Withdrawal Notice: Is There a Link between Lung Parenchyma Lesions, BMI, CRP and D-dimer in COVID-19 Patients Who Had Acute Pulmonary Embolism?

The article has been withdrawn at the request of the editor of the journal Cardiovascular & Hematological Disorders-Drug Targets due to incoherent content.Bentham Science apologizes to the readers of the journal for any inconvenience this may have caused.The Bentham Editorial Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at https://benthamscience.com/editorial-policies-main.php. BENTHAM SCIENCE DISCLAIMER: It is a condition of publication that manuscripts submitted to this journal have not been published and will not be simultaneously submitted or published elsewhere. Furthermore, any data, illustration, structure or table that has been published elsewhere must be reported, and copyright permission for reproduction must be obtained. Plagiarism is strictly forbidden, and by submitting the article for publication the authors agree that the publishers have the legal right to take appropriate action against the authors, if plagiarism or fabricated information is discovered. By submitting a manuscript the authors agree that the copyright of their article is transferred to the publishers if and when the article is accepted for publication.

Optimal lockdowns for COVID-19 pandemics: Analyzing the efficiency of sanitary policies in Europe.

Two main nonpharmaceutical policy strategies have been used in Europe in response to the COVID-19 epidemic: one aimed at natural herd immunity and the other at avoiding saturation of hospital capacity by crushing the curve. The two strategies lead to different results in terms of the number of lives saved on the one hand and production loss on the other hand. Using a susceptible-infected-recovered-dead model, we investigate and compare these two strategies. As the results are sensitive to the initial reproduction number, we estimate the latter for 10 European countries for each wave from January 2020 till March 2021 using a double sigmoid statistical model and the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker data set. Our results show that Denmark, which opted for crushing the curve, managed to minimize both economic and human losses. Natural herd immunity, sought by Sweden and the Netherlands does not appear to have been a particularly effective strategy, especially for Sweden, both in economic terms and in terms of lives saved. The results are more mixed for other countries, but with no evident trade-off between deaths and production losses.

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in Patients on Dialysis in Italy and France.

INTRODUCTION: Patients on dialysis (HDPs) are a category at high risk from COVID-19 and thus a high-priority group for vaccination. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy has been a concern since the availability of the first vaccine. The objective of this study was to determine hesitancy rates and factors associated with hesitancy toward COVID-19 vaccination in HDP. METHODS: HDP were surveyed with an ad hoc questionnaire in 4 large dialysis facilities in Europe: Le Mans and Paris, in France, and Cagliari and Pavia, in Italy. The questionnaire explored different domains associated with vaccine hesitancy, such as perception of disease severity, sources of information about the vaccine and the disease, and confidence in the health care system. RESULTS: A total of 417 patients (average age 69 years, 60% men) agreed to answer the questionnaire. Hesitancy was associated with younger age (P = 0.003), lower perception of disease severity (P < 0.001) and vaccine efficacy (P < 0.001), and lower trust in vaccination (P < 0.001) and in the health care system and scientists (P < 0.001) in the univariate analysis. In the multivariate models, concerns about side effects (P = 0.004) and vaccine efficacy (P < 0.001) and living in France (P = 0.04) remained associated with higher vaccine hesitancy, whereas having received an influenza vaccine (P = 0.032) and trusting scientists (P = 0.032) were associated with a more positive attitude toward vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: HDPs have a good understanding of the risks associated with COVID-19. Vaccine hesitancy was not associated with educational level, age, or gender but rather with lack of confidence in vaccine efficacy and concerns about safety. HDPs were quite skeptical about the health care system but generally trusted scientists.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccination for patients with solid cancer: Review and point of view of a French oncology intergroup (GCO, TNCD, UNICANCER).

The impacts of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic on cancer care are multiple, entailing a high risk of death from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in patients with cancer treated by chemotherapy. SARS-CoV-2 vaccines represent an opportunity to decrease the rate of severe COVID-19 cases in patients with cancer and also to restore normal cancer care. Patients with cancer to be targeted for vaccination are difficult to define owing to the limited contribution of these patients in the phase III trials testing the different vaccines. It seems appropriate to vaccinate not only patients with cancer with ongoing treatment or with a treatment having been completed less than 3 years ago but also household and close contacts. High-risk patients with cancer who are candidates for priority access to vaccination are those treated by chemotherapy. The very high-priority population includes patients with curative treatment and palliative first- or second-line chemotherapy, as well as patients requiring surgery or radiotherapy involving a large volume of lung, lymph node and/or haematopoietic tissue. When possible, vaccination should be carried out before cancer treatment begins. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination can be performed during chemotherapy while avoiding periods of neutropenia and lymphopenia. For organisational reasons, vaccination should be performed in cancer care centres with messenger RNA vaccines (or non-replicating adenoviral vaccines in non-immunocompromised patients). Considering the current state of knowledge, the benefit-risk ratio strongly favours SARS-CoV-2 vaccination of all patients with cancer. To obtain more data concerning the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, it is necessary to implement cohorts of vaccinated patients with cancer.

[Vaccination against COVID-19 in patients with solid cancer: Review and point of view from a French oncology inter-group (CGO, TNCD, UNICANCER)]. / Vaccination contre la COVID-19 des patients atteints de cancer solide : revue et préconisations d'un inter-groupe oncologique français (CGO, TNCD, UNICANCER).

The COVID-19 pandemic has a major impact at all stages of cancer treatment. Risk of death from COVID-19 in patients treated for a cancer is high. COVID-19 vaccines represent a major issue to decrease the rate of severe forms of the COVID-19 cases and to maintain a normal cancer care. It is difficult to define the target population for vaccination due to the limited data available and the lack of vaccine doses available. It appears theoretically important to vaccinate patients with active cancer treatment or treated since less than three years, as well as their family circle. In France, patients actually defined at "high risk" for priority access to vaccination are those with a cancer treated by chemotherapy. A panel of experts recently defined another "very high-priority" population, which includes patients with curative or palliative first or second-line chemotherapy, as well as patients requiring surgery or radiotherapy involving a large lung volume, lymph nodes and/or of hematopoietic tissue. Ideally, it is best to vaccinate before cancer treatment. Despite the lack of published data, COVID-19 vaccines can also be performed during chemotherapy by avoiding periods of bone marrow aplasia and if possible, to do it in cancer care centers. It is necessary to implement cohorts with immunological and clinical monitoring of vaccinated cancer patients. To conclude, considering the current state of knowledge, the benefit-risk ratio strongly favours COVID-19 vaccination of all cancer patients.

Management of digestive cancers during the COVID-19 second wave: A French intergroup point of view (SNFGE, FFCD, GERCOR, UNICANCER, SFCD, SFED, SFRO, ACHBT, SFR).

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has major impact of healthcare systems, including cancer care pathways. The aim of this work is to discuss in a multidisciplinary approach the therapeutic and/or strategies adaptations for patients treated for a digestive cancer during the European second wave of COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A collaborative work was performed by several French societies to answer how to preserve digestive cancer care with no loss of chance during the second wave of COVID-19. In this context, all recommendations are graded as expert's agreement according to level evidence found in literature until October 2020 and the experience of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: As far as possible, no therapeutic modification should be carried out. If necessary, therapeutic adjustments may be considered if they do not constitute a loss of chance for patients. Considering the level of evidence all therapeutic modifications need to be discussed in multidisciplinary tumor board meeting and with patient consent. By contrast to first wave cancer prevention, cancer screening, supportive care and clinical trials should be continued. CONCLUSION: Recommendations proposed could limit cancer excess mortality due to the COVID-19 pandemic but should be adapted according to the situation in each hospital.

Systematic duplex ultrasound screening in conventional units for COVID-19 patients with follow-up of 5 days.

OBJECTIVE: COVID-19 patients may develop coagulopathy, which is associated with poor prognosis and high risk of thrombosis. The main objective of this work was to evaluate the prevalence of deep venous thrombosis of lower limbs (DVT) through ultrasonography in patients infected with COVID-19 admitted to conventional units at our hospital with 5 days of monitoring. The secondary objective was to determine if D-dimer levels, body mass index, and C-reactive protein were associated with DVT. METHODS: A total of 72 patients, with a mean age of 65 ± 12.3 years, infected with COVID-19 were admitted to three conventional units at our institution; 28 patients were women. A COVID-19 diagnosis was made by a transcriptase polymerase chain reaction by means of nasopharyngeal swab or by chest computer tomography without iodine contrast media. Demographics, comorbidities, and laboratory parameters were collected. A preventive anticoagulation treatment was established on admission with low-molecular-weight heparin. A complete venous duplex ultrasound (DU) test of lower limbs was performed on day (D) 0 and D5. A pulmonary computer tomography angiogram with iodine contrast media was required when pulmonary embolism was suspected. RESULTS: On D0, the DU showed acute DVT in seven patients (9.75%). A pulmonary computer tomography angiogram was performed in 12 patients (16.65%), 3 (25%) of whom had an acute pulmonary embolism. On D0, acute DVT was not significantly associated with C-reactive protein (mean 101 ± 98.6 in the group without DVT vs 67.6 ± 58.4 mg/L, P = .43) or body mass index (27.7 ± 5.04 vs 28.1 ± 2.65 kg/m2, P = .54). However, we found a significant association between acute DVT and D-dimer levels (1536 ± 2347 vs 9652 ± 10,205 ng/mL, P < .01). Among the patients included on D0, only 32 had a DU on D5. Forty of them (55.55%) were not examined for the following reasons: 7 (9.7%) were previously diagnosed with venous thromboembolism on D0 and therefore were excluded on D5, 8 (11%) were transferred to the intensive care unit, 10 (14%) were discharged from the hospital, 5 (7%) died, and 10 (13.9%) were excluded because of technical issues. On D5, five (15.6%) patients had acute DVT in addition to those found on D0; three were distal and two proximal despite preventive anticoagulation with low-molecular-weight heparin. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalized non-intensive care unit patients with COVID-19 pneumonia have a high frequency of venous thrombotic events justifying screening with DU.

Risk factors for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) severity and mortality among solid cancer patients and impact of the disease on anticancer treatment: A French nationwide cohort study (GCO-002 CACOVID-19).

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients are thought to have an increased risk of developing severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection and of dying from the disease. In this work, predictive factors for COVID-19 severity and mortality in cancer patients were investigated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this large nationwide retro-prospective cohort study, we collected data on patients with solid tumours and COVID-19 diagnosed between March 1 and 11th June 2020. The primary end-point was all-cause mortality and COVID-19 severity, defined as admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) and/or mechanical ventilation and/or death, was one of the secondary end-points. RESULTS: From April 4 to 11th June 2020, 1289 patients were analysed. The most frequent cancers were digestive and thoracic. Altogether, 424 (33%) patients had a severe form of COVID-19 and 370 (29%) patients died. In multivariate analysis, independent factors associated with death were male sex (odds ratio 1.73, 95%CI: 1.18-2.52), The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Scale (ECOG PS) ≥ 2 (OR 3.23, 95%CI: 2.27-4.61), updated Charlson comorbidity index (OR 1.08, 95%CI: 1.01-1.16) and admission to ICU (OR 3.62, 95%CI 2.14-6.11). The same factors, age along with corticosteroids before COVID-19 diagnosis, and thoracic primary tumour site were independently associated with COVID-19 severity. None of the anticancer treatments administered within the previous 3 months had any effect on mortality or COVID-19 severity, except for cytotoxic chemotherapy in the subgroup of patients with detectable severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), which was associated with a slight increase of the risk of death (OR 1.53; 95%CI: 1.00-2.34; p = 0.05). A total of 431 (39%) patients had their systemic anticancer treatment (such as chemotherapy, targeted or immune therapy) interrupted or stopped following diagnosis of COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality and COVID-19 severity in cancer patients are high and are associated with general characteristics of patients. We found no deleterious effects of recent anticancer treatments, except for cytotoxic chemotherapy in the RT-PCR-confirmed subgroup of patients. In almost 40% of patients, the systemic anticancer therapy was interrupted or stopped after COVID-19 diagnosis.

Aminotransferases disorders associated with venous thromboembolic events in patients infected with COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, increasing evidence suggests that infected patients present a high incidence of venous thromboembolic (VTE) events and elevated aminotransferases (AT).The objective of this work was to evaluate the incidence of aminotransferases disorders in patients infected with COVID-19 and to manage the VTE events associated with elevated AT. PATIENTS OR MATERIALS AND METHODS: We report a retrospective study of 46 patients admitted for COVID-19 infection. Venous duplex ultrasound of lower limbs was performed in all patients at Day 0 and Day 5. All patients had antithrombotic-prophylaxis upon admission using low molecular weight heparin with Enoxaparin. Demographics, comorbidities and laboratory parameters were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: Elevated AT were reported in 28 patients (61%). 10 had acute VTE events of which eight (17.4%) had aminotransferases disorders. They had been treated with curative Enoxaparin. After a follow-up of 15 and/or 30 days, six of them were controlled, and treated with direct oral anticoagulant (DOACs) after normalization of aminotransferases. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of aminotransferases disorders associated with acute VTE events in patients infected with COVID-19 is significant. The use of DOACs appear pertinent in these patients. Monitoring of the liver balance should therefore be considered at a distance from the acute episode in the perspective of DOACs relay.

The Day after Tomorrow: How Should We Address Health System Organization to Treat Cancer Patients after the Peak of the COVID-19 Epidemic?

On March 11, 2020, the WHO director general declared COVID-19 a pandemic. This pandemic evolves in successive phases, i.e., phase 1 (the start phase), phase 2 ("the storm"), and phase 3 (the recession). To date, oncology and surgery groups have only given instructions for addressing phases 1 and 2. To prevent excess cancer mortality, health care systems (HCS) need to be restructured. Our aim is to detail the specificities of each epidemic phase and discuss several methods of organization to optimize cancer patient flow during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly during phase 3. Hospitals must be reorganized in order to create a cancer hub that is free of infection, allowing for the safe treatment of patients. Hospital structures are different, but all allow for the creation of virus-free areas. Screening programs are critical and need to be applied to all people entering the virus-free zone, including health care workers. Some reorganization proposals are internal to a hospital, while others require interhospital collaboration. The heterogeneity and complexity of HCS will make interhospital management difficult. The ministry of health has an important role in managing the cancer crisis. Cancer management should be declared a priority. Oncological and surgical societies must coordinate their efforts to facilitate this prioritization. The anticipation of oncological management during phase 3 of the pandemic is necessary because it requires a complete readjustment of HCS. This adaptation should allow for the continuation of cancer care to prevent excess cancer mortality, as the virus will still be present for a currently undetermined period of time.