Life-prolonging treatment restrictions and outcomes in patients with cancer and COVID-19: an update from the Dutch Oncology COVID-19 Consortium.

AIM OF THE STUDY: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic significantly impacted cancer care. In this study, clinical patient characteristics related to COVID-19 outcomes and advanced care planning, in terms of non-oncological treatment restrictions (e.g. do-not-resuscitate codes), were studied in patients with cancer and COVID-19. METHODS: The Dutch Oncology COVID-19 Consortium registry was launched in March 2020 in 45 hospitals in the Netherlands, primarily to identify risk factors of a severe COVID-19 outcome in patients with cancer. Here, an updated analysis of the registry was performed, and treatment restrictions (e.g. do-not-intubate codes) were studied in relation to COVID-19 outcomes in patients with cancer. Oncological treatment restrictions were not taken into account. RESULTS: Between 27th March 2020 and 4th February 2021, 1360 patients with cancer and COVID-19 were registered. Follow-up data of 830 patients could be validated for this analysis. Overall, 230 of 830 (27.7%) patients died of COVID-19, and 60% of the remaining 600 patients with resolved COVID-19 were admitted to the hospital. Patients with haematological malignancies or lung cancer had a higher risk of a fatal outcome than other solid tumours. No correlation between anticancer therapies and the risk of a fatal COVID-19 outcome was found. In terms of end-of-life communication, 50% of all patients had restrictions regarding life-prolonging treatment (e.g. do-not-intubate codes). Most identified patients with treatment restrictions had risk factors associated with fatal COVID-19 outcome. CONCLUSION: There was no evidence of a negative impact of anticancer therapies on COVID-19 outcomes. Timely end-of-life communication as part of advanced care planning could save patients from prolonged suffering and decrease burden in intensive care units. Early discussion of treatment restrictions should therefore be part of routine oncological care, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Effectiveness of BNT162b2 Vaccine against Critical Covid-19 in Adolescents.

BACKGROUND: The increasing incidence of pediatric hospitalizations associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) caused by the B.1.617.2 (delta) variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in the United States has offered an opportunity to assess the real-world effectiveness of the BNT162b2 messenger RNA vaccine in adolescents between 12 and 18 years of age. METHODS: We used a case-control, test-negative design to assess vaccine effectiveness against Covid-19 resulting in hospitalization, admission to an intensive care unit (ICU), the use of life-supporting interventions (mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation), or death. Between July 1 and October 25, 2021, we screened admission logs for eligible case patients with laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 at 31 hospitals in 23 states. We estimated vaccine effectiveness by comparing the odds of antecedent full vaccination (two doses of BNT162b2) in case patients as compared with two hospital-based control groups: patients who had Covid-19-like symptoms but negative results on testing for SARS-CoV-2 (test-negative) and patients who did not have Covid-19-like symptoms (syndrome-negative). RESULTS: A total of 445 case patients and 777 controls were enrolled. Overall, 17 case patients (4%) and 282 controls (36%) had been fully vaccinated. Of the case patients, 180 (40%) were admitted to the ICU, and 127 (29%) required life support; only 2 patients in the ICU had been fully vaccinated. The overall effectiveness of the BNT162b2 vaccine against hospitalization for Covid-19 was 94% (95% confidence interval [CI], 90 to 96); the effectiveness was 95% (95% CI, 91 to 97) among test-negative controls and 94% (95% CI, 89 to 96) among syndrome-negative controls. The effectiveness was 98% against ICU admission and 98% against Covid-19 resulting in the receipt of life support. All 7 deaths occurred in patients who were unvaccinated. CONCLUSIONS: Among hospitalized adolescent patients, two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine were highly effective against Covid-19-related hospitalization and ICU admission or the receipt of life support. (Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.).

Effect of 12 mg vs 6 mg of Dexamethasone on the Number of Days Alive Without Life Support in Adults With COVID-19 and Severe Hypoxemia: The COVID STEROID 2 Randomized Trial.

Importance: A daily dose with 6 mg of dexamethasone is recommended for up to 10 days in patients with severe and critical COVID-19, but a higher dose may benefit those with more severe disease. Objective: To assess the effects of 12 mg/d vs 6 mg/d of dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia. Design, Setting, and Participants: A multicenter, randomized clinical trial was conducted between August 2020 and May 2021 at 26 hospitals in Europe and India and included 1000 adults with confirmed COVID-19 requiring at least 10 L/min of oxygen or mechanical ventilation. End of 90-day follow-up was on August 19, 2021. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to 12 mg/d of intravenous dexamethasone (n = 503) or 6 mg/d of intravenous dexamethasone (n = 497) for up to 10 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of days alive without life support (invasive mechanical ventilation, circulatory support, or kidney replacement therapy) at 28 days and was adjusted for stratification variables. Of the 8 prespecified secondary outcomes, 5 are included in this analysis (the number of days alive without life support at 90 days, the number of days alive out of the hospital at 90 days, mortality at 28 days and at 90 days, and ≥1 serious adverse reactions at 28 days). Results: Of the 1000 randomized patients, 982 were included (median age, 65 [IQR, 55-73] years; 305 [31%] women) and primary outcome data were available for 971 (491 in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group and 480 in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group). The median number of days alive without life support was 22.0 days (IQR, 6.0-28.0 days) in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group and 20.5 days (IQR, 4.0-28.0 days) in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted mean difference, 1.3 days [95% CI, 0-2.6 days]; P = .07). Mortality at 28 days was 27.1% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 32.3% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.86 [99% CI, 0.68-1.08]). Mortality at 90 days was 32.0% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 37.7% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.87 [99% CI, 0.70-1.07]). Serious adverse reactions, including septic shock and invasive fungal infections, occurred in 11.3% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 13.4% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.83 [99% CI, 0.54-1.29]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia, 12 mg/d of dexamethasone compared with 6 mg/d of dexamethasone did not result in statistically significantly more days alive without life support at 28 days. However, the trial may have been underpowered to identify a significant difference. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04509973 and ctri.nic.in Identifier: CTRI/2020/10/028731.

Higher vs lower doses of dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia (COVID STEROID 2) trial: Protocol and statistical analysis plan.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in millions of deaths and overburdened healthcare systems worldwide. Systemic low-dose corticosteroids have proven clinical benefit in patients with severe COVID-19. Higher doses of corticosteroids are used in other inflammatory lung diseases and may offer additional clinical benefits in COVID-19. At present, the balance between benefits and harms of higher vs. lower doses of corticosteroids for patients with COVID-19 is unclear. METHODS: The COVID STEROID 2 trial is an investigator-initiated, international, parallel-grouped, blinded, centrally randomised and stratified clinical trial assessing higher (12 mg) vs. lower (6 mg) doses of dexamethasone for adults with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia. We plan to enrol 1,000 patients in Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland and India. The primary outcome is days alive without life support (invasive mechanical ventilation, circulatory support or renal replacement therapy) at day 28. Secondary outcomes include serious adverse reactions at day 28; all-cause mortality at day 28, 90 and 180; days alive without life support at day 90; days alive and out of hospital at day 90; and health-related quality of life at day 180. The primary outcome will be analysed using the Kryger Jensen and Lange test adjusted for stratification variables and reported as adjusted mean differences and median differences. The full statistical analysis plan is outlined in this protocol. DISCUSSION: The COVID STEROID 2 trial will provide evidence on the optimal dosing of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 patients with severe hypoxia with important implications for patients, their relatives and society.

Application value of artificial liver support system in the treatment of cytokine storm in patients with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the application value of artificial liver support system in the clinical treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with cytokine storm. METHODS: Six cases of severe or critically severe COVID-19 patients treated in The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University from January 22 to February 4, 2020 were recruited, and all of them received artificial liver support treatment. Statistical analysis was carried out on the change of cytokines (TNF-α, IL-10, IL-6, IFN-γ, IL-2, IL-4), inflammation-related indicators (white blood cell, neutrophil, lymphocyte, C-reactive protein and procalcitonin), immune-related indicators (B lymphocyte percentage, natural killer cell percentage, CD3+CD4+CD8 T cell percentage), alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) in the 6 patients before and after treatment, and the proportions of patients with abnormal indicators were analyzed as well. In addition, computed tomography (CT) was used to observe the absorption of pulmonary lesions before and after the artificial liver support treatment. RESULTS: The levels of cytokines (IL-6 and IL-10) were effectively reduced in the 6 patients after treatment with the artificial liver support system. Meanwhile, the proportions of patients with abnormal TNF-α, IL-10, IL-6 and IFN-γ were all decreased (p < 0.05). The levels of inflammation-related indicators including white blood cell, C-reactive protein and procalcitonin, and the proportions of patients with these abnormal indicators were both significantly reduced (p < 0.05). The level of neutrophil was not effectively reduced before and after the treatment, but the proportion was significantly reduced (p < 0.05). However, the abnormality of lymphocyte in the patients was not improved. There was no significant difference in immune-related indicators, AST and ALT before and after the treatment (p > 0.05). CT imaging showed that the artificial liver support treatment contributed to absorption of pulmonary lesions. CONCLUSIONS: The artificial liver support system had a great clinical effect in the treatment of cytokine storm and inflammation in COVID-19 patients, and it could promote the absorption of infected lesions.

Advanced care planning during the COVID-19 pandemic: ceiling of care decisions and their implications for observational data.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies investigating risk factors in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have not considered the confounding effects of advanced care planning, such that a valid picture of risk for elderly, frail and multi-morbid patients is unknown. We aimed to report ceiling of care and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) decisions and their association with demographic and clinical characteristics as well as outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Retrospective, observational study conducted between 5th March and 7th May 2020 of all hospitalised patients with COVID-19. Ceiling of care and CPR decisions were documented using the Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) process. Unadjusted and multivariable regression analyses were used to determine factors associated with ceiling of care decisions and death during hospitalisation. RESULTS: A total of 485 patients were included, of whom 409 (84·3%) had a documented ceiling of care; level one for 208 (50·9%), level two for 75 (18·3%) and level three for 126 (30·8%). CPR decisions were documented for 451 (93·0%) of whom 336 (74·5%) were 'not for resuscitation'. Advanced age, frailty, White-European ethnicity, a diagnosis of any co-morbidity and receipt of cardiovascular medications were associated with ceiling of care decisions. In a multivariable model only advanced age (odds 0·89, 0·86-0·93 p < 0·001), frailty (odds 0·48, 0·38-0·60, p < 0·001) and the cumulative number of co-morbidities (odds 0·72, 0·52-1·0, p = 0·048) were independently associated. Death during hospitalisation was independently associated with age, frailty and requirement for level two or three care. CONCLUSION: Ceiling of care decisions were made for the majority of patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, broadly in line with known predictors of poor outcomes in COVID-19, but with a focus on co-morbidities suggesting ICU admission might not be a reliable end-point for observational studies where advanced care planning is routine.

Resolution of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

INTRODUCTION: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was first detected in China in December, 2019, and declared as a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) on March 11, 2020. The current management of COVID-19 is based generally on supportive therapy and treatment to prevent respiratory failure. The effective option of antiviral therapy and vaccination are currently under evaluation and development. AREAS COVERED: A literature search was performed using PubMed between December 1, 2019-June 23, 2020. This review highlights the current state of knowledge on the viral replication and pathogenicity, diagnostic and therapeutic strategies, and management of COVID-19. This review will be of interest to scientists and clinicians and make a significant contribution toward development of vaccines and targeted therapies to contain the pandemic. EXPERT OPINION: The exit strategy for a path back to normal life is required, which should involve a multi-prong effort toward development of new treatment and a successful vaccine to protect public health worldwide and prevent future COVID-19 outbreaks. Therefore, the bench to bedside translational research as well as reverse translational works focusing bedside to bench is very important and would provide the foundation for the development of targeted drugs and vaccines for COVID-19 infections.