Background: The impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in haematological patients (HP) has not been comprehensively reported. Methods: We analysed 39 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection and haematological malignancies. Clinical characteristics and outcomes were compared to a matched control group of 53 non-cancer patients with COVID-19. Univariate and multivariate analyses were carried out to assess the risk factors associated with poor outcome. Results: The most frequent haematological diseases were lymphoma (30%) and multiple myeloma (30%). Eighty-seven % HP developed moderate or severe disease. Patients with haematological malignancies had a significantly higher mortality rate compared to non-cancer patients (35.9% vs 13.2%; P = .003 (odds ratio 6.652). The worst outcome was observed in chronic lymphocytic leukaemia patients. Only age >70 years and C reactive protein >10 mg/dl at admission were associated with higher risk of death (odds ratio 34.86, P = .003 and 13.56,P = .03). Persistent viral sheddind was detected in 5 HP. Active chemotherapy, viral load at diagnosis and COVID-19 therapy were not predictors of outcome. Conclusion: Mortality of COVID-19 is significantly higher in patients with haematological malignancies compared to non-cancer patients. The impact of persistent viral shedding must be considered in order to restart therapies and maintain infectious control measures.

No abstract

No abstract

The multimeric analysis (MA) of plasma von Willebrand factor (VWF) evaluates structural integrity and helps in the diagnosis of von Willebrand disease (VWD). This assay is a matter of controversy, being considered by some investigators cumbersome and only slightly informative. The centralised study ‘Molecular and Clinical Profile of von Willebrand Disease in Spain (PCM-EVW-ES)’ has been carried out by including the phenotypic assessment and the genetic analysis by next generation sequencing (NGS) of the VWF gene (VWF). The aim of the present study was to evaluate the role of MA to the diagnosis of these patients and their potential discrepancies. Two hundred and seventy out of 480 patients centrally diagnosed with VWD had normal multimers, 168 had abnormal multimers and 42 a total absence of multimers. VWF MA was of great significance in the diagnosis of 83 patients (17.3%), it was also of help in the diagnosis achieved in 365 additional patients (76%) and was not informative in 32 cases (6.7%). With regard to discrepancies, 110 out of 480 (23%) patients centrally diagnosed with VWD presented some kind of discordance between VWF:RCo/VWF:Ag and/or VWF:CB/VWF:Ag ratios, multimeric study and/or genetic results. The VWF MA was key in the presence of novel mutations as well as in cases with phenotypic discrepancies. A comparison between the contribution of MA and VWF:CB showed a clearly higher contribution of the former in the diagnostic process. These data seem to reinforce the relevance of the VWF MA in VWD diagnosis, despite all its limitations.