• COVID-19
• Publicationsclose
• Research dataclose
• Research softwareclose
• Other research productsclose
• 2019-2023close
• US close
• BE close
• NO close
• SK close
• Diposit Digital de Documents de la UAB close
• Scientia, Dipòsit d’Informació Digital del Departament de Salut close
• Research Repository of Catalonia close

Biomarker predictive; Chemotherapy; Ovarian cancer Biomarcador predictiu; Quimioteràpia; Càncer d'ovari Biomarcador predictivo; Quimioterapia; Cáncer de ovario Purpose: To determine the ability of RAD51 foci to predict platinum chemotherapy response in high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) patient-derived samples. Experimental Design: RAD51 and γH2AX nuclear foci were evaluated by immunofluorescence in HGSOC patient-derived cell lines (n = 5), organoids (n = 11), and formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor samples (discovery n = 31, validation n = 148). Samples were defined as RAD51-High if >10% of geminin-positive cells had ≥5 RAD51 foci. Associations between RAD51 scores, platinum chemotherapy response, and survival were evaluated. Results: RAD51 scores correlated with in vitro response to platinum chemotherapy in established and primary ovarian cancer cell lines (Pearson r = 0.96, P = 0.01). Organoids from platinum-nonresponsive tumors had significantly higher RAD51 scores than those from platinum-responsive tumors (P < 0.001). In a discovery cohort, RAD51-Low tumors were more likely to have a pathologic complete response (RR, 5.28; P < 0.001) and to be platinum-sensitive (RR, ∞; P = 0.05). The RAD51 score was predictive of chemotherapy response score [AUC, 0.90; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.78–1.0; P < 0.001). A novel automatic quantification system accurately reflected the manual assay (92%). In a validation cohort, RAD51-Low tumors were more likely to be platinum-sensitive (RR, ∞; P < 0.001) than RAD51-High tumors. Moreover, RAD51-Low status predicted platinum sensitivity with 100% positive predictive value and was associated with better progression-free (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.33–0.85; P < 0.001) and overall survival (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.25–0.75; P = 0.003) than RAD51-High status. Conclusions: RAD51 foci are a robust marker of platinum chemotherapy response and survival in ovarian cancer. The utility of RAD51 foci as a predictive biomarker for HGSOC should be tested in clinical trials. This work was supported by the following entities: M. Mullen reports funding from the Reproductive Scientist Development Program (RSDP) supported by the Gynecologic Oncology Group Foundation, Washington University School of Medicine Division of Physician Scientists Dean's Scholar Program, and grant 2021265 from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation through the COVID-19 Fund to Retain Clinical Scientists collaborative grant program. D. Khabele reports funding from RO1CA243511, University of Kansas Cancer Center P30 CA168524. D.G. Mutch reports funding from Washington University School of Medicine grant 5U1-CA180860–04.

BackgroundNirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment decreases the hospitalisation rate in immunocompetent patients with COVID-19, but data on efficacy in patients with haematological malignancy are scarce. Here, we describe the outcome of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment in a large cohort of the latter patients.MethodsThis is a retrospective cohort study from the multicentre EPICOVIDEHA registry (NCT04733729) on patients with haematological malignancy, who were diagnosed with COVID-19 between January and September 2022. Patients receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir were compared to those who did not. A logistic regression was run to determine factors associated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir administration in our sample. Mortality between treatment groups was assessed with Kaplan–Meier survival plots after matching all the patients with a propensity score. Additionally, a Cox regression was modelled to detect factors associated with mortality in patients receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir.FindingsA total of 1859 patients were analysed, 117 (6%) were treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, 1742 (94%) were treated otherwise. Of 117 patients receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, 80% had received ≥1 anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose before COVID-19 onset, 13% of which received a 2nd vaccine booster. 5% were admitted to ICU. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment was associated with the presence of extrapulmonary symptoms at COVID-19 onset, for example anosmia, fever, rhinitis, or sinusitis (aOR 2.509, 95%CI 1.448–4.347) and 2nd vaccine booster (aOR 3.624, 95%CI 1.619–8.109). Chronic pulmonary disease (aOR 0.261, 95%CI 0.093–0.732) and obesity (aOR 0.105, 95%CI 0.014–0.776) were not associated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir use. After propensity score matching, day-30 mortality rate in patients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was 2%, significantly lower than in patients with SARS-CoV-2 directed treatment other than nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (11%, p = 0.036). No factor was observed explaining the mortality difference in patients after nirmatrelvir/ritonavir administration.InterpretationHaematological malignancy patients were more likely to receive nirmatrelvir/ritonavir when reporting extrapulmonary symptoms or 2nd vaccine booster at COVID-19 onset, as opposed to chronic pulmonary disease and obesity. The mortality rate in patients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was lower than in patients with targeted drugs other than nirmatrelvir/ritonavir.FundingEPICOVIDEHA has received funds from Optics COMMIT (COVID-19 Unmet Medical Needs and Associated Research Extension) COVID-19 RFP program by GILEAD Science, United States (Project 2020-8223). Background: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment decreases the hospitalisation rate in immunocompetent patients with COVID-19, but data on efficacy in patients with haematological malignancy are scarce. Here, we describe the outcome of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment in a large cohort of the latter patients. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study from the multicentre EPICOVIDEHA registry (NCT04733729) on patients with haematological malignancy, who were diagnosed with COVID-19 between January and September 2022. Patients receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir were compared to those who did not. A logistic regression was run to determine factors associated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir administration in our sample. Mortality between treatment groups was assessed with Kaplan–Meier survival plots after matching all the patients with a propensity score. Additionally, a Cox regression was modelled to detect factors associated with mortality in patients receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Findings: A total of 1859 patients were analysed, 117 (6%) were treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, 1742 (94%) were treated otherwise. Of 117 patients receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, 80% had received ≥1 anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose before COVID-19 onset, 13% of which received a 2nd vaccine booster. 5% were admitted to ICU. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment was associated with the presence of extrapulmonary symptoms at COVID-19 onset, for example anosmia, fever, rhinitis, or sinusitis (aOR 2.509, 95%CI 1.448–4.347) and 2nd vaccine booster (aOR 3.624, 95%CI 1.619–8.109). Chronic pulmonary disease (aOR 0.261, 95%CI 0.093–0.732) and obesity (aOR 0.105, 95%CI 0.014–0.776) were not associated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir use. After propensity score matching, day-30 mortality rate in patients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was 2%, significantly lower than in patients with SARS-CoV-2 directed treatment other than nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (11%, p = 0.036). No factor was observed explaining the mortality difference in patients after nirmatrelvir/ritonavir administration. Interpretation: Haematological malignancy patients were more likely to receive nirmatrelvir/ritonavir when reporting extrapulmonary symptoms or 2nd vaccine booster at COVID-19 onset, as opposed to chronic pulmonary disease and obesity. The mortality rate in patients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was lower than in patients with targeted drugs other than nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Funding: EPICOVIDEHA has received funds from Optics COMMIT (COVID-19 Unmet Medical Needs and Associated Research Extension) COVID-19 RFP program by GILEAD Science, United States (Project 2020-8223).

Adult congenital heart disease; Coronavirus disease 2019; Risk stratification Cardiopatia congènita de l'adult; Malaltia per coronavirus 2019; Estratificació del risc Cardiopatía congénita del adulto; Enfermedad por coronavirus 2019; Estratificación del riesgo Background At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, professionals in charge of particularly vulnerable populations, such as adult congenital heart disease (ACHD) patients, were confronted with difficult decision-making. We aimed to assess changes in risk stratification and outcomes of ACHD patients suffering from COVID-19 between March 2020 and April 2021. Methods and results Risk stratification among ACHD experts (before and after the first outcome data were available) was assessed by means of questionnaires. In addition, COVID-19 cases and the corresponding patient characteristics were recorded among participating centres. Predictors for the outcome of interest (complicated disease course) were assessed by means of multivariable logistic regression models calculated with cluster-robust standard errors. When assessing the importance of general and ACHD specific risk factors for a complicated disease course, their overall importance and the corresponding risk perception among ACHD experts decreased over time. Overall, 638 patients (n = 168 during the first wave and n = 470 during the subsequent waves) were included (median age 34 years, 52% women). Main independent predictors for a complicated disease course were male sex, increasing age, a BMI >25 kg/m2, having ≥2 comorbidities, suffering from a cyanotic heart disease or having suffered COVID-19 in the first wave vs. subsequent waves. Conclusions Apart from cyanotic heart disease, general risk factors for poor outcome in case of COVID-19 reported in the general population are equally important among ACHD patients. Risk perception among ACHD experts decreased during the course of the pandemic. EPOCH is funded by internal grants without support from the pharmaceutical industry.

COVID-19 infection; Hematological malignances; Immunocompromised patients Infecció per COVID-19; Neoplasies hematològiques; Pacients immunodeprimits Infección por COVID-19; Neoplasias hematológicas; Pacientes inmunodeprimidos Background: The outcome of COVID-19 in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) recipients is almost uniformely considered poor. The aim of present study was to retrospectively analyse the outcome and risk factors for mortality in a large series of patients who developed COVID-19 infection after an allogeneic HSCT. Methods: This multicenter retrospective study promoted by the European Hematology Association – Infections in Hematology Study Working Group, included 326 adult HSCT patients who had COVID-19 between January 2020 and March 2022. Results: The median time from HSCT to the diagnosis of COVID-19 was 268 days (IQR 86-713; range 0-185 days). COVID-19 severity was mild in 21% of the patients, severe in 39% and critical in 16% of the patients. In multivariable analysis factors associated with a higher risk of mortality were, age above 50 years, presence of 3 or more comorbidities, active hematologic disease at time of COVID-19 infection, development of COVID-19 within 12 months of HSCT, and severe/critical infections. Overall mortality rate was 21% (n=68): COVID-19 was the main or secondary cause of death in 16% of the patients (n=53). Conclusions: Mortality in HSCT recipients who develop COVID-19 is high and largely dependent on age, comorbidities, active hematologic disease, timing from transplant and severity of the infection. EPICOVIDEHA has received funds from Optics COMMITTM (COVID-19 Unmet Medical Needs and Associated Research Extension) COVID-19 RFP program by GILEAD Science, United States (Project 2020-8223). The funder of the study had no role in 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.

Epidemiological evidence has linked an array of sociodemographic and psychosocial factors with an increased risk of developing psychosis. However, research in samples from low- and middle-income countries is still scarce. This study used a Mexican sample to explore (i) sociodemographic and psychosocial differences between individuals with and without a positive screen for Clinical High-Risk for psychosis (CHR), and (ii) sociodemographic and psychosocial factors associated with screening positive for CHR. The sample consisted of 822 individuals from the general population who completed an online survey. Of the participants, 17.3% (n = 142) met the CHR screening criteria. Comparisons between those who screened positive (CHR-positive group) and those who did not (Non-CHR group) showed that participants in the CHR-positive group were younger, had a lower educational level, and reported more mental health problems than the Non-CHR group. Furthermore, relative to the Non-CHR group, the CHR-positive group had a greater prevalence of medium/high risk associated with cannabis use, a higher prevalence of adverse experiences (bullying, intimate partner violence, and experiencing a violent or unexpected death of a relative or friend), as well as higher levels of childhood maltreatment, poorer family functioning, and more distress associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Groups did not differ in sex, marital/relationship status, occupation, and socio-economic status. Finally, when examined in multivariate analyses, the variables associated with screening positive for CHR were: having an unhealthy family functioning (OR = 2.75, 95%CI 1.69–4.46), a higher risk associated with cannabis use (OR = 2.75, 95%CI 1.63–4.64), a lower level of education (OR = 1.55, 95%CI 1.003–2.54), having experienced a major natural disaster (OR = 1.94, 95%CI 1.18–3.16), having experienced a violent or unexpected death of a relative or friend (OR = 1.85, 95%CI 1.22–2.81), higher levels of childhood emotional abuse (OR = 1.88, 95%CI 1.09–3.25), physical neglect (OR = 1.68, 95%CI 1.08–2.61), and physical abuse (OR = 1.66, 95%CI 1.05–2.61), and higher COVID-related distress (OR = 1.10, 95%CI 1.01–1.20). An older age was a protective factor for screening positive for CHR (OR = 0.96, 95%CI 0.92–0.99). Overall, the findings highlight the importance of examining potential psychosocial contributors to psychosis vulnerability across different sociocultural contexts to delineate risk and protective processes relevant to specific populations and better target preventive intervention efforts.

COVID-19; Heart disease; Persistent COVID 19; Malaltia cardíaca; Persistent COVID-19; Enfermedad cardíaca; Persistente Background: Heart disease is linked to worse acute outcomes after coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), although long-term outcomes and prognostic factor data are lacking. We aim to characterize the outcomes and the impact of underlying heart diseases after surviving COVID-19 hospitalization. Methods: We conducted an analysis of the prospective registry HOPE-2 (Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation for COVID-19-2, NCT04778020). We selected patients discharged alive and considered the primary end-point all-cause mortality during follow-up. As secondary main end-points, we included any readmission or any post-COVID-19 symptom. Clinical features and follow-up events are compared between those with and without cardiovascular disease. Factors with p < 0.05 in the univariate analysis were entered into the multivariate analysis to determine independent prognostic factors. Results: HOPE-2 closed on 31 December 2021, with 9299 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, and 1805 died during this acute phase. Finally, 7014 patients with heart disease data were included in the present analysis, from 56 centers in 8 countries. Heart disease (+) patients were older (73 vs. 58 years old), more frequently male (63 vs. 56%), had more comorbidities than their counterparts, and suffered more frequently from post-COVID-19 complications and higher mortality (OR heart disease: 2.63, 95% CI: 1.81–3.84). Vaccination was found to be an independent protector factor (HR all-cause death: 0.09; 95% CI: 0.04–0.19). Conclusions: After surviving the acute phase, patients with underlying heart disease continue to present a more complex clinical profile and worse outcomes including increased mortality. The COVID-19 vaccine could benefit survival in patients with heart disease during follow-up. Non-conditioned grant (Fundación Interhospitalaria para la Investigación cardiovascular, FIC. Madrid, Spain). This nonprofit institution had no role in the study design; collection, analysis, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; nor in the decision to submit the paper for publication.