Advanced search in Research products
Research products
arrow_drop_down
Searching FieldsTerms
Any field
arrow_drop_down
includes
arrow_drop_down
Include:
The following results are related to COVID-19. Are you interested to view more results? Visit OpenAIRE - Explore.
44 Research products, page 1 of 5

  • COVID-19
  • Publications
  • Other research products
  • US
  • BE
  • SK
  • Scientia, Dipòsit d’Informació Digital del Departament de Salut
  • COVID-19

10
arrow_drop_down
Relevance
arrow_drop_down
  • Open Access English
    Authors: 
    Arévalos, Victor; Ortega Paz, Luis; Fernandez Rodríguez, Diego; Jiménez Díaz, Víctor Alfonso; Bañeras Rius, Jordi; Campo, Gianluca; Rodríguez Santamarta, Miguel; Pérez de Prado, Armando; Gómez Menchero, Antonio; Díaz Fernández, José Francisco; +13 more
    Publisher: Public Library of Science
    Country: Spain

    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.

  • Open Access English
    Authors: 
    Steve Simpson-Yap; Edward De Brouwer; Tomas Kalincik; Nick Rijke; J. Hillert; Clare Walton; Gilles Edan; Yves Moreau; Tim Spelman; Lotte Geys; +37 more
    Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
    Countries: United Kingdom, Belgium

    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).

  • Open Access English
    Authors: 
    Gehan Soosaipillai; Anjui Wu; Gino M Dettorre; Nikolaos Diamantis; John Chester; Charlotte Moss; Juan Aguilar-Company; Mark Bower; Christopher CT Sng; Ramon Salazar; +76 more
    Publisher: SAGE Publications
    Countries: Spain, United Kingdom
    Project: WT

    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 [14230] awarded to AG.

  • Open Access
    Authors: 
    Cristiana Sessa; Jorge Cortes; Pierfranco Conte; Fatima Cardoso; Toni K. Choueiri; Reinhardt Dummer; Patricia LoRusso; Oliver G. Ottmann; Bettina Ryll; Tony Mok; +5 more
    Publisher: Elsevier BV
    Country: Switzerland

    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.

  • Open Access
    Authors: 
    Askarian, Mehrdad; Semenov, Aleksandr; Llopis, Ferran; Rubulotta, Francesca; Dragovac, Gorana; Pshenichnaya, Natalia; Assadian, Ojan; Ruch, Yvon; Shayan, Zahra; Padilla Fortunatti, Cristobal; +26 more
    Publisher: :unas
    Countries: Belgium, Switzerland

    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

  • Open Access
    Authors: 
    Isabel Baenas; Mikel Etxandi; Lucero Munguía; Roser Granero; Gemma Mestre-Bach; Isabel Sánchez; Emilio Ortega; Alba Andreu; Violeta L. Moize; Jose-Manuel Fernández-Real; +55 more
    Publisher: MDPI
    Countries: France, Portugal, Belgium, Spain, Lithuania, Belgium, Italy
    Project: EC | Eat2beNICE (728018), EC | PRIME (847879)

    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.

  • Open Access English
    Authors: 
    Azambuja, Evandro de; Trapani, Dario; Loibl, Sibylle; Delaloge, Suzette; Senkus, Elzbieta; Criscitiello, Carmen; Poortman, Philip; Gnant, Michael; Di Cosimo, Serena; Cortés, Javier; +4 more
    Countries: Spain, Belgium, Belgium

    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

  • Open Access English
    Authors: 
    Jaber S Alqahtani; Tope Oyelade; Abdulelah M Aldhahir; Renata Gonçalves Mendes; Saeed M Alghamdi; Marc Miravitlles; Swapna Mandal; John R. Hurst;
    Publisher: Public Library of Science

    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.

  • Publication . Article . 2022
    Open Access
    Authors: 
    Pompermaier Laura; Adorno José; Allorto Nikki; Al-Tarrah Khaled; Juan P. Barret; Carter Jeffery; Chamania Shobha; Chong Si Jack; Corlew Scott; Depetris Nadia; +23 more
    Publisher: Elsevier BV
    Countries: Sweden, United Kingdom

    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/).

  • Open Access
    Authors: 
    Paul Hofman; M. Ilié; E. Chamorey; P. Brest; R. Schiappa; V. Nakache; M. Antoine; M. Barberis; H. Begueret; F. Bibeau; +70 more
    Publisher: Elsevier BV
    Countries: France, Germany, Slovenia, France, Belgium, France, Netherlands, France

    Background This study evaluated the consequences in Europe of the COVID-19 outbreak on pathology laboratories orientated toward the diagnosis of thoracic diseases. Materials and methods A survey was sent to 71 pathology laboratories from 21 European countries. The questionnaire requested information concerning the organization of biosafety, the clinical and molecular pathology, the biobanking, the workload, the associated research into COVID-19, and the organization of education and training during the COVID-19 crisis, from 15 March to 31 May 2020, compared with the same period in 2019. Results Questionnaires were returned from 53/71 (75%) laboratories from 18 European countries. The biosafety procedures were heterogeneous. The workload in clinical and molecular pathology decreased dramatically by 31% (range, 3%-55%) and 26% (range, 7%-62%), respectively. According to the professional category, between 28% and 41% of the staff members were not present in the laboratories but did teleworking. A total of 70% of the laboratories developed virtual meetings for the training of residents and junior pathologists. During the period of study, none of the staff members with confirmed COVID-19 became infected as a result of handling samples. Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic has had a strong impact on most of the European pathology laboratories included in this study. Urgent implementation of several changes to the organization of most of these laboratories, notably to better harmonize biosafety procedures, was noted at the onset of the pandemic and maintained in the event of a new wave of infection occurring in Europe. Highlights • Biosafety measures used in the first wave of the COVID-19 crisis were heterogeneous in 53 European pathology laboratories. • A dramatic decrease of the workload in pathology laboratories was noted. • No case of healthcare workers contaminated with SARS-CoV-2 associated with samples handling was identified.

Advanced search in Research products
Research products
arrow_drop_down
Searching FieldsTerms
Any field
arrow_drop_down
includes
arrow_drop_down
Include:
The following results are related to COVID-19. Are you interested to view more results? Visit OpenAIRE - Explore.
44 Research products, page 1 of 5
  • Open Access English
    Authors: 
    Arévalos, Victor; Ortega Paz, Luis; Fernandez Rodríguez, Diego; Jiménez Díaz, Víctor Alfonso; Bañeras Rius, Jordi; Campo, Gianluca; Rodríguez Santamarta, Miguel; Pérez de Prado, Armando; Gómez Menchero, Antonio; Díaz Fernández, José Francisco; +13 more
    Publisher: Public Library of Science
    Country: Spain

    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.

  • Open Access English
    Authors: 
    Steve Simpson-Yap; Edward De Brouwer; Tomas Kalincik; Nick Rijke; J. Hillert; Clare Walton; Gilles Edan; Yves Moreau; Tim Spelman; Lotte Geys; +37 more
    Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
    Countries: United Kingdom, Belgium

    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).

  • Open Access English
    Authors: 
    Gehan Soosaipillai; Anjui Wu; Gino M Dettorre; Nikolaos Diamantis; John Chester; Charlotte Moss; Juan Aguilar-Company; Mark Bower; Christopher CT Sng; Ramon Salazar; +76 more
    Publisher: SAGE Publications
    Countries: Spain, United Kingdom
    Project: WT

    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 [14230] awarded to AG.

  • Open Access
    Authors: 
    Cristiana Sessa; Jorge Cortes; Pierfranco Conte; Fatima Cardoso; Toni K. Choueiri; Reinhardt Dummer; Patricia LoRusso; Oliver G. Ottmann; Bettina Ryll; Tony Mok; +5 more
    Publisher: Elsevier BV
    Country: Switzerland

    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.

  • Open Access
    Authors: 
    Askarian, Mehrdad; Semenov, Aleksandr; Llopis, Ferran; Rubulotta, Francesca; Dragovac, Gorana; Pshenichnaya, Natalia; Assadian, Ojan; Ruch, Yvon; Shayan, Zahra; Padilla Fortunatti, Cristobal; +26 more
    Publisher: :unas
    Countries: Belgium, Switzerland

    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

  • Open Access
    Authors: 
    Isabel Baenas; Mikel Etxandi; Lucero Munguía; Roser Granero; Gemma Mestre-Bach; Isabel Sánchez; Emilio Ortega; Alba Andreu; Violeta L. Moize; Jose-Manuel Fernández-Real; +55 more
    Publisher: MDPI
    Countries: France, Portugal, Belgium, Spain, Lithuania, Belgium, Italy
    Project: EC | Eat2beNICE (728018), EC | PRIME (847879)

    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.

  • Open Access English
    Authors: 
    Azambuja, Evandro de; Trapani, Dario; Loibl, Sibylle; Delaloge, Suzette; Senkus, Elzbieta; Criscitiello, Carmen; Poortman, Philip; Gnant, Michael; Di Cosimo, Serena; Cortés, Javier; +4 more
    Countries: Spain, Belgium, Belgium

    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

  • Open Access English
    Authors: 
    Jaber S Alqahtani; Tope Oyelade; Abdulelah M Aldhahir; Renata Gonçalves Mendes; Saeed M Alghamdi; Marc Miravitlles; Swapna Mandal; John R. Hurst;
    Publisher: Public Library of Science

    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.

  • Publication . Article . 2022
    Open Access
    Authors: 
    Pompermaier Laura; Adorno José; Allorto Nikki; Al-Tarrah Khaled; Juan P. Barret; Carter Jeffery; Chamania Shobha; Chong Si Jack; Corlew Scott; Depetris Nadia; +23 more
    Publisher: Elsevier BV
    Countries: Sweden, United Kingdom

    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/).

  • Open Access
    Authors: 
    Paul Hofman; M. Ilié; E. Chamorey; P. Brest; R. Schiappa; V. Nakache; M. Antoine; M. Barberis; H. Begueret; F. Bibeau; +70 more
    Publisher: Elsevier BV
    Countries: France, Germany, Slovenia, France, Belgium, France, Netherlands, France

    Background This study evaluated the consequences in Europe of the COVID-19 outbreak on pathology laboratories orientated toward the diagnosis of thoracic diseases. Materials and methods A survey was sent to 71 pathology laboratories from 21 European countries. The questionnaire requested information concerning the organization of biosafety, the clinical and molecular pathology, the biobanking, the workload, the associated research into COVID-19, and the organization of education and training during the COVID-19 crisis, from 15 March to 31 May 2020, compared with the same period in 2019. Results Questionnaires were returned from 53/71 (75%) laboratories from 18 European countries. The biosafety procedures were heterogeneous. The workload in clinical and molecular pathology decreased dramatically by 31% (range, 3%-55%) and 26% (range, 7%-62%), respectively. According to the professional category, between 28% and 41% of the staff members were not present in the laboratories but did teleworking. A total of 70% of the laboratories developed virtual meetings for the training of residents and junior pathologists. During the period of study, none of the staff members with confirmed COVID-19 became infected as a result of handling samples. Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic has had a strong impact on most of the European pathology laboratories included in this study. Urgent implementation of several changes to the organization of most of these laboratories, notably to better harmonize biosafety procedures, was noted at the onset of the pandemic and maintained in the event of a new wave of infection occurring in Europe. Highlights • Biosafety measures used in the first wave of the COVID-19 crisis were heterogeneous in 53 European pathology laboratories. • A dramatic decrease of the workload in pathology laboratories was noted. • No case of healthcare workers contaminated with SARS-CoV-2 associated with samples handling was identified.