Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 11 de 11
Filter
1.
Blood Cancer Discov ; 3(3): 181-193, 2022 05 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1883342

ABSTRACT

Patients with B-lymphoid malignancies have been consistently identified as a population at high risk of severe COVID-19. Whether this is exclusively due to cancer-related deficits in humoral and cellular immunity, or whether risk of severe COVID-19 is increased by anticancer therapy, is uncertain. Using data derived from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19), we show that patients treated for B-lymphoid malignancies have an increased risk of severe COVID-19 compared with control populations of patients with non-B-lymphoid malignancies. Among patients with B-lymphoid malignancies, those who received anticancer therapy within 12 months of COVID-19 diagnosis experienced increased COVID-19 severity compared with patients with non-recently treated B-lymphoid malignancies, after adjustment for cancer status and several other prognostic factors. Our findings suggest that patients recently treated for a B-lymphoid malignancy are at uniquely high risk for severe COVID-19. SIGNIFICANCE: Our study suggests that recent therapy for a B-lymphoid malignancy is an independent risk factor for COVID-19 severity. These findings provide rationale to develop mitigation strategies targeted at the uniquely high-risk population of patients with recently treated B-lymphoid malignancies. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 171.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Lymphatic Diseases , Neoplasms , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Testing , Humans , Neoplasms/epidemiology , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2
3.
Open Forum Infect Dis ; 9(3): ofac037, 2022 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1701403

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The frequency of coinfections and their association with outcomes have not been adequately studied among patients with cancer and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a high-risk group for coinfection. METHODS: We included adult (≥18 years) patients with active or prior hematologic or invasive solid malignancies and laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) infection, using data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19, NCT04354701). We captured coinfections within ±2 weeks from diagnosis of COVID-19, identified factors cross-sectionally associated with risk of coinfection, and quantified the association of coinfections with 30-day mortality. RESULTS: Among 8765 patients (hospitalized or not; median age, 65 years; 47.4% male), 16.6% developed coinfections: 12.1% bacterial, 2.1% viral, 0.9% fungal. An additional 6.4% only had clinical diagnosis of a coinfection. The adjusted risk of any coinfection was positively associated with age >50 years, male sex, cardiovascular, pulmonary, and renal comorbidities, diabetes, hematologic malignancy, multiple malignancies, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, progressing cancer, recent cytotoxic chemotherapy, and baseline corticosteroids; the adjusted risk of superinfection was positively associated with tocilizumab administration. Among hospitalized patients, high neutrophil count and C-reactive protein were positively associated with bacterial coinfection risk, and high or low neutrophil count with fungal coinfection risk. Adjusted mortality rates were significantly higher among patients with bacterial (odds ratio [OR], 1.61; 95% CI, 1.33-1.95) and fungal (OR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.28-3.76) coinfections. CONCLUSIONS: Viral and fungal coinfections are infrequent among patients with cancer and COVID-19, with the latter associated with very high mortality rates. Clinical and laboratory parameters can be used to guide early empiric antimicrobial therapy, which may improve clinical outcomes.

4.
Lancet Healthy Longev ; 3(3): e143-e152, 2022 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1683812

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Older age is associated with poorer outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection, although the heterogeneity of ageing results in some older adults being at greater risk than others. The objective of this study was to quantify the association of a novel geriatric risk index, comprising age, modified Charlson comorbidity index, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, with COVID-19 severity and 30-day mortality among older adults with cancer. METHODS: In this cohort study, we enrolled patients aged 60 years and older with a current or previous cancer diagnosis (excluding those with non-invasive cancers and premalignant or non-malignant conditions) and a current or previous laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis who reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) multinational, multicentre, registry between March 17, 2020, and June 6, 2021. Patients were also excluded for unknown age, missing data resulting in unknown geriatric risk measure, inadequate data quality, or incomplete follow-up resulting in unknown COVID-19 severity. The exposure of interest was the CCC19 geriatric risk index. The primary outcome was COVID-19 severity and the secondary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality; both were assessed in the full dataset. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs were estimated from ordinal and binary logistic regression models. FINDINGS: 5671 patients with cancer and COVID-19 were included in the analysis. Median follow-up time was 56 days (IQR 22-120), and median age was 72 years (IQR 66-79). The CCC19 geriatric risk index identified 2365 (41·7%) patients as standard risk, 2217 (39·1%) patients as intermediate risk, and 1089 (19·2%) as high risk. 36 (0·6%) patients were excluded due to non-calculable geriatric risk index. Compared with standard-risk patients, high-risk patients had significantly higher COVID-19 severity (adjusted OR 7·24; 95% CI 6·20-8·45). 920 (16·2%) of 5671 patients died within 30 days of a COVID-19 diagnosis, including 161 (6·8%) of 2365 standard-risk patients, 409 (18·5%) of 2217 intermediate-risk patients, and 350 (32·1%) of 1089 high-risk patients. High-risk patients had higher adjusted odds of 30-day mortality (adjusted OR 10·7; 95% CI 8·54-13·5) than standard-risk patients. INTERPRETATION: The CCC19 geriatric risk index was strongly associated with COVID-19 severity and 30-day mortality. Our CCC19 geriatric risk index, based on readily available clinical factors, might provide clinicians with an easy-to-use risk stratification method to identify older adults most at risk for severe COVID-19 as well as mortality. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute Cancer Center.

5.
JAMA Netw Open ; 5(1): e2142046, 2022 01 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1605268

ABSTRACT

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a distinct spatiotemporal pattern in the United States. Patients with cancer are at higher risk of severe complications from COVID-19, but it is not well known whether COVID-19 outcomes in this patient population were associated with geography. Objective: To quantify spatiotemporal variation in COVID-19 outcomes among patients with cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This registry-based retrospective cohort study included patients with a historical diagnosis of invasive malignant neoplasm and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between March and November 2020. Data were collected from cancer care delivery centers in the United States. Exposures: Patient residence was categorized into 9 US census divisions. Cancer center characteristics included academic or community classification, rural-urban continuum code (RUCC), and social vulnerability index. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. The secondary composite outcome consisted of receipt of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit admission, and all-cause death. Multilevel mixed-effects models estimated associations of center-level and census division-level exposures with outcomes after adjustment for patient-level risk factors and quantified variation in adjusted outcomes across centers, census divisions, and calendar time. Results: Data for 4749 patients (median [IQR] age, 66 [56-76] years; 2439 [51.4%] female individuals, 1079 [22.7%] non-Hispanic Black individuals, and 690 [14.5%] Hispanic individuals) were reported from 83 centers in the Northeast (1564 patients [32.9%]), Midwest (1638 [34.5%]), South (894 [18.8%]), and West (653 [13.8%]). After adjustment for patient characteristics, including month of COVID-19 diagnosis, estimated 30-day mortality rates ranged from 5.2% to 26.6% across centers. Patients from centers located in metropolitan areas with population less than 250 000 (RUCC 3) had lower odds of 30-day mortality compared with patients from centers in metropolitan areas with population at least 1 million (RUCC 1) (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.31; 95% CI, 0.11-0.84). The type of center was not significantly associated with primary or secondary outcomes. There were no statistically significant differences in outcome rates across the 9 census divisions, but adjusted mortality rates significantly improved over time (eg, September to November vs March to May: aOR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.17-0.58). Conclusions and Relevance: In this registry-based cohort study, significant differences in COVID-19 outcomes across US census divisions were not observed. However, substantial heterogeneity in COVID-19 outcomes across cancer care delivery centers was found. Attention to implementing standardized guidelines for the care of patients with cancer and COVID-19 could improve outcomes for these vulnerable patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Neoplasms/epidemiology , Pandemics , Rural Population , Social Vulnerability , Urban Population , Aged , Cause of Death , Censuses , Female , Health Facilities , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Odds Ratio , Registries , Respiration, Artificial , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index , Spatial Analysis , United States/epidemiology
6.
J Psychosoc Nurs Ment Health Serv ; 59(8): 3-4, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1339641

Subject(s)
Nurses , Suicide , Humans
7.
Blood ; 136(Supplement 1):56-58, 2020.
Article in English | PMC | ID: covidwho-1338999

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 may have increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and pulmonary embolism (PE). Cancer and anti-cancer therapies are well-known additional risk factors for VTE. Nonetheless, the VTE risk in patients with both cancer and COVID-19 infection remains unknown as recent studies have not found an association due to sample size limitations. We report the incidence of and risk factors for VTE and PE among hospitalized patients with cancer and COVID-19.Methods: The COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) developed an international retrospective cohort study (NCT04354701) to investigate the clinical course and complications of COVID-19 among adult patients with an active or previous history of cancer. For the current study, cumulative incidences of clinically detected VTE and PE were analyzed among hospitalized patients with laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2. Pre-specified subgroup analysis was performed to examine the interaction between intensive care unit (ICU) admission and recent anti-cancer therapy on VTE outcomes. Bivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to assess the association between baseline variables and VTE;unadjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were reported. These variables included age, sex, obesity (BMI>30), race/ethnicity, performance status, comorbidities, blood type, history of VTE, recent surgery, recent anti-cancer therapy, cancer subtype VTE risk grouping (adapted from Khorana Score), pre-admission anticoagulant or antiplatelet use, and ICU admission status.Results: From March 17, 2020 to July 31, 2020, 3914 patients were enrolled in the CCC19 registry. For the present analysis, patients were excluded if they had inadequate follow-up <4 weeks (n=950), were not admitted to the hospital (n=1008), or had unknown VTE outcomes (n=327). Among the 1629 hospitalized patients, the median follow-up was 35 days. Patients were comprised from 3 countries (92% US, 6% Canada, 2% Spain), with a median age of 70, 45% female, and a median comorbidity score of 3. Racial/ethnic breakdown included 44% White, 26% Black, 14% Hispanic, and 13% Other. A past history of VTE was reported in 9% of patients;pre-admission anticoagulant use and antiplatelet use were reported in 25% and 35% of patients, respectively. The most common cancer types included prostate (18%), breast (15%), and lymphoma (14%). Based on the VTE risk grouping adapted from the original Khorana Score, 34% were low-risk, 29% were high-risk, and 6% were very high-risk. The receipt of anti-cancer therapy within 3 months of diagnosis was observed in 39% of patients (17% cytotoxic chemotherapy, 11% targeted therapy, 7% endocrine therapy, and 5% immunotherapy).The overall incidence of inhospital VTE and PE was 9.3% and 5.2%, respectively. The corresponding estimates were 13.4% and 7.9% among the ICU subgroup. On bivariable analysis, significant predictors of VTE included ICU admission, recent anti-cancer therapy, active cancer status, cancer subtype VTE risk grouping, and pre-admission antiplatelet use (Table 1). Pre-admission anticoagulant use had significant associations with PE but not VTE. Multivariable adjustment is ongoing to identify independent risk factor for VTE and clarify the impact of pre-admission anticoagulant/antiplatelet use controlled for other potential confounders.Both ICU admission status and anti-cancer therapy increased the risk of VTE independently. Non-ICU patients not on anti-cancer therapy had the lowest incidence of VTE (4.5%), whose estimate was similar to that reported in the non-cancer hospitalized population with COVID-19 infection. Patients with either ICU admission or recent anti-cancer therapy had the intermediate risk (11.0%), whereas ICU patients with recent anti-cancer therapy had the highest risk (16.7%). We did not observe confounding or effect modification by the ICU subgroup on the association between anti-cancer therapy and VTE.Conclusion: In this cohort study of hospitalized patients with cancer and COVID-19, recent anti-cancer t erapy, active disease, high-risk VTE cancer subtypes, and ICU admission have increased risk of VTE and PE, while pre-admission anticoagulant/antiplatelet therapy may reduce the risk. This information will aid in developing a risk prediction tool for VTE in hospitalized patients with cancer and COVID-19.

8.
Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book ; 41: e339-e353, 2021 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1249568

ABSTRACT

Optimizing the well-being of the oncology clinician has never been more important. Well-being is a critical priority for the cancer organization because burnout adversely impacts the quality of care, patient satisfaction, the workforce, and overall practice success. To date, 45% of U.S. ASCO member medical oncologists report experiencing burnout symptoms of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization. As the COVID-19 pandemic remains widespread with periods of outbreaks, recovery, and response with substantial personal and professional consequences for the clinician, it is imperative that the oncologist, team, and organization gain direct access to resources addressing burnout. In response, the Clinician Well-Being Task Force was created to improve the quality, safety, and value of cancer care by enhancing oncology clinician well-being and practice sustainability. Well-being is an integrative concept that characterizes quality of life and encompasses an individual's work- and personal health-related environmental, organizational, and psychosocial factors. These resources can be useful for the cancer organization to develop a well-being blueprint: a detailed start plan with recognized strategies and interventions targeting all oncology stakeholders to support a culture of community in oncology.


Subject(s)
Burnout, Professional/psychology , Medical Oncology/methods , Neoplasms/therapy , Oncologists/psychology , Stress, Psychological/prevention & control , Burnout, Psychological/prevention & control , Burnout, Psychological/psychology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/virology , Humans , Internet , Job Satisfaction , Medical Oncology/organization & administration , Neoplasms/diagnosis , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , SARS-CoV-2/physiology , Social Support , United States
10.
Cancer Discov ; 10(10): 1514-1527, 2020 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-981743

ABSTRACT

Among 2,186 U.S. adults with invasive cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, we examined the association of COVID-19 treatments with 30-day all-cause mortality and factors associated with treatment. Logistic regression with multiple adjustments (e.g., comorbidities, cancer status, baseline COVID-19 severity) was performed. Hydroxychloroquine with any other drug was associated with increased mortality versus treatment with any COVID-19 treatment other than hydroxychloroquine or untreated controls; this association was not present with hydroxychloroquine alone. Remdesivir had numerically reduced mortality versus untreated controls that did not reach statistical significance. Baseline COVID-19 severity was strongly associated with receipt of any treatment. Black patients were approximately half as likely to receive remdesivir as white patients. Although observational studies can be limited by potential unmeasured confounding, our findings add to the emerging understanding of patterns of care for patients with cancer and COVID-19 and support evaluation of emerging treatments through inclusive prospective controlled trials. SIGNIFICANCE: Evaluating the potential role of COVID-19 treatments in patients with cancer in a large observational study, there was no statistically significant 30-day all-cause mortality benefit with hydroxychloroquine or high-dose corticosteroids alone or in combination; remdesivir showed potential benefit. Treatment receipt reflects clinical decision-making and suggests disparities in medication access.This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1426.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Drug Utilization/statistics & numerical data , Healthcare Disparities/statistics & numerical data , Neoplasms/mortality , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Age Factors , Aged , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/therapeutic use , Betacoronavirus/pathogenicity , COVID-19 , Clinical Decision-Making , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Drug Therapy, Combination/methods , Drug Therapy, Combination/statistics & numerical data , Follow-Up Studies , Glucocorticoids/therapeutic use , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasms/complications , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index , Sex Factors , Treatment Outcome , United States/epidemiology
11.
Health Secur ; 18(3): 237-240, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-101945

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a surge of patients that exceeds available human and physical resources in many settings, triggering the implementation of crisis standards of care. High-quality respiratory protection is essential to reduce exposure among healthcare workers, yet dire shortages of personal protective equipment in the United States threaten the health and safety of this essential workforce. In the context of rapidly changing conditions and incomplete data, this article outlines 3 important strategies to improve healthcare workers' respiratory protection. At a minimum, healthcare workers delivering care to patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 should wear N95 respirators and full-face shields. Several mechanisms exist to boost and protect the supply of N95 respirators, including rigorous decontamination protocols, invoking the Defense Production Act, expanded use of reusable elastomeric respirators, and repurposing industrial N95 respirators. Finally, homemade facial coverings do not protect healthcare workers and should be avoided. These strategies, coupled with longer-term strategies of investments in protective equipment research, infrastructure, and data systems, provide a framework to protect healthcare workers immediately and enhance preparedness efforts for future pandemics.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Health Personnel , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Occupational Exposure/prevention & control , Pandemics/prevention & control , Personal Protective Equipment/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , COVID-19 , Communicable Disease Control/organization & administration , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Delivery of Health Care/organization & administration , Female , Humans , Male , Occupational Health , Pandemics/statistics & numerical data , Patient Safety , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , United States
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL