Stability in eosinophil categorisation during subsequent severe exacerbations of COPD

BACKGROUND: The blood eosinophil count has been shown to be a promising biomarker for establishing personalised treatment strategies to reduce corticosteroid use, either inhaled or systemic, in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Eosinophil levels seem relatively stable over time in stable state, but little is known whether this is also true in subsequent severe acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD). AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To determine the stability in eosinophil categorisation between two subsequent severe AECOPDs employing frequently used cut-off levels. METHODS: During two subsequent severe AECOPDs, blood eosinophil counts were determined at admission to the hospital in 237 patients in the Cohort of Mortality and Inflammation in COPD Study. The following four cut-off levels were analysed: absolute counts of eosinophils ≥0.2×10⁹/L (200 cells/µL) and ≥0.3×10⁹/L (300 cells/µL) and relative eosinophil percentage of ≥2% and ≥3% of total leucocyte count. Categorisations were considered stable if during the second AECOPD their blood eosinophil status led to the same classification: eosinophilic or not. RESULTS: Depending on the used cut-off, the overall stability in eosinophil categorisation varied between 70% and 85% during two subsequent AECOPDs. From patients who were eosinophilic at the first AECOPD, 34%–45% remained eosinophilic at the subsequent AECOPD, while 9%–21% of patients being non-eosinophilic at the first AECOPD became eosinophilic at the subsequent AECOPD. CONCLUSIONS: The eosinophil variability leads to category changes in subsequent AECOPDs, which limits the eosinophil categorisation stability. Therefore, measurement of eosinophils at each new exacerbation seems warranted

Predicting Mortality in COPD with Validated and Sensitive Biomarkers; Fibrinogen and Mid-Range-Proadrenomedullin (MR-proADM)

Although fibrinogen is a FDA qualified prognostic biomarker in COPD, it still lacks sufficient resolution to be clinically useful. Next to replication of findings in different cohorts also the combination with other validated biomarkers should be investigated. Therefore, the aim of this study was to confirm in a large well-defined population of COPD patients whether fibrinogen can predict mortality and whether a combination with the biomarker MR-proADM can increase prognostic accuracy. From the COMIC cohort study we included COPD patients with a blood sample obtained in stable state (n = 640) and/or at hospitalization for an acute exacerbation of COPD (n = 262). Risk of death during 3 years of follow up for the separate and combined biomarker models was analyzed with Cox regression. Furthermore, logistic regression models for death after one year were constructed. When both fibrinogen and MR-proADM were included in the survival model, a doubling in fibrinogen and MR-proADM levels gave a 2.2 (95% CI 1.3-3.7) and 2.1 (95% CI 1.5-3.0) fold increased risk of dying, respectively. The prediction model for death after 1 year improved significantly when MR-proADM was added to the model with fibrinogen (AUC increased from 0.78 to 0.83; p = 0.02). However, the combined model was not significantly more adequate than the model with solely MR-proADM (AUC 0.83 vs 0.82; p = 0.34). The study suggests that MR-proADM is more promising than fibrinogen in prediciting mortality. Adding fibrinogen to a model containing MR-proADM does not significantly increase the predictive capacity of the model

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

Elective Cancer Surgery in COVID-19-Free Surgical Pathways During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic: An International, Multicenter, Comparative Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: As cancer surgery restarts after the first COVID-19 wave, health care providers urgently require data to determine where elective surgery is best performed. This study aimed to determine whether COVID-19-free surgical pathways were associated with lower postoperative pulmonary complication rates compared with hospitals with no defined pathway. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This international, multicenter cohort study included patients who underwent elective surgery for 10 solid cancer types without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Participating hospitals included patients from local emergence of SARS-CoV-2 until April 19, 2020. At the time of surgery, hospitals were defined as having a COVID-19-free surgical pathway (complete segregation of the operating theater, critical care, and inpatient ward areas) or no defined pathway (incomplete or no segregation, areas shared with patients with COVID-19). The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, unexpected ventilation). RESULTS: Of 9,171 patients from 447 hospitals in 55 countries, 2,481 were operated on in COVID-19-free surgical pathways. Patients who underwent surgery within COVID-19-free surgical pathways were younger with fewer comorbidities than those in hospitals with no defined pathway but with similar proportions of major surgery. After adjustment, pulmonary complication rates were lower with COVID-19-free surgical pathways (2.2% v 4.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.86). This was consistent in sensitivity analyses for low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 1/2), propensity score-matched models, and patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 preoperative tests. The postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was also lower in COVID-19-free surgical pathways (2.1% v 3.6%; aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.76). CONCLUSION: Within available resources, dedicated COVID-19-free surgical pathways should be established to provide safe elective cancer surgery during current and before future SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks

Elective cancer surgery in COVID-19-free surgical pathways during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: An international, multicenter, comparative cohort study

PURPOSE As cancer surgery restarts after the first COVID-19 wave, health care providers urgently require data to determine where elective surgery is best performed. This study aimed to determine whether COVID-19–free surgical pathways were associated with lower postoperative pulmonary complication rates compared with hospitals with no defined pathway. PATIENTS AND METHODS This international, multicenter cohort study included patients who underwent elective surgery for 10 solid cancer types without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Participating hospitals included patients from local emergence of SARS-CoV-2 until April 19, 2020. At the time of surgery, hospitals were defined as having a COVID-19–free surgical pathway (complete segregation of the operating theater, critical care, and inpatient ward areas) or no defined pathway (incomplete or no segregation, areas shared with patients with COVID-19). The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, unexpected ventilation). RESULTS Of 9,171 patients from 447 hospitals in 55 countries, 2,481 were operated on in COVID-19–free surgical pathways. Patients who underwent surgery within COVID-19–free surgical pathways were younger with fewer comorbidities than those in hospitals with no defined pathway but with similar proportions of major surgery. After adjustment, pulmonary complication rates were lower with COVID-19–free surgical pathways (2.2% v 4.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.86). This was consistent in sensitivity analyses for low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 1/2), propensity score–matched models, and patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 preoperative tests. The postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was also lower in COVID-19–free surgical pathways (2.1% v 3.6%; aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.76). CONCLUSION Within available resources, dedicated COVID-19–free surgical pathways should be established to provide safe elective cancer surgery during current and before future SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks

Does being performed by urologist or gynecologist affect the outcomes of women who have had sacrocolpopexy?

Objective: To compare the outcomes of women who underwent abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC) by urologist and gynecologist