Let's talk about sex! Why should healthcare professionals address sexual distress in breast cancer patients and survivors?

Purpose: Sexual distress impacts the quality of life (QoL) of breast cancer patients but is often overlooked in standard care pathways. This study evaluated the prevalence and factors of sexual distress among Dutch breast cancer patients, compared them to the general population, and explored how sexual distress is discussed in clinical settings from the perspectives of patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs). Methods: Questionnaires containing the Female Sexual Distress Scale (FSDS) and demographic variables were distributed to women with breast cancer. The effect of breast cancer on sexual distress was assessed with a Mann-Whitney U test. Multivariable linear regression was used to analyze variables associated with FSDS. The Sexuality Attitudes and Beliefs Survey (SABS) was sent to HCPs. Results: Breast cancer patients reported significantly higher sexual distress compared to a Dutch non-breast cancer cohort, respectively 16.38 (SD 11.81) and 23.35 (SD 11.39). Factors associated with higher sexual distress were psychological comorbidities, the body image scale, and being diagnosed &gt;10 years ago. Sexual distress was not discussed as often as patients needed. Barriers to addressing sexual distress were time constraints, HCPs’ confidence in their ability to address sexual distress, and uncertainty about who is responsible for initiation. Conclusions: Breast cancer patients showed significantly higher sexual distress compared to the Dutch population. However, it was not frequently addressed in the consultation room. While some barriers have been identified, this study highlights the importance of further exploring obstacles to integrating discussions about sexual distress into routine care to improve QoL of breast cancer patients.</p

Impact of the suspension and restart of the Dutch breast cancer screening program on breast cancer incidence and stage during the COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic forced the Dutch national breast screening program to a halt in week 12, 2020. In week 26, the breast program was resumed at 40% capacity, which increased to 60% in week 34. We examined the impact of the suspension and restart of the screening program on the incidence of screen-detected and non-screen-detected breast cancer. We selected women aged 50–74, diagnosed during weeks 2–35 of 2018 (n = 7250), 2019 (n = 7302), or 2020 (n = 5306), from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Weeks 2–35 were divided in seven periods, based on events occurring at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Incidence of screen-detected and non-screen-detected tumors was calculated overall and by age group, cT-stage, and cTNM-stage for each period in 2020, and compared to the incidence in the same period of 2018/2019 (averaged). The incidence of screen-detected tumors decreased during weeks 12–13, reached almost zero during weeks 14–25, and increased during weeks 26–35. Incidence of non-screen-detected tumors decreased to a lesser extent during weeks 12–16. The decrease in incidence was seen in all age groups and mainly occurred for cTis, cT1, DCIS, and stage I tumors. Due to the suspension of the breast cancer screening program, and the restart at reduced capacity, the incidence of screen-detected breast tumors decreased by 67% during weeks 9–35 2020, which equates to about 2000 potentially delayed breast cancer diagnoses. Up to August 2020 there was no indication of a shift towards higher stage breast cancers after restart of the screening

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on diagnosis, stage, and initial treatment of breast cancer in the Netherlands: a population-based study

Background: The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic forced the Dutch national screening program to a halt and increased the burden on health care services, necessitating the introduction of specific breast cancer treatment recommendations from week 12 of 2020. We aimed to investigate the impact of COVID-19 on the diagnosis, stage and initial treatment of breast cancer. Methods: Women included in the Netherlands Cancer Registry and diagnosed during four periods in weeks 2–17 of 2020 were compared with reference data from 2018/2019 (averaged). Weekly incidence was calculated by age group and tumor stage. The number of women receiving initial treatment within 3 months of diagnosis was calculated by period, initial treatment, age, and stage. Initial treatment, stratified by tumor behavior (ductal carcinoma in situ [DCIS] or invasive), was analyzed by logistic regression and adjusted for age, socioeconomic status, stage, subtype, and region. Factors influencing time to treatment were analyzed by Cox regression. Results: Incidence declined across all age groups and tumor stages (except stage IV) from 2018/2019 to 2020, particularly for DCIS and stage I disease (p < 0.05). DCIS was less likely to be treated within 3 months (odds ratio [OR] wks2–8: 2.04, OR wks9–11: 2.18). Invasive tumors were less likely to be treated initially by mastectomy with immediate reconstruction (OR wks12–13: 0.52) or by breast conserving surgery (OR wks14–17: 0.75). Chemotherapy was less likely for tumors diagnosed in the beginning of the study period (OR wks9–11: 0.59, OR wks12–13: 0.66), but more likely for those diagnosed at the end (OR wks14–17: 1.31). Primary hormonal treatment was more common (OR wks2–8: 1.23, OR wks9–11: 1.92, OR wks12–13: 3.01). Only women diagnosed in weeks 2–8 of 2020 experienced treatment delays. Conclusion: The incidence of breast cancer fell in early 2020, and treatment approaches adapted rapidly. Clarification is needed on how this has affected stage migration and outcomes

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on diagnosis, stage, and initial treatment of breast cancer in the Netherlands: a population-based study

Background: The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic forced the Dutch national screening program to a halt and increased the burden on health care services, necessitating the introduction of specific breast cancer treatment recommendations from week 12 of 2020. We aimed to investigate the impact of COVID-19 on the diagnosis, stage and initial treatment of breast cancer. Methods: Women included in the Netherlands Cancer Registry and diagnosed during four periods in weeks 2–17 of 2020 were compared with reference data from 2018/2019 (averaged). Weekly incidence was calculated by age group and tumor stage. The number of women receiving initial treatment within 3 months of diagnosis was calculated by period, initial treatment, age, and stage. Initial treatment, stratified by tumor behavior (ductal carcinoma in situ [DCIS] or invasive), was analyzed by logistic regression and adjusted for age, socioeconomic status, stage, subtype, and region. Factors influencing time to treatment were analyzed by Cox regression. Results: Incidence declined across all age groups and tumor stages (except stage IV) from 2018/2019 to 2020, particularly for DCIS and stage I disease (p < 0.05). DCIS was less likely to be treated within 3 months (odds ratio [OR]wks2–8: 2.04, ORwks9–11: 2.18). Invasive tumors were less likely to be treated initially by mastectomy with immediate reconstruction (ORwks12–13: 0.52) or by breast conserving surgery (ORwks14–17: 0.75). Chemotherapy was less likely for tumors diagnosed in the beginning of the study period (ORwks9–11: 0.59, ORwks12–13: 0.66), but more likely for those diagnosed at the end (ORwks14–17: 1.31). Primary hormonal treatment was more common (ORwks2–8: 1.23, ORwks9–11: 1.92, ORwks12–13: 3.01). Only women diagnosed in weeks 2–8 of 2020 experienced treatment delays. Conclusion: The incidence of breast cancer fell in early 2020, and treatment approaches adapted rapidly. Clarification is needed on how this has affected stage migration and outcomes

Subcutaneous anti-COVID-19 hyperimmune immunoglobulin for prevention of disease in asymptomatic individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised clinical trialResearch in context

Summary: Background: Anti-COVID-19 hyperimmune immunoglobulin (hIG) can provide standardized and controlled antibody content. Data from controlled clinical trials using hIG for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 outpatients have not been reported. We assessed the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous anti-COVID-19 hyperimmune immunoglobulin 20% (C19-IG20%) compared to placebo in preventing development of symptomatic COVID-19 in asymptomatic individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: We did a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, in asymptomatic unvaccinated adults (≥18 years of age) with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within 5 days between April 28 and December 27, 2021. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive a blinded subcutaneous infusion of 10 mL with 1 g or 2 g of C19-IG20%, or an equivalent volume of saline as placebo. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants who remained asymptomatic through day 14 after infusion. Secondary endpoints included the proportion of individuals who required oxygen supplementation, any medically attended visit, hospitalisation, or ICU, and viral load reduction and viral clearance in nasopharyngeal swabs. Safety was assessed as the proportion of patients with adverse events. The trial was terminated early due to a lack of potential benefit in the target population in a planned interim analysis conducted in December 2021. ClinicalTrials.gov registry: NCT04847141. Findings: 461 individuals (mean age 39.6 years [SD 12.8]) were randomized and received the intervention within a mean of 3.1 (SD 1.27) days from a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. In the prespecified modified intention-to-treat analysis that included only participants who received a subcutaneous infusion, the primary outcome occurred in 59.9% (91/152) of participants receiving 1 g C19-IG20%, 64.7% (99/153) receiving 2 g, and 63.5% (99/156) receiving placebo (difference in proportions 1 g C19-IG20% vs. placebo, −3.6%; 95% CI -14.6% to 7.3%, p = 0.53; 2 g C19-IG20% vs placebo, 1.1%; −9.6% to 11.9%, p = 0.85). None of the secondary clinical efficacy endpoints or virological endpoints were significantly different between study groups. Adverse event rate was similar between groups, and no severe or life-threatening adverse events related to investigational product infusion were reported. Interpretation: Our findings suggested that administration of subcutaneous human hyperimmune immunoglobulin C19-IG20% to asymptomatic individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection was safe but did not prevent development of symptomatic COVID-19. Funding: Grifols

Joint EVS/WVS 2017-2021 Dataset (Joint EVS/WVS)

The European Values Study (EVS) and the World Values Survey (WVS) are two large-scale, cross-national and longitudinal survey research programmes. They include a large number of questions on moral, religious, social, political, occupational and family values which have been replicated since the early eighties. Both organizations agreed to cooperate in joint data collection from 2017. EVS has been responsible for planning and conducting surveys in European countries, using the EVS questionnaire and EVS methodological guidelines. WVSA has been responsible for planning and conducting surveys in countries in the world outside Europe, using the WVS questionnaire and WVS methodological guidelines. Both organisations developed their draft master questionnaires independently. The joint items define the Common Core of both questionnaires. The Joint EVS/WVS is constructed from the two EVS and WVS source datasets: - European Values Study 2017 Integrated Dataset (EVS 2017), ZA7500 Data file Version 4.0.0, doi:10.4232/1.13560 (https://doi.org/10.4232/1.13560). - European Values Study 2017: Ukraine (EVS 2017), ZA7539 Data file Version 1.0.0, doi:10.4232/1.13714 (https://doi.org/10.4232/1.13714). - World Values Survey: Round Seven–Country-Pooled Datafile. Version 2.0.0, doi: 10.14281/18241.13 (https://doi.org/10.14281/18241.13).The European Values Study (EVS) and the World Values Survey (WVS) are two large-scale, cross-national and longitudinal survey research programmes. They include a large number of questions on moral, religious, social, political, occupational and family values which have been replicated since the early eighties. Both organizations agreed to cooperate in joint data collection from 2017. EVS has been responsible for planning and conducting surveys in European countries, using the EVS questionnaire and EVS methodological guidelines. WVSA has been responsible for planning and conducting surveys in countries in the world outside Europe, using the WVS questionnaire and WVS methodological guidelines. Both organisations developed their draft master questionnaires independently. The joint items define the Common Core of both questionnaires. The Joint EVS/WVS is constructed from the two EVS and WVS source datasets: - European Values Study 2017 Integrated Dataset (EVS 2017), ZA7500 Data file Version 4.0.0, doi:10.4232/1.13560 (https://doi.org/10.4232/1.13560). - European Values Study 2017: Ukraine (EVS 2017), ZA7539 Data file Version 1.0.0, doi:10.4232/1.13714 (https://doi.org/10.4232/1.13714). - World Values Survey: Round Seven–Country-Pooled Datafile. Version 2.0.0, doi: 10.14281/18241.13 (https://doi.org/10.14281/18241.13)

International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium report, data summary of 50 countries for 2010-2015: Device-associated module

•We report INICC device-associated module data of 50 countries from 2010-2015.•We collected prospective data from 861,284 patients in 703 ICUs for 3,506,562 days.•DA-HAI rates and bacterial resistance were higher in the INICC ICUs than in CDC-NHSN's.•Device utilization ratio in the INICC ICUs was similar to CDC-NHSN's. Background: We report the results of International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium (INICC) surveillance study from January 2010-December 2015 in 703 intensive care units (ICUs) in Latin America, Europe, Eastern Mediterranean, Southeast Asia, and Western Pacific. Methods: During the 6-year study period, using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Healthcare Safety Network (CDC-NHSN) definitions for device-associated health care-associated infection (DA-HAI), we collected prospective data from 861,284 patients hospitalized in INICC hospital ICUs for an aggregate of 3,506,562 days. Results: Although device use in INICC ICUs was similar to that reported from CDC-NHSN ICUs, DA-HAI rates were higher in the INICC ICUs: in the INICC medical-surgical ICUs, the pooled rate of central line-associated bloodstream infection, 4.1 per 1,000 central line-days, was nearly 5-fold higher than the 0.8 per 1,000 central line-days reported from comparable US ICUs, the overall rate of ventilator-associated pneumonia was also higher, 13.1 versus 0.9 per 1,000 ventilator-days, as was the rate of catheter-associated urinary tract infection, 5.07 versus 1.7 per 1,000 catheter-days. From blood cultures samples, frequencies of resistance of Pseudomonas isolates to amikacin (29.87% vs 10%) and to imipenem (44.3% vs 26.1%), and of Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates to ceftazidime (73.2% vs 28.8%) and to imipenem (43.27% vs 12.8%) were also higher in the INICC ICUs compared with CDC-NHSN ICUs. Conclusions: Although DA-HAIs in INICC ICU patients continue to be higher than the rates reported in CDC-NSHN ICUs representing the developed world, we have observed a significant trend toward the reduction of DA-HAI rates in INICC ICUs as shown in each international report. It is INICC's main goal to continue facilitating education, training, and basic and cost-effective tools and resources, such as standardized forms and an online platform, to tackle this problem effectively and systematically

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health