Thrombosis and bleeding after COVID-19 vaccination: do differences in sex matter?

Gender medicine deals with differences in approach to diagnostic work-up and management according to gender. Although the issue is relevant in every field of medicine, it is often neglected. However, the recent SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has made consideration of gender even more urgent. In fact, available literature has suggested a higher number of deaths among infected men than in women and more side effects in women than in male recipients of certain anti-COVID-19 vaccines. This review examines sex-disaggregated data on thrombotic and bleeding events associated with vaccination against COVID-19. Thrombotic complications are by far more frequently reported than bleeding events after vaccination and are mostly observed in young women receiving viral-vectored vaccines. However, detailed data that could help better stratify the risk according to sex/gender are generally lacking. Likewise, overall bleeding complications and those associated with a specific vaccine are mainly reported as aggregated data, including thrombocytopenia that is reported to occur in the presence or absence of thrombotic complications. Such information is important as it underlines the need to differentiate between thrombocytopenia with and without thrombosis because management and prognosis differ according to the association of thrombotic events. Here, we highlight how the lack of disaggregated data has led to the publication of conflicting information about adverse events by sex in recipients of viral-vectored vaccines. Lastly, we examine the possible mechanisms underlying vaccine-associated thrombotic and bleeding complications according to sex/gender.

European Cohorts of patients and schools to Advance Response to Epidemics (EuCARE): a cluster randomised interventional and observational study protocol to investigate the relationship between schools and SARS-CoV-2 infection.

BACKGROUND: Contradictory results were reported on the role of school closure/reopening on the overall SARS-CoV-2 transmission rate, as well as on which kind and level of mitigation measures implemented in schools may be effective in limiting its diffusion. Some recent studies were reassuring, showing that opening did not increase the community spread, although teachers and families are worried about the high class density. On the other hand, distance learning was associated with a negative impact on learning, sociability and psychological health, especially in vulnerable children. As it becomes clear that the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic will last for a long time, there is a high need for studies and solutions to support safe schools opening based on scientific evidence of harms and benefits. The Lolli-Methode (LM) is a strategy for epidemiological surveillance and early intervention aiming at SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks' reduction in schools, relying on polymerase chain reaction analysis of saliva samples. METHODS: In this cluster randomised trial protocol, we aim to determine whether the LM is useful to support schools opening and to reduce clusters and attack rates in schools, compared with the standard of care (SoC) surveillance by public health departments. This multicenter study will enrol 440 classes (around 8800 students, teachers and other personnel) from two countries, cluster randomised to LM or SoC. The samples from the pools will be collected and tested using PCR-based techniques. Test results will be combined with questionnaires filled in by children, parents, schoolteachers, and principals, concerning ongoing mitigation measures, their perceived psychological impact and other health and socio-economic information. An ancillary observational study will be carried out to study the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in schools, frequencies and size of clusters and attack rates, to compare the effectiveness of the different preventive measures adopted and to evaluate psychological issues in students and teachers in relation to the pandemic's containment measures. DISCUSSION: By the end of this study, we will have defined and characterised the applicability of the LM for SARS-CoV-2 surveillance, as well as the impact of pandemic preventive measures on children and teachers. Trial registration International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number: NCT05396040, 27.05.2022.

Vitamin D and SARS-CoV2 infection, severity and mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

To assess the evidence on SARS-CoV2 infection and Covid-19 in relation to deficiency and supplementation of vitamin D, we conducted a systematic review up to April 2021. We summarised data from 38 eligible studies, which presented risk estimates for at least one endpoint, including two RCT and 27 cohort-studies: 205565 patients with information on 25OHD status and 2022 taking vitamin D supplementation with a total of 1197 admitted to the ICU or who needed invasive mechanical ventilation or intubation and hospital stay, and more than 910 Covid-19 deaths. Primary outcomes were severity and mortality and the main aim was to evaluate the association with vitamin D supplementation. Random effects models showed that supplementation was associated with a significant lower risk of both Covid-19 severe disease (SRR 0.38, 95% CI 0.20-0.72, 6 studies) and mortality (SRR 0.35, 95% CI 0.17-0.70, 8 studies). There were no statistically significant dose differences between studies: summary estimates with regular doses remain statistically significant, suggesting that higher doses are not necessary. For patients on vitamin D supplementation, a greater reduction in mortality risk emerged in older individuals and at higher latitudes. Regarding the quality of studies, assessed using the New Castle-Ottawa quality scale, the analysis revealed in most cases no statistically significant differences between low, medium or high quality studies. We found significant associations of vitamin D supplementation with Covid-19, encompassing risks of disease worsening and mortality, especially in seasons characterized by 25OHD deficiency and with not severe patients. Dedicated randomized clinical studies are encouraged to confirm these results.

Coping With Oral Tongue Cancer and COVID-19 Infection.

To date, April 19, 2021, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused about 140,886,773 confirmed cases and more than 3,000,000 deaths worldwide since the beginning of the pandemic. Oncology patients are usually frail due to the fear of prognosis, recurrence, and outcomes of treatments. Thus, coping with cancer is a complicated process that is necessary to overcome oncological challenge, even more in case of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) disease. This is a brief case report on a middle-aged man affected by advanced oral tongue cancer and COVID-19, describing his experience of cancer diagnosis, surgical treatment, and rehabilitation during the hospital quarantine for COVID-19. Besides the traumatic experience due to the functional alteration in breathing, eating, and speaking caused by major surgery and the concurrent facial disfigurement, our patient had to face a COVID-19 diagnosis, which implied hospital and social isolation. The aim of this perspective work is to focus on the role of the psychological support in the management of hospital distress related to COVID-19 psychophysical loneliness or alienation. In our experience, such support should anticipate patients' oncological surgery or treatment and should be implemented through telemedicine in case of isolation or after hospital discharge.

Outcomes of head and neck cancer management from two cancer centres in Southern and Northern Europe during the first wave of COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the approach and outcomes from two cancer centres in Southern and Northern Europe during the first wave of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) of patients with head and neck cancer (HNC). METHODS: Data collection was performed on a retrospective cohort of patients surgically treated for primary HNC between March and May 2020, using data from two tertiary hospitals: the European Institute of Oncology (Milan) and Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust (London). RESULTS: We included 77 patients with HNC. More patients with COVID-19 were taking angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and had Clavien-Dindo Classification grade I compared to negative patients, respectively (60% vs 22% [p = 0.058] and 40% vs 8% [p = 0.025]). Multivariate logistic regression analyses confirmed our data (p = 0.05 and 0.03, respectively). Sex and age were statistically significantly different (p = 0.05 and <0.001 respectively), showing more male patients (75% vs 53.66%, respectively) and more elderly patients in Italy than in the United Kingdom (patients aged >63 years: 69.44% vs 29.27%). CONCLUSIONS: This study presents a large cohort of patients with HNC with nasopharyngeal swab during the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe. Patients with HNC with COVID-19 appeared more likely to develop postsurgical complications and to be taking ACE inhibitors. The preventive measures adopted guaranteed the continuation of therapeutic surgical intervention.