg (n=159 [38%]), or sarilumab 400 mg (n=173 [42%]). At day 29, no significant differences were seen in median time to an improvement of two or more points between placebo (12·0 days [95% CI 9·0 to 15·0]) and sarilumab 200 mg (10·0 days [9·0 to 12·0]; hazard ratio [HR] 1·03 [95% CI 0·75 to 1·40]; log-rank p=0·96) or sarilumab 400 mg (10·0 days [9·0 to 13·0]; HR 1·14 [95% CI 0·84 to 1·54]; log-rank p=0·34), or in proportions of patients alive (77 [92%] of 84 patients in the placebo group; 143 [90%] of 159 patients in the sarilumab 200 mg group; difference −1·7 [−9·3 to 5·8]; p=0·63 vs placebo; and 159 [92%] of 173 patients in the sarilumab 400 mg group; difference 0·2 [−6·9 to 7·4]; p=0·85 vs placebo). At day 29, there were numerical, non-significant survival differences between sarilumab 400 mg (88%) and placebo (79%; difference +8·9% [95% CI −7·7 to 25·5]; p=0·25) for patients who had critical disease. No unexpected safety signals were seen. The rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were 65% (55 of 84) in the placebo group, 65% (103 of 159) in the sarilumab 200 mg group, and 70% (121 of 173) in the sarilumab 400 mg group, and of those leading to death 11% (nine of 84) were in the placebo group, 1...