• COVID-19
• 2013-2022close
• Open Access close
• US close
• NO close
• Scientia, Dipòsit d’Informació Digital del Departament de Salut close

Background Patients presenting with the coronavirus-2019 disease (COVID-19) may have a high risk of cardiovascular adverse events, including death from cardiovascular causes. The long-term cardiovascular outcomes of these patients are entirely unknown. We aim to perform a registry of patients who have undergone a diagnostic nasopharyngeal swab for SARS-CoV-2 and to determine their long-term cardiovascular outcomes. Study and design This is a multicenter, observational, retrospective registry to be conducted at 17 centers in Spain and Italy (ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT04359927). Consecutive patients older than 18 years, who underwent a real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for SARS-CoV2 in the participating institutions, will be included since March 2020, to August 2020. Patients will be classified into two groups, according to the results of the RT-PCR: COVID-19 positive or negative. The primary outcome will be cardiovascular mortality at 1 year. The secondary outcomes will be acute myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure hospitalization, pulmonary embolism, and serious cardiac arrhythmias, at 1 year. Outcomes will be compared between the two groups. Events will be adjudicated by an independent clinical event committee. Conclusion The results of this registry will contribute to a better understanding of the long-term cardiovascular implications of the COVID19.

Made available in DSpace on 2022-04-28T19:46:29Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2021-11-09 Background and ObjectivesPeople with multiple sclerosis MS are a vulnerable group for severe coronavirus disease 2019 COVID-19, particularly those taking immunosuppressive disease-modifying therapies DMTs. We examined the characteristics of COVID-19 severity in an international sample of people with MS.MethodsData from 12 data sources in 28 countries were aggregated sources could include patients from 1-12 countries. Demographic age, sex, clinical MS phenotype, disability, and DMT untreated, alemtuzumab, cladribine, dimethyl fumarate, glatiramer acetate, interferon, natalizumab, ocrelizumab, rituximab, siponimod, other DMTs covariates were queried, along with COVID-19 severity outcomes, hospitalization, intensive care unit ICU admission, need for artificial ventilation, and death. Characteristics of outcomes were assessed in patients with suspected/confirmed COVID-19 using multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression adjusted for age, sex, MS phenotype, and Expanded Disability Status Scale EDSS score.ResultsSix hundred fifty-seven 28.1% with suspected and 1,683 61.9% with confirmed COVID-19 were analyzed. Among suspected plus confirmed and confirmed-only COVID-19, 20.9% and 26.9% were hospitalized, 5.4% and 7.2% were admitted to ICU, 4.1% and 5.4% required artificial ventilation, and 3.2% and 3.9% died. Older age, progressive MS phenotype, and higher disability were associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes. Compared to dimethyl fumarate, ocrelizumab and rituximab were associated with hospitalization adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-2.41; aOR 2.43, 95% CI 1.48-4.02 and ICU admission aOR 2.30, 95% CI 0.98-5.39; aOR 3.93, 95% CI 1.56-9.89, although only rituximab was associated with higher risk of artificial ventilation aOR 4.00, 95% CI 1.54-10.39. Compared to pooled other DMTs, ocrelizumab and rituximab were associated with hospitalization aOR 1.75, 95% CI 1.29-2.38; aOR 2.76, 95% CI 1.87-4.07 and ICU admission aOR 2.55, 95% CI 1.49-4.36; aOR 4.32, 95% CI 2.27-8.23, but only rituximab was associated with artificial ventilation aOR 6.15, 95% CI 3.09-12.27. Compared to natalizumab, ocrelizumab and rituximab were associated with hospitalization aOR 1.86, 95% CI 1.13-3.07; aOR 2.88, 95% CI 1.68-4.92 and ICU admission aOR 2.13, 95% CI 0.85-5.35; aOR 3.23, 95% CI 1.17-8.91, but only rituximab was associated with ventilation aOR 5.52, 95% CI 1.71-17.84. Associations persisted on restriction to confirmed COVID-19 cases. No associations were observed between DMTs and death. Stratification by age, MS phenotype, and EDSS score found no indications that DMT associations with COVID-19 severity reflected differential DMT allocation by underlying COVID-19 severity.DiscussionUsing the largest cohort of people with MS and COVID-19 available, we demonstrated consistent associations of rituximab with increased risk of hospitalization, ICU admission, and need for artificial ventilation and of ocrelizumab with hospitalization and ICU admission. Despite the cross-sectional design of the study, the internal and external consistency of these results with prior studies suggests that rituximab/ocrelizumab use may be a risk factor for more severe COVID-19. CORe Department of Medicine and Neuroepidemiology Unit Melbourne School of Population and Global Health Menzies Institute for Medical Research University of Tasmania ESAT-STADIUS KU Leuven Department of Neurology Melbourne MS Centre Royal Melbourne Hospital MS International Federation Department of Clinical Neuroscience Swedish MS Registry Department of Neurology CHU Pontchaillou Karolinska Institutet Biomedical Research Institute-Data Science Institute Hasselt University Department of Medical Informatics University Medical Center Department of Computer Science and AI KU Leuven QMENTA Medpace Reference Laboratories Molecular Unit IConquerMS People-Powered Research Network Accelerated Cure Project for MS NeuroTransData Study Group NeuroTransData German MS-Register by the National MS Society MS Forschungs- und Projektentwicklungs-gGmbH MS Register Swansea University COViMS Division of Biostatistics Washington University in St. Louis Mellen Center for Multiple Sclerosis Cleveland Clinic Department of Neuroscience Central Clinical School Monash University Al-Amiri Hospital Kuwait City Dokuz Eylul University Neurology Department Hospital Universitario de CEMIC RELACOEM Australian MS Longitudinal Study Menzies Institute for Medical Research University of Tasmania Bulgarian SmartMS COVID-19 Dataset ABEM-Brazilian MS Patients Association Danish Multiple Sclerosis Registry Department of Neurology University Hospital Rigshospitalet Universidade Estadual Paulista Unesp Faculdade de Medicina REDONE.br-Brazilian Registry of Multiple Sclerosis and Neuromyelitis Optica Spectrum Disorders Irmandade da Santa Casa de Misericórdia de São Paulo Multiple Sclerosis University Center Ramos Mejia Hospital-EMA Imperial College Swansea University Mental Health Area MS and Demyelinating Diseases Hospital Británico de Buenos Aires EMA Servei de Neurologia-Neuroimmunologia Centre d'Esclerosi Múltiple de Catalunya Cemcat Vall d'Hebron Institut de Recerca Vall d'Hebron Hospital Universitari Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona Institute of Experimental Neurology Ospedale San Raffaele Universidade Estadual Paulista Unesp Faculdade de Medicina

Respiratory infections and tuberculosis Infecciones respiratorias y tuberculosis Infeccions respiratòries i tuberculosi Due to the large number of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), many were treated outside the traditional walls of the intensive care unit (ICU), and in many cases, by personnel who were not trained in critical care. The clinical characteristics and the relative impact of caring for severe COVID-19 patients outside the ICU is unknown. This was a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium World Health Organization COVID-19 platform. Severe COVID-19 patients were identified as those admitted to an ICU and/or those treated with one of the following treatments: invasive or noninvasive mechanical ventilation, high-flow nasal cannula, inotropes or vasopressors. A logistic generalised additive model was used to compare clinical outcomes among patients admitted or not to the ICU. A total of 40 440 patients from 43 countries and six continents were included in this analysis. Severe COVID-19 patients were frequently male (62.9%), older adults (median (interquartile range (IQR), 67 (55–78) years), and with at least one comorbidity (63.2%). The overall median (IQR) length of hospital stay was 10 (5–19) days and was longer in patients admitted to an ICU than in those who were cared for outside the ICU (12 (6–23) days versus 8 (4–15) days, p<0.0001). The 28-day fatality ratio was lower in ICU-admitted patients (30.7% (5797 out of 18 831) versus 39.0% (7532 out of 19 295), p<0.0001). Patients admitted to an ICU had a significantly lower probability of death than those who were not (adjusted OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.65–0.75; p<0.0001). Patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to an ICU had significantly lower 28-day fatality ratio than those cared for outside an ICU. This work was supported by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and Wellcome (215091/Z/18/Z), the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1209135), Canadian Institutes of Health Research Coronavirus Rapid Research Funding Opportunity OV2170359, grants from Rapid European COVID-19 Emergency Response Research (Horizon 2020 project 101003589), the European Clinical Research Alliance on Infectious Diseases (965313), The Imperial National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre, and The Cambridge NIHR Biomedical Research Centre; and endorsed by the Irish Critical Care Clinical Trials Group, co-ordinated in Ireland by the Irish Critical Care Clinical Trials Network at University College Dublin and funded by the Health Research Board of Ireland (CTN-2014-12). Data and Material provision was supported by grants from: the NIHR (award CO-CIN-01), the Medical Research Council (grant MC_PC_19059), the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections at University of Liverpool in partnership with Public Health England (PHE) (award 200907), Wellcome Trust (Turtle, Lance-fellowship 205228/Z/16/Z), NIHR HPRU in Respiratory Infections at Imperial College London with PHE (award 200927), Liverpool Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre (grant C18616/A25153), NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Imperial College London (award IS-BRC-1215-20013), and NIHR Clinical Research Network providing infrastructure support. This work was by Research Council of Norway grant number 312780, and a philanthropic donation from Vivaldi Invest A/S owned by Jon Stephenson von Tetzchner.

COVID-19; Cancer care; Clinical research COVID-19; Cura del càncer; Recerca clínica COVID-19; Cuidado del cancer; Investigación clínica The coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic promises to have lasting impacts on cancer clinical trials that could lead to faster patient access to new treatments. In this article, an international panel of oncology experts discusses the lasting impacts of the pandemic on oncology clinical trials and proposes solutions for clinical trial stakeholders, with the support of recent data on worldwide clinical trials collected by IQVIA. These lasting impacts and proposed solutions encompass three topic areas. Firstly, acceleration and implementation of new operational approaches to oncology trials with patient-centric, fully decentralized virtual approaches that include remote assessments via telemedicine and remote devices. Geographical differences in the uptake of remote technology, including telemedicine, are discussed in the article, focusing on the impact of the local adoption of new operational approaches. Secondly, innovative clinical trials. The pandemic has highlighted the need for new trial designs that accelerate research and limit risks and burden for patients while driving optimization of clinical trial objectives and endpoints, while testing is being minimized. Areas of considerations for clinical trial stakeholders are discussed in detail. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the underrepresentation of minority groups in clinical trials; the approach for oncology clinical trials to improve generalizability of efficacy and outcomes data is discussed. Thirdly, a new problem-focused collaborative framework between oncology trial stakeholders, including decision makers, to leverage and further accelerate the innovative approaches in clinical research developed during the COVID-19 pandemic. This could shorten timelines for patient access to new treatments by addressing the cultural and technological barriers to adopting new operational approaches and innovative clinical trials. The role of the different stakeholders is described, with the aim of making COVID-19 a catalyst for positive change in oncology clinical research and eventually in cancer care.

Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; 2019-nCoV; Malaltia pulmonar obstructiva crònica; Factors de risc mèdics Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; 2019-nCoV; Enfermedad pulmonar obstructiva crónica; Factores de riesgo médicos Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; 2019-nCoV; Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; Medical risk factors Background Reports have suggested a reduction in exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, particularly hospital admissions for severe exacerbations. However, the magnitude of this reduction varies between studies. Method Electronic databases were searched from January 2020 to May 2021. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts and, when necessary, full text to determine if studies met inclusion criteria. A modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess study quality. A narrative summary of eligible studies was synthesised, and meta-analysis was conducted using a random effect model to pool the rate ratio and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for hospital admissions. Exacerbation reduction was compared against the COVID-19 Containment and Health Index. Results A total of 13 of 745 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review, with data from nine countries. Nine studies could be included in the meta-analysis. The pooled rate ratio of hospital admissions for COPD exacerbations during the pandemic period was 0.50 (95% CI 0.44–0.57). Findings on the rate of community-treated exacerbations were inconclusive. Three studies reported a significant decrease in the incidence of respiratory viral infections compared with the pre-pandemic period. There was not a significant relationship between exacerbation reduction and the COVID-19 Containment and Health Index (rho = 0.20, p = 0.53). Conclusion There was a 50% reduction in admissions for COPD exacerbations during the COVID-19 pandemic period compared to pre-pandemic times, likely associated with a reduction in respiratory viral infections that trigger exacerbations. Future guidelines should consider including recommendations on respiratory virus infection control measures to reduce the burden of COPD exacerbations beyond the pandemic period. The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

Background: Worldwide, different strategies have been chosen to face the COVID-19-patient surge, often affecting access to health care for other patients. This observational study aimed to investigate whether the standard of burn care changed globally during the pan-demic, and whether country acute accent s income, geographical location, COVID-19-transmission pat-tern, and levels of specialization of the burn units affected reallocation of resources and access to burn care.Methods: The Burn Care Survey is a questionnaire developed to collect information on the capacity to provide burn care by burn units around the world, before and during the pandemic. The survey was distributed between September and October 2020. McNemar`s test analyzed differences between services provided before and during the pandemic, chi 2 or Fishers exact test differences between groups. Multivariable logistic regression analyzed the independent effect of different factors on keeping the burn units open during the pandemic.Results: The survey was completed by 234 burn units in 43 countries. During the pandemic, presence of burn surgeons did not change (p = 0.06), while that of anesthetists and dedi-cated nursing staff was reduced (&lt; 0.01), and so did the capacity to manage patients in all age groups (p = 0.04). Use of telemedicine was implemented (p &lt; 0.01), collaboration be-tween burn centers was not. Burn units in LMICs and LICs were more likely to be closed, after adjustment for other factors.Conclusions: During the pandemic, most burn units were open, although availability of standard resources diminished worldwide. The use of telemedicine increased, suggesting the implementation of new strategies to manage burns. Low income was independently associated with reduced access to burn care.(c) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).