Patterns and correlates of claims for brown bear damage on a continental scale

Wildlife damage to human property threatens human-wildlife coexistence. Conflicts arising from wildlife damage in intensively managed landscapes often undermine conservation efforts, making damage mitigation and compensation of special concern for wildlife conservation. However, the mechanisms underlying the occurrence of damage and claims at large scales are still poorly understood. Here, we investigated the patterns of damage caused by brown bears Ursus arctos and its ecological and socio-economic correlates at a continental scale. We compiled information about compensation schemes across 26 countries in Europe in 2005-2012 and analysed the variation in the number of compensated claims in relation to (i) bear abundance, (ii) forest availability, (iii) human land use, (iv) management practices and (v) indicators of economic wealth. Most European countries have a posteriori compensation schemes based on damage verification, which, in many cases, have operated for more than 30 years. On average, over 3200 claims of bear damage were compensated annually in Europe. The majority of claims were for damage to livestock (59%), distributed throughout the bear range, followed by damage to apiaries (21%) and agriculture (17%), mainly in Mediterranean and eastern European countries. The mean number of compensated claims per bear and year ranged from 0·1 in Estonia to 8·5 in Norway. This variation was not only due to the differences in compensation schemes; damage claims were less numerous in areas with supplementary feeding and with a high proportion of agricultural land. However, observed variation in compensated damage was not related to bear abundance. Synthesis and applications. Compensation schemes, management practices and human land use influence the number of claims for brown bear damage, while bear abundance does not. Policies that ignore this complexity and focus on a single factor, such as bear population size, may not be effective in reducing claims. To be effective, policies should be based on integrative schemes that prioritize damage prevention and make it a condition of payment of compensation that preventive measures are applied. Such integrative schemes should focus mitigation efforts in areas or populations where damage claims are more likely to occur. Similar studies using different species and continents might further improve our understanding of conflicts arising from wildlife damage

Association of travel time, patient characteristics, and hospital quality with patient mobility for breast cancer surgery: A national population-based study

BACKGROUND: This national study investigated hospital quality and patient factors associated with treatment location for breast cancer surgery. METHODS: By using linked administrative data sets from the English National Health Service, the authors identified all women diagnosed between January 2, 2016, and December 31, 2018, who underwent breast-conserving surgery (BCS) or a mastectomy with or without immediate breast reconstruction. The extent to which patients bypassed their nearest hospital was investigated using a geographic information system (ArcGIS). Conditional logistic regressions were used to estimate the impact of travel time, hospital quality, and patient characteristics. RESULTS: 22,622 Of 69,153 patients undergoing BCS, 22,622 (32.7%) bypassed their nearest hospital; and, of 23,536 patients undergoing mastectomy, 7179 (30.5%) bypassed their nearest hospital. Women who were younger, without comorbidities, or from rural areas were more likely to travel to more distant hospitals (p < .05). Patients undergoing BCS (odds ratio [OR], 1.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.36-2.50) or mastectomy (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.14-2.02) were more likely to be treated at specialist breast reconstruction centers despite not undergoing the procedure. Patients receiving mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction were more likely to travel to hospitals employing surgeons who had a media reputation (OR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.28-4.52). Patients undergoing BCS were less likely to travel to hospitals with shorter surgical waiting times (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.46-0.92). The authors did not observe a significant impact for research activity, hospital quality rating, breast re-excision rates, or the status as a multidisciplinary cancer center. CONCLUSIONS: Patient choice policies may drive inequalities in the health care system without improving patient outcomes

Association between COVID-19 burden and delays to diagnosis and treatment of cancer patients in England

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has been highly disruptive for cancer care. Here, we examined the effect COVID-19 had on performance of the 62-day Cancer Waiting Time (CWT) target set by the National Health Service (NHS) in England. METHODS: Data were retrospectively obtained on COVID-19 hospitalisations and CWT for NHS hospitals in England (n = 121). We produced a 'COVID-19 burden' to describe the proportion of each provider's beds occupied with COVID-19 patients. COVID-19 burden was examined against CWT performance for 1st April - 30th May 2020 (Wave 1), and 1st October - 30th November 2020 (Wave 2). Two-tailed Spearman correlations were used to identify relationships between COVID-19 burden and CWT performance amongst different referral (i.e., 2-week-wait (2 W W) and internal specialist) and tumour types. Significantly correlated variables were further examined using linear regression models. RESULTS: COVID-19 burden was negatively associated with the percentage of 2 W W pathway referrals that met the CWT target in Wave 1 (r= -0.30, p = 0.001) and Wave 2 (r= -0.21, p = 0.02). These associations were supported by the results from our linear regression models (B for wave 1: -0.71; 95 %CI: -1.03 to -0.40; B for wave 2: -0.38; 95 %CI: -0.68 to -0.07). No associations were found between COVID-19 burden and internal specialist referrals or tumour type. CONCLUSION: Increased COVID-19 burden was associated with lower compliance with CWT targets amongst urgent referrals from primary care in England. This will likely be an ongoing issue due to the backlog of patients awaiting investigations and treatment. POLICY SUMMARY: As the number of cancer referrals improve, we highlight the need for changes to primary and secondary care to manage the backlog within cancer diagnostic services to alleviate the impact of COVID-19

The impact of national non-pharmaceutical interventions ('lockdowns') on the presentation of cancer patients.

One of the most ignored aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic has been the impact of public health measures by governments on wider health and welfare. From March 2020, hospitals in the UK saw a dramatic reduction in patients with cancer presenting due to multifactorial reasons. The impact of the pandemic on patients with cancer in the South East London Cancer Alliance was studied. The specific aims were (1) to examine the reduction in cancer diagnoses during the first wave of the pandemic and (2) to examine the stage of diagnosis of patients with cancer presenting during the pandemic compared with that of patients presenting before the pandemic. There was an 18.2% reduction in new cancer diagnoses (an estimate of 987 cancers), when compared with 2019. This fall in cancer diagnoses was most marked in patients with prostate (51.4%), gynaecological (29.7%), breast (29.5%) and lung (23.4%) cancers. There was an overall 3.9% increase in advanced stage presentation (Stages 3 and 4), with an overall 6.8% increase in Stage 4 cancers during this period. The greatest shifts were seen in lung (increase of 6.3%, with an 11.2% increase in Stage 4 cancer alone) and colorectal (5.4%) cancers. For prostate cancer, there was an increase in 3.8% in those presenting with Stage 4 disease. For breast cancer, there was an 8% reduction in patients diagnosed with Stage 1 cancer with commensurate increases in the proportion of those with Stage 2 disease. The experiences in cancer are a salient warning that pandemic control measures and policy need to balance all health and welfare. Alternative strategies need to be adopted during further waves of the current and any future pandemic to ensure that patients with cancer are prioritised for diagnosis and treatment to prevent late-stage presentation and an increase in avoidable deaths

COVID-19 Risk Factors for Cancer Patients: A First Report with Comparator Data from COVID-19 Negative Cancer Patients

none32siSimple SummaryThe COVID-19 pandemic has had a detrimental impact on cancer patients globally. Whilst there are several studies looking at the potential risk factors for COVID-19 disease and related death, most of these include non-cancerous patients as the COVID-19 negative comparator group, meaning it is difficult to draw hard conclusions as to the implications for cancer patients. In our study, we utilized data from over 2000 cancer patients from a large tertiary Cancer Centre in London. In summary, our study found that patients who are male, of Black or Asian ethnicity, or with a hematological malignancy are at an increased risk of COVID-19. The use of cancer patients as the COVID-19 negative comparator group is a major advantage to the study as it means we can better understand the true impact of COVID-19 on cancer patients and identify which factors pose the biggest risk to their likelihood of infection with SARS-CoV2.Very few studies investigating COVID-19 in cancer patients have included cancer patients as controls. We aimed to identify factors associated with the risk of testing positive for SARS CoV2 infection in a cohort of cancer patients. We analyzed data from all cancer patients swabbed for COVID-19 between 1(st) March and 31(st) July 2020 at Guy's Cancer Centre. We conducted logistic regression analyses to identify which factors were associated with a positive COVID-19 test. Results: Of the 2152 patients tested for COVID-19, 190 (9%) tested positive. Male sex, black ethnicity, and hematological cancer type were positively associated with risk of COVID-19 (OR = 1.85, 95%CI:1.37-2.51; OR = 1.93, 95%CI:1.31-2.84; OR = 2.29, 95%CI:1.45-3.62, respectively) as compared to females, white ethnicity, or solid cancer type, respectively. Male, Asian ethnicity, and hematological cancer type were associated with an increased risk of severe COVID-19 (OR = 3.12, 95%CI:1.58-6.14; OR = 2.97, 95%CI:1.00-8.93; OR = 2.43, 95%CI:1.00-5.90, respectively). This study is one of the first to compare the risk of COVID-19 incidence and severity in cancer patients when including cancer patients as controls. Results from this study have echoed those of previous reports, that patients who are male, of black or Asian ethnicity, or with a hematological malignancy are at an increased risk of COVID-19.openRussell, Beth; Moss, Charlotte L; Palmer, Kieran; Sylva, Rushan; D'Souza, Andrea; Wylie, Harriet; Haire, Anna; Cahill, Fidelma; Steel, Renee; Hoyes, Angela; Wilson, Isabelle; Macneil, Alyson; Shifa, Belul; Monroy-Iglesias, Maria J; Papa, Sophie; Irshad, Sheeba; Ross, Paul; Spicer, James; Kordasti, Shahram; Crawley, Danielle; Zaki, Kamarul; Sita-Lumsden, Ailsa; Josephs, Debra; Enting, Deborah; Swampillai, Angela; Sawyer, Elinor; Fields, Paul; Wrench, David; Rigg, Anne; Sullivan, Richard; Van Hemelrijck, Mieke; Dolly, SaoirseRussell, Beth; Moss, Charlotte L; Palmer, Kieran; Sylva, Rushan; D'Souza, Andrea; Wylie, Harriet; Haire, Anna; Cahill, Fidelma; Steel, Renee; Hoyes, Angela; Wilson, Isabelle; Macneil, Alyson; Shifa, Belul; Monroy-Iglesias, Maria J; Papa, Sophie; Irshad, Sheeba; Ross, Paul; Spicer, James; Kordasti, Shahram; Crawley, Danielle; Zaki, Kamarul; Sita-Lumsden, Ailsa; Josephs, Debra; Enting, Deborah; Swampillai, Angela; Sawyer, Elinor; Fields, Paul; Wrench, David; Rigg, Anne; Sullivan, Richard; Van Hemelrijck, Mieke; Dolly, Saoirs

COVID-19: Third dose booster vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough coronavirus infection, hospitalisations and death in patients with cancer: A population-based study

Purpose: People living with cancer and haematological malignancies are at increased risk of hospitalisation and death following infection with acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Coronavirus third dose vaccine boosters are proposed to boost waning immune responses in immunocompromised individuals and increase coronavirus protection; however, their effectiveness has not yet been systematically evaluated. Methods: This study is a population-scale real-world evaluation of the United Kingdom’s third dose vaccine booster programme for cancer patients from 8th December 2020 to 7th December 2021. The cancer cohort comprises individuals from Public Health England’s national cancer dataset, excluding individuals less than 18 years. A test-negative case-control design was used to assess third dose booster vaccine effectiveness. Multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to compare risk in the cancer cohort relative to the general population. Results: The cancer cohort comprised of 2,258,553 tests from 361,098 individuals. Third dose boosters were evaluated by reference to 87,039,743 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) coronavirus tests. Vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough infections, symptomatic infections, coronavirus hospitalisation and death in cancer patients were 59.1%, 62.8%, 80.5% and 94.5% respectively. Lower vaccine effectiveness was associated with a cancer diagnosis within 12 months, lymphoma, recent systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT) or radiotherapy. Lymphoma patients had low levels of protection from symptomatic disease. In spite of third dose boosters, following multivariable adjustment, individuals with cancer remain at increased risk of coronavirus hospitalisation and death compared to the population control (OR 3.38, 3.01 respectively. p<0.001 for both). Conclusions: Third dose boosters are effective for most individuals with cancer, increasing protection from coronavirus. However, their effectiveness is heterogenous, and lower than the general population. Many patients with cancer will remain at increased risk of coronavirus infections, even after 3 doses. In the case of patients with lymphoma, there is a particularly strong disparity of vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough infection and severe disease. Breakthrough infections will disrupt cancer care and treatment with potentially adverse consequences on survival outcomes. The data support the role of vaccine boosters in preventing severe disease, and further pharmacological intervention to prevent transmission and aid viral clearance to limit disruption of cancer care as the delivery of care continues to evolve during the coronavirus pandemic

Acute kidney injury in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated acute kidney injury (ICPi-AKI) has emerged as an important toxicity among patients with cancer. Methods: We collected data on 429 patients with ICPi-AKI and 429 control patients who received ICPis contemporaneously but who did not develop ICPi-AKI from 30 sites in 10 countries. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of ICPi-AKI and its recovery. A multivariable Cox model was used to estimate the effect of ICPi rechallenge versus no rechallenge on survival following ICPi-AKI. Results: ICPi-AKI occurred at a median of 16 weeks (IQR 8-32) following ICPi initiation. Lower baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate, proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use, and extrarenal immune-related adverse events (irAEs) were each associated with a higher risk of ICPi-AKI. Acute tubulointerstitial nephritis was the most common lesion on kidney biopsy (125/151 biopsied patients [82.7%]). Renal recovery occurred in 276 patients (64.3%) at a median of 7 weeks (IQR 3-10) following ICPi-AKI. Treatment with corticosteroids within 14 days following ICPi-AKI diagnosis was associated with higher odds of renal recovery (adjusted OR 2.64; 95% CI 1.58 to 4.41). Among patients treated with corticosteroids, early initiation of corticosteroids (within 3 days of ICPi-AKI) was associated with a higher odds of renal recovery compared with later initiation (more than 3 days following ICPi-AKI) (adjusted OR 2.09; 95% CI 1.16 to 3.79). Of 121 patients rechallenged, 20 (16.5%) developed recurrent ICPi-AKI. There was no difference in survival among patients rechallenged versus those not rechallenged following ICPi-AKI. Conclusions: Patients who developed ICPi-AKI were more likely to have impaired renal function at baseline, use a PPI, and have extrarenal irAEs. Two-thirds of patients had renal recovery following ICPi-AKI. Treatment with corticosteroids was associated with improved renal recovery

COVID-19 and treatment with NSAIDs and corticosteroids:Should we be limiting their use in the clinical setting?

Given the current SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic, the availability of reliable information for clinicians and patients is paramount. There have been a number of reports stating that non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and corticosteroids may exacerbate symptoms in COVID-19 patients. Therefore, this review aimed to collate information available in published articles to identify any evidence behind these claims with the aim of advising clinicians on how best to treat patients. This review found no published evidence for or against the use of NSAIDs in COVID-19 patients. Meanwhile, there appeared to be some evidence that corticosteroids may be beneficial if utilised in the early acute phase of infection, however, conflicting evidence from the World Health Organisation surrounding corticosteroid use in certain viral infections means this evidence is not conclusive. Given the current availability of literature, caution should be exercised until further evidence emerges surrounding the use of NSAIDs and corticosteroids in COVID-19 patients