Hypothesis-oriented food patterns and incidence of hypertension: 6-year follow-up of the SUN (Seguimiento Universidad de Navarra) prospective cohort

Objective To study the association between adherence to several a priori-defined healthy food patterns and the risk of hypertension. Design Prospective, multipurpose, dynamic cohort study (recruitment permanently open). We followed up 10 800 men and women (all of them university graduates), who were initially free of hypertension, for a variable period (range 2–6 years, median 4·6 years). During follow-up, 640 participants reported a new medical diagnosis of hypertension. Baseline diet was assessed using a validated 136-item FFQ. Validated information about non-dietary potential confounders was also gathered. We calculated adherence to fifteen different hypothesis-oriented food patterns and assessed the association between each of them and incident hypertension using multivariable Cox models. Setting The SUN (Seguimiento Universidad de Navarra – University of Navarra Follow-up) Project, Spain. Subjects Participants recruited to the SUN cohort before October 2005 were eligible for inclusion; after excluding those with self-reported hypertension or CVD at baseline, or with extreme total energy intake, data of 10 800 were analysed. Results Higher adherence to the DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diet (range of the score: 0 to 5) was significantly associated with a lower risk for developing hypertension (P for trend = 0·02). The other food patterns showed no significant association with incident hypertension. Conclusions Our results support a long-term protection of the DASH diet against the incidence of hypertension, but we found no evidence of a similar inverse association with hypertension for any other a priori-defined healthy food pattern

Long-term catheterization: current approaches in the diagnosis and treatment of port-related infections

Since the first description in 1982, totally implanted venous access ports have progressively improved patients' quality of life and medical assistance when a medical condition requires the use of long-term venous access. Currently, they are part of the standard medical care for oncohematologic patients. However, apart from mechanical and thrombotic complications, there are also complications associated with biofilm development inside the catheters. These biofilms increase the cost of medical assistance and extend hospitalization. The most frequently involved micro-organisms in these infections are gram-positive cocci. Many efforts have been made to understand biofilm formation within the lumen catheters, and to resolve catheter-related infection once it has been established. Apart from systemic antibiotic treatment, the use of local catheter treatment (ie, antibiotic lock technique) is widely employed. Many different antimicrobial options have been tested, with different outcomes, in clinical and in in vitro assays. The stability of antibiotic concentration in the lock solution once instilled inside the catheter lumen remains unresolved. To prevent infection, it is mandatory to perform hand hygiene before catheter insertion and manipulation, and to disinfect catheter hubs, connectors, and injection ports before accessing the catheter. At present, there are still unresolved questions regarding the best antimicrobial agent for catheter-related bloodstream infection treatment and the duration of concentration stability of the antibiotic solution within the lumen of the port

Efficacy of extended infusion of β-lactam antibiotics for the treatment of febrile neutropenia in haematologic patients : Protocol for a randomised, multicentre, open-label, superiority clinical trial (BEATLE)

Altres ajuts: The BEATLE study is a non-commercial, investigator-driven clinical trial funded by the Spanish Network for Research in Infectious Diseases (REIPI RD16/0016/0005; RD16/0016/0010) The Spanish Clinical Research Network (SCReN) provides clinical trial data monitoring and oversees pharmacovigilance (PT17/0017/0010).Background: Febrile neutropaenia (FN) is a very common complication in patients with haematological malignancies and is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Broad-spectrum antipseudomonal β-lactam antibiotics (BLA) are routinely used for the treatment of cancer patients with FN. However, the clinical efficacy of BLA may be diminished in these patients because they present with pathophysiological variations that compromise the pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters of these antibiotics. Optimised administration of BLA in prolonged infusions has demonstrated better clinical outcomes in critically ill patients. However, there is a paucity of data on the usefulness of this strategy in patients with FN. The aim of this study is to test the hypothesis that the administration of BLA would be clinically more effective by extended infusion (EI) than by intermittent infusion (II) in haematological patients with FN. Methods: A randomised, multicentre, open-label, superiority clinical trial will be performed. Patients with haematological malignancies undergoing chemotherapy or haematopoietic stem-cell transplant and who have FN and receive empirical antibiotic therapy with cefepime, piperacillin-tazobactam or meropenem will be randomised (1:1) to receive the antibiotic by EI (during half the time of the dosing interval) in the study group, or by II (30 min) in the control group. The primary endpoint will be clinical efficacy, defined as defervescence without modifying the antibiotic treatment administered within the first 5 days of therapy. The primary endpoint will be analysed in the intention-to-treat population. The secondary endpoints will be pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) target achievement, bacteraemia clearance, decrease in C-reactive protein, overall (30-day) case-fatality rate, adverse events and development of a population PK model of the BLA studied. Discussion: Data on the usefulness of BLA administration in patients with FN are scant. Only three clinical studies addressing this issue have been published thus far, with contradictory results. Moreover, these studies had some methodological flaws that limit the interpretation of their findings. If this randomised, multicentre, phase IV, open-label, superiority clinical trial validates the hypothesis that the administration of BLA is clinically more effective by EI than by II in haematological patients with FN, then the daily routine management of these high-risk patients could be changed to improve their outcomes. Trial registration: European Clinical Trials Database: EudraCT 2018-001476-37. ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT04233996

Humoral and cellular immune response over 9 months of mRNA-1273, BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 vaccination in a University Hospital in Spain

Scarce data have been reported about cellular immunity and longevity for different COVID-19 vaccination schedules. We carried out a prospective study enrolling 709 healthcare workers receiving two doses of mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, ChAdOx1, ChAdOx1/BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 single dose to compare humoral and cellular immunogenicity across 9 months. Higher SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody levels were observed among individuals with hybrid immunity with one dose of any vaccine in comparison to uninfected individuals receiving two doses (mRNA-1273: 20,145 vs 4295 U/mL; BNT162b2: 15,659 vs 1959 U/mL; ChAdOx1: 5344 vs 2230 U/mL), except for ChAdOx1/BNT162b2 heterologous schedule (12,380 U/mL). Naturally infected individuals did not increase substantially the titers after the second dose and showed higher levels throughout the 9 months follow-up. The mean elimination half-life of antibodies among COVID-19 naive participants was 98, 111, 60 and 36 days, for mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, ChAdOx1/ChAdOx1 and ChAdOx1/BNT162b2, respectively. Cellular immunity was preserved in 96%, 98%, 88% and 92% of uninfected individuals who received mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, ChAdOx1/ChAdOx1 and ChAdOx1/BNT162b2 after 6/9 months. Individuals with specific T cells showed robust long lasting protection, especially when m-RNA based vaccines are inoculated. These data may influence the validity of the vaccination passport and the need for booster vaccinations

A prognostic DNA methylation signature for stage I non-small-cell lung cancer

Purpose Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is a tumor in which only small improvements in clinical outcome have been achieved. The issue is critical for stage I patients for whom there are no available biomarkers that indicate which high-risk patients should receive adjuvant chemotherapy. We aimed to find DNA methylation markers that could be helpful in this regard. Patients and Methods A DNA methylation microarray that analyzes 450,000 CpG sites was used to study tumoral DNA obtained from 444 patients with NSCLC that included 237 stage I tumors. The prognostic DNA methylation markers were validated by a single-methylation pyrosequencing assay in an independent cohort of 143 patients with stage I NSCLC. Results Unsupervised clustering of the 10,000 most variable DNA methylation sites in the discovery cohort identified patients with high-risk stage I NSCLC who had shorter relapse-free survival (RFS; hazard ratio [HR], 2.35; 95% CI, 1.29 to 4.28; P = .004). The study in the validation cohort of the significant methylated sites from the discovery cohort found that hypermethylation of five genes was significantly associated with shorter RFS in stage I NSCLC: HIST1H4F, PCDHGB6, NPBWR1, ALX1, and HOXA9. A signature based on the number of hypermethylated events distinguished patients with high-and low-risk stage I NSCLC (HR, 3.24; 95% CI, 1.61 to 6.54; P = .001). Conclusion The DNA methylation signature of NSCLC affects the outcome of stage I patients, and it can be practically determined by user-friendly polymerase chain reaction assays. The analysis of the best DNA methylation biomarkers improved prognostic accuracy beyond standard staging. (C) 2013 by American Society of Clinical Oncology

Dysautonomia in COVID-19 patients: a narrative review on clinical course, diagnostic and therapeutic strategies

IntroductionOn March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization sounded the COVID-19 pandemic alarm. While efforts in the first few months focused on reducing the mortality of infected patients, there is increasing data on the effects of long-term infection (Post-COVID-19 condition). Among the different symptoms described after acute infection, those derived from autonomic dysfunction are especially frequent and limiting. ObjectiveTo conduct a narrative review synthesizing current evidence of the signs and symptoms of dysautonomia in patients diagnosed with COVID-19, together with a compilation of available treatment guidelines. ResultsAutonomic dysfunction associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection occurs at different temporal stages. Some of the proposed pathophysiological mechanisms include direct tissue damage, immune dysregulation, hormonal disturbances, elevated cytokine levels, and persistent low-grade infection. Acute autonomic dysfunction has a direct impact on the mortality risk, given its repercussions on the respiratory, cardiovascular, and neurological systems. Iatrogenic autonomic dysfunction is a side effect caused by the drugs used and/or admission to the intensive care unit. Finally, late dysautonomia occurs in 2.5% of patients with Post-COVID-19 condition. While orthostatic hypotension and neurally-mediated syncope should be considered, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) appears to be the most common autonomic phenotype among these patients. A review of diagnostic and treatment guidelines focused on each type of dysautonomic condition was done. ConclusionSymptoms deriving from autonomic dysfunction involvement are common in those affected by COVID-19. These symptoms have a great impact on the quality of life both in the short and medium to long term. A better understanding of the pathophysiological mechanisms of Post-COVID manifestations that affect the autonomic nervous system, and targeted therapeutic management could help reduce the sequelae of COVID-19, especially if we act in the earliest phases of the disease

Time-Dependent COVID-19 Mortality in Patients with Cancer: An Updated Analysis of the OnCovid Registry

Importance: Whether the severity and mortality of COVID-19 in patients with cancer have improved in terms of disease management and capacity is yet to be defined. Objective: To test whether severity and mortality from COVID-19 among patients with cancer have improved during the course of the pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: OnCovid is a European registry that collects data on consecutive patients with solid or hematologic cancer and COVID-19. This multicenter case series study included real-world data from 35 institutions across 6 countries (UK, Italy, Spain, France, Belgium, and Germany). This update included patients diagnosed between February 27, 2020, and February, 14, 2021. Inclusion criteria were confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and a history of solid or hematologic cancer. Exposures: SARS-CoV-2 infection. Main Outcomes and Measures: Deaths were differentiated at 14 days and 3 months as the 2 landmark end points. Patient characteristics and outcomes were compared by stratifying patients across 5 phases (February to March 2020, April to June 2020, July to September 2020, October to December 2020, and January to February 2021) and across 2 major outbreaks (February to June 2020 and July 2020 to February 2021). Results: At data cutoff, 2795 consecutive patients were included, with 2634 patients eligible for analysis (median [IQR] age, 68 [18-77] years; 52.8% men). Eligible patients demonstrated significant time-dependent improvement in 14-day case-fatality rate (CFR) with estimates of 29.8% (95% CI, 0.26-0.33) for February to March 2020; 20.3% (95% CI, 0.17-0.23) for April to June 2020; 12.5% (95% CI, 0.06-22.90) for July to September 2020; 17.2% (95% CI, 0.15-0.21) for October to December 2020; and 14.5% (95% CI, 0.09-0.21) for January to February 2021 (all P <.001) across the predefined phases. Compared with the second major outbreak, patients diagnosed in the first outbreak were more likely to be 65 years or older (974 of 1626 [60.3%] vs 564 of 1008 [56.1%]; P =.03), have at least 2 comorbidities (793 of 1626 [48.8%] vs 427 of 1008 [42.4%]; P =.001), and have advanced tumors (708 of 1626 [46.4%] vs 536 of 1008 [56.1%]; P <.001). Complications of COVID-19 were more likely to be seen (738 of 1626 [45.4%] vs 342 of 1008 [33.9%]; P <.001) and require hospitalization (969 of 1626 [59.8%] vs 418 of 1008 [42.1%]; P <.001) and anti-COVID-19 therapy (1004 of 1626 [61.7%] vs 501 of 1008 [49.7%]; P <.001) during the first major outbreak. The 14-day CFRs for the first and second major outbreaks were 25.6% (95% CI, 0.23-0.28) vs 16.2% (95% CI, 0.13-0.19; P <.001), respectively. After adjusting for country, sex, age, comorbidities, tumor stage and status, anti-COVID-19 and anticancer therapy, and COVID-19 complications, patients diagnosed in the first outbreak had an increased risk of death at 14 days (hazard ratio [HR], 1.85; 95% CI, 1.47-2.32) and 3 months (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.08-1.51) compared with those diagnosed in the second outbreak. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this registry-based study suggest that mortality in patients with cancer diagnosed with COVID-19 has improved in Europe; this improvement may be associated with earlier diagnosis, improved management, and dynamic changes in community transmission over time.

Determinants of enhanced vulnerability to COVID-19 in UK cancer patients: a European Study

Background: Despite high contagiousness and rapid spread, SARS-CoV-2 has led to heterogeneous outcomes across affected nations. Within Europe, the United Kingdom (UK) is the most severely affected country, with a death toll in excess of 100.000 as of January 2021. We aimed to compare the national impact of COVID-19 on the risk of death in UK cancer patients versus those in continental Europe (EU). / Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of the OnCovid study database, a European registry of cancer patients consecutively diagnosed with COVID-19 in 27 centres from February 27 to September 10, 2020. We analysed case fatality rates and risk of death at 30 days and 6 months stratified by region of origin (UK versus EU). We compared patient characteristics at baseline, including oncological and COVID-19 specific therapy across UK and EU cohorts and evaluated the association of these factors with the risk adverse outcome in multivariable Cox regression models. / Findings: Compared to EU (n=924), UK patients (n=468) were characterised by higher case fatality rates (40.38% versus 26.5%, p<0.0001), higher risk of death at 30 days (hazard ratio, HR 1.64 [95%CI 1.36-1.99]) and 6 months after COVID-19 diagnosis (47.64% versus 33.33%, p<0.0001, HR 1.59 [95%CI 1.33-1.88]). UK patients were more often males, of older age and more co-morbid than EU counterparts (p<0.01). Receipt of anticancer therapy was lower in UK versus EU patients (p<0.001). Despite equal proportions of complicated COVID-19, rates of intensive care admission and use of mechanical ventilation, UK cancer patients were less likely to receive anti-COVID-19 therapies including corticosteroids, anti-virals and interleukin-6 antagonists (p<0.0001). Multivariable analyses adjusted for imbalanced prognostic factors confirmed the UK cohort to be characterised by worse risk of death at 30 days and 6 months, independent of patient’s age, gender, tumour stage and status, number of co-morbidities, COVID-19 severity, receipt of anticancer and anti-COVID-19 therapy. Rates of permanent cessation of anticancer therapy post COVID-19 were similar in UK versus EU. / Interpretation: UK cancer patients have been more severely impacted by the unfolding of the COVID-19 pandemic despite societal risk mitigation factors and rapid deferral of anticancer therapy. The increased frailty of UK cancer patients highlights high-risk groups that should be prioritised for anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Continued evaluation of long-term outcomes is warranted