• COVID-19
• Publicationsclose
• 2013-2022close
• Conference object close
• DK close
• University of Southern Denmark Research Output close

Abstract Background: The severe, acute respiratory syndrome, coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), leading to coronavirus-19 (COVID-19), was detected for the first time in Wuhan, China in December 2019. In general, governments and health authorities have taken precautions during the COVID-19 pandemic to reduce viral spread and protect vulnerable citizens. Patients with multiple myeloma (MM) have an increased risk of being infected with COVID-19 and developing a fatal course due to the MM-related immunodeficiency (Glenthøj, A et al. PMID: 32939853). To some extent, the COVID-19 pandemic has changed standard of care towards extended use of oral regimens and limiting hospital visits (Terpos E et al.PMID: 32444866). We aimed to investigate the quality of life (QoL) of Danish patients with MM during the COVID-19 pandemic. We hypothesized that patients living alone and those under the age of 65 years, as a consequence of the pandemic, would experience impaired QoL due to social isolation and fear of infection with SARS-CoV-2. Methods: The Danish prospective, nation-wide, observational survey "Quality of life in Danish patients with multiple myeloma" (QoL-MM) (Nielsen LK et al. PMID: 30656677) framed our study. In QoL-MM, survey data are obtained at enrolment and subsequently at 12 follow-up time points over a two-year period. The following PRO questionnaires are used; the cancer-generic instrument of European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of life (EORTC) QLQ-C30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), the Multiple Myeloma module QLQ-MY20 (EORTC QLQ-MY20), the Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy module (EORTC QLQ-CIPN20) and the Short-form health survey version 2 (SF12v2). In the present study, a subpopulation of the QoL-MM cohort was constructed, based on the response time of the questionnaires. QoL was compared using patient-reported outcome (PRO) data obtained before and during the COVID-19 pandemic at group level. In a Danish context, first wave was defined as April to June 2020 and the second wave as November 2020 to January 2021. The QoL data were analyzed using mixed effects linear regression, with a year-period-interaction. Pre-COVID versus COVID mean domain score difference was considered evident, if the difference was both statistically significant (p-value <0.05) and clinically relevant, using minimal important difference (MID) defined as 0.3 standard deviation of the mean score. Results: The study included 616 patients (63% newly diagnosed and 37% relapsed) with a mean age of 68.2 years (standard deviation, 9.2); 40% were females; 76% were married/cohabiting, and 24% single. Questionnaire completion rates during the investigated periods were between 96% and 97%. In total, 1,685 completed sets of questionnaires were included in the analyses. The patients reported no statistically significant and clinically relevant difference in QoL during the first and second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic, compared to one year earlier, see table 1. When analyzing the subpopulations, we found that patients below 65 years reported improved physical health summaries (p-value 0.016), decreased fatigue (p-value < 0.001), less insomnia (p-value 0.002) and improved role functioning (p-value <0.001) during the first wave, reaching both statistical significance and the threshold of MID. The group of patients living alone reported improved role functioning during the first wave, reaching both statistical significance (p-value <0.001) and the threshold of MID. These findings were not evident during the second wave, see table 1. Conclusion: As a group, Danish patients with MM did not report impaired QoL during the COVID-19 pandemic. In contrary, we observed improvements in some domains in patients below 65 years. Our observations indicate that the patients with MM have felt cared for and in good hands during the first and second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, part of the reason for our finding of no negative impact on QoL by the pandemic could be that the questionnaires used were not developed to capture the impact of the pandemic on QoL. Importantly, our results suggest that QoL data collected in clinical trials during the pandemic allow interpretation without adjusting for the impact of the pandemic. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Redder: Janssen-Ciliag: Research Funding. Frederiksen: Alexion: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Glofit is a novel, CD20xCD3 T-cell-engaging bispecific antibody that provides monovalent binding to CD3 on T cells and bivalent binding to CD20 on B cells. As monotherapy, Glofit has shown promising response rates with manageable safety in R/R B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (B-NHL) patients (pts; [Carlo-Stella et al. EHA 2021]). Because of their distinct and complementary mechanism of action, there is a rationale for combining Glofit with the anti-CD79b-targeted antibody-drug conjugate, Pola. NP39488 (NCT03533283) is a Phase Ib/II, open-label, multicenter, dose-escalation (DE) and expansion study evaluating Glofit + Pola or atezolizumab in R/R B-NHL pts (Hutchings et al. ASH 2019). Here, we report preliminary safety and efficacy data for Glofit + Pola in pts with R/R DLBCL during DE and expansion at the recommended Phase II dose (RP2D). Methods: To mitigate the risk of cytokine release syndrome (CRS), a single 1000mg dose of obinutuzumab pre-treatment was administered on Cycle (C) 1 Day (D) 1 alongside step-up dosing (SUD) of Glofit on C1D8 and C1D15. Glofit was subsequently administered at the target dose from C2D1, every 3 weeks up to C12. Pola was administered at 1.8mg/kg on C1D2 and then on D1 of each subsequent cycle up to C6. The primary objective was to establish the RP2D of Glofit in combination with Pola. Results: As of June 10, 2021 (clinical cut-off date [CCOD]), 44 pts were treated with ≥1 cycle; median follow-up was 3.2 months (95% confidence interval: 1.4-3.5). In the first DE cohort, 7 pts had received Glofit at 2.5mg (C1D8)/10mg (C1D15)/10mg (C2D1 onwards) plus Pola. In the second DE cohort, 4 pts received the Glofit target dose of 30mg on C1D15 and this was established as the RP2D. During the expansion phase at RP2D, an additional 34 pts were treated with ≥1 cycle. Of 44 pts, 29 (66%) had histology of R/R DLBCL, 8 (18%) had R/R high-grade B-cell lymphoma (HGBCL; 2 HGBCL not otherwise specified; 5 double-hit DLBCL; 1 triple-hit DLBCL) and 7 (16%) had R/R transformed follicular lymphoma. Pts (61% male) had a median age of 65.5 years (range: 29-82) and received a median of two prior lines (range: 1−5). Twenty-eight (64%) pts were refractory to their last therapy; 2 pts had not been treated with Glofit at the CCOD. The most frequent adverse event (AE) was CRS (55%; 23/42 pts): Grade (Gr) 1 (n=18); Gr 2 (n=7); no Gr ≥3 CRS events were observed (Lee et al. 2019 ASTCT criteria). Of the 7 pts with Gr 2 CRS, 5 were treated with tocilizumab and fluids for hypotension, and 4 pts were treated with low-flow oxygen due to hypoxia. None of the pts required vasopressors or intensive care unit admission. Gr >3 AEs occurred in 52% (n=23) of pts; most commonly, neutropenia (27%) and anemia (23%). For neurological AEs (NAEs), 13 events were reported in 13 patients (29.5%, 13/44 pts), all were limited to Gr 1−2. The most common NAEs were headache and (11%, 5/44 pts) and insomnia (4.5%, 2/44 pts). No immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome-like AEs were reported. Peripheral neuropathy due to Pola was reported in 5/44 pts (11%); all events were Gr 1. Serious AEs occurred in 22 pts (52%); none were CNS or neurological events. One pt experienced fatal COVID-19 pneumonia (not related). Study treatment was discontinued in 2 pts due to AEs (Gr 4 thrombocytopenia, and Gr 3 worsening of pre-existing renal impairment; both events were related to Glofit and Pola). At CCOD 33/44 pts were evaluable for interim (after 2 cycles, 1 target dose of Glofit) or primary (after 8 cycles) response; 6/33 pts had experienced progressive disease and discontinued study treatment. Overall response (OR) rate for both dosing cohorts was 73% (24/33) and complete response (CR) rate, per investigator was 51.5% (17/33). Of 7 pts treated with 2.5/10/10mg SUD Glofit, OR and CR rates were both 86% (6/7); durable responses at ≥6 months post-end of treatment were observed. Of 26 pts treated with 2.5/10/30 mg SUD Glofit, OR rate was 73% (19/26) and CR rate was 46% (12/26); 11.5% (3/26) pts had stable disease after 2 cycles of therapy. Duration of response and time on study by dosing cohort is shown in Figure. Biomarker and pharmacokinetic data will be provided. Conclusions: Glofit in combination with Pola showed tolerable safety and encouraging preliminary efficacy in R/R DLBCL pts. CRS and NAEs were limited to Gr 1 or 2, no new safety signals were detected for this combination, and the safety profile was consistent with that of the individual drugs. Updated data will be presented. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Hutchings: Genmab: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Sureda: Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Support for attending meetings and/or travel, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Support for attending meetings and/or travel, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Bluebird: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Other: Support for attending meetings and/or travel; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Mundipharma: Consultancy; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Terol: Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Hospital Clinico Valencia: Current Employment; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel. Bosch Albareda: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Lilly: Honoraria. Corradini: KiowaKirin; Incyte; Daiichi Sankyo; Janssen; F. Hoffman-La Roche; Kite; Servier: Consultancy; AbbVie, ADC Theraputics, Amgen, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead/Kite, GSK, Incyte, Janssen, KyowaKirin, Nerviano Medical Science, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen; Takeda; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel and accommodations; Novartis; Gilead; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Travel and accommodations; BMS: Other: Travel and accommodation; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy; AbbVie, ADC Theraputics, Amgen, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead/Kite, GSK, Incyte, Janssen, KyowaKirin, Nerviano Medical Science, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda: Consultancy; Novartis, Janssen, Celgene, BMS, Takeda, Gilead/Kite, Amgen, AbbVie: Other: travel and accomodations. Larsen: Novartis: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Odense University Hospital, Denmark: Current Employment; Celgene: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy. Rueda Dominguez: Hospital Regional Universitario de Malaga: Current Employment; Roche: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Merck Serono: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; MSD: Consultancy. Panchal: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Current Employment. Bottos: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Carlile: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; AstraZeneca: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Ended employment in the past 24 months. Wang: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Current Employment; Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China: Ended employment in the past 24 months. Filézac De L'Étang: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Tandon: Roche Products Ltd: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Sellam: Roche: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Gritti: Takeda: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Kite Gilead: Consultancy; IQvia: Consultancy; Italfarmaco: Consultancy; Clinigen: Consultancy. OffLabel Disclosure: Glofitamab is a full-length, humanized immunoglobulin G1 bispecific antibody with a 2:1 molecular format that facilitates bivalent binding to CD20 on B-cells, and monovalent binding to CD3 on T-cells. Glofitamab redirects T cells to engage and eliminate malignant B cells. Glofitamab is an investigational agent. Polatuzumab vedotin (Polivy) is a CD79b-directed antibody-drug conjugate indicated in combination with bendamustine and a rituximab product for the treatment of adult pts with relapsed or refractory DLBCL, not otherwise specified, after at least two prior therapies.

Robots can protect healthcare workers from being infected by the COVID-19 and play a role in throat swab sampling operation. A critical requirement in this process is to maintain a constant force on the tissue for ensuring a safe and good sampling. In this study, we present the design of a disposable mechanism with two non-linear springs to achieve a 0.6 N constant force within a 20 mm displacement. The nonlinear spring is designed through optimization based on Finite Element Simulation and Genetic Algorithm. Prototype of the mechanism is made and tested. The experimental results show that the mechanism can provide 0.67±0.04 N and 0.57±0.02 N during its compression and return process. The proposed design can be extended to different scales and used in a variety of scenario where safe interacting with human is required.

IntroduktionTrods universiteternes mangeårige satsning på implementeringen af EDU-IT, var hovedparten af undervisningen før Covid-19 fortsat organiseret som synkront fysisk fremmøde. Da læreridentitet udvikles i et samspil mellem undervisningskontekst og personlig forståelsesramme [1], er vores antagelse, at akademikeres læreridentitet knytter an til netop fremmødeundervisningen. Nyere studier viser, at læreridentitet udfordres af et øget studentercentreret fokus, som rykker lærerrollen fra videnbærer til facilitator [2], og at øget digitalisering af undervisningen påvirker underviseres prioritering af studerende-underviser interaktionen [3]. Ovenstående giver anledning til at spørge, hvordan læreridentiteten påvirkes, når Covid-19 ændrer undervisningskonteksten til et rent digitalt format? MetodeSpørgsmålet er søgt besvaret gennem kvalitativ analyse, hvor interviews med 19 erfarne undervisere fra to forskellige danske universiteter udgør datagrundlaget. Interviewene er analyseret gennem en meningskondenserende metode, hvor længere tekststykker i hvert interview blev tildelt forskellige koder. Herefter blev koderne sammenlignet på tværs af interviewene for at identificere tværgående tematikker. ResultatForeløbige analyser indikerer, at en form for praktisk kropsliggjort læreridentitet udgør et grundvilkår og en ressource for underviserne, og at det pludselige skift i undervisningskonteksten har betydet et tab af praktisk sans [4]. Tabet vedrører en inkorporeret forståelse af og reaktion på 1) non-verbale signaler, 2) en gensidig visuel relation, og 3) den rumlige fornemmelse for undervisningskonteksten. Resultaterne varierer alt efter om underviseren identificerer sig som videnbærer eller facilitator af læring. DiskussionIndtil videre rejser resultaterne spørgsmål om et overset grundvilkår i undervisningen, nemlig at underviseren bruger sin praktiske sans i navigering og justering af undervisningen, og at udøvelsen af den praktiske sans er stærkt motiverende.

Introduction: During March and April 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic forced around50 % of employees of Switzerland into a working from home setting. Working from home appears to have considerably changed the work experience of office workers. Newspapers reported an increase in non-specific neck pain as a negative consequence of working from home. Therefore, the main driver for this abstract was to confirm these observations with higher levels of evidence. Purpose of the study: The aim of this analysis was to investigate the effect of the first COVID-19 lockdown on neck pain. We hypothesised that the COVID-19 lockdown would increase neck pain. Methods: This longitudinal analysis is based on control group data from an ongoing stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial. Office workers from two Swiss organisations, aged 18-65 years, were included. Baseline data collected in January 2020 before the COVID-19 pandemic were compared with follow-up data collected during the fourth and fifth week of the first lockdown in April 2020. Neck pain was assessed with a measure of intensity (numeric rating scale NRS from 0 = no pain to 10 = maximum pain), frequency (number of days within the last 28 days), and disability (neck disability index from 0 % = no disability to 100 % = maximum disability). Paired Wilcoxon signed rank tests were performed for statistical analysis as the normality assumption was not met. Results: Data from 76 participants were analysed. The mean age was 42.7 years (ranging from 21.8 to 62.7) at baseline and fifty-four participants (71.1 %) were female. At baseline, the meanintensity of neck pain was NRS 2.3 (± 1.9), mean frequency of neck pain 4.5 / 28 days (± 8.3), and mean neck disability 11.7 % (± 10.0). At follow-up, the mean intensity of neck pain was NRS 2.2 (± 2.2), mean frequency of neck pain 6.8 / 28 days (± 7.4), and mean neck disability 11.1 % (± 10.9). We found no evidence for a difference in the intensity of neck pain (estimate = 2.59*10-5, 95 % CI from -0.50 to 0.50, p-value = 0.607), frequency of neck pain (estimate = 3.26*10-5, 95 % CI from -2.00 to 2.50, p-value = 0.964), or neck disability index (estimate = 4.43*10-6, 95 % CI from -2.00 to 3.00, p-value = 0.794) between both measurement time points. Conclusion: The first COVID-19 lockdown did not result in a difference of neck pain among our sample of office workers, neither in intensity nor in frequency nor in disability. Therefore, our hypothesis and the findings of the newspapers could not be confirmed. A higher number of work breaks taken as well as improved working times and work-life balance may have contributed to this result. To enable more comprehensive statements, further dimensions of pain (i.e., duration) and the effect of psychosocial factors (i.e., mental health) would need to be investigated.

Last Aid courses (LAC) were introduced in 2015 in three countries (Norway, Germany and Denmark) to teach the public about palliative care. The main aims of LAC are to stimulate the public discussion about death, dying and palliative care and to enable people to participate in end-of-life care in the community. At present the International Last Aid working group includes members from 18 countries from Europe, Brazil and Australia. Usually LACs are held in a classroom setting with 6-20 participants and two facilitators. Initially the 2nd International Last aid Conference was planned in October 2020 in Maribor, Slovenia. When the pandemic struck this became impossible. To cope with the demanding challenges and the fact that physical group meetings and conferences became impossible in 2020 Last Aid International had to find ways of continuing the work. A taskforce on Online Last Aid Courses was established in Germany and LACs were held Online via different web based platforms. The 2nd International Last Aid Conference took place online with 174 delegates from 18 countries. The implications and effects of COVID-19 on the development of Last Aid International will be presented and discussed in detail.References: 1. Bollig G, Meyer S, Knopf B, Schmidt S, Bauer EH. First Experiences with Online Last Aid Courses for Public Palliative Care Education during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Healthcare (Basel). 2021 Feb 5;9(2):172. doi: 10.3390/healthcare9020172. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9032/9/2/172 2. Zelko E, Bollig G. Report from the 2. International LAST AID Conference Online—The social impact of palliative care, October 30 2020, Maribor, Slovenia. AIMS Medical Science 2021, Volume 8, Issue 1: 42-45. doi: 10.3934/medsci.2021005 https://www.aimspress.com/article/doi/10.3934/medsci.2021005

Abstract Background The COVID-19 pandemic has forced around 50 % of employees of Switzerland into a working from home setting during March and April 2020. Working from home appears to change the work experience of office workers considerably. The aim of this analysis was to investigate the effect of the first COVID-19 lockdown on work stress conditions. Methods We based this longitudinal analysis on control group data from an ongoing stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial. Office workers from two Swiss organizations, aged 18-65 years, were included. Baseline data from January 2020 (before the COVID-19 pandemic) were compared with follow-up data collected during the fourth and fifth week of the first lockdown (April 2020). Work stress conditions were measured using the Job-Stress-Index (JSI). The JSI indicates the ratio of work-related resources (e.g., appreciation at work) and stressors (e.g., work organisation) on a scale from 0 (stressors < resources) to 100 (stressors > resources). Paired sample t-tests were performed for statistical analysis. Results Data from 75 participants were analysed. Fifty-three participants were female (70.7 %). The mean age was 42.8 years (range from 21.8 to 62.7) at baseline. At baseline, the mean JSI was 47.6 (SD = 5.0), with 77.7 (SD = 12.4) for resources and 22.3 (SD = 10.1) for stressors. At follow-up, the mean JSI was 47.4 SD = 4.5), with 77.5 (SD = 11.7) for resources and 21.4 (SD = 9.6) for stressors. We found no evidence for a difference in JSI (estimate = 0.67, 95 % CI: -0.33 to 0.66, p-value = 0.50), its index of resources (estimate = 0.23, 95 % CI: -1.32 to 1.69, p-value = 0.82) or the index of work stressors (estimate = 1.4, 95 % CI: -0.32 to 2.02, p-value = 0.15) between measurement time points. Conclusions The first COVID-19 lockdown did not result in a difference of work stress conditions among our sample of Swiss office workers. Improved working times and work-life balance may have contributed to this finding. Key messages Improved working times and work-life balance may have contributed to stable task-related stressors and resources in the early phase of the lockdown. Other, non-work-related environmental stressors should be investigated to explain COVID-19-related changes in mental and physical health.