ABSTRACT
Nebulized thrombolysis offers locally targeted therapy with potentially lower bleeding risk than systemic administration for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) respiratory failure. In a proof-of-concept safety study, adult patients with COVID-19-induced respiratory failure and a <300mmHg PaO2/FiO2 (P/F) ratio, requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or non-invasive respiratory support (NIRS) received nebulized rt-PA in two cohorts (C1 and C2), alongside standard of care during the first two UK COVID-19 waves. Matched historical controls (MHC; n=18) were used in C1. Safety co-primary endpoints were treatment-related bleeds and fibrinogen reduction to <1.0–1.5 g/L. A dose escalation strategy for improved efficacy with the least safety concerns was determined in C1 for use in C2; patients were stratified by ventilation type to receive 40–60 mg rt-PA per day for ≤14 days. Nine patients in C1 (IMV, 6/9; NIRS, 3/9) and 26 in C2 (IMV, 12/26; NIRS, 14/26) received nebulized rt-PA for a mean (SD) of 6.7 (4.6) and 9.1(4.6) days, respectively. Four bleeding events (one severe and three mild) in three patients were considered treatment-related. No significant fibrinogen reductions were reported. Greater improvement in mean P/F ratio from baseline to end of study was observed in C1 compared with MHC [C1; 154 to 299 vs MHC; 154 to 212). In C2, there was no difference in the baseline P/F ratio of NIRS and IMV patients. However, a larger improvement in P/F ratio was observed in NIRS patients [NIRS; 126 to 240 vs IMV; 120 to 188) and they required fewer treatment days (NIRS; 7.86 vs IMV; 10.5). Nebulized rt-PA appears to be well-tolerated, showing a trend of improved oxygenation and faster recovery in patients with acute COVID-19-induced respiratory failure requiring respiratory support; this effect was more pronounced in the NIRS group. Further investigation is required to study the potential of this novel treatment approach.
Subject(s)
Hemorrhage , Neoplasm Invasiveness , COVID-19 , Respiratory InsufficiencyABSTRACT
Background: Cancer and multiple non-cancer conditions are considered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as high risk conditions in the COVID-19 emergency. Professional societies have recommended changes in cancer service provision to minimize COVID-19 risks to cancer patients and health care workers. However, we do not know the extent to which cancer patients, in whom multi-morbidity is common, may be at higher overall risk of mortality as a net result of multiple factors including COVID-19 infection, changes in health services, and socioeconomic factors. Methods: We report multi-center, weekly cancer diagnostic referrals and chemotherapy treatments until April 2020 in England and Northern Ireland. We analyzed population-based health records from 3,862,012 adults in England to estimate 1-year mortality in 24 cancer sites and 15 non-cancer comorbidity clusters (40 conditions) recognized by CDC as high-risk. We estimated overall (direct and indirect) effects of COVID-19 emergency on mortality under different Relative Impact of the Emergency (RIE) and different Proportions of the population Affected by the Emergency (PAE). We applied the same model to the US, using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program data. Results: Weekly data until April 2020 demonstrate significant falls in admissions for chemotherapy (45-66% reduction) and urgent referrals for early cancer diagnosis (70-89% reduction), compared to pre-emergency levels. Under conservative assumptions of the emergency affecting only people with newly diagnosed cancer (incident cases) at COVID-19 PAE of 40%, and an RIE of 1.5, the model estimated 6,270 excess deaths at 1 year in England and 33,890 excess deaths in the US. In England, the proportion of patients with incident cancer with [≥]1 comorbidity was 65.2%. The number of comorbidities was strongly associated with cancer mortality risk. Across a range of model assumptions, and across incident and prevalent cancer cases, 78% of excess deaths occur in cancer patients with [≥]1 comorbidity. Conclusion: We provide the first estimates of potential excess mortality among people with cancer and multimorbidity due to the COVID-19 emergency and demonstrate dramatic changes in cancer services. To better inform prioritization of cancer care and guide policy change, there is an urgent need for weekly data on cause-specific excess mortality, cancer diagnosis and treatment provision and better intelligence on the use of effective treatments for comorbidities.