Characterisation of clinical, laboratory and imaging factors related to mild vs. severe covid-19 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Early Outcomes of the Surgical Treatment of Non-traumatic Massive Pericardial Effusion in the University of the Philippines - Philippine General Hospital COVID-19 Referral Center

Objective

To describe the treatment outcomes of patients who underwent tube pericardiostomy for all etiologies of non-traumatic massive pericardial effusion or tamponade during the COVID-19 pandemic and determine the association between patient profile and treatment outcomes.

Methods

Data were obtained from patients with massive pericardial effusion or cardiac tamponade who underwent surgical drainage from January 1, 2020, to September 1, 2022, in the University of the Philippines - Philippine General Hospital (UP-PGH). These patients' demographic and clinical profiles, and treatment outcomes were evaluated using frequencies and percentages. Chi-squared and Fisher's tests determined the differences between COVID (+) and (-) groups. Odds Ratio was used to assess the risk of complications and mortality.

Results

The study population comprised 90 patients with a mean age of 45 years. 54.4% were females. Fifteen (16.67%) were COVID-19 (+) and 75 (83.33%) were COVID-19 (-). Most of the patients were of O+ blood type (34.4%), with no smoking history (67.8%) and no COVID-19 vaccination (76.7%). Common comorbidities were cancer (70%), tuberculosis infection (32.2%), and hypertension (25.6%). No significant difference was found between the two study groups. The presentation was subacute (one week to three months) (62.2%), with the most common symptoms of dyspnea (81.1%), orthopnea (61.1%), and cough (52.2%). Tachycardia (80%) and tachypnea (57.8%) were the most common presenting signs. Hypotension was found more frequently among COVID-19 (+) patients (46.7% vs. 12.0%, p = 0,003, 95% CI). Most patients had abnormal WBC, coagulopathy, elevated inflammatory markers, and cardiac biomarkers. Sinus tachycardia, regular sinus rhythm, ST-T wave changes, and low voltage QRS were common ECG findings. The most common chest X-ray results were pleural effusion (80%), pneumonia (71.1%), and enlarged cardiac border (42.2%). Majority of echocardiographic findings were large effusion (>2 cm) (97.8%), RV collapse (40%), and RA collapse (23.3%). An average of 628 ml of pericardial effusion was drained, predominantly serous and exudative. One specimen yielded a positive AFB culture. 6.7% showed carcinoma cells on fluid cytology. The pericardium was normal in 78.9%. 10.0% of the pericardial biopsy specimen had carcinoma, with metastatic cancer being the most common etiology. The most common cancers were lymphoma (22.7%), breast (25.8%), and lung (16.7%). Hospital length of stay was 18 days in COVID-19 (+) patients and 12 days in COVID (-). The complication and in-hospital mortality rate in the COVID-19 (+) compared to the (-) group (86.7% vs. 73.3% and 46.7% vs. 41.3%, respectively) were not statistically significant. The most common complications were respiratory failure (60%), shock (53.3%), and nosocomial pneumonia (40%). There was no association between clinical factors and the risk for complications. Any complication increased the risk for mortality (OR 15.0, 95% CI 3.2-19.7, p=0.002). The presence of hypertension (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.4, p=0.001) and subacute duration (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.09 -0.9, p=0.045) decreased the mortality risk.

Conclusions

Profiles were similar in both groups. There was no association between patient profile and complications. Having COVID-19 did not affect patient outcome. The presence of any complication increases the risk of mortality. In-hospital mortality was high at 42.2%.

Several laboratory variables indicate severity and prognosis of COVID-19

OBJECTIVE

While several laboratory variables have been used to assess COVID-19 disease, to our knowledge, no attempt has previously been made to compare differences across different patient groups. We attempted to evaluate the relationship between laboratory variables and severity of the disease as well as on prognosis.

METHOD

We searched BioLINCC database and identified three studies which had separately included outpatients, inpatients, and ICU patients. For this re-analysis, we extracted data on general demography, laboratory variables and outcome.

RESULT

In total, 2454 participants (496 outpatients [Study 1], 478 inpatients [Study 2], and 1480 ICU patients [Study 3]) were included in the analysis. We found three laboratory variables (i.e., creatinine, aspartate transferase, and albumin) were not only prognostic factors for outcome of inpatients with COVID-19, but also reflected disease severity as they were significantly different between inpatients and ICU patients. These three laboratory variables are an indication of kidney function, liver function, and nutritional status.

CONCLUSION

For patients with COVID-19, in addition to monitoring infectious disease indicators, we need to pay attention to liver function, renal function, and take timely measures to correct them to improve prognosis.

Incidence and Outcomes Associated with Menopausal Status in COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

 Menopause causes several changes in the body that may affect the response to COVID -19. We aimed to investigate the possible association between menopausal status and incidence and outcomes in COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

 Combinations of keywordsCOVID-19, menopause, and estrogen were used to search the PubMed, Embase, Web-of-Science, and Scopus databases for articles reporting the incidence and outcomes of COVID-19 (discharge, length-of-admission, intensive care, or mortality) in premenopausal women, available through December 29, 2022. Data from studies comparing the incidence of COVID-19 infection with the age-matched male population were pooled and meta-analyzed using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

 Overall, 1,564 studies were retrieved, of which 12 were finally included in the systematic review to compare disease outcomes, and 6 were meta-analyzed for the incidence of COVID-19 in premenopausal and postmenopausal women. All studies reported better COVID-19-associated outcomes in premenopausal women compared with postmenopausal women. After adjusting for confounding factors, three studies found better outcomes in postmenopausal women, and two found no association between menopausal status and COVID-19 outcomes. Our meta-analysis found a higher incidence of COVID-19 infection among premenopausal women than postmenopausal women, when compared with age-matched men (odds ratio = 1.270; 95% confidence interval: 1.086-1.486; p = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

 The incidence of COVID-19 was significantly higher in premenopausal women than in postmenopausal women when compared with age-matched men. Although premenopausal women may have more favorable COVID-19-associated outcomes, the presumed preventive effect of estrogens on the incidence and related outcomes of COVID-19 in premenopausal women cannot be proven at present. Further longitudinal studies comparing pre- and post-menopausal women are required to provide further insight into this matter.

C-reactive protein and clinical outcome in COVID-19 patients: the importance of harmonized measurements

C-reactive protein (CRP) is a cytokine-mediated acute phase reactant with a recognized role in inflammatory conditions and infectious disease. In coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), elevated CRP concentrations in serum were frequently detected and significantly associated with poor outcome in terms of disease severity, need for intensive care, and in-hospital death. For these reasons, the marker was proposed as a powerful test for prognostic classification of COVID-19 patients. In most of available publications, there was however confounding information about how interpretative criteria for CRP in COVID-19 should be derived, including quality of employed assays and optimal cut-off definition. Assuring result harmonization and controlling measurement uncertainty in terms of performance specifications are fundamental to allow worldwide application of clinical information according to specific CRP thresholds and to avoid risk of patient misclassification.

Clinical Phenotypes and Mortality Biomarkers: A Study Focused on COVID-19 Patients with Neurological Diseases in Intensive Care Units

Purpose: To identify clinical phenotypes and biomarkers for best mortality prediction considering age, symptoms and comorbidities in COVID-19 patients with chronic neurological diseases in intensive care units (ICUs). Subjects and Methods: Data included 1252 COVID-19 patients admitted to ICUs in Cuba between January and August 2021. A k-means algorithm based on unsupervised learning was used to identify clinical patterns related to symptoms, comorbidities and age. The Stable Sparse Classifiers procedure (SSC) was employed for predicting mortality. The classification performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC). Results: Six phenotypes using a modified v-fold cross validation for the k-means algorithm were identified: phenotype class 1, mean age 72.3 years (ys)-hypertension and coronary artery disease, alongside typical COVID-19 symptoms; class 2, mean age 63 ys-asthma, cough and fever; class 3, mean age 74.5 ys-hypertension, diabetes and cough; class 4, mean age 67.8 ys-hypertension and no symptoms; class 5, mean age 53 ys-cough and no comorbidities; class 6, mean age 60 ys-without symptoms or comorbidities. The chronic neurological disease (CND) percentage was distributed in the six phenotypes, predominantly in phenotypes of classes 3 (24.72%) and 4 (35,39%); χ² (5) 11.0129 p = 0.051134. The cerebrovascular disease was concentrated in classes 3 and 4; χ² (5) = 36.63, p = 0.000001. The mortality rate totaled 325 (25.79%), of which 56 (17.23%) had chronic neurological diseases. The highest in-hospital mortality rates were found in phenotypes 1 (37.22%) and 3 (33.98%). The SSC revealed that a neurological symptom (ageusia), together with two neurological diseases (cerebrovascular disease and Parkinson's disease), and in addition to ICU days, age and specific symptoms (fever, cough, dyspnea and chilliness) as well as particular comorbidities (hypertension, diabetes and asthma) indicated the best prediction performance (AUC = 0.67). Conclusions: The identification of clinical phenotypes and mortality biomarkers using practical variables and robust statistical methodologies make several noteworthy contributions to basic and experimental investigations for distinguishing the COVID-19 clinical spectrum and predicting mortality.

Incidence of bloodstream infections in patients with COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study of risk factors and outcomes

Introduction

Prior evidence found that bloodstream infections (BSIs) are common in viral respiratory infections and can lead to heightened morbidity and mortality. We described the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of BSIs in patients with COVID-19.

Methods

This was a single-center retrospective cohort study of adults consecutively admitted from March to June 2020 for COVID-19 with BSIs. Data were collected by electronic medical record review. BSIs were defined as positive blood cultures (BCs) with a known pathogen in one or more BCs or the same commensal organism in two or more BCs.

Results

We evaluated 290 patients with BCs done; 39 (13.4%) had a positive result. In univariable analysis, male sex, black/African American race, admission from a facility, hemiplegia, altered mental status, and a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index were positively associated with positive BCs, whereas obesity and systolic blood pressure (SBP) were negatively associated. Patients with positive BCs were more likely to have severe COVID-19, be admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), require mechanical ventilation, have septic shock, and higher mortality. In multivariable logistic regression, factors that were independent predictors of positive BCs were male sex (OR=2.8, p=0.030), hypoalbuminemia (OR=3.3, p=0.013), ICU admission (OR=5.3, p<0.001), SBP<100 mmHg (OR=3.7, p=0.021) and having a procedure (OR=10.5, p=0.019). Patients with an abnormal chest X-ray on admission were less likely to have positive BCs (OR=0.3, p=0.007).

Conclusions

We found that male sex, abnormal chest X-ray, low SBP, and hypoalbuminemia upon hospital admission, admission to ICU, and having a procedure during hospitalization were independent predictors of BSIs in patients with COVID-19.

Proportion of Hematological Cancer Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infection during the COVID-19 Pandemic: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction

The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) has emerged as a novel infection which has spread rapidly across the globe and currently presents a grave threat to the health of the cancer patient.

Objective

The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the proportion of hematological cancer patients with the SARS-CoV-2 infection during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Method

A comprehensive literature review was performed on PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, EKB SciELO, SID, CNKI and Wanfang databases to retrieve all relevant publications up to January 31, 2021. Observational studies, consecutive case-series and case-control studies were included. The proportion for hematological cancer patients with COVID-19 was estimated using the odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence interval (95% CIs).

Results

Fourteen studies with a total of 3,770 infected cancer patients and 685 hematological cancer cases with COVID-19 were selected. Combined data revealed that the overall proportion of hematological cancer patients with COVID-19 was 16.5% (95% CI 0.130 - 0.208, p ≤ 0.001). The stratified analysis by ethnicity showed that the proportion was 18.8% and 12.4% in Caucasian and Asian hematological cancer patients with COVID-19, respectively. Moreover, subgroup analysis by country of origin showed that its proportion was the highest in the United Kingdom (22.5%), followed by France (17.1%) and China (8.2%).

Conclusion

This meta-analysis result indicated that the proportion of hematological cancer patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection during the COVID-19 pandemic was 16.5%. Further larger sample sizes and multicenter studies among different ethnic groups are necessary to get a better assessment of the proportion.

Cardiovascular risk factors, cardiovascular disease, and COVID-19: an umbrella review of systematic reviews

AIMS

To consolidate evidence to determine (i) the association between cardiovascular risk factors and health outcomes with coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19); and (ii) the impact of COVID-19 on cardiovascular health.

METHODS AND RESULTS

An umbrella review of systematic reviews was conducted. Fourteen medical databases and pre-print servers were searched from 1 January 2020 to 5 November 2020. The review focused on reviews rated as moderate or high-quality using the AMSTAR 2 tool. Eighty-four reviews were identified; 31 reviews were assessed as moderate quality and one was high-quality. The following risk factors were associated with higher mortality and severe COVID-19: renal disease [odds ratio (OR) (95% confidence interval) for mortality 3.07 (2.43-3.88)], diabetes mellitus [OR 2.09 (1.80-2.42)], hypertension [OR 2.50 (2.02-3.11)], smoking history [risk ratio (RR) 1.26 (1.20-1.32)], cerebrovascular disease [RR 2.75 (1.54-4.89)], and cardiovascular disease [OR 2.65 (1.86-3.78)]. Liver disease was associated with higher odds of mortality [OR 2.81 (1.31-6.01)], but not severe COVID-19. Current smoking was associated with a higher risk of severe COVID-19 [RR 1.80 (1.14-2.85)], but not mortality. Obesity associated with higher odds of mortality [OR 2.18 (1.10-4.34)], but there was an absence of evidence for severe COVID-19. In patients hospitalized with COVID-19, the following incident cardiovascular complications were identified: acute heart failure (2%), myocardial infarction (4%), deep vein thrombosis (7%), myocardial injury (10%), angina (10%), arrhythmias (18%), pulmonary embolism (19%), and venous thromboembolism (25%).

CONCLUSION

Many of the risk factors identified as associated with adverse outcomes with COVID-19 are potentially modifiable. Primary and secondary prevention strategies that target cardiovascular risk factors may improve outcomes for people following COVID-19.

Gut Microbiota Diversity and C-Reactive Protein Are Predictors of Disease Severity in COVID-19 Patients

The risk factors for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) severity are still poorly understood. Considering the pivotal role of the gut microbiota on host immune and inflammatory functions, we investigated the association between changes in the gut microbiota composition and the clinical severity of COVID-19. We conducted a multicenter cross-sectional study prospectively enrolling 115 COVID-19 patients categorized according to: (1) the WHO Clinical Progression Scale-mild, 19 (16.5%); moderate, 37 (32.2%); or severe, 59 (51.3%), and (2) the location of recovery from COVID-19-ambulatory, 14 (household isolation, 12.2%); hospitalized in ward, 40 (34.8%); or hospitalized in the intensive care unit, 61 (53.0%). Gut microbiota analysis was performed through 16S rRNA gene sequencing, and the data obtained were further related to the clinical parameters of COVID-19 patients. The risk factors for COVID-19 severity were identified by univariate and multivariable logistic regression models. In comparison to mild COVID-19 patients, the gut microbiota of moderate and severe patients have: (a) lower Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes ratio; (b) higher abundance of Proteobacteria; and (c) lower abundance of beneficial butyrate-producing bacteria such as the genera Roseburia and Lachnospira. Multivariable regression analysis showed that the Shannon diversity index [odds ratio (OR) = 2.85, 95% CI = 1.09-7.41, p = 0.032) and C-reactive protein (OR = 3.45, 95% CI = 1.33-8.91, p = 0.011) are risk factors for severe COVID-19 (a score of 6 or higher in the WHO Clinical Progression Scale). In conclusion, our results demonstrated that hospitalized patients with moderate and severe COVID-19 have microbial signatures of gut dysbiosis; for the first time, the gut microbiota diversity is pointed out as a prognostic biomarker of COVID-19 severity.

Diabetes is most important cause for mortality in COVID-19 hospitalized patients: Systematic review and meta-analysis

The presence of SARS-CoV-2 was officially documented in Europe at the end of February 2020. Despite many observations, the real impact of COVID-19 in the European Union (EU), its underlying factors and their contribution to mortality and morbidity outcomes were never systematically investigated. The aim of the present work is to provide an overview and a meta-analysis of main predictors and of country differences of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection-associated mortality rate (MR) in hospitalized patients. Out of 3714 retrieved articles, 87 studies were considered, including 35,486 patients (mean age 60.9 ± 8.2 years) and 5867 deaths. After adjustment for confounders, diabetes mellitus was the best predictors of MR in an age- and sex-dependent manner, followed by chronic pulmonary obstructive diseases and malignancies. In both the US and Europe, MR was higher than that reported in Asia (25[20;29] % and 20[17;23] % vs. 13[10;17]%; both p < 0.02). Among clinical parameters, dyspnea, fatigue and myalgia, along with respiratory rate, emerged as the best predictors of MR. Finally, reduced lymphocyte and platelet count, along with increased D-dimer levels, all significantly contributed to increased mortality. The optimization of glucose profile along with an adequate thrombotic complications preventive strategy must become routine practice in diseased SARS-CoV-2 infected patients.

Serological surveillance of SARS-CoV-2: Six-month trends and antibody response in a cohort of public health workers

BACKGROUND

Antibody waning after SARS-CoV-2 infection may result in reduction in long-term immunity following natural infection and vaccination, and is therefore a major public health issue. We undertook prospective serosurveillance in a large cohort of healthy adults from the start of the epidemic in England.

METHODS

Clinical and non-clinical healthcare workers were recruited across three English regions and tested monthly from March to November 2020 for SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein and nucleoprotein (N) antibodies using five different immunoassays. In positive individuals, antibody responses and long-term trends were modelled using mixed effects regression.

FINDINGS

In total, 2246 individuals attended 12,247 visits and 264 were seropositive in ≥ 2 assays. Most seroconversions occurred between March and April 2020. The assays showed > 85% agreement for ever-positivity, although this changed markedly over time. Antibodies were detected earlier with Abbott (N) but declined rapidly thereafter. With the EuroImmun (S) and receptor-binding domain (RBD) assays, responses increased for 4 weeks then fell until week 12-16 before stabilising. For Roche (N), responses increased until 8 weeks, stabilised, then declined, but most remained above the positive threshold. For Roche (S), responses continued to climb over the full 24 weeks, with no sero-reversions. Predicted proportions sero-reverting after 52 weeks were 100% for Abbott, 59% (95% credible interval 50-68%) Euroimmun, 41% (30-52%) RBD, 10% (8-14%) Roche (N) < 2% Roche (S).

INTERPRETATION

Trends in SARS-CoV-2 antibodies following infection are highly dependent on the assay used. Ongoing serosurveillance using multiple assays is critical for monitoring the course and long-term progression of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.

Clinical and virological characteristics of hospitalised COVID-19 patients in a German tertiary care centre during the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: a prospective observational study

Purpose

Adequate patient allocation is pivotal for optimal resource management in strained healthcare systems, and requires detailed knowledge of clinical and virological disease trajectories. The purpose of this work was to identify risk factors associated with need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), to analyse viral kinetics in patients with and without IMV and to provide a comprehensive description of clinical course.

Methods

A cohort of 168 hospitalised adult COVID-19 patients enrolled in a prospective observational study at a large European tertiary care centre was analysed.

Results

Forty-four per cent (71/161) of patients required invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Shorter duration of symptoms before admission (aOR 1.22 per day less, 95% CI 1.10–1.37, p < 0.01) and history of hypertension (aOR 5.55, 95% CI 2.00–16.82, p < 0.01) were associated with need for IMV. Patients on IMV had higher maximal concentrations, slower decline rates, and longer shedding of SARS-CoV-2 than non-IMV patients (33 days, IQR 26–46.75, vs 18 days, IQR 16–46.75, respectively, p < 0.01). Median duration of hospitalisation was 9 days (IQR 6–15.5) for non-IMV and 49.5 days (IQR 36.8–82.5) for IMV patients.

Conclusions

Our results indicate a short duration of symptoms before admission as a risk factor for severe disease that merits further investigation and different viral load kinetics in severely affected patients. Median duration of hospitalisation of IMV patients was longer than described for acute respiratory distress syndrome unrelated to COVID-19.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s15010-021-01594-w.

Biomarkers in COVID-19: An Up-To-Date Review

The ongoing pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) poses several challenges to clinicians. Timely diagnosis and hospitalization, risk stratification, effective utilization of intensive care services, selection of appropriate therapies, monitoring and timely discharge are essential to save the maximum number of lives. Clinical assessment is indispensable, but laboratory markers, or biomarkers, can provide additional, objective information which can significantly impact these components of patient care. COVID-19 is not a localized respiratory infection but a multisystem disease caused by a diffuse systemic process involving a complex interplay of the immunological, inflammatory and coagulative cascades. The understanding of what the virus does to the body and how the body reacts to it has uncovered a gamut of potential biomarkers. This review discusses the different classes of biomarkers - immunological, inflammatory, coagulation, hematological, cardiac, biochemical and miscellaneous - in terms of their pathophysiological basis followed by the current evidence. Differences between children and adults are highlighted. The role of biomarkers in the diagnosis and management of Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C) is reviewed. The correlation of biomarkers with clinical and radiological features and the viral load, temporal evolution and the effect of treatment remain to be studied in detail. Which biomarker needs to be evaluated when and in whom, and how best this information can contribute to patient care are questions which currently lack convincing answers. With the evidence currently available broad guidelines on the rational use of available biomarkers are presented. Integrating clinical and laboratory data, monitoring trends rather than a single value, correlating with the natural course of the disease and tailoring guidelines to the individual patient and healthcare setting are essential.

A meta-meta-analysis: Evaluation of meta-analyses published in the effectiveness of cardiovascular comorbidities on the severity of COVID-19

On January 2020, WHO confirmed the epidemic outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 as a Health Emergency of International Concern. The aim of this meta-meta-analysis is quantifying meta-analytic findings on the association of cardiovascular disease (CVD) comorbidities and COVID-19 severity. Findings suggest that chances of getting severe COVID-19 disease in patients with CVD is greater than those without CVD. Also, prevalence of CVD in patents with COVID-19 is 0.08 (95% CI = 0.07–0.08). The OR as 3.44 indicates that the odds of getting severe COVID-19 is more than 3 times higher in those with CVD. Also, prevalence of hypertension in patient with COVID-19 is 0.27 (95%CI = 0.27–0.28) and the OR as 2.68 indicates that the odds of getting severe COVID-19 in cases with high blood pressure is more than 2.5 times higher than those without hypertension. It is rational to suppose that persons with coronary artery disease are prone to severe viral infection thereby, guideline-directed diagnosis and medical therapy is vital in CVD patients.

Outcomes of patients with hematologic malignancies and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 3377 patients

Outcomes for patients with hematologic malignancy infected with COVID-19 have not been aggregated. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the risk of death and other important outcomes for these patients. We searched PubMed and EMBASE up to 20 August 2020 to identify reports of patients with hematologic malignancy and COVID-19. The primary outcome was a pooled mortality estimate, considering all patients and only hospitalized patients. Secondary outcomes included risk of intensive care unit admission and ventilation in hospitalized patients. Subgroup analyses included mortality stratified by age, treatment status, and malignancy subtype. Pooled prevalence, risk ratios (RRs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Thirty-four adult and 5 pediatric studies (3377 patients) from Asia, Europe, and North America were included (14 of 34 adult studies included only hospitalized patients). Risk of death among adult patients was 34% (95% CI, 28-39; N = 3240) in this sample of predominantly hospitalized patients. Patients aged ≥60 years had a significantly higher risk of death than patients <60 years (RR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.45-2.27; N = 1169). The risk of death in pediatric patients was 4% (95% CI, 1-9; N = 102). RR of death comparing patients with recent systemic anticancer therapy to no treatment was 1.17 (95% CI, 0.83-1.64; N = 736). Adult patients with hematologic malignancy and COVID-19, especially hospitalized patients, have a high risk of dying. Patients ≥60 years have significantly higher mortality; pediatric patients appear to be relatively spared. Recent cancer treatment does not appear to significantly increase the risk of death.