Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 9 de 9
Filter
1.
Journal of Clinical Oncology ; 39(15):3, 2021.
Article in English | Web of Science | ID: covidwho-1533354
3.
Journal of Clinical Oncology ; 39(28):2, 2021.
Article in English | Web of Science | ID: covidwho-1486613
4.
Journal of Clinical Oncology ; 39(28):3, 2021.
Article in English | Web of Science | ID: covidwho-1486611
5.
Journal of Clinical Oncology ; 39(15 SUPPL), 2021.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1339363

ABSTRACT

Background: Impact of COVID19 on cancer care delivery and outcomes remains unknown. Few trials have investigated patients' perceived risks and benefits, and cancer care delivery (CCD) alterations related to COVID19. We sought to identify differences on behaviors and social determinants of health in Hispanics and other underrepresented populations (H/UP) compared to the general population (GP). Methods: An IRB-approved validated 27-item questionnaire was offered in English and Spanish to all pts. receiving cancer care at participating cancer centers over a 4 month period. Examined variables included demographic information, social risk and behavioral factors, preferred sources of health information, and overall satisfaction with CCD during the pandemic. Results: A total of 180 pts were enrolled in the study. Compared to GP, H/UP's perceived risk of COVID19 was higher with 93% vs 87% more likely to cancel or avoid social gatherings and 54% vs 46% more likely to change daily routine. H/UP appeared more concerned with personal and financial safety;if unable to find work/get paid for 2 weeks, 26% H/UP vs 10% GP would struggle to keep up with expenses. 40% H/UP vs 10% GP have concerns on perceived ability to secure food on short term and consider COVID19 a major threat to their health (70% vs 46%) and financial situation (63% vs 35%). H/UP's perceived benefits of protective measures is higher with 81% vs 60% routinely practicing social distancing (SD) and 79% vs 66% in agreement with punitive actions for not following SD. Analysis demonstrated no significant difference by age, gender, level of education, marital status, however Hispanic ethnicity and Spanish as primary language was a statistically significant variable (p = 0.025) in perceived risks and satisfaction with CCD. No major differences were noted on sources of health information although more H/UP relied on social media (33% vs 24%). H/UP appeared to be more skeptical about availability and safety of targeted vaccines (40% vs 15%). Satisfaction regarding CCD was comparable (84% vs 86%), although more H/UP perceived CCD alterations (15% vs 10%). Going forward, H/UP would prefer to incorporate virtual visits (VV) when possible (36% vs 25%). Conclusions: COVID19- related societal, financial, health and personal fears are increased in H/UP which likely negatively affects quality of life of these at-risk populations. H/UP's trust in SD recommendations is heightened although linguistically and culturally appropriate information may be deficient. H/UP's belief in vaccine availability and safety is comparable to GP, although recent reports suggest deeper fear and emphasize their fear of experimentation. Interventions aimed to decrease these differences could incorporate standard communications with special attention to social media. H/UP would prefer to incorporate VV into their care, although most do not possess appropriate technology to do so.

6.
Journal of Clinical Oncology ; 39(15 SUPPL), 2021.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1339350

ABSTRACT

Background: Racial/ethnic minorities have disproportionately increased risk of contracting COVID-19 and experiencing severe illness;they also have worse breast cancer (BC) outcomes. COVID-19 outcomes among racial/ethnic minorities with BC are currently unknown. We sought to compare clinicopathologic characteristics and COVID-19 outcomes stratified by race/ethnicity. Methods: The COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium registry (NCT04354701) was used to identify patients with invasive BC and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 diagnosed in the U.S. between 2020-03-06 and 2021-02-04. The primary analysis was restricted to women who selfidentified as non-Hispanic White (NHW), nonHispanic Black (NHB), or Hispanic (H). Demographic, cancer characteristics, and COVID-19 outcomes were evaluated. COVID-19 outcomes included: hospital admission, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mechanical ventilation, death within 30 days of COVID-19 diagnosis and death from any cause during follow-up. Descriptive statistics were used to compare clinicopathologic characteristics and Fisher exact tests were used to compare COVID19 outcomes across the 3 racial/ethnic groups. Results: A total of 1133 patients were identified of which 1111 (98%) were women;of which 575 (52%) NHW, 243 (22%) NHB, 183 (16%) H, and 110 (10%) other/unknown. Baseline characteristics differed among racial/ethnic groups. H were younger (median age: NHW 63y;NHB 62y;H 54y) and more likely to be never smokers (NHW 62%;NHB 62%;H 78%). NHB had higher rates of obesity (NHW 40%;NHB 54%;H 46%), diabetes (NHW 16 %;NHB 32%;H 20%) and combined moderate and severe baseline COVID-19 at presentation (NHW 28%;NHB 42%;H 28%). Cancer characteristics are as shown (Table). Significant differences were observed in outcomes across racial/ethnic groups including higher rates of hospital admission (NHW 34%;NHB 49%;H 34%;P <0.001), mechanical ventilation (NHW 3%;NHB 9%;H 5%;P=0.002), 30-day mortality (NHW 6%;NHB 9%;H 4%;P=0.043) and total mortality (NHW 8%;NHB 12%;H 5%;P=0.05) among NHB compared to NHW and H. Conclusions: This is the largest study to show significant differences in COVID-19 outcomes by racial/ethnic groups of women with BC. The adverse outcomes in NHB could be due to higher moderate to severe COVID-19 at presentation and preexisting comorbidities. H did not have worse outcomes despite having more active disease and recent anti-cancer therapy, including with cytotoxic chemotherapy - potentially due to younger age and nonsmoking status. (Table Presented).

7.
Journal of Clinical Oncology ; 39(15 SUPPL), 2021.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1339332

ABSTRACT

Background: The well-being of oncology providers (OP) is in jeopardy with increasing workload, limited resources, and personal challenges that result from the COVID-19 pandemic. We aim to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on work-related (WR) satisfaction and fatigue among OP in Latin America. Methods:We conducted an international cross-sectional online survey of OP practicing in Latin America. The survey was administered in English, Spanish, and Portuguese. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics and Chi-square tests. Results: In August 2020, 704 OP from 20 Latin American countries completed the survey (77% of 913 who started the survey). Table outlines baseline characteristics. Higher frequency of WR fatigue (67% vs. 58%, p=0.010) and exhaustion (81% vs. 70%, p=0.001) were reported by OP who cared for patients with COVID-19, compared to OP who cared for patients without COVID-19. Providers that observed delays in referrals to radiation (p=0.002) and surgery (p=0.04) reported WR fatigue at higher rates than their counterparts. Higher exhaustion (p=0.016) and dissatisfaction (p=0.046) were reported by OP who lacked access to supportive services, as social work. A significantly higher proportion of women reported WR fatigue (72% vs. 56%, p=0.003) and exhaustion (86% vs. 68%, p=0.001), when compared to men. Women were more likely than men to endorse higher current levels of fatigue when compared to pre-COVID-19 (61% vs. 46%, p=0.0001). To reduce stress, women were more likely than men to cut the time spent watching the news (p=0.002). Both genders declined research collaborations and speaking opportunities. Conclusions: Fatigue and dissatisfaction with work-life were prevalent among OP in Latin America. Higher rates of WR fatigue were seen in women, OP caring for patients with COVID-19, and OP with patients who experienced cancer care delays. Our data imply that OP may be a prime target for psychosocial support, particularly as current challenges will continue for the foreseen future. Baseline characteristics (N=704).

8.
Journal of Clinical Oncology ; 39(15 SUPPL), 2021.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1339182

ABSTRACT

Background: The severe acute respiratory syndrome 2 (SARS-cov-2) virus causing COVID19 has brought great challenges to global health services affecting cancer care delivery, outcomes, and increasing the burden in oncology providers (OP). Our study aimed to describe the challenges that OP faced while delivering cancer care in Latin America. Methods: We conducted an international crosssectional study using an anonymous online survey in Spanish, Portuguese, and English. The questionnaire included 43 multiple choice questions. The sample was stratified by OP who have treated patients with COVID-19 versus those who have not treated patients with COVID-19. Data was analyzed with descriptive statistics and Chi-square tests. Results: A total of 704 OP from 20 Latin American countries completed the survey (77% of 913 who started the survey). Oncologists represented 46% of respondents, followed by 25% surgicaloncologists. Of the respondents, 56% treated patients with COVID-19. A significant proportion of OP reported newly adopting telemedicine during COVID-19 (14% vs 72%, p=0.001). More than half (58%) of OP reported making changes to the treatments they offered to patients with cancer. As shown in the table, caring for patients with COVID-19 significantly influenced practice patterns of OP. Access to specialty services and procedures was significantly reduced: 40% noted significantly decreased or no access to imaging, 20% significantly decreased or no access to biopsies, 65% reported delays in surgical oncology referrals, and 49% in radiation oncology referrals. A vast majority (82%) reported oncologic surgeries were delayed or cancelled, which was heightened among those treating patients with COVID-19 (87% vs 77%, p=0.001). Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly affected the way cancer care is delivered in globally. Although changes to healthcare delivery are necessary as a response to this global crisis, our study highlights the significant disruption and possible undertreatment of patients with cancer in Latin America that results from COVID-19.

9.
Br J Dermatol ; 186(1): 142-152, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1307673

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Cutaneous reactions after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines are poorly characterized. OBJECTIVE: To describe and classify cutaneous reactions after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. METHODS: A nationwide Spanish cross-sectional study was conducted. We included patients with cutaneous reactions within 21 days of any dose of the approved vaccines at the time of the study. After a face-to-face visit with a dermatologist, information on cutaneous reactions was collected via an online professional survey and clinical photographs were sent by email. Investigators searched for consensus on clinical patterns and classification. RESULTS: From 16 February to 15 May 2021, we collected 405 reactions after vaccination with the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech; 40·2%), mRNA-1273 (Moderna; 36·3%) and AZD1222 (AstraZeneca; 23·5%) vaccines. Mean patient age was 50·7 years and 80·2% were female. Cutaneous reactions were classified as injection site ('COVID arm', 32·1%), urticaria (14·6%), morbilliform (8·9%), papulovesicular (6·4%), pityriasis rosea-like (4·9%) and purpuric (4%) reactions. Varicella zoster and herpes simplex virus reactivations accounted for 13·8% of reactions. The COVID arm was almost exclusive to women (95·4%). The most reported reactions in each vaccine group were COVID arm (mRNA-1273, Moderna, 61·9%), varicella zoster virus reactivation (BNT162b2, Pfizer-BioNTech, 17·2%) and urticaria (AZD1222, AstraZeneca, 21·1%). Most reactions to the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccine were described in women (90·5%). Eighty reactions (21%) were classified as severe/very severe and 81% required treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Cutaneous reactions after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination are heterogeneous. Most are mild-to-moderate and self-limiting, although severe/very severe reactions are reported. Knowledge of these reactions during mass vaccination may help healthcare professionals and reassure patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , 2019-nCoV Vaccine mRNA-1273 , BNT162 Vaccine , ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination/adverse effects
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL