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

Determinants of enhanced vulnerability to coronavirus disease 2019 in UK patients with cancer: a European study

Despite high contagiousness and rapid spread, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has led to heterogeneous outcomes across affected nations. Within Europe (EU), 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 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the risk of death in UK patients with cancer versus those in continental EU. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of the OnCovid study database, a European registry of patients with cancer consecutively diagnosed with COVID-19 in 27 centres from 27th February to 10th September 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 of adverse outcomes in multivariable Cox regression models. Findings: Compared with EU (n = 924), UK patients (n = 468) were characterised by higher case fatality rates (40.38% versus 26.5%, p < 0.0001) and higher risk of death at 30 days (hazard ratio [HR], 1.64 [95% confidence interval {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 men, were of older age and have more comorbidities than EU counterparts (p < 0.01). Receipt of anticancer therapy was lower in UK than in EU patients (p < 0.001). Despite equal proportions of complicated COVID-19, rates of intensive care admission and use of mechanical ventilation, UK patients with cancer were less likely to receive anti-COVID-19 therapies including corticosteroids, antivirals 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 the patient's age, gender, tumour stage and status; number of comorbidities; COVID-19 severity and receipt of anticancer and anti-COVID-19 therapy. Rates of permanent cessation of anticancer therapy after COVID-19 were similar in the UK and EU cohorts. Interpretation: UK patients with cancer 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 patients with cancer highlights high-risk groups that should be prioritised for anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Continued evaluation of long-term outcomes is warranted

Prevalence and impact of COVID-19 sequelae on treatment and survival of patients with cancer who recovered from SARS-CoV-2 infection: evidence from the OnCovid retrospective, multicentre registry study

Background: The medium-term and long-term impact of COVID-19 in patients with cancer is not yet known. In this study, we aimed to describe the prevalence of COVID-19 sequelae and their impact on the survival of patients with cancer. We also aimed to describe patterns of resumption and modifications of systemic anti-cancer therapy following recovery from SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: OnCovid is an active European registry study enrolling consecutive patients aged 18 years or older with a history of solid or haematological malignancy and who had a diagnosis of RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. For this retrospective study, patients were enrolled from 35 institutions across Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK. Patients who were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection between Feb 27, 2020, and Feb 14, 2021, and entered into the registry at the point of data lock (March 1, 2021), were eligible for analysis. The present analysis was focused on COVID-19 survivors who underwent clinical reassessment at each participating institution. We documented prevalence of COVID-19 sequelae and described factors associated with their development and their association with post-COVID-19 survival, which was defined as the interval from post-COVID-19 reassessment to the patients’ death or last follow-up. We also evaluated resumption of systemic anti-cancer therapy in patients treated within 4 weeks of COVID-19 diagnosis. The OnCovid study is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04393974. Findings: 2795 patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection between Feb 27, 2020, and Feb 14, 2021, were entered into the study by the time of the data lock on March 1, 2021. After the exclusion of ineligible patients, the final study population consisted of 2634 patients. 1557 COVID-19 survivors underwent a formal clinical reassessment after a median of 22·1 months (IQR 8·4–57·8) from cancer diagnosis and 44 days (28–329) from COVID-19 diagnosis. 234 (15·0%) patients reported COVID-19 sequelae, including respiratory symptoms (116 [49·6%]) and residual fatigue (96 [41·0%]). Sequelae were more common in men (vs women; p=0·041), patients aged 65 years or older (vs other age groups; p=0·048), patients with two or more comorbidities (vs one or none; p=0·0006), and patients with a history of smoking (vs no smoking history; p=0·0004). Sequelae were associated with hospitalisation for COVID-19 (p<0·0001), complicated COVID-19 (p<0·0001), and COVID-19 therapy (p=0·0002). With a median post-COVID-19 follow-up of 128 days (95% CI 113–148), COVID-19 sequelae were associated with an increased risk of death (hazard ratio [HR] 1·80 [95% CI 1·18–2·75]) after adjusting for time to post-COVID-19 reassessment, sex, age, comorbidity burden, tumour characteristics, anticancer therapy, and COVID-19 severity. Among 466 patients on systemic anti-cancer therapy, 70 (15·0%) permanently discontinued therapy, and 178 (38·2%) resumed treatment with a dose or regimen adjustment. Permanent treatment discontinuations were independently associated with an increased risk of death (HR 3·53 [95% CI 1·45–8·59]), but dose or regimen adjustments were not (0·84 [0·35–2·02]). Interpretation: Sequelae post-COVID-19 affect up to 15% of patients with cancer and adversely affect survival and oncological outcomes after recovery. Adjustments to systemic anti-cancer therapy can be safely pursued in treatment-eligible patients. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and the Cancer Treatment and Research Trust

Populism and the Erosion of Horizontal Accountability in Latin America

“This article explores which factors enable or hinder populist presidents in Latin America to pursue a radical strategy of institutional change and induce the erosion of horizontal checks and balances. Applying an actor-centred approach, the article focuses on specific constellations in the political arena that shape populist presidents’ incentives and their ability to engage in institutional change. Three conditions are considered to be most decisive: the absence of unified government between the executive and the legislature, the existence of a ‘power vacuum’ in the political arena and the distribution of public support. Using configurational analyses, different causal paths explaining the presence or absence of the erosion of horizontal accountability are identified

O processo de trabalho do técnico em saúde bucal e suas relações com a equipe de saúde bucal na Região Metropolitana da Grande Vitória, Espírito Santo, Brasil

O objetivo deste estudo é analisar a compreensão dos cirurgiões-dentistas (CDs) sobre o processo de trabalho e as relações da equipe de saúde com os Técnicos em Saúde Bucal (TSBs). Em cinco municípios da Região Metropolitana da Grande Vitória (RMGV), Espírito Santo (ES), Brasil, foram selecionados 18 sujeitos, a partir de uma amostra probabilística de 217 CDs que atuavam no Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS). Os sujeitos foram entrevistados a partir de um roteiro-guia semiestruturado, do qual constavam temas relacionados à organização do trabalho na saúde bucal; às atribuições e responsabilidades do TSB; à relação entre o cirurgião-dentista e o TSB; à relação com a equipe de saúde e autonomia do TSB. Os dados foram analisados a partir da Análise de Conteúdo sugerida por Bardin. Constatou-se que os CDs valorizam a importância da participação dos TSBs na reorganização do trabalho odontológico e a construção de uma relação de parceria e cooperação. Contudo, os CDs reconhecem que a relação com os TSBs é prejudicada pela desinformação sobre o processo de trabalho. Além disso, os CDs demonstram receios quanto à possibilidade de os TSBs tornarem-se dentistas práticos e tomarem seu espaço no mercado de trabalho. Também há preocupações sobre a responsabilização legal dos CDs sobre atividades desenvolvidas pelos TSBs.This study aims to assess dentists' understanding about the working process and the relationships of the health team with dental hygienist technicians (DHT). In five cities of the Metropolitan Region of Vitória, State of Espírito Santo, Southeastern Brazil, 18 subjects were selected from a probability sample of 217 dentists that worked in the National Health System. Subjects were interviewed by means of a semi-structured script, which contained topics related to work organization in oral health; roles and responsibilities of the DHT; relationship between the dentist and the DHT; DHT's relationship with health team and autonomy. The data were analyzed from the perspective of Bardin's Content Analysis. The data analysis indicates that dentists value the DHT's participation in the reorganization of dental work and the construction of a relationship of partnership and cooperation. However, dentists recognize that the relationship with the DHT is hampered by lack of information concerning the working process. In addition, dentists fear that the DHT become dental practitioners and take their place in the labor market. There are also concerns about legal liability of dentists concerning activities developed by DHT