descriptionPublicationkeyboard_double_arrow_right Article , Other literature type 2021 United Kingdom, Belgium, Turkey Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) NHMRC | Precision treatment for m..., NHMRC | Precision therapy for neu...
NHMRC| Precision treatment for multiple sclerosis: Maximising the effect of immunomodulatory therapy ,
NHMRC| Precision therapy for neurological diseases
Authors: Steve Simpson-Yap; Edward De Brouwer; Tomas Kalincik; Nick Rijke; +43 Authors
Steve Simpson-Yap; Edward De Brouwer; Tomas Kalincik; Nick Rijke; J. Hillert; Clare Walton; Gilles Edan; Yves Moreau; Tim Spelman; Lotte Geys; Tina Parciak; Clément Gautrais; Nikola Lazovski; Ashkan Pirmani; Amin Ardeshirdavanai; Lars Forsberg; Anna Glaser; Robert N. McBurney; Hollie Schmidt; Arnfin Bergmann; Stefan Braune; Alexander Stahmann; Rodden M. Middleton; Amber Salter; Robert J. Fox; Anneke Van Der Walt; Helmut Butzkueven; Raed Alroughani; Serkan Ozakbas; Juan Ignacio Rojas; Ingrid van der Mei; Nupur Nag; Rumen Ivanov; Guilherme Sciascia do Olival; Alice Estavo Dias; Melinda Magyari; Doralina Guimarães Brum; Maria Fernanda Mendes; Ricardo Alonso; Richard S. Nicholas; Johana Bauer; Anibal Chertcoff; Anna Zabalza; Georgina Arrambide; Alexander Fidao; Giancarlo Comi; Liesbet M. Peeters;
Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; 2019-nCoV; Esclerosi múltiple Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; 2019-nCoV; Esclerosis múltiple Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; 2019-nCoV; Multiple Sclerosis Background and Objectives People 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. Methods Data 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. Results Six 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. Discussion Using 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. The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. The operational costs linked to this study are funded by the Multiple Sclerosis International Federation (MSIF) and the Multiple Sclerosis Data Alliance (MSDA), acting under the umbrella of the European Charcot Foundation. The MSDA receives income from a range of corporate sponsors, recently including Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb (formerly Celgene), Canopy Growth Corp, Genzyme, Icometrix, Merck, Mylan, Novartis, QMENTA, Quanterix, and Roche. MSIF receives income from a range of corporate sponsors, recently including Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb (formerly Celgene), Genzyme, Med-Day, Merck, Mylan, Novartis, and Roche. This work was supported by the Flemish government under the Onderzoeksprogramma Artificiële Intelligentie Vlaanderen programme and the Research Foundation Fladers (FWO) for ELIXIR Belgium–Flanders (FWO) for ELIXIR Belgium. The central platform was provided by QMENTA, and the computational resources used in this work were provided by Amazon. The statistical analysis was carried out at CORe, The University of Melbourne, with support from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC; 1129189 and 1140766).
COVID-19; Cancer; End-of life care (EOLC) COVID-19; Cáncer; Cuidados al final de la vida COVID-19; Càncer; Cures al final de la vida Background: Specialist palliative care team (SPCT) involvement has been shown to improve symptom control and end-of-life care for patients with cancer, but little is known as to how these have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Here, we report SPCT involvement during the first wave of the pandemic and compare outcomes for patients with cancer who received and did not receive SPCT input from multiple European cancer centres. Methods: From the OnCovid repository (N = 1318), we analysed cancer patients aged ⩾18 diagnosed with COVID-19 between 26 February and 22 June 2020 who had complete specialist palliative care team data (SPCT+ referred; SPCT− not referred). Results: Of 555 eligible patients, 317 were male (57.1%), with a median age of 70 years (IQR 20). At COVID-19 diagnosis, 44.7% were on anti-cancer therapy and 53.3% had ⩾1 co-morbidity. Two hundred and six patients received SPCT input for symptom control (80.1%), psychological support (54.4%) and/or advance care planning (51%). SPCT+ patients had more ‘Do not attempt cardio-pulmonary resuscitation’ orders completed prior to (12.6% versus 3.7%) and during admission (50% versus 22.1%, p < 0.001), with more SPCT+ patients deemed suitable for treatment escalation (50% versus 22.1%, p < 0.001). SPCT involvement was associated with higher discharge rates from hospital for end-of-life care (9.7% versus 0%, p < 0.001). End-of-life anticipatory prescribing was higher in SPCT+ patients, with opioids (96.3% versus 47.1%) and benzodiazepines (82.9% versus 41.2%) being used frequently for symptom control. Conclusion: SPCT referral facilitated symptom control, emergency care and discharge planning, as well as high rates of referral for psychological support than previously reported. Our study highlighted the critical need of SPCTs for patients with cancer during the pandemic and should inform service planning for this population. The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Wellcome Trust Strategic Fund [PS3416] awarded to DJP and by direct project funding from the NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) awarded to DJP. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. OnCovid was supported in part by funds from the Cancer Treatment and Research Trust (CTRT) awarded to DJP and from the Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro Foundation  awarded to AG.
COVID-19; Acute myeloid leukemia; Survey COVID-19; Leucemia mieloide aguda; Encuesta COVID-19; Leucèmia mieloide aguda; Enquesta Patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) are at high risk of dying from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The optimal management of AML patients with COVID-19 has not been established. Our multicenter study included 388 adult AML patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between February 2020 and October 2021. The vast majority were receiving or had received AML treatment in the preceding 3 months. COVID-19 was severe in 41.2% and critical in 21.1% of cases. The chemotherapeutic schedule was modified in 174 patients (44.8%), delayed in 68 and permanently discontinued in 106. After a median follow-up of 325 days, 180 patients (46.4%) had died; death was attributed to COVID-19 (43.3%), AML (26.1%) or to a combination of both (26.7%), whereas in 3.9% of cases the reason was unknown. Active disease, older age, and treatment discontinuation were associated with death, whereas AML treatment delay was protective. Seventy-nine patients had a simultaneous AML and COVID-19 diagnosis, with better survival when AML treatment could be delayed (80%; P<0.001). Overall survival in patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19 between January 2020 and August 2020 was significantly lower than that in patients diagnosed between September 2020 and February 2021 and between March 2021 and September 2021 (39.8% vs. 60% vs. 61.9%, respectively; P=0.006). COVID-19 in AML patients was associated with a high mortality rate and modifications of therapeutic algorithms. The best approach to improve survival was to delay AML treatment, whenever possible. EPICOVIDEHA has received funds from Optics COMMITTM (COVID-19 Unmet Medical Needs and Associated Research Extension) COVID-19 RFP program by Gilead Science, USA (Project 2020-8223). The funder of the study had no role in the study design, data analysis, interpretation, or writing of the report. All authors had full access to the data and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.
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.
descriptionPublicationkeyboard_double_arrow_right Article , Other literature type 2022Embargo end date: 06 Jan 2022 Belgium, Switzerland English IfADo - Leibniz Research Centre for Working Environment and Human Factors, Dortmund
The aim of this study was to investigate the COVID-19 vaccination acceptance rate and its determinants among healthcare workers in a multicenter study. This was a cross-sectional multi-center survey conducted from February 5 to April 29, 2021. The questionnaire consisted of 26 items in 6 subscales. The English version of the questionnaire was translated into seven languages and distributed through Google Forms using snowball sampling; a colleague in each country was responsible for the forward and backward translation, and also the distribution of the questionnaire. A forward stepwise logistic regression was utilized to explore the variables and questionnaire factors tied to the intention to COVID-19 vaccination. 4630 participants from 91 countries completed the questionnaire. According to the United Nations Development Program 2020, 43.6 % of participants were from low Human Development Index (HDI) regions, 48.3 % high and very high, and 8.1 % from medium. The overall vaccination hesitancy rate was 37 %. Three out of six factors of the questionnaire were significantly related to intention to the vaccination. While ���Perceived benefits of the COVID-19 vaccination��� (OR: 3.82, p-value<0.001) and ���Prosocial norms��� (OR: 5.18, p-value<0.001) were associated with vaccination acceptance, ���The vaccine safety/cost concerns��� with OR: 3.52, p-value<0.001 was tied to vaccination hesitancy. Medical doctors and pharmacists were more willing to take the vaccine in comparison to others. Importantly, HDI with OR: 12.28, 95 % CI: 6.10-24.72 was a strong positive determinant of COVID-19 vaccination acceptance. This study highlighted the vaccination hesitancy rate of 37 % in our sample among HCWs. Increasing awareness regarding vaccination benefits, confronting the misinformation, and strengthening the prosocial norms would be the primary domains for maximizing the vaccination coverage. The study also showed that the HDI is strongly associated with the vaccination acceptance/hesitancy, in a way that those living in low HDI contexts are more hesitant to receive the vaccine. EXCLI Journal; 21:Doc93; ISSN 1611-2156
descriptionPublicationkeyboard_double_arrow_right Other literature type , Article 2021 Portugal, France, Lithuania, Belgium, Italy, Italy, Belgium, Spain, United States MDPI AG EC | PRIME, EC | Eat2beNICE
Isabel Baenas; Mikel Etxandi; Lucero Munguía; Roser Granero; Gemma Mestre-Bach; Isabel Sánchez; Emilio Ortega; Alba Andreu; Violeta L. Moize; Jose-Manuel Fernández-Real; Francisco J. Tinahones; Carlos Diéguez; Gema Frühbeck; Daniel Le Grange; Kate Tchanturia; Andreas Karwautz; Michael Zeiler; Hartmut Imgart; Annika Zanko; Angela Favaro; Laurence Claes; Ia Shekriladze; Eduardo Serrano-Troncoso; Raquel Cecilia-Costa; Teresa Rangil; Maria Eulalia Loran-Meler; José Soriano-Pacheco; Mar Carceller-Sindreu; Rosa Navarrete; Meritxell Lozano; Raquel Linares; Carlota Gudiol; Jordi Carratala; Maria T. Plana; Montserrat Graell; David González-Parra; José A. Gómez-del Barrio; Ana R. Sepúlveda; Jéssica Sánchez-González; Paulo P. P. Machado; Anders Håkansson; Ferenc Túry; Bea Pászthy; Daniel Stein; Hana Papezová; Jana Gricova; Brigita Bax; Mikhail F. Borisenkov; Sergey V. Popov; Denis G. Gubin; Ivan M. Petrov; Dilara Isakova; Svetlana V. Mustafina; Youl-Ri Kim; Michiko Nakazato; Nathalie Godart; Robert van Voren; Tetiana Ilnytska; Jue Chen; Katie Rowlands; Ulrich Voderholzer; Alessio M. Monteleone; Janet Treasure; Susana Jiménez-Murcia; Fernando Fernández-Aranda;
Background. The COVID-19 lockdown has had a significant impact on mental health. Patients with eating disorders (ED) have been particularly vulnerable. Aims. (1) To explore changes in eating-related symptoms and general psychopathology during lockdown in patients with an ED from various European and Asian countries; and (2) to assess differences related to diagnostic ED subtypes, age, and geography. Methods. The sample comprised 829 participants, diagnosed with an ED according to DSM-5 criteria from specialized ED units in Europe and Asia. Participants were assessed using the COVID-19 Isolation Scale (CIES). Results. Patients with binge eating disorder (BED) experienced the highest impact on weight and ED symptoms in comparison with other ED subtypes during lockdown, whereas individuals with other specified feeding and eating disorders (OFSED) had greater deterioration in general psychological functioning than subjects with other ED subtypes. Finally, Asian and younger individuals appeared to be more resilient. Conclusions. The psychopathological changes in ED patients during the COVID-19 lockdown varied by cultural context and individual variation in age and ED diagnosis. Clinical services may need to target preventive measures and adapt therapeutic approaches for the most vulnerable patients. We thank CERCA Programme/Generalitat de Catalunya for institutional support. This manuscript and research was supported by grants from the Department of Health of the Generalitat de Catalunya by the call Pla estratègic de recerca i innovació en salut (PERIS, SLT006/17/00077), the Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (PSI201568701R), Fondo de Investigación Sanitario (FIS) (INT19/00046, PI17/01167, PI20/132), CIBERINFEC (CB21/13/00009) and co-funded by FEDER funds /European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), a way to build Europe (Eat2beNICE/ H2020-SFS-2016-2; Ref 728018; and PRIME/ H2020-SC1-BHC-2018-2020; Ref: 847879). CIBEROBN, CIBERSAM, CIBERINFEC and CIBERDEM are all initiatives of Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII). GMB is supported by a postdoctoral grant from FUNCIVA. PPM was supported, in part, by a Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology grant (POCI-01-0145-FEDER-028145). IB was partially supported by a Post-Residency Grant from the Research Committee of the University Hospital of Bellvitge (HUB; Barcelona, Spain) 2020–2021. The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Fondo Investigacion Sanitario-FIS, Grant/Award Numbers: FIS, INT19/00046, PI17/01167; Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad, Grant/Award Number: PSI2015-68701-R; Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology grant, Grant/Award Number: POCI-01-0145-FEDER-028145; Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia; Generalitat de Catalunya; European Regional Development Fund. Data Availability Statement: Individuals may inquire with Fernández-Aranda regarding availability of the data as there is ongoing studies using the data. To avoid overlapping research efforts, Fernández-Aranda will consider a request on a case-by-case basis.
The global preparedness and response to the rapid escalation to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV)-2-related disease (COVID-19) to a pandemic proportion has demanded the formulation of a reliable, useful and evidence-based mechanism for health services prioritisation, to achieve the highest quality standards of care to all patients. The prioritisation of high value cancer interventions must be embedded in the agenda for the pandemic response, ensuring that no inconsistency or discrepancy emerge in the health planning processes. The aim of this work is to organise health interventions for breast cancer management and research in a tiered framework (high, medium, low value), formulating a scheme of prioritisation per clinical cogency and intrinsic value or magnitude of benefit. The public health tools and schemes for priority setting in oncology have been used as models, aspiring to capture clinical urgency, value in healthcare, community goals and fairness, while respecting the principles of benevolence, non-maleficence, autonomy and justice. We discuss the priority health interventions across the cancer continuum, giving a perspective on the role and meaning to maintain some services (undeferrable) while temporarily abrogate some others (deferrable). Considerations for implementation and the essential link to pre-existing health services, especially primary healthcare, are addressed, outlining a framework for the development of effective and functional services, such as telemedicine. The discussion covers the theme of health systems strategising, and why oncology care, in particular breast cancer care, should be maintained in parallel to pandemic control measures, providing a pragmatic clinical model within the broader context of public healthcare schemes. info:eu-repo/semantics/published SCOPUS: re.j
Authors: Ola Blennow; Jon Salmanton‐García; Piotr Nowak; Federico Itri; +64 Authors
Ola Blennow; Jon Salmanton‐García; Piotr Nowak; Federico Itri; Jaap Van Doesum; Alberto López‐García; Francesca Farina; Ozren Jaksic; László Imre Pinczés; Yavuz M. Bilgin; Iker Falces‐Romero; Moraima Jiménez; Irati Ormazabal‐Vélez; Barbora Weinbergerová; Rémy Duléry; Zlate Stojanoski; Tobias Lahmer; Noemí Fernández; José‐Ángel Hernández‐Rivas; Verena Petzer; Nick De Jonge; Andreas Glenthøj; Cristina De Ramón; Monika M. Biernat; Nicola Fracchiolla; Avinash Aujayeb; Jens Van Praet; Martin Schönlein; Gustavo‐Adolfo Méndez; Chiara Cattaneo; Anna Guidetti; Mariarita Sciumè; Emanuele Ammatuna; Raul Cordoba; Nicole García‐Poutón; Stefanie Gräfe; Alba Cabirta; Dominik Wolf; Anna Nordlander; Ramón García‐Sanz; Mario Delia; Caroline Berg Venemyr; Clara Brones; Roberta Di Blasi; Elizabeth De Kort; Stef Meers; Sylvain Lamure; Laura Serrano; Maria Merelli; Nicola Coppola; Rui Bergantim; Caroline Besson; Milena Kohn; Jessica Petiti; Carolina Garcia‐Vidal; Michelina Dargenio; François Danion; Marina Machado; Rebeca Bailén‐Almorox; Martin Hoenigl; Giulia Dragonetti; Louis Yi Ann Chai; Chi Shan Kho; Matteo Bonanni; Raphaël Liévin; Francesco Marchesi; Oliver A. Cornely; Livio Pagano;