Multiple house occupancy is associated with mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, many countries mandated staying at home to reduce transmission. This study examined the association between living arrangements (house occupancy numbers) and outcomes in COVID-19. METHODS: Study population was drawn from the COPE study, a multicentre cohort study. House occupancy was defined as: living alone; living with one other person; living with multiple other people; or living in a nursing/residential home. Outcomes were time from admission to mortality and discharge (Cox regression), and Day 28 mortality (logistic regression) analyses were adjusted for key comorbidities and covariates including admission: age, sex, smoking, heart failure, admission C-reactive protein (CRP), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, estimated glomerular filtration rate, frailty and others. RESULTS: A total of 1584 patients were included from 13 hospitals across UK and Italy: 676 (42.7%) were female, 907 (57.3%) were male, median age was 74 years (range: 19-101). At 28 days, 502 (31.7%) had died. Median admission CRP was 67, 82, 79.5 and 83 mg/l for those living alone, with someone else, in a house of multiple occupancy and in a nursing/residential home, respectively. Compared to living alone, living with anyone was associated with increased mortality: within a couple [adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) = 1.39, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.09-1.77, P = 0.007]; living in a house of multiple occupancy (aHR = 1.67, 95% CI 1.17-2.38, P = 0.005); and living in a residential home (aHR = 1.36, 95% CI 1.03-1.80, P = 0.031). CONCLUSION: For patients hospitalized with COVID-19, those living with one or more people had an increased association with mortality, they also exhibited higher CRP indicating increased disease severity suggesting they delayed seeking care.

Comparison of Postoperative Pain and Analgesic Requirements Between Laparoscopic and Open Hernia Repair in Children.

BACKGROUND: This study analyses the impact of anaesthetic blockade and intraperitoneal local anaesthetic infiltration on paediatric laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. METHOD: A retrospective review of paediatric laparoscopic hernia repairs versus open repairs. Anaesthetic blockade, analgesic consumption and postoperative pain scores were compared between groups. RESULTS: 155 children underwent laparoscopic repair, 150 underwent open repairs. Median age was 7.2 months (16 days-14 years) in the laparoscopic group, 6 months (17 days-13 years) in the open group. Anaesthetic blockade varied significantly; 62.7% of open cases had caudal blockade compared to 21.6% laparoscopic (p < 0.001). A subset of laparoscopic patients had peritoneal local anaesthetic infiltration. 10.1% of laparoscopic cases required recovery analgesia, compared to 1.3% of open cases (p = 0.001). Postoperative analgesic consumption was significantly higher in the laparoscopic group. Peritoneal infiltration reduced analgesic consumption in the laparoscopic group (p = 0.038). Age < 2 was associated with use of caudal (p < 0.001), which reduced analgesic consumption. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopy was associated with increased use of recovery analgesia. Caudal reduced the need for rescue and postoperative analgesia. Intraperitoneal infiltration of local anaesthetic is associated with reduced postoperative analgesia in laparoscopy. In suitable patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery, combination caudal and peritoneal infiltration may prove a useful adjunctive analgesic strategy.

Routine use of immunosuppressants is associated with mortality in hospitalised patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Whilst there is literature on the impact of SARS viruses in the severely immunosuppressed, less is known about the link between routine immunosuppressant use and outcome in COVID-19. Consequently, guidelines on their use vary depending on specific patient populations. METHODS: The study population was drawn from the COPE Study (COVID-19 in Older People), a multicentre observational cohort study, across the UK and Italy. Data were collected between 27 February and 28 April 2020 by trained data-collectors and included all unselected consecutive admissions with COVID-19. Load (name/number of medications) and dosage of immunosuppressant were collected along with other covariate data. Primary outcome was time-to-mortality from the date of admission (or) date of diagnosis, if diagnosis was five or more days after admission. Secondary outcomes were Day-14 mortality and time-to-discharge. Data were analysed with mixed-effects, Cox proportional hazards and logistic regression models using non-users of immunosuppressants as the reference group. RESULTS: In total 1184 patients were eligible for inclusion. The median (IQR) age was 74 (62-83), 676 (57%) were male, and 299 (25.3%) died in hospital (total person follow-up 15,540 days). Most patients exhibited at least one comorbidity, and 113 (~10%) were on immunosuppressants. Any immunosuppressant use was associated with increased mortality: aHR 1.87, 95% CI: 1.30, 2.69 (time to mortality) and aOR 1.71, 95% CI: 1.01-2.88 (14-day mortality). There also appeared to be a dose-response relationship. CONCLUSION: Despite possible indication bias, until further evidence emerges we recommend adhering to public health measures, a low threshold to seek medical advice and close monitoring of symptoms in those who take immunosuppressants routinely regardless of their indication. However, it should be noted that the inability to control for the underlying condition requiring immunosuppressants is a major limitation, and hence caution should be exercised in interpretation of the results. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Regular Use of Immune Suppressing Drugs is Associated with Increased Risk of Death in Hospitalised Patients with COVID-19 Background: We do not have much information on how the COVID-19 virus affects patients who use immunosuppressants, drugs which inhibit or reduce the activity of the immune system. There are various conflicting views on whether immune-suppressing drugs are beneficial or detrimental in patients with the disease. Methods: This study collected data from 10 hospitals in the UK and one in Italy between February and April 2020 in order to identify any association between the regular use of immunosuppressant medicines and survival in patients who were admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Results: 1184 patients were included in the study, and 10% of them were using immunosuppressants. Any immunosuppressant use was associated with increased risk of death, and the risk appeared to increase if the dose of the medicine was higher. Conclusion: We therefore recommend that patients who take immunosuppressant medicines routinely should carefully adhere to social distancing measures, and seek medical attention early during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Does the gut microbiome environment influence response to systemic breast cancer treatment?

The gut microbiome is a novel player in the pathogenesis and treatment of breast cancer. The term "microbiome" is used to describe the diverse community of micro-organisms existing within the gastrointestinal tract. The gut microbiome plays an important role in oestrogen metabolism through its ability to deconjugate oestrogens within the gut resulting in their reabsorption. Therefore, it is not unsurprising that "dysbiosis", the disruption of normal gut microbiota composition, is now thought to play a role in the development of the disease, as women with breast cancer have been shown to have altered gut microbiota and this has been correlated with tumour characteristics. There is emerging evidence to suggest that the gut microbiota may also impact on breast cancer treatment, by mediating both drug efficacy and toxicity. The present review will discuss the influence of the gut microbiota on systemic treatments for breast cancer, including chemotherapy, anti-human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) therapy, endocrine therapy and immunotherapy as well as other targeted treatments.

The influence of ACE inhibitors and ARBs on hospital length of stay and survival in people with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: During the COVID-19 pandemic the continuation or cessation of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) has been contentious. Mechanisms have been proposed for both beneficial and detrimental effects. Recent studies have focused on mortality with no literature having examined length of hospital stay. The aim of this study was to determine the influence of ACEi and ARBs on COVID-19 mortality and length of hospital stay. METHODS: COPE (COVID-19 in Older People) is a multicenter observational study including adults of all ages admitted with either laboratory or clinically confirmed COVID-19. Routinely generated hospital data were collected. Primary outcome: mortality; secondary outcomes: Day-7 mortality and length of hospital stay. A mixed-effects multivariable Cox's proportional baseline hazards model and logistic equivalent were used. RESULTS: 1371 patients were included from eleven centres between 27th February to 25th April 2020. Median age was 74 years [IQR 61-83]. 28.6% of patients were taking an ACEi or ARB. There was no effect of ACEi or ARB on inpatient mortality (aHR = 0.85, 95%CI 0.65-1.11). For those prescribed an ACEi or ARB, hospital stay was significantly reduced (aHR = 1.25, 95%CI 1.02-1.54, p = 0.03) and in those with hypertension the effect was stronger (aHR = 1.39, 95%CI 1.09-1.77, p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Patients and clinicians can be reassured that prescription of an ACEi or ARB at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis is not harmful. The benefit of prescription of an ACEi or ARB in reducing hospital stay is a new finding.

Prior Routine Use of Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs) and Important Outcomes in Hospitalised Patients with COVID-19.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection causes acute lung injury, resulting from aggressive inflammation initiated by viral replication. There has been much speculation about the potential role of non-steroidal inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), which increase the expression of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), a binding target for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) to enter the host cell, which could lead to poorer outcomes in COVID-19 disease. The aim of this study was to examine the association between routine use of NSAIDs and outcomes in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. This was a multicentre, observational study, with data collected from adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to eight UK hospitals. Of 1222 patients eligible to be included, 54 (4.4%) were routinely prescribed NSAIDs prior to admission. Univariate results suggested a modest protective effect from the use of NSAIDs, but in the multivariable analysis, there was no association between prior NSAID use and time to mortality (adjusted HR (aHR) = 0.89, 95% CI 0.52-1.53, p = 0.67) or length of stay (aHR 0.89, 95% CI 0.59-1.35, p = 0.58). This study found no evidence that routine NSAID use was associated with higher COVID-19 mortality in hospitalised patients; therefore, patients should be advised to continue taking these medications until further evidence emerges. Our findings suggest that NSAID use might confer a modest benefit with regard to survival. However, as this finding was underpowered, further research is required.

The effect of frailty on survival in patients with COVID-19 (COPE): a multicentre, European, observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has placed unprecedented strain on health-care systems. Frailty is being used in clinical decision making for patients with COVID-19, yet the prevalence and effect of frailty in people with COVID-19 is not known. In the COVID-19 in Older PEople (COPE) study we aimed to establish the prevalence of frailty in patients with COVID-19 who were admitted to hospital and investigate its association with mortality and duration of hospital stay. METHODS: This was an observational cohort study conducted at ten hospitals in the UK and one in Italy. All adults (≥18 years) admitted to participating hospitals with COVID-19 were included. Patients with incomplete hospital records were excluded. The study analysed routinely generated hospital data for patients with COVID-19. Frailty was assessed by specialist COVID-19 teams using the clinical frailty scale (CFS) and patients were grouped according to their score (1-2=fit; 3-4=vulnerable, but not frail; 5-6=initial signs of frailty but with some degree of independence; and 7-9=severe or very severe frailty). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality (time from hospital admission to mortality and day-7 mortality). FINDINGS: Between Feb 27, and April 28, 2020, we enrolled 1564 patients with COVID-19. The median age was 74 years (IQR 61-83); 903 (57·7%) were men and 661 (42·3%) were women; 425 (27·2%) had died at data cutoff (April 28, 2020). 772 (49·4%) were classed as frail (CFS 5-8) and 27 (1·7%) were classed as terminally ill (CFS 9). Compared with CFS 1-2, the adjusted hazard ratios for time from hospital admission to death were 1·55 (95% CI 1·00-2·41) for CFS 3-4, 1·83 (1·15-2·91) for CFS 5-6, and 2·39 (1·50-3·81) for CFS 7-9, and adjusted odds ratios for day-7 mortality were 1·22 (95% CI 0·63-2·38) for CFS 3-4, 1·62 (0·81-3·26) for CFS 5-6, and 3·12 (1·56-6·24) for CFS 7-9. INTERPRETATION: In a large population of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, disease outcomes were better predicted by frailty than either age or comorbidity. Our results support the use of CFS to inform decision making about medical care in adult patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. FUNDING: None.