Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor and respiratory status of critically ill neutropenic patients with hematologic malignancies

Severe Community-Acquired Pneumonia in Immunocompromised Patients

Due to higher survival rates with good quality of life, related to new treatments in the fields of oncology, hematology, and transplantation, the number of immunocompromised patients is increasing. But these patients are at high risk of intensive care unit admission because of numerous complications. Acute respiratory failure due to severe community-acquired pneumonia is one of the leading causes of admission. In this setting, the need for invasive mechanical ventilation is up to 60%, associated with a high hospital mortality rate of around 40 to 50%. A wide range of pathogens according to the reason of immunosuppression is associated with severe pneumonia in those patients: documented bacterial pneumonia represents a third of cases, viral and fungal pneumonia both account for up to 15% of cases. For patients with an undetermined etiology despite comprehensive diagnostic workup, the hospital mortality rate is very high. Thus, a standardized diagnosis strategy should be defined to increase the diagnosis rate and prescribe the appropriate treatment. This review focuses on the benefit-to-risk ratio of invasive or noninvasive strategies, in the era of omics, for the management of critically ill immunocompromised patients with severe pneumonia in terms of diagnosis and oxygenation.

[Invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with solid tumor or hematological malignancy]

Invasive mechanical ventilation in onco-hematology patients has become relatively routine, and is now part and parcel of their care pathway. Nevertheless, specific complications and subsequent therapeutic possibilities require discussion. To a greater extent than with regard to other patient populations, cooperation between specialist and ICU physician is mandatory, the objective being to more comprehensively assess a therapeutic project before or during the period of invasive mechanical ventilation. After an overview of recent results concerning ventilated patients in intensive care, this review aims to describe the specific complications and factors associated with mortality in this population.

Higher mortality of hospitalized hematologic patients with COVID-19 compared to non-haematologic is driven by thrombotic complications and development of ARDS: an age-matched cohorts study

Background and Objectives

The characteristics of COVID-19 in haematologic patients compared to non-haematologic patients have seldom been analyzed. Our aim was to analyze whether there are differences in clinical characteristics and outcome of haematologic patients with COVID-19 as compared to non-haematologic.

Patients and methods

Retrospective cohort study in 2 University hospitals of patients admitted with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 included in the SEMICOVID19 database. The cohort with underlying haematologic disease was compared to a cohort of age and date-of-COVID-19-matched controls without haematologic disease (1:2).

Results

71 cases and 142 controls were included from March-May 2020.

Twenty (28.1%) had received recent chemotherapy. Twelve (16.9%) were stem cell transplant recipients (SCT). Eleven (15.5%) were neutropenic concurrently with COVID-19 diagnosis.

Haematologic patients presented ARDS (58.5 vs 20.7%, p = 0.0001), thrombotic complications (15.7 vs 2.1%, p = 0.002), DIC (5.7 vs 0.0%, p = 0.011), heart failure (14.3 vs 4.9%, p = 0.029) and required ICU admission (15.5 vs 2.8%, p = 0.001), MV (14.1% vs 2.1%, p 0.001), steroid (64.8 vs 33.1%, p = 0.0001), tocilizumab (33.8 vs 8.5%, p = 0.0001) or anakinra treatment (9.9% vs 0%, p = 0.0001) more often. In-hospital mortality was significantly higher (38.0% vs 18.3%, p = 0.002).

Conclusions

Our results suggest COVID-19 has worse outcomes in haematologic patients than in non-haematologic, independently of age, and that the development of ARDS and thrombotic complications drive the higher in-hospital mortality.

Outcomes of Sepsis and Septic Shock in Cancer Patients: Focus on Lactate

The number of oncological patients (OP) admitted to intensive care units (ICU) for sepsis/septic shock has dramatically increased in recent years. The definition of septic shock has been modified, adding hyperlactatemia as a severity biomarker for mortality. However, it remains poorly reported in septic OP. We performed a retrospective analysis from a prospective database of sepsis/septic shock patients admitted to our ICU between September 2017 and September 2019 and followed until day 90. We identified 251 patients and 31.9% had active oncological comorbidity, mainly solid tumor (81.3%). Septic shock criteria were met for 112 (44.6%). Hyperlactatemia was observed in 136 (54.2%) patients and this was associated with a lower survival rate. Overall 90-day mortality was 15.1%. In OP vs. non-OP, hyperlactatemia was more frequent (65% vs. 49.1%, p = 0.013) and associated with lower survival (65.4% vs. 85.7%, p = 0.046). In OP, poor performance status was also associated with lower survival (HR 7.029 [1.998-24.731], p = 0.002) In an adjusted analysis, cancer was associated with lower 90-day survival (HR 2.690 [1.402-5.160], p = 0.003). In conclusion, septic OP remains a high mortality risk group in whom lactate levels and performance status could help with better risk stratification.

Clinical deterioration during neutropenia recovery after G-CSF therapy in patient with COVID-19

Background

Granulocyte colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs) induce neutrophils proliferation and cytokines production. It has often been used to treat neutropenia without solid evidence of efficacy. It has been demonstrated that respiratory distress is associated with neutropenia recovery but not with G-CSFs. In general, G-CSFs are known to be safe and well tolerated in most clinical settings. However, the safety of G-CSFs in an overwhelming inflammatory disease like coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is largely unknown.

Case summary

We report a case with COVID-19 and neutropenia who rapidly deteriorated after administration of G-CSF.

Conclusion

We observed a faster neutropenia recovery than previously known after administration of G-CSF in our case and in three similar cases previously reported in literature. This rapid neutropenia recovery and the robust inflammatory response in COVID-19 raise concerns about G-CSF safety in patients with COVID-19.