The first report of the prevalence of COVID-19 in Chronic myelogenous leukemia patients in the core epidemic area of China: multicentre, cross-sectional survey

  1. Dan-Yu Wang
  2. Jing-Ming Guo
  3. Zhuang-Zhi Yang
  4. Guo-Lin Yuan
  5. Li Meng
  6. Wei-Ming Li

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background

Since late December 2019, the outbreak of the novel coronavirus disease, COVID-19, that began in Wuhan, has become endemic in China and more than 100 countries and regions in the world. So far, there is rare data on the prevalence of COVID-19 in patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML). We aimed to describe the clinical course, outcomes of CML patients with COVID-19 and prevalence of COVID-19 in CML patients.

Methods

In this multicentre, cross-sectional survey, the clinical data of CML patients with COVID-19 in each center were collected. Simultaneously, an online survey was conducted for information about the CML patients under the management at each center by asking the CML patients to complete a questionnaire,from February 15, 2020 to February 21, 2020. The questionnaire includes demographic data, place of residence, smoking status, CML diagnosis and treatment, comorbidities, combined medications, epidemiological history, symptoms(fever, cough, shortness of breath, etc) during the epidemic. Additional clinical data was collected on respondents suspected or confirmed to have COVID-19. We described and analyzed the prevalence of COVID-19 in CML patients, and focus on the clinical characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 patients. Data were compared between the CML patients with optimal response and those with non-optimal response. The primary outcome was prevalence of COVID-19 in CML patients, as of Feb 21, 2020. Secondary outcomes included the history of epidemiology of CML patients, the clinical characteristics and outcomes of CML patients with COVID-19.

Findings

Of 392 respondents, 223(56.9%) were males, and 240(61.2%) were 50 years or younger. Only 10 patients took drugs irregularly due to the influence of the epidemic because of traffic control, pharmacies unable to operate normally, etc. In the history of epidemiology, there were 4 patients with definite contact with COVID-19, of which 3 were remote contact and 1 was close contact. 12 respondents had fever, cough or shortness of breath during the epidemic, 1 case (common type) was confirmed with COVID-19 and cured after treatment. 1 patient was clinically diagnosed and succumbed. 1 of 299 (0.3%) patients with an optimal response was diagnosed with COVID-19. Of the 50 patients who failed to respond to CML treatment or had a poor response, 1 patient (2%) had a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19.

Interpretation

While the 392 CML respondents required regular referrals to hospitals, they did not have much contact with COVID-19 patients during the outbreak. Patients who failed to achieved an optimal response to CML therapy appear more likely to have a symptomatic infection with SARS-CoV-2. Older patients with comorbidities are at increased risk of death.

Funding

This work was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China(NSFC)(81873440&81700142).

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.03.12.20034876: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: The investigation was approved by the ethics committee of Union hospital, Tongji Medical college, Huazhong University of science and Technology.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.03.12.20034876v2 on medRxiv
  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.03.12.20034876v1 on medRxiv