4.2 Review

COVID-19 in Patients with Hematologic Malignancies: Outcomes and Options for Treatments

期刊

ACTA HAEMATOLOGICA
卷 145, 期 3, 页码 244-256

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000522436

关键词

Coronavirus disease 19; Hematologic malignancies; Outcomes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Patients with hematologic malignancies are at higher risk of severe COVID-19 and have worse outcomes compared to patients with solid tumors and the general population. Risk factors include both shared factors with the general population and cancer-specific factors. Emerging evidence suggests that specific treatments such as convalescent plasma and booster doses of COVID-19 vaccines may benefit this patient population.
Patients with hematologic malignancies are particularly vulnerable to infections due to underlying humoral and cellular immune dysfunction, cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens, advanced age, and the presence of comorbid conditions. Infection from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, the causative agent of the COVID-19 pandemic, has become a leading cause of death globally and has disproportionally affected this high-risk population. Here, we review the cumulative evidence demonstrating worse outcomes for patients with hematologic malignancies when compared to patients with solid tumors and the general population. We examine risk factors shared with the general population (age, sex, comorbid conditions, and race) and those that are cancer-specific (cytotoxic chemotherapy, progressive disease, and cancer type), all of which confer an increased risk of severe COVID-19. Despite the historical exclusion of cancer patients from COVID-19 therapy trials, we review the emerging evidence that patients with hematologic malignancies benefit from specific treatments such as convalescent plasma. Although COVID-19 vaccines are significantly less effective in this patient population, encouraging results are observed in a subset of these patients after receiving a booster dose. (C) 2022 S. Karger AG, Basel

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据