Dutch Oncology COVID-19 consortium:Outcome of COVID-19 in patients with cancer in a nationwide cohort study

Aim of the study: Patients with cancer might have an increased risk for severe outcome of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). To identify risk factors associated with a worse outcome of COVID-19, a nationwide registry was developed for patients with cancer and COVID-19. Methods: This observational cohort study has been designed as a quality of care registry and is executed by the Dutch Oncology COVID-19 Consortium (DOCC), a nationwide collaboration of oncology physicians in the Netherlands. A questionnaire has been developed to collect pseudonymised patient data on patients' characteristics, cancer diagnosis and treatment. All patients with COVID-19 and a cancer diagnosis or treatment in the past 5 years are eligible. Results: Between March 27th and May 4th, 442 patients were registered. For this first analysis, 351 patients were included of whom 114 patients died. In multivariable analyses, age ≥65 years (p < 0.001), male gender (p = 0.035), prior or other malignancy (p = 0.045) and active diagnosis of haematological malignancy (p = 0.046) or lung cancer (p = 0.003) were independent risk factors for a fatal outcome of COVID-19. In a subgroup analysis of patients with active malignancy, the risk for a fatal outcome was mainly determined by tumour type (haematological malignancy or lung cancer) and age (≥65 years). Conclusion: The findings in this registry indicate that patients with a haematological malignancy or lung cancer have an increased risk of a worse outcome of COVID-19. During the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, these vulnerable patients should avoid exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, whereas treatment adjustments and prioritising vaccination, when available, should also be considered

Randomised trial of no hydration vs. sodium bicarbonate hydration in patients with chronic kidney disease undergoing acute computed tomography-pulmonary angiography

Pathogenesis and treatment of chronic pulmonary disease

Predicting the Need for Radiologic Imaging in Adults with Febrile Urinary Tract Infection

Background. Radiologic evaluation of adults with febrile urinary tract infection (UTI) is frequently performed to exclude urological disorders. This study aims to develop a clinical rule predicting need for radiologic imaging. Methods. We conducted a prospective, observational study including consecutive adults with febrile UTI at 8 emergency departments (EDs) in the Netherlands. Outcomes of ultrasounds and computed tomographs of the urinary tract were classified as "urgent urological disorder" (pyonephrosis or abscess), "nonurgent urologic disorder," "normal," and "incidental nonurological findings." Urgent and nonurgent urologic disorders were classified as " clinically relevant radiologic findings." The data of 5 EDs were used as the derivation cohort, and 3 EDs served as the validation cohort. Results. Three hundred forty-six patients were included in the derivation cohort. Radiologic imaging was performed for 245 patients (71%). A prediction rule was derived, being the presence of a history of urolithiasis, a urine pH >= 7.0, and/or renal insufficiency (estimated glomerular filtration rate, <= 40 mL/min/1.73 m(3)). This rule predicts clinically relevant radiologic findings with a negative predictive value (NPV) of 93% and positive predictive value (PPV) of 24% and urgent urological disorders with an NPV of 99% and a PPV of 10%. In the validation cohort (n = 131), the NPV and PPV for clinically relevant radiologic findings were 89% and 20%, respectively; for urgent urological disorders, the values were 100% and 11%, respectively. Potential reduction of radiologic imaging by implementing the prediction rule was 40%. Conclusions. Radiologic imaging can selectively be applied in adults with febrile UTI without loss of clinically relevant information by using a simple clinical prediction rule

Predicting the Need for Radiologic Imaging in Adults with Febrile Urinary Tract Infection

Background. Radiologic evaluation of adults with febrile urinary tract infection (UTI) is frequently performed to exclude urological disorders. This study aims to develop a clinical rule predicting need for radiologic imaging. Methods. We conducted a prospective, observational study including consecutive adults with febrile UTI at 8 emergency departments (EDs) in the Netherlands. Outcomes of ultrasounds and computed tomographs of the urinary tract were classified as "urgent urological disorder" (pyonephrosis or abscess), "nonurgent urologic disorder," "normal," and "incidental nonurological findings." Urgent and nonurgent urologic disorders were classified as " clinically relevant radiologic findings." The data of 5 EDs were used as the derivation cohort, and 3 EDs served as the validation cohort. Results. Three hundred forty-six patients were included in the derivation cohort. Radiologic imaging was performed for 245 patients (71%). A prediction rule was derived, being the presence of a history of urolithiasis, a urine pH >= 7.0, and/or renal insufficiency (estimated glomerular filtration rate, <= 40 mL/min/1.73 m(3)). This rule predicts clinically relevant radiologic findings with a negative predictive value (NPV) of 93% and positive predictive value (PPV) of 24% and urgent urological disorders with an NPV of 99% and a PPV of 10%. In the validation cohort (n = 131), the NPV and PPV for clinically relevant radiologic findings were 89% and 20%, respectively; for urgent urological disorders, the values were 100% and 11%, respectively. Potential reduction of radiologic imaging by implementing the prediction rule was 40%. Conclusions. Radiologic imaging can selectively be applied in adults with febrile UTI without loss of clinically relevant information by using a simple clinical prediction rule.Immunogenetics and cellular immunology of bacterial infectious disease

A randomized comparison of 1-h sodium bicarbonate hydration versus standard peri-procedural saline hydration in patients with chronic kidney disease undergoing intravenous contrast-enhanced computerized tomography

Nephrolog

Decontamination of the digestive tract and oropharynx in ICU patients.

Contains fulltext : 79996.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Selective digestive tract decontamination (SDD) and selective oropharyngeal decontamination (SOD) are infection-prevention measures used in the treatment of some patients in intensive care, but reported effects on patient outcome are conflicting. METHODS: We evaluated the effectiveness of SDD and SOD in a crossover study using cluster randomization in 13 intensive care units (ICUs), all in The Netherlands. Patients with an expected duration of intubation of more than 48 hours or an expected ICU stay of more than 72 hours were eligible. In each ICU, three regimens (SDD, SOD, and standard care) were applied in random order over the course of 6 months. Mortality at day 28 was the primary end point. SDD consisted of 4 days of intravenous cefotaxime and topical application of tobramycin, colistin, and amphotericin B in the oropharynx and stomach. SOD consisted of oropharyngeal application only of the same antibiotics. Monthly point-prevalence studies were performed to analyze antibiotic resistance. RESULTS: A total of 5939 patients were enrolled in the study, with 1990 assigned to standard care, 1904 to SOD, and 2045 to SDD; crude mortality in the groups at day 28 was 27.5%, 26.6%, and 26.9%, respectively. In a random-effects logistic-regression model with age, sex, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) score, intubation status, and medical specialty used as covariates, odds ratios for death at day 28 in the SOD and SDD groups, as compared with the standard-care group, were 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 0.99) and 0.83 (95% CI, 0.72 to 0.97), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In an ICU population in which the mortality rate associated with standard care was 27.5% at day 28, the rate was reduced by an estimated 3.5 percentage points with SDD and by 2.9 percentage points with SOD. (Controlled Clinical Trials number, ISRCTN35176830.