Blood Research最新文献

Background: Early reports have indicated a relationship between ABO and rhesus blood group types and infection with SARS-CoV-2. We aim to examine blood group type associations with COVID-19 mortality and disease severity.

Methods: This is a retrospective chart review of patients ages 18 years or older admitted to the hospital with COVID-19 between January 2020 and December 2021. The primary outcome was COVID-19 mortality with respect to ABO blood group type. The secondary outcomes were 1. Severity of COVID-19 with respect to ABO blood group type, and 2. Rhesus factor association with COVID-19 mortality and disease severity. Disease severity was defined by degree of supplemental oxygen requirements (ambient air, low-flow, high-flow, non-invasive mechanical ventilation, and invasive mechanical ventilation).

Results: The blood type was collected on 596 patients with more than half (54%, N=322) being O+. The ABO blood type alone was not statistically associated with mortality (P=0.405), while the RH blood type was statistically associated with mortality (P<0.001). There was statistically significant association between combined ABO and RH blood type and mortality (P=0.014). Out of the mortality group, the O+ group had the highest mortality (52.3%), followed by A+ (22.8%). The combined ABO and RH blood type was statistically significantly associated with degree of supplemental oxygen requirements (P=0.005). The Kaplan-Meier curve demonstrated that Rh- patients had increased mortality.

Conclusion: ABO blood type is not associated with COVID-19 severity and mortality. Rhesus factor status is associated with COVID-19 severity and mortality. Rhesus negative patients were associated with increased mortality risk.

Background: Central nervous system (CNS) prophylactic options for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) are administered differently in most centers. Unfortunately, there is still not a consensus on which patients, which regimen, for how many cycles, and when prophylaxis should be administered. Thus, this remains an unmet clinical need.

Methods: We administered a survey study under the Lymphoma Scientific Subcommittee of the Turkish Society of Haematology. The questions were directed to hematologists through the monkey survey system.

Results: The CNS International Prognostic Index score is a factor that clinicians frequently use when deciding on prophylaxis and is considered reliable. Although the perspective on anatomical risk factors is similar to that reported in the literature, breast involvement is still considered a critical risk factor in Turkey. Participants considered double or triple hit and double/triple expressor lymphoma as significant risk factors. Various methods have been used to demonstrate CNS relapses. Intrathecal prophylaxis is the preferred method.

Conclusion: There are diverse methodological and technical ideas. The controversial results reported in the literature on the effectiveness of CNS prophylaxis may explain this finding. Although CNS prophylactic methods for patients with DLBCL are still controversial, the effect of secondary CNS involvement on survival is inevitable. Standard practices followed by national guidelines may be effective in reducing the variety of application methods and creating homogeneous results for efficacy and survival follow-up studies.

Background: The goal of induction therapy for multiple myeloma (MM) is to achieve adequate disease control. Current guidelines favor triplet (bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone; VRd) or quadruplet regimens (daratumumab, bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone; D-VTd). In the absence of a direct comparison between two treatment regimens, we conducted this study to compare the outcomes and safety of VRd and D-VTd.

Methods: Newly diagnosed MM patients aged ＞18 years who underwent induction therapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) between November 2020 and December 2021 were identified. Finally, patients with VRd (N=37) and those with D-VTd (N=43) were enrolled.

Results: After induction, 10.8% of the VRd group showed stringent complete remission (sCR), 21.6% showed complete response (CR), 35.1% showed very good partial response (VGPR), and 32.4% showed partial response (PR). Of the D-VTd group, 9.3% showed sCR, 34.9% CR, 48.8% VGPR, and 4.2% PR (VGPR or better: 67.6% in VRd vs. 93% in D-VTd, P=0.004). After ASCT, 68.6% of the VRd group showed CR or sCR, while 90.5% of the D-VTd group showed CR or sCR (P=0.016). VRd was associated with an increased incidence of skin rash (P=0.044). Other than rashes, there were no significant differences in terms of adverse events between the two groups.

Conclusion: Our study supports the use of a front-line quadruplet induction regimen containing a CD38 monoclonal antibody for transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed MM.

Background: With the emergence of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and inability of healthcare systems to control the disease, various therapeutic theories with controversial responses have been proposed. Plasmapheresis was administered as a medication. However, the knowledge of its efficacy and indications is inadequate. This study evaluated the use of plasmapheresis in critically ill patients with cancer.

Methods: This randomized clinical trial was conducted on 86 patients with malignancies, including a control group (N=41) and an intervention group (N=45) with severe COVID-19 during 2020-21. Both groups were treated with routine medications for COVID-19 management according to national guidelines, and plasmapheresis was applied to the intervention group. C-reactive protein (CRP), D-dimer, ferritin, lactate dehydrogenase, hemoglobin, and white blood cell, polymorphonuclear, lymphocyte, and platelet levels were measured at admission and at the end of plasmapheresis. Other variables included neutrophil recovery, intensive care unit admission, intubation requirements, length of hospital stay, and hospitalization outcomes.

Results: CRP(P<0.001), D-dimer (P<0.001), ferritin (P=0.039), and hemoglobin (P=0.006) levels were significantly different between the groups after the intervention. Neutrophil recovery was remarkably higher in the case than in the control group (P<0.001). However, plasmapheresis did not affect the length of hospital stay (P=0.076), which could have significantly increased survival rates (P<0.001).

Conclusion: Based on the study findings, plasmapheresis led to a significant improvement in laboratory markers and survival rate in patients with severe COVID-19. These findings reinforce the value of plasmapheresis in cancer patients as a critical population suffering from neutropenia and insufficient immune responses.