Intensive care medicine

Multiple myeloma

Malignancy

Lung cancer

Hematology

Comorbidity

Meta-analysis

Internal medicine

Dyslipidemia

Medicine

Hematologic malignancy

Disease

Cancer

Mortality rate

Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis

Introduction The global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) is caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2). It seems that there is an association between blood cancer and an increased risk of severe COVID‐19. This study aimed to review the literature reporting the COVID‐19 outcomes in patients with hematological malignancies. Material and methods In this systematic review and meta‐analysis, Pubmed, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched using the following keywords: COVID‐19, SARS‐CoV‐2, blood cancer, myeloma, lymphoma, and leukemia. All the published articles in English from January 1, 2019, until March 10, 2021 were collected and evaluated. Results In total, 53 studies with 2395 patients were included based on inclusion criteria. Most of these studies took place in Spain (14.81%), followed by the USA (11.11%), China (9.26%), and the UK (9.26%). More than half of COVID‐19 patients with hematological malignancy were male (56.73%). Oxygen therapy played an important role in COVID‐19 treatment. Moreover, anticoagulant therapies such as enoxaparin and heparin were two great assists for these patients. Fever (74.24%), cough (67.64%), and fatigue (53.19%) were the most reported clinical manifestations. In addition, hypertension and dyslipidemia were the most common comorbidities. The mortality rate due to COVID‐19 in patients with hematological malignancies was 21.34%. Conclusion This study demonstrated that hematologic cancer patients were more susceptible to a severe COVID‐19 than patients without blood cancer. Thus, the management of COVID‐19 in these patients requires much more attention, and their screening should perform regularly.

Comorbidities and mortality rate in COVID‐19 patients with hematological malignancies: A systematic review and meta‐analysis