Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 10 de 10
Filter
1.
PLoS One ; 18(3): e0282961, 2023.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2279646

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic remains the pre-eminent global health problem, and yet after more than three years there is still no prophylactic agent against the disease aside from vaccines. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether pre-existing, outpatient medications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reduce the risk of hospitalization due to COVID-19. This was a retrospective cohort study of patients from across the United States infected with COVID-19 in the year 2020. The main outcome was adjusted odds of hospitalization for COVID-19 amongst those positive for the infection. Outcomes were adjusted for known risk factors for severe disease. 3,974,272 patients aged 18 or older with a diagnosis of COVID-19 in 2020 met our inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. Mean age was 50.7 (SD 18). Of this group, 290,348 patients (7.3%) were hospitalized due to COVID-19, similar to the CDC's reported estimate (7.5%). Four drugs showed protective effects against COVID-19 hospitalization: rosuvastatin (aOR 0.91, p = 0.00000024), empagliflozin-metformin (aOR 0.69, p = 0.003), metformin (aOR 0.97, p = 0.017), and enoxaparin (aOR 0.88, p = 0.0048). Several pre-existing medications for outpatient use may reduce severity of disease and protect against COVID-19 hospitalization. Well-designed clinical trials are needed to assess the efficacy of these agents in a therapeutic or prophylactic setting.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Metformin , Humans , United States/epidemiology , Middle Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Retrospective Studies , Outpatients , Pandemics/prevention & control , Hospitalization
2.
J Am Coll Surg ; 235(2): 174-184, 2022 08 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2001543

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: During the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, national guidelines recommended that elective surgery for esophageal cancer be deferred by 3 months when hospital resources are limited. The impact of this delay on patient outcomes is unknown. We sought to evaluate the survival of patients with stage I and II/III esophageal cancer who undergo early vs delayed treatment. STUDY DESIGN: Using the National Cancer Database from 2010 to 2017, multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling and propensity score-matched analysis were employed to compare survival of patients with stage I esophageal cancer who received early (0 to 4 weeks after diagnosis) vs delayed esophagectomy (12 to 16 weeks) and of patients with stage II/III esophageal cancer who-after receiving timely chemoradiation (0 to 4 weeks after diagnosis)-underwent early (9 to 17 weeks) vs delayed esophagectomy (21 to 29 weeks). RESULTS: For stage I esophageal cancer, 226 (41.7%) patients underwent early esophagectomy, and 316 (58.3%) patients underwent delayed esophagectomy. Propensity score matching created 2 groups of 134 patients with early or delayed esophagectomy, whose 5-year survival was comparable (hazard ratio [HR] 65.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) 55.2% to 73.2%] vs HR 65.1% [95% CI 55.6% to 73.1%], p = 0.50). For stage II/III esophageal cancer, 1,236 (86.1%) patients underwent early esophagectomy, and 200 (13.9%) underwent delayed esophagectomy. Propensity score matching created 2 groups of 130 patients; the early esophagectomy group had improved 5-year survival compared with the delayed esophagectomy group (HR 41.6% [95% CI 32.1% to 50.8%] vs HR 22.9% [95% CI 14.9% to 31.8%], p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Early esophagectomy was associated with similar survival compared with delayed esophagectomy for patients with stage I esophageal cancer. For patients with stage II/III esophageal cancer, early esophagectomy was associated with improved survival relative to delayed esophagectomy.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Esophageal Neoplasms , COVID-19/epidemiology , Esophageal Neoplasms/pathology , Esophagectomy , Humans , Neoplasm Staging , Pandemics , Propensity Score , Retrospective Studies , Treatment Outcome
3.
Environ Sci Technol ; 2022 Jul 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1972505

ABSTRACT

The transmission of most respiratory pathogens, including SARS-CoV-2, occurs via virus-containing respiratory droplets, and thus, factors that affect virus viability in droplet residues on surfaces are of critical medical and public health importance. Relative humidity (RH) is known to play a role in virus survival, with a U-shaped relationship between RH and virus viability. The mechanisms affecting virus viability in droplet residues, however, are unclear. This study examines the structure and evaporation dynamics of virus-containing saliva droplets on fomites and their impact on virus viability using four model viruses: vesicular stomatitis virus, herpes simplex virus 1, Newcastle disease virus, and coronavirus HCoV-OC43. The results support the hypothesis that the direct contact of antiviral proteins and virions within the "coffee ring" region of the droplet residue gives rise to the observed U-shaped relationship between virus viability and RH. Viruses survive much better at low and high RH, and their viability is substantially reduced at intermediate RH. A phenomenological theory explaining this phenomenon and a quantitative model analyzing and correlating the experimentally measured virus survivability are developed on the basis of the observations. The mechanisms by which RH affects virus viability are explored. At intermediate RH, antiviral proteins have optimal influence on virions because of their largest contact time and overlap area, which leads to the lowest level of virus activity.

4.
Clin Lung Cancer ; 23(6): e362-e376, 2022 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1819457

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, patients may encounter lung cancer care delays. Here, we sought to examine the impact of extended treatment delay for stage III-IV non-small-cell lung cancer on patient survival. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) and National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) data, Cox regression analysis with penalized smoothing splines was performed to examine the association between treatment delay and all-cause mortality for stage III-IV lung adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma. In the NCDB, propensity score-matched analysis was used to compare cumulative survival in patients who received "early" versus "delayed" treatment (ie, 0-30 vs. 90-120 days following diagnosis). RESULTS: Cox regression analysis of the NLST (n = 392) and NCDB (n = 275,198) cohorts showed a decrease in hazard ratio the longer treatment was delayed. In propensity score-matched analysis, no significant differences in survival were found between early and delayed treatment for patients with stage IIIA, IIIB (T3-4,N2,M0), IIIC, and IV (M1B-C) adenocarcinoma and patients with IIIA, IIIB, IIIC, and IV squamous cell carcinoma (all log-rank P > .05). For patients with stage IIIB (T1-2,N3,M0) and stage IV (M1A) adenocarcinoma, delayed treatment was associated with improved survival (log-rank P = .03, P = .02). The findings were consistent in sensitivity analysis accounting for wait time bias. CONCLUSION: In this national analysis, for patients with stage III-IV adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma, an extended treatment delay by 3 to 4 months was not associated with significantly decreased overall survival compared to prompt treatment. These findings can be used to guide decision-making during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
Adenocarcinoma , COVID-19 , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung , Carcinoma, Squamous Cell , Lung Neoplasms , Adenocarcinoma/epidemiology , Adenocarcinoma/mortality , Adenocarcinoma/therapy , COVID-19/epidemiology , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/epidemiology , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/mortality , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/therapy , Carcinoma, Squamous Cell/epidemiology , Carcinoma, Squamous Cell/mortality , Carcinoma, Squamous Cell/therapy , Humans , Lung Neoplasms/epidemiology , Lung Neoplasms/mortality , Lung Neoplasms/therapy , Neoplasm Staging , Pandemics
5.
Ann Surg ; 275(2): 242-246, 2022 02 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1522450

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between the timing of surgery relative to the development of Covid-19 and the risks of postoperative complications. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: It is unknown whether patients who recovered from Covid-19 and then underwent a major elective operation have an increased risk of developing postoperative complications. METHODS: The risk of postoperative complications for patients with Covid-19 undergoing 18 major types of elective operations in the Covid-19 Research Database was evaluated using multivariable logistic regression. Patients were grouped by time of surgery relative to SARS-CoV-2 infection; that is, surgery performed: (1) before January 1, 2020 ("pre-Covid-19"), (2) 0 to 4 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 infection ("peri-Covid-19"), (3) 4 to 8 weeks after infection ("early post-Covid-19"), and (4) ≥8 weeks after infection ("late post-Covid-19"). RESULTS: Of the 5479 patients who met study criteria, patients with peri-Covid-19 had an elevated risk of developing postoperative pneumonia [adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 6.46; 95% confidence interval (CI): 4.06-10.27], respiratory failure (aOR, 3.36; 95% CI: 2.22-5.10), pulmonary embolism (aOR, 2.73; 95% CI: 1.35-5.53), and sepsis (aOR, 3.67; 95% CI: 2.18-6.16) when compared to pre-Covid-19 patients. Early post-Covid-19 patients had an increased risk of developing postoperative pneumonia when compared to pre-Covid-19 patients (aOR, 2.44; 95% CI: 1.20-4.96). Late post-Covid-19 patients did not have an increased risk of postoperative complications when compared to pre-Covid-19 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Major, elective surgery 0 to 4 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with an increased risk of postoperative complications. Surgery performed 4 to 8 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 infection is still associated with an increased risk of postoperative pneumonia, whereas surgery 8 weeks after Covid-19 diagnosis is not associated with increased complications.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnosis , Elective Surgical Procedures/adverse effects , Postoperative Complications/diagnosis , Time-to-Treatment , COVID-19 Testing , Humans , Pneumonia/diagnosis , Pulmonary Embolism/diagnosis , Respiratory Insufficiency/diagnosis , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Sepsis/diagnosis , United States
6.
Gynecologic Oncology ; 162:S295-S296, 2021.
Article in English | Academic Search Complete | ID: covidwho-1366747

ABSTRACT

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Society of Gynecologic Oncology and other medical societies provided guidelines about acceptable delays in oncologic treatments for patients with a suspected malignancy. The objective of this study was to characterize the association between timing of treatment and survival and to evaluate how extended delays to guideline-concordant treatment for suspected stage I high grade serous ovarian cancer might impact survival. Using the National Cancer Data Base (2004-2015), patients surgically treated for clinical stage I high grade serous ovarian cancer were identified. Patients receiving surgery within 14 days of diagnosis were compared to those receiving surgery 2-4 months after diagnosis. The groups were propensity matched with 2:1 matching to balance baseline characteristics. Survival outcomes of the two cohorts were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, the log-rank test, and multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis. During the study period, 10,957 patients underwent guideline-concordant surgery for stage I high-grade serous ovarian cancer within 14 days of diagnosis (early) and 171 patients underwent surgery 2-4 months following diagnosis (delayed). Between patients in the early versus delayed treatment groups, the delayed group was more likely to be Black (5.3% vs 11.8%, p=0.003) and have a smaller tumor size (8.0 vs. 6.2 cm, p<0.001). The early group was more likely to have private insurance (57.4% vs 44.9%, p=0.006). There was no significant difference in 5-year overall survival between the unmatched early versus delayed groups (56.6% vs 50.8%, p=0.36). Propensity-score 2:1 matching was used to create two groups of patients who received early (n=342) or delayed (n=171) surgery that were well-matched with regards to baseline characteristics. The only significant difference between groups in the matched cohort was patients in the delayed group had smaller tumors (8.0 vs 6.2 cm, p<0.001). There was no significant difference in 3-year overall survival (early 73.6% [95% confidence interval (CI): 68.2 - 78.2] vs delayed 72.6% [95% CI: 64.4 - 79.2]) or 5-year overall survival (early 56.6% [95% CI: 50.3 - 62.4] vs delayed 50.8% [95% CI: 41.6 - 59.3], log-rank p=0.52) between the early versus delayed groups (Figure 1). In Cox proportional hazards analysis, age in years (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR)=1.03, [CI: 1.01 - 1.04], p=0.003) and Charlson Deyo comorbidity composite score of 2 (aHR=2.58, [CI: 1.44 - 4.62], p=0.001) were associated with worse survival. Private insurance status was associated with improved overall survival (aHR=0.51, [CI: 0.27 - 0.96], p=0.04). Surgical delay was not significantly associated with different overall survival (aHR=1.19, [CI: 0.90 - 1.58], p=0.23). [Display omitted] In this national analysis, extended delay of treatment for stage I high grade serous ovarian cancer was associated with similar survival outcomes when compared to timely treatment in pre-match and post-match cohorts. In the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic, where hospital resources may be limited, delays in surgery are concerning and prompt oncologic treatment is preferred;however, at least based on these retrospective data, delays in surgery for presumed stage I ovarian cancer may not be associated with significantly worse survival. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Gynecologic Oncology is the property of Academic Press Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

7.
Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg ; 34(2): 733-734, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1228285
8.
Ann Surg ; 273(5): 850-857, 2021 05 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1171640

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of extended delay to surgery for stage I NSCLC. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: During the COVID-19 pandemic, patients with NSCLC may experience delays in care, and some national guidelines recommend delays in surgery by >3 months for early NSCLC. METHODS: Using data from the National Lung Screening Trial, a multi-center randomized trial, and the National Cancer Data Base, a multi-institutional oncology registry, the impact of "early" versus "delayed" surgery (surgery received 0-30 vs 90-120 days after diagnosis) for stage I lung adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) was assessed using multivariable Cox regression analysis with penalized smoothing spline functions and propensity score-matched analyses. RESULTS: In Cox regression analysis of the National Lung Screening Trial (n = 452) and National Cancer Data Base (n = 80,086) cohorts, an increase in the hazard ratio was seen the longer surgery was delayed. In propensity score-matched analysis, no significant differences in survival were found between early and delayed surgery for stage IA1 adenocarcinoma and IA1-IA3 SCC (all P > 0.13). For stage IA2-IB adenocarcinoma and IB SCC, delayed surgery was associated with worse survival (all P < 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: The mortality risk associated with an extended delay to surgery differs across patient subgroups, and difficult decisions to delay care during the COVID-19 pandemic should take substage and histologic subtype into consideration.


Subject(s)
Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/mortality , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/surgery , Lung Neoplasms/mortality , Lung Neoplasms/surgery , Time-to-Treatment , Adenocarcinoma/mortality , Adenocarcinoma/surgery , COVID-19/epidemiology , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/pathology , Carcinoma, Squamous Cell/mortality , Carcinoma, Squamous Cell/surgery , Clinical Decision-Making , Humans , Lung Neoplasms/pathology , Neoplasm Staging , Pandemics , Propensity Score , Proportional Hazards Models , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
9.
Ann Surg ; 272(6): 925-929, 2020 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-873175

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the overall survival of patients with operable stage IA non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who undergo "early" SBRT (within 0-30 days after diagnosis) versus "delayed" surgery (90-120 days after diagnosis). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: During the COVID-19 pandemic, national guidelines have recommended patients with operable stage IA NSCLC to consider delaying surgery by at least 3 months or, alternatively, to undergo SBRT without delay. It is unknown which strategy is associated with better short- and long-term outcomes. METHODS: Multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling and propensity score-matched analysis was used to compare the overall survival of patients with stage IA NSCLC in the National Cancer Data Base from 2004 to 2015 who underwent "early" SBRT (0-30 days after diagnosis) versus that of patients who underwent "delayed" wedge resection (90-120 days after diagnosis). RESULTS: During the study period, 570 (55%) patients underwent early SBRT and 475 (45%) underwent delayed wedge resection. In multivariable analysis, delayed resection was associated with improved survival [adjusted hazard ratio 0.61; (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.50-0.76)]. Propensity-score matching was used to create 2 groups of 279 patients each who received early SBRT or delayed resection that were well-matched with regard to baseline characteristics. The 5-year survival associated with delayed resection was 53% (95% CI: 45%-61%) which was better than the 5-year survival associated with early SBRT (31% [95% CI: 24%-37%]). CONCLUSION: In this national analysis, for patients with stage IA NSCLC, extended delay of surgery was associated with improved survival when compared to early treatment with SBRT.


Subject(s)
Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/radiotherapy , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/surgery , Lung Neoplasms/radiotherapy , Lung Neoplasms/surgery , Radiosurgery , COVID-19 , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/mortality , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/pathology , Cohort Studies , Humans , Lung Neoplasms/mortality , Lung Neoplasms/pathology , Neoplasm Staging , SARS-CoV-2 , Survival Rate , Time Factors , Time-to-Treatment
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL