What do patients and their carers experience in a lung cancer referral pathway? a qualitative study. (preprint)

Background: Lung cancer referral pathways aim to reduce delays and improve referral patterns of people with suspected lung cancer. As part of implementing lung cancer referral pathway at a regional Australian hospital, this study aimed to explore the experiences and perceptions of people with lung cancer and their carers.Methods: In-depth interviews were used to elicit data for thematic analysis in this cross-sectional qualitative study. Newly diagnosed lung cancer patients and their carers at an academic cancer centre were invited to participate in interviews. Five interviews were conducted face-to-face, and fourteen interviews were conducted by telephone (as per interviewee preference). Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and qualitatively analysed. Descriptive phrases were used to generate initial inductive codes and themes. Results: Nineteen out of 36 participants approached agreed to take part in the study. Important aspects for participants identified were: quality of communication from clinicians, timeliness of investigations and specialist referrals, patient advocacy, psycho-social support, and co-ordination of care. Various difficulties experienced which reduced their perception of quality of care were reported by some patients and their carers. Tele-health consultations, including telephone consultations, were being used widely due to the COVID 19 pandemic. Factors which positively impacted the care experience were good communication, timeliness and patient advocacy and support. Improper communication, long waiting times for investigations and appointments, uncertainty about the process and inconsistent providers negatively impacted the care experience. Participants preferred face to face or video-linked consultations over telephone consultations.Conclusions: Proper communication, timeliness and adequate psycho-social support were perceived as important factors in improving satisfaction of lung cancer patients and their carers during the referral pathway. Methods to improve communication by clinicians, reduce delays and provide support care during the referral pathway should be explored further.

Anti-inflammatory therapy with nebulised dornase alfa in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia (preprint)

Background: SARS-CoV2 infection causes severe, life-threatening pneumonia. Hyper-inflammation, coagulopathy and lymphopenia are associated with pathology and poor outcomes in these patients. Cell-free (cf) chromatin is prominent in COVID-19 patients, amplifies inflammation and promotes coagulopathy and immune dysfunction. We hypothesized that cf-chromatin clearance by nebulised dornase alfa may reduce inflammation and improve disease outcomes. Here, we evaluated the efficacy of nebulized dornase alfa in patients hospitalised with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Methods: In this randomised controlled single-centre phase 2 proof-of-concept trial, we recruited adult patients admitted to hospital that exhibited stable oxygen saturation ([≥]94%) on supplementary oxygen and a C-reactive protein (CRP) level [≥]30mg/L post dexamethasone treatment. Participants were randomized at a 3:1 ratio to receive twice-daily nebulised dornase alfa in addition to best available care (BAC) or BAC alone for seven days or until hospital discharge. A 2:1 ratio of historical controls to treated individuals (HC, 2:1) were included as the primary endpoint comparators. The primary outcome was a reduction in systemic inflammation measured by blood CRP levels over 7 days post-randomisation, or to discharge if sooner. Secondary and exploratory outcomes included time to discharge, time on oxygen, D-dimer levels, lymphocyte counts and levels of circulating cf-DNA. Results: We screened 75 patients and enrolled 39 participants out of which 30 in dornase alfa arm, and 9 in BAC group. We also matched the recruited patients in the treated group (N=30) to historical controls in the BAC group (N=60). For the the primary outcome, 30 patients in the dornase alfa were compared to 69 patients in the BAC group. Dornase alfa treatment reduced CRP by 33% compared to the BAC group at 7-days (P=0.01). The dornase alfa group least squares mean CRP was 23.23 mg/L (95% CI 17.71 to 30.46) and the BAC group 34.82 mg/L (95% CI 28.55 to 42.47). A significant difference was also observed when only randomised participants were compared. Furthermore, compared to the BAC group, the chance of live discharge was increased by 63% in the dornase alfa group (HR 1.63, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.61, P=0.03), lymphocyte counts were improved (least-square mean: 1.08 vs 0.87, P=0.02) and markers of coagulopathy such as D-dimer were diminished (least-square mean: 570.78 vs 1656.96g/mL, P=0.004). Moreover, the dornase alfa group exhibited lower circulating cf-DNA levels that correlated with CRP changes over the course of treatment. No differences were recorded in the rates and length of stay in the ICU or the time on oxygen between the groups. Dornase alfa was well-tolerated with no serious adverse events reported. Conclusions: In this proof-of-concept study in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia, treatment with nebulised dornase alfa resulted in a significant reduction in inflammation, markers of immune pathology and time to discharge. The effectiveness of dornase alfa in patients with acute respiratory infection and inflammation should be investigated further in larger trials. Trial registration number: NCT04359654

Post-COVID assessment in a specialist clinical service: a 12-month, single-centre analysis of symptoms and healthcare needs in 1325 individuals. (preprint)

Background. Complications following SARS-CoV-2 infection require simultaneous characterisation and management to plan policy and health system responses. We describe the 12-month experience of the first UK dedicated Post-COVID clinical service to include both hospitalised and non-hospitalised patients. Methods. In a single-centre, observational analysis, we report outcomes for 1325 individuals assessed in the University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Post-COVID service between April 2020 and April 2021. Demography, symptoms, comorbidities, investigations, treatments, functional recovery, specialist referral and rehabilitation were compared by referral route ('post hospitalisation', PH; 'non-hospitalised', NH; and 'post emergency department', PED). Symptoms associated with poor recovery or inability to return to work full-time were assessed using multivariable logistic regression. Findings. 1325 individuals were assessed (PH 547 [41.3%], PED 212 [16%], NH 566 [42.7%]. Compared with PH and PED groups, NH were younger (median 44.6 [35.6-52.8] vs 58.3 [47.0-67.7] and 48.5 [39.4-55.7] years), more likely to be female (68.2%, 43.0% and 59.9%), less likely to be from an ethnic minority (30.9%, 52.7% and 41.0%) and seen later after symptom onset (median [IQR]:194 [118-298], 69 [51-111] and 76 [55-128] days) (all p<0.0001). NH patients had similar rates of onward specialist referral as PH and PED groups (18.7%, 16.1% and 18.9%, p=0.452), and were more likely to require support for breathlessness (23.7%, 5.5% and 15.1%, p<0.001) and fatigue (17.8%, 4.8%, 8.0%, p<0.001). Hospitalised patients had higher rates of pulmonary emboli, persistent lung interstitial abnormalities, and other organ impairment. 716 (54.0%) individuals reported <75% of optimal health (median [IQR] 70% [55%-85%]). Overall, less than half of employed individuals felt able to return to work full-time at first assessment. Interpretation. Symptoms following SARS-CoV-2 infection were significant in both post- and non-hospitalised patients, with significant ongoing healthcare needs and utilisation. Trials of interventions and patient-centred pathways for diagnostic and treatment approaches are urgently required.