SARS CoV-2 virus in cancer patients: a new unknown in an unsolved equation.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer patients are more susceptible to infections and infection can be more severe than in patients without cancer diagnosis. We conducted this retrospective study in patients admitted for SARS-CoV-2 infection in order to find differences in inflammatory markers and mortality in cancer patients compared to others. METHODS: We reviewed the electronic records of patients admitted for SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by PCR from March to September 2020. Data on socio-demographics, comorbidities, inflammatory makers and cancer-related features were analysed. RESULTS: 2,772 patients were admitted for SARS-CoV-2, to the Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal in Madrid during this period. Of these, 2597 (91%) had no history of neoplastic disease, 164 (5.9%) patients had a prior history of cancer but were not undergoing oncological treatment at the time of infection, and 81 (2.9%) were in active treatment. Mortality in patients without a history of cancer was 19.5%, 28.6% for patients with a prior history of cancer and 34% in patients with active cancer treatment. Patients in active oncology treatment with the highest mortality rate, were those diagnosed with lung cancer (OR 5.6 95% CI 2.2-14.1). In the multivariate study active oncological treatment (OR 2.259 95% IC 1.35-3.77) and chemotherapy treatment (OR 3.624 95% IC 1.17-11.17), were statistically significant factors for the risk of death for the whole group and for the group with active oncological treatment, respectively. CONCLUSION: Cancer patients on active systemic treatment have an increased risk of mortality after SARS-CoV-2 infection, especially with lung cancer or chemotherapy treatment.

Rate of Recurrence After Discontinuing Anticoagulation Therapy in Patients With COVID-19-Associated Venous Thromboembolism.

This cohort study assesses the rate of recurrence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with COVID-19­associated VTE who discontinued anticoagulation therapy.

Long-term survival of mechanically ventilated patients with severe COVID-19: an observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Information is lacking regarding long-term survival and predictive factors for mortality in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation. We aimed to estimate 180-day mortality of patients with COVID-19 requiring invasive ventilation, and to develop a predictive model for long-term mortality. METHODS: Retrospective, multicentre, national cohort study between March 8 and April 30, 2020 in 16 intensive care units (ICU) in Spain. Participants were consecutive adults who received invasive mechanical ventilation for COVID-19. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection detected in positive testing of a nasopharyngeal sample and confirmed by real time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (rt-PCR). The primary outcomes was 180-day survival after hospital admission. Secondary outcomes were length of ICU and hospital stay, and ICU and in-hospital mortality. A predictive model was developed to estimate the probability of 180-day mortality. RESULTS: 868 patients were included (median age, 64 years [interquartile range [IQR], 56-71 years]; 72% male). Severity at ICU admission, estimated by SAPS3, was 56 points [IQR 50-63]. Prior to intubation, 26% received some type of noninvasive respiratory support. The unadjusted overall 180-day survival rates was 59% (95% CI 56-62%). The predictive factors measured during ICU stay, and associated with 180-day mortality were: age [Odds Ratio [OR] per 1-year increase 1.051, 95% CI 1.033-1.068)), SAPS3 (OR per 1-point increase 1.027, 95% CI 1.011-1.044), diabetes (OR 1.546, 95% CI 1.085-2.204), neutrophils to lymphocytes ratio (OR per 1-unit increase 1.008, 95% CI 1.001-1.016), failed attempt of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation prior to orotracheal intubation (OR 1.878 (95% CI 1.124-3.140), use of selective digestive decontamination strategy during ICU stay (OR 0.590 (95% CI 0.358-0.972) and administration of low dosage of corticosteroids (methylprednisolone 1 mg/kg) (OR 2.042 (95% CI 1.205-3.460). CONCLUSION: The long-term survival of mechanically ventilated patients with severe COVID-19 reaches more than 50% and may help to provide individualized risk stratification and potential treatments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04379258. Registered 10 April 2020 (retrospectively registered).

Propensity-Adjusted Comparison of Mortality of Elderly Versus Very Elderly Ventilated Patients.

BACKGROUND: The growing proportion of elderly intensive care patients constitutes a public health challenge. The benefit of critical care in these patients remains unclear. We compared outcomes in elderly versus very elderly subjects receiving mechanical ventilation. METHODS: In total, 5,557 mechanically ventilated subjects were included in our post hoc retrospective analysis, a subgroup of the VENTILA study. We divided the cohort into 2 subgroups on the basis of age: very elderly subjects (age ≥ 80 y; n = 1,430), and elderly subjects (age 65-79 y; n = 4,127). A propensity score on being very elderly was calculated. Evaluation of associations with 28-d mortality was done with logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Very elderly subjects were clinically sicker as expressed by higher SAPS II scores (53 ± 18 vs 50 ± 18, P < .001), and their rates of plateau pressure < 30 cm H2O were higher, whereas other parameters did not differ. The 28-d mortality was higher in very elderly subjects (42% vs 34%, P < .001) and remained unchanged after propensity score adjustment (adjusted odds ratio 1.31 [95% CI 1.16-1.49], P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Age was an independent and unchangeable risk factor for death in mechanically ventilated subjects. However, survival rates of very elderly subjects were > 50%. Denial of critical care based solely on age is not justified. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT02731898.).

Recommendations for SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 testing: a scoping review of current guidance.

BACKGROUND: Testing used in screening, diagnosis and follow-up of COVID-19 has been a subject of debate. Several organisations have developed formal advice about testing for COVID-19 to assist in the control of the disease. We collated, delineated and appraised current worldwide recommendations about the role and applications of tests to control SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19. METHODS: We searched for documents providing recommendations for COVID-19 testing in PubMed, EMBASE, LILACS, the Coronavirus Open Access Project living evidence database and relevant websites such as TRIP database, ECRI Guidelines Trust, the GIN database, from inception to 21 September 2020. Two reviewers applied the eligibility criteria to potentially relevant citations without language or geographical restrictions. We extracted data in duplicate, including assessment of methodological quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation-II tool. RESULTS: We included 47 relevant documents and 327 recommendations about testing. Regarding the quality of the documents, we found that the domains with the lowest scores were 'Editorial independence' (Median=4%) and 'Applicability' (Median=6%). Only six documents obtained at least 50% score for the 'Rigour of development' domain. An important number of recommendations focused on the diagnosis of suspected cases (48%) and deisolation measures (11%). The most frequently recommended test was the reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) assay (87 recommendations) and the chest CT (38 recommendations). There were 22 areas of agreement among guidance developers, including the use of RT-PCR for SARS-Cov-2 confirmation, the limited role of bronchoscopy, the use chest CT and chest X-rays for grading severity and the co-assessment for other respiratory pathogens. CONCLUSION: This first scoping review of recommendations for COVID-19 testing showed many limitations in the methodological quality of included guidance documents that could affect the confidence of clinicians in their implementation. Future guidance documents should incorporate a minimum set of key methodological characteristics to enhance their applicability for decision making.

Incidence of VTE and Bleeding Among Hospitalized Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Individual studies have reported widely variable rates for VTE and bleeding among hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the incidence of VTE and bleeding among hospitalized patients with COVID-19? METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, 15 standard sources and COVID-19-specific sources were searched between January 1, 2020, and July 31, 2020, with no restriction according to language. Incidence estimates were pooled by using random effects meta-analyses. Heterogeneity was evaluated by using the I2 statistic, and publication bias was assessed by using the Begg and Egger tests. RESULTS: The pooled incidence was 17.0% (95% CI, 13.4-20.9) for VTE, 12.1% (95% CI, 8.4-16.4) for DVT, 7.1% (95% CI, 5.3-9.1) for pulmonary embolism (PE), 7.8% (95% CI, 2.6-15.3) for bleeding, and 3.9% (95% CI, 1.2-7.9) for major bleeding. In subgroup meta-analyses, the incidence of VTE was higher when assessed according to screening (33.1% vs 9.8% by clinical diagnosis), among patients in the ICU (27.9% vs 7.1% in the ward), in prospective studies (25.5% vs 12.4% in retrospective studies), and with the inclusion of catheter-associated thrombosis/isolated distal DVTs and isolated subsegmental PEs. The highest pooled incidence estimate of bleeding was reported for patients receiving intermediate- or full-dose anticoagulation (21.4%) and the lowest in the only prospective study that assessed bleeding events (2.7%). INTERPRETATION: Among hospitalized patients with COVID-19, the overall estimated pooled incidence of VTE was 17.0%, with higher rates with routine screening, inclusion of distal DVT, and subsegmental PE, in critically ill patients and in prospective studies. Bleeding events were observed in 7.8% of patients and were sensitive to use of escalated doses of anticoagulants and nature of data collection. Additional studies are required to ascertain the significance of various thrombotic events and to identify strategies to improve patient outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRY: PROSPERO; No.: CRD42020198864; URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/.

High versus standard doses of corticosteroids in severe COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study.

Despite the increasing evidence of the benefit of corticosteroids for the treatment of moderate-severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients, no data are available about the potential role of high doses of steroids for these patients. We evaluated the mortality, the risk of need for mechanical ventilation (MV), or death and the risk of developing a severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) between high (HD) and standard doses (SD) among patients with a severe COVID-19. All consecutive confirmed COVID-19 patients admitted to a single center were selected, including those treated with steroids and an ARDS. Patients were allocated to the HD (≥ 250 mg/day of methylprednisolone) of corticosteroids or the SD (≤ 1.5 mg/kg/day of methylprednisolone) at discretion of treating physician. Five hundred seventy-three patients were included: 428 (74.7%) men, with a median (IQR) age of 64 (54-73) years. In the HD group, a worse baseline respiratory situation was observed and male gender, older age, and comorbidities were significantly more common. After adjusting by baseline characteristics, HDs were associated with a higher mortality than SD (adjusted OR 2.46, 95% CI 1.59-3.81, p < 0.001) and with an increased risk of needing MV or death (adjusted OR 2.35, p = 0.001). Conversely, the risk of developing a severe ARDS was similar between groups. Interaction analysis showed that HD increased mortality exclusively in elderly patients. Our real-world experience advises against exceeding 1-1.5 mg/kg/day of corticosteroids for severe COVID-19 with an ARDS, especially in older subjects. This reinforces the rationale of modulating rather than suppressing immune responses in these patients.

Effects of tocilizumab on mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a multicentre cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Tocilizumab has been proposed as a candidate therapy for patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), especially among those with higher systemic inflammation. We investigated the association between receipt of tocilizumab and mortality in a large cohort of hospitalized patients. METHODS: In this cohort study of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Spain, the primary outcome was time to death and the secondary outcome time to intensive care unit (ICU) admission or death. We used inverse probability weighting to fit marginal structural models adjusted for time-varying covariates to determine the causal relationship between receipt of tocilizumab and outcome. RESULTS: Data from 1229 patients were analysed, with 261 patients (61 deaths) in the tocilizumab group and 969 patients (120 deaths) in the control group. In the adjusted marginal structural models, a significant interaction between receipt of tocilizumab and high C-reactive protein (CRP) levels was detected. Tocilizumab was associated with decreased risk of death (adjusted hazard ratio 0.34, 95% confidence interval 0.16-0.72, p 0.005) and ICU admission or death (adjusted hazard ratio 0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.19-0.80, p 0.011) among patients with baseline CRP >150 mg/L but not among those with CRP ≤150 mg/L. Exploratory subgroup analyses yielded point estimates that were consistent with these findings. CONCLUSIONS: In this large observational study, tocilizumab was associated with a lower risk of death or ICU admission or death in patients with higher CRP levels. While the results of ongoing clinical trials of tocilizumab in patients with COVID-19 will be important to establish its safety and efficacy, our findings have implications for the design of future clinical trials.