Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Association between PD1 mRNA and response to anti-PD1 monotherapy across multiple cancer types

Background: We hypothesized that the abundance of PD1 mRNA in tumor samples might explain the differences in overall response rates (ORR) observed following anti-PD1 monotherapy across cancer types. Patients and methods: RNASeqv2 data from 10 078 tumor samples representing 34 different cancer types was analyzed from TCGA. Eighteen immune-related gene signatures and 547 immune-related genes, including PD1, were explored. Correlations between each gene/signature and ORRs reported in the literature following anti-PD1 monotherapy were calculated. To translate the in silico findings to the clinical setting, we analyzed the expression of PD1 mRNA using the nCounter platform in 773 formalin-fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) tumor samples across 17 cancer types. To test the direct relationship between PD1 mRNA, PDL1 immunohistochemistry (IHC), stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs) and ORR, we evaluated an independent FFPE-based dataset of 117 patients with advanced disease treated with anti-PD1 monotherapy. Results: In pan-cancer TCGA, PD1 mRNA expression was found strongly correlated (r > 0.80) with CD8 T-cell genes and signatures and the proportion of PD1 mRNA-high tumors (80th percentile) within a given cancer type was variable (0%–84%). Strikingly, the PD1-high proportions across cancer types were found strongly correlated (r ¼ 0.91) with the ORR following antiPD1 monotherapy reported in the literature. Lower correlations were found with other immune-related genes/signatures, including PDL1. Using the same population-based cutoff (80th percentile), similar proportions of PD1-high disease in a given cancer type were identified in our in-house 773 tumor dataset as compared with TCGA. Finally, the pre-established PD1 mRNA FFPE-based cutoff was found significantly associated with anti-PD1 response in 117 patients with advanced disease (PD1-high 51.5%, PD1-intermediate 26.6% and PD1-low 15.0%; odds ratio between PD1-high and PD1-intermediate/low ¼ 8.31; P < 0.001). In this same dataset, PDL1 tumor expression by IHC or percentage of sTILs was not found associated with response. Conclusions: Our study provides a clinically applicable assay that links PD1 mRNA abundance, activated CD8 T-cells and anti-PD1 efficacy

The burden of mild asthma: Clinical burden and healthcare resource utilisation in the NOVELTY study

Background: Patients with mild asthma represent a substantial proportion of the population with asthma, yet there are limited data on their true burden of disease. We aimed to describe the clinical and healthcare resource utilisation (HCRU) burden of physician-assessed mild asthma. Methods: Patients with mild asthma were included from the NOVEL observational longiTudinal studY (NOVELTY; NCT02760329), a global, 3-year, real-world prospective study of patients with asthma and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease from community practice (specialised and primary care). Diagnosis and severity were based on physician discretion. Clinical burden included physician-reported exacerbations and patient-reported measures. HCRU included inpatient and outpatient visits. Results: Overall, 2004 patients with mild asthma were included; 22.8% experienced ≥1 exacerbation in the previous 12 months, of whom 72.3% experienced ≥1 severe exacerbation. Of 625 exacerbations reported, 48.0% lasted &gt;1 week, 27.7% were preceded by symptomatic worsening lasting &gt;3 days, and 50.1% required oral corticosteroid treatment. Health status was moderately impacted (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire score: 23.5 [standard deviation ± 17.9]). At baseline, 29.7% of patients had asthma symptoms that were not well controlled or very poorly controlled (Asthma Control Test score &lt;20), increasing to 55.6% for those with ≥2 exacerbations in the previous year. In terms of HCRU, at least one unscheduled ambulatory visit for exacerbations was required by 9.5% of patients, including 9.2% requiring ≥1 emergency department visit and 1.1% requiring ≥1 hospital admission. Conclusions: In this global sample representing community practice, a significant proportion of patients with physician-assessed mild asthma had considerable clinical burden and HCRU

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Background: Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods: This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was coprioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low-middle-income countries. Results: In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of 'single-use' consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low-middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion: This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high- and low-middle-income countries

Outcomes after perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with proximal femoral fractures: an international cohort study

Objectives Studies have demonstrated high rates of mortality in people with proximal femoral fracture and SARS-CoV-2, but there is limited published data on the factors that influence mortality for clinicians to make informed treatment decisions. This study aims to report the 30-day mortality associated with perioperative infection of patients undergoing surgery for proximal femoral fractures and to examine the factors that influence mortality in a multivariate analysis. Setting Prospective, international, multicentre, observational cohort study. Participants Patients undergoing any operation for a proximal femoral fracture from 1 February to 30 April 2020 and with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection (either 7 days prior or 30-day postoperative). Primary outcome 30-day mortality. Multivariate modelling was performed to identify factors associated with 30-day mortality. Results This study reports included 1063 patients from 174 hospitals in 19 countries. Overall 30-day mortality was 29.4% (313/1063). In an adjusted model, 30-day mortality was associated with male gender (OR 2.29, 95% CI 1.68 to 3.13, p80 years (OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.1 to 2.31, p=0.013), preoperative diagnosis of dementia (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.16, p=0.005), kidney disease (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.55, p=0.005) and congestive heart failure (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.48, p=0.025). Mortality at 30 days was lower in patients with a preoperative diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.6 (0.42 to 0.85), p=0.004). There was no difference in mortality in patients with an increase to delay in surgery (p=0.220) or type of anaesthetic given (p=0.787). Conclusions Patients undergoing surgery for a proximal femoral fracture with a perioperative infection of SARS-CoV-2 have a high rate of mortality. This study would support the need for providing these patients with individualised medical and anaesthetic care, including medical optimisation before theatre. Careful preoperative counselling is needed for those with a proximal femoral fracture and SARS-CoV-2, especially those in the highest risk groups. Trial registration number NCT0432364

Association between administration of IL-6 antagonists and mortality among patients hospitalized for COVID-19 : a meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE Clinical trials assessing the efficacy of IL-6 antagonists in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 have variously reported benefit, no effect, and harm. OBJECTIVE To estimate the association between administration of IL-6 antagonists compared with usual care or placebo and 28-day all-cause mortality and other outcomes. DATA SOURCES Trials were identified through systematic searches of electronic databases between October 2020 and January 2021. Searches were not restricted by trial status or language. Additional trials were identified through contact with experts. STUDY SELECTION Eligible trials randomly assigned patients hospitalized for COVID-19 to a group in whom IL-6 antagonists were administered and to a group in whom neither IL-6 antagonists nor any other immunomodulators except corticosteroids were administered. Among 72 potentially eligible trials, 27 (37.5%) met study selection criteria. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS In this prospectivemeta-analysis, risk of biaswas assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Inconsistency among trial results was assessed using the I-2 statistic. The primary analysis was an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effects meta-analysis of odds ratios (ORs) for 28-day all-cause mortality. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome measurewas all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization. There were 9 secondary outcomes including progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death and risk of secondary infection by 28 days. RESULTS A total of 10 930 patients (median age, 61 years [range of medians, 52-68 years]; 3560 [33%] were women) participating in 27 trials were included. By 28 days, there were 1407 deaths among 6449 patients randomized to IL-6 antagonists and 1158 deaths among 4481 patients randomized to usual care or placebo (summary OR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.79-0.95]; P =.003 based on a fixed-effects meta-analysis). This corresponds to an absolute mortality risk of 22% for IL-6 antagonists compared with an assumed mortality risk of 25% for usual care or placebo. The corresponding summary ORs were 0.83 (95% CI, 0.74-0.92; P <.001) for tocilizumab and 1.08 (95% CI, 0.86-1.36; P =.52) for sarilumab. The summary ORs for the association with mortality compared with usual care or placebo in those receiving corticosteroids were 0.77 (95% CI, 0.68-0.87) for tocilizumab and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.61-1.38) for sarilumab. The ORs for the association with progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death, compared with usual care or placebo, were 0.77 (95% CI, 0.70-0.85) for all IL-6 antagonists, 0.74 (95% CI, 0.66-0.82) for tocilizumab, and 1.00 (95% CI, 0.74-1.34) for sarilumab. Secondary infections by 28 days occurred in 21.9% of patients treated with IL-6 antagonists vs 17.6% of patients treated with usual care or placebo (OR accounting for trial sample sizes, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.85-1.16). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this prospectivemeta-analysis of clinical trials of patients hospitalized for COVID-19, administration of IL-6 antagonists, compared with usual care or placebo, was associated with lower 28-day all-cause mortality