Global characteristics and outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection in children and adolescents with cancer (GRCCC): a cohort study

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that children and adolescents with COVID-19 generally have mild disease. Children and adolescents with cancer, however, can have severe disease when infected with respiratory viruses. In this study, we aimed to understand the clinical course and outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection in children and adolescents with cancer. METHODS: We did a cohort study with data from 131 institutions in 45 countries. We created the Global Registry of COVID-19 in Childhood Cancer to capture de-identified data pertaining to laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections in children and adolescents (<19 years) with cancer or having received a haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation. There were no centre-specific exclusion criteria. The registry was disseminated through professional networks through email and conferences and health-care providers were invited to submit all qualifying cases. Data for demographics, oncological diagnosis, clinical course, and cancer therapy details were collected. Primary outcomes were disease severity and modification to cancer-directed therapy. The registry remains open to data collection. FINDINGS: Of 1520 submitted episodes, 1500 patients were included in the study between April 15, 2020, and Feb 1, 2021. 1319 patients had complete 30-day follow-up. 259 (19·9%) of 1301 patients had a severe or critical infection, and 50 (3·8%) of 1319 died with the cause attributed to COVID-19 infection. Modifications to cancer-directed therapy occurred in 609 (55·8%) of 1092 patients receiving active oncological treatment. Multivariable analysis revealed several factors associated with severe or critical illness, including World Bank low-income or lower-middle-income (odds ratio [OR] 5·8 [95% CI 3·8-8·8]; p<0·0001) and upper-middle-income (1·6 [1·2-2·2]; p=0·0024) country status; age 15-18 years (1·6 [1·1-2·2]; p=0·013); absolute lymphocyte count of 300 or less cells per mm3 (2·5 [1·8-3·4]; p<0·0001), absolute neutrophil count of 500 or less cells per mm3 (1·8 [1·3-2·4]; p=0·0001), and intensive treatment (1·8 [1·3-2·3]; p=0·0005). Factors associated with treatment modification included upper-middle-income country status (OR 0·5 [95% CI 0·3-0·7]; p=0·0004), primary diagnosis of other haematological malignancies (0·5 [0·3-0·8]; p=0·0088), the presence of one of more COVID-19 symptoms at the time of presentation (1·8 [1·3-2·4]; p=0·0002), and the presence of one or more comorbidities (1·6 [1·1-2·3]; p=0·020). INTERPRETATION: In this global cohort of children and adolescents with cancer and COVID-19, severe and critical illness occurred in one fifth of patients and deaths occurred in a higher proportion than is reported in the literature in the general paediatric population. Additionally, we found that variables associated with treatment modification were not the same as those associated with greater disease severity. These data could inform clinical practice guidelines and raise awareness globally that children and adolescents with cancer are at high-risk of developing severe COVID-19 illness. FUNDING: American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities and the National Cancer Institute

How do we know that research ethics committees are really working? The neglected role of outcomes assessment in research ethics review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Countries are increasingly devoting significant resources to creating or strengthening research ethics committees, but there has been insufficient attention to assessing whether these committees are actually improving the protection of human research participants.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Research ethics committees face numerous obstacles to achieving their goal of improving research participant protection. These include the inherently amorphous nature of ethics review, the tendency of regulatory systems to encourage a focus on form over substance, financial and resource constraints, and conflicts of interest. Auditing and accreditation programs can improve the quality of ethics review by encouraging the development of standardized policies and procedures, promoting a common base of knowledge, and enhancing the status of research ethics committees within their own institutions. However, these mechanisms focus largely on questions of structure and process and are therefore incapable of answering many critical questions about ethics committees' actual impact on research practices.</p> <p>The first step in determining whether research ethics committees are achieving their intended function is to identify what prospective research participants and their communities hope to get out of the ethics review process. Answers to this question can help guide the development of effective outcomes assessment measures. It is also important to determine whether research ethics committees' guidance to investigators is actually being followed. Finally, the information developed through outcomes assessment must be disseminated to key decision-makers and incorporated into practice. This article offers concrete suggestions for achieving these goals.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Outcomes assessment of research ethics committees should address the following questions: First, does research ethics committee review improve participants' understanding of the risks and potential benefits of studies? Second, does the process affect prospective participants' decisions about whether to participate in research? Third, does it change participants' subjective experiences in studies or their attitudes about research? Fourth, does it reduce the riskiness of research? Fifth, does it result in more research responsive to the local community's self-identified needs? Sixth, is research ethics committees' guidance to researchers actually being followed?</p