ABSTRACT
Objective: To evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on first and follow-up visits for cancer outpatients. Methods: This is a multicenter retrospective observational study involving three Comprehensive Cancer Care Centers (CCCCs): IFO, including IRE and ISG in Rome, AUSL-IRCCS of Reggio Emilia, and IRCCS Giovanni Paolo II in Bari) and one oncology department in a Community Hospital (Saint'Andrea Hospital, Rome). From 1 January 2020 and 31 December 2021, we evaluated the volume of outpatient consultations (first visits and follow-up), comparing them with the pre-pandemic year (2019). Results were analyzed by quarter according to the Rt (real-time indicator used to assess the evolution of the pandemic). IFO and IRCCS Giovanni Paolo II were "COVID-free" while AUSL-IRCCS RE was a "COVID-mixed" Institute. Depending on the Rt, Sain't Andrea Hospital experienced a "swinging" organizational pathway (COVID-free/ COVID-mixed). Results: Regarding the "first appointments", in 2020 the healthcare facilities operating in the North and Center of Italy showed a downward trend. In 2021, only AUSL-IRCCS RE showed an upward trend. Regarding the "follow-up", only AUSL IRCCS RE showed a slight up-trend in 2020. In 2021, IFO showed an increasing trend, while S. Andrea Hospital showed a negative plateau. Surprisingly, IRCCS Giovanni Paolo II in Bari showed an uptrend for both first appointment and follow-ups during pandemic and late pandemic except for the fourth quarter of 2021. Conclusions: During the first pandemic wave, no significant difference was observed amongst COVID-free and COVID-mixed Institutes and between CCCCs and a Community Hospital. In 2021 ("late pandemic year"), it has been more convenient to organize COVID-mixed pathway in the CCCCs rather than to keep the Institutions COVID-free. A swinging modality in the Community Hospital did not offer positive results in term of visit volumes. Our study about the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on visit volume in cancer outpatients may help health systems to optimize the post-pandemic use of resources and improve healthcare policies.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Neoplasms , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , Outpatients , Pandemics , Health Policy , Hospitals, Community , Neoplasms/epidemiologyABSTRACT
The outbreak of the coronavirus 2 disease 2019 (COVID-19) puts an enormous burden on healthcare systems worldwide. This may worsen outcomes in patients with severe chronic diseases such as cancer, autoimmune diseases, and immune deficiencies. In this critical situation, only a few available data exist, which do not allow us to provide practical guides for the treatment of oncological or immunocompromised patients. Therefore, a further step forward is needed, addressing the specific needs and demands of frail patients in the pandemic era. Here we aim to present a protocol of a study approved by an ethical committee named "CO.M.E.TA". CO.M.E.TA protocol is a network project involving six Italian institutions and its goals are: i) to measure and compare the impact of the pandemic on the access of cancer and immunocompromised patients to therapies in three Italian regions; ii) to assess how reorganizational measures put in place in these different institutions have impacted specific metrics of performance; iii) to establish a COVID-19 Biobank of biological samples from SARS-CoV-2 infected patients to be used to study immunological alterations in patients with immune frailty.
ABSTRACT
Background: Evidence-based recommendations for outpatient management of COVID-19 were published by the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) to limit the use of off-label treatments. The aim of this study is to measure the use of outpatient drug treatments in a COVID-19-positive population, taking into account the Italian regulatory agency's advices. Methods: A descriptive observational study was conducted. All patients testing positive for COVID-19 residing in Lazio region, Italy, with diagnosis date between March 2020 and May 2021 were selected, and outpatient medicine prescription patterns were identified. Results: Independent of AIFA recommendations, the use of drug therapy in the management of outpatient COVID-19 cases was frequent (about one-third of the cases). The most used drug therapy was antibiotics, specifically azithromycin, despite the negative recommendation of AIFA, while the use of corticosteroids increased after the positive recommendation of regulatory agency for the use in subjects with severe COVID-19 disease. The use of hydroxychloroquine was limited to the early pandemic period where evidence on its potential benefit was controversial. Antithrombotics were widely used in outpatient settings, even if their use was recommended for hospitalized patients. Conclusion: In this study, we show a frequent use of drug therapy in the management of outpatient cases of COVID-19, mainly attributable to antibiotics use. Our research highlights the discrepancy between recommendations for care and clinical practice and the need for strategies to bridge gaps in evidence-informed decision-making.
ABSTRACT
Background: Standard of Care (SoC) has been used with different significance across Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs) on the treatment of Covid-19. In the context of a living systematic review on pharmacological interventions for COVID-19, we assessed the characteristics of the SoC adopted in the published RCTs. Methods: We performed a systematic review searching Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Covid-19 register, international trial registers, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv up to April 10, 2021. We included all RCTs comparing any pharmacological intervention for Covid-19 against any drugs, placebo, or SoC. All trials selected have been classified as studies with SoC including treatments under investigation for COVID-19 (SoC+); studies with SoC without specifications regarding the potential therapies allowed (SoC-); studies including as control groups Placebo (P) or active controls (A+). Results: We included in our analysis 144 RCTs, comprising 78,319 patients. Most of these trials included SoC (108; 75.0%); some in all arms of the study (69.7%) or just as independent comparators (30.3%). Treatments under investigation for COVID-19 in other trials were included in the SoC (SoC+) in 67 cases (62.0%), Thirty-one different therapeutic agents (alone or in combination) were counted within the studies with SoC+: mostly hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine (28), lopinavir/ritonavir (20) or azithromycin (16). No specification was given regarding treatment allowed in the control groups (SoC-) in 41 studies (38.0%). Conclusion: Our analysis shows that the findings emerging from several clinical trials regarding the efficacy and safety of pharmacological intervention for COVID-19 might be jeopardized by the quality of control arms.
ABSTRACT
One year after the beginning of the health and social emergency, the health system shows its strengths and weaknesses. Among these, inadequacy of facilities, deficiencies of continuity between hospital and territory, inconsistent information and lack of bidirectional communication between institutions and citizens, uncertainties of data about therapies and the emphasis given to the role of opinion leaders. To get out of the pandemic, a change of perspective is needed: governments must not just support industrial investments but must they must encourage better and community-useful research and communication.
Subject(s)
Exercise Test , Pandemics , Attitude , Communication , HumansABSTRACT
IMPORTANCE: Since the beginning of the Coronavirus Disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-CoV-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has been a serious challenge for immune-compromised patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs). OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to investigate the impact of COVID-19 in terms of risks of infection, hospitalization and mortality in a cohort of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriasis (PSO) or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Furthermore, we studied the impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection on the prescribed drug regimen in these patients. METHODS: Through the record linkage between health information systems, a cohort of patients, ≥18 years old, assisted in the Lazio region and who had suffered from immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (RA, PSO, IBD) between 2007 and 2019, was identified. The risk of infection, hospitalization or mortality for COVID-19, was assessed by logistic regression models, and reported in an Odds Ratio (ORs; CI 95%), adjusting for sex, age and the Charlson Comorbidity Index. We also estimated these risks separately by IMID and in the subgroup of prevalent biologic drug users. We investigated deferral of biological treatments in the study population by comparing the prevalence of weekly use of biologicals (2019-2020) before and during the pandemic periods. FINDINGS: Within the 65,230 patients with IMIDs, the cumulative incidence for COVID-19 was 303/10,000 ab. In this cohort of patients, we observed a significantly higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection than the general population: OR = 1.17 (95% CI 1.12-1.22). The risk was higher even considering separately each disease and in the subgroup of prevalent biologic drug users. This last subgroup of patients showed a higher risk of death related to COVID-19 (OR 1.89; 95% CI 1.04-3.33) than the general population. However, no differences in terms of risks of hospitalization or death related to COVID-19 were recorded in patients with the IMIDs. Comparing the 2019-2020 prevalence of weekly biological drug treatments in prevalent biologic drug users, we found a decrease (-19.6%) during the lockdown, probably due to pandemic restrictions. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Patients with IMIDs seem to have a higher risk of SARS-CoV2 infection. However, other than for patients with prevalent biologic drug treatment, no significant differences in terms of hospitalization and mortality were reported compared to the general populations; further investigation is warranted on account of unmeasured confounding. In addition, during the lockdown period, the COVID-19 emergency highlighted a lower use of biologic drugs; this phenomenon requires strict pharmacological monitoring as it could be a proxy of forthcoming long-term clinical progression.
ABSTRACT
Background: Several pharmacological interventions are now under investigation for the treatment of Covid-19, and the evidence is evolving rapidly. Our aim is to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of these drugs. Methods and Findings: We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis searching Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Covid-19 register, international trial registers, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv up to December 10, 2020. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any pharmacological intervention for Covid-19 against any drugs, placebo or standard care (SC). Data extracted from published reports were assessed for risk of bias in accordance with the Cochrane tool, and using the GRADE framework. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). We estimated summary risk ratio (RR) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects (Prospero, number CRD42020176914). We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis searching Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Covid-19 register, international trial registers, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv up to December 10, 2020. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any pharmacological intervention for Covid-19 against any drugs, placebo or standard care (SC). Data extracted from published reports were assessed for risk of bias in accordance with the Cochrane tool, and using the GRADE framework. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). We estimated summary risk ratio (RR) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects (Prospero, number CRD42020176914). We included 96 RCTs, comprising of 34,501 patients. The network meta-analysis showed in terms of all-cause mortality, when compared to SC or placebo, only corticosteroids significantly reduced the mortality rate (RR 0.90, 95%CI 0.83, 0.97; moderate certainty of evidence). Corticosteroids significantly reduced the mortality rate also when compared to hydroxychloroquine (RR 0.83, 95%CI 0.74, 0.94; moderate certainty of evidence). Remdesivir proved to be better in terms of SAEs when compared to SC or placebo (RR 0.75, 95%CI 0.63, 0.89; high certainty of evidence) and plasma (RR 0.57, 95%CI 0.34, 0.94; high certainty of evidence). The combination of lopinavir and ritonavir proved to reduce SAEs when compared to plasma (RR 0.49, 95%CI 0.25, 0.95; high certainty of evidence). Most of the RCTs were at unclear risk of bias (42 of 96), one third were at high risk of bias (34 of 96) and 20 were at low risk of bias. Certainty of evidence ranged from high to very low. Conclusion: At present, corticosteroids reduced all-cause mortality in patients with Covid-19, with a moderate certainty of evidence. Remdesivir appeared to be a safer option than SC or placebo, while plasma was associated with safety concerns. These preliminary evidence-based observations should guide clinical practice until more data are made public.
Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Clinical Trials as Topic , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Disease Management , Emergency Service, Hospital , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Public Health , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
The CoViD-19 and its consequences could perhaps have been foreseen. Above all, this pandemic force us to review what is essential and really necessary in term of priorities and regulatory process for clinical pharmacological research. It is evident, among other things, the difficulty to deal with therapeutic uncertainties.Not proven specific therapies are available for the SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, the cause of CoViD-19), other than supportive care. However, several clinical centres decided to use off label drugs as a standard of care in the absence of efficacy and safety data. The national regulatory body (AIFA) has set up a process in a short time to transparently govern the approval of new trials and to regulate the use of medicines that are not indicated. In this context, the communication of risk associated with experimental therapies was also very important. The lessons we will learn from this emergency may result crucial in redesigning a better way of conducting clinical trials and information on drugs.