Concordance between circulating tumor cells and clinical status during follow-up in anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) non-small-cell lung cancer patients

Background: The identification of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) rearrangements is found in approximately 5% of non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLCs). However, the development of liquid biopsies as a diagnostic tool is less developed in these cases. This study investigates the use of CTCs during treatment, together with an extended follow-up to correlate with clinical evolution. Patients and Methods: A total of 13 patients out of a cohort of 212 patients with lung adenocarcinoma, presented ALK rearrangements (6%) confirmed by tumor biopsy. A total of 60 serial blood samples were collected from these patients who were prospectively enrolled in the study. Results: All patients had a positive CTC count at baseline (mean = 3). The median follow-up was 9 months (range 1-17 months). Three patients underwent surgery and their CTC counts decreased after the procedure but still remained detectable. After radiotherapy, 3 cases showed an average decrease of 5 CTCs. A total of 6 patients were treated with ALK inhibitors and a partial response was observed in 3 of them, who also presented decreased CTC counts. The other 3 patients presented primary resistance, and their CTC counts were higher than those obtained prior to progression. Conclusion: We believe that the use of CTCs for dynamic monitoring of NSCLC with ALK rearrangement and to detect disease persistence or recurrence may be a reliable technique. CTC counts may also have potential use to monitor the efficacy of ALK inhibitors, facilitating detection of resistance to treatmentThis study was supported by Carlos III Institute of Health, Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, and European Regional Development Fund (grant number: PI16/01818 and PIE14/00064), D. Pérez-Callejo is supported by SEOM-Río-Hortega contract, A Romero is supported by Joan Rodés fellowship (grant number: JR14/00017) and M Sánchez-Beato is supported by Miguel Servet contract (CP11/00018 and CPII16/00024

Ethnicity and Clinical Outcomes in Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19 in Spain: Results from the Multicenter SEMI-COVID-19 Registry

Background: This work aims to analyze clinical outcomes according to ethnic groups in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 in Spain. (2) Methods: This nationwide, retrospective, multicenter, observational study analyzed hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19 in 150 Spanish hospitals (SEMI-COVID-19 Registry) from 1 March 2020 to 31 December 2021. Clinical outcomes were assessed according to ethnicity (Latin Americans, Sub-Saharan Africans, Asians, North Africans, Europeans). The outcomes were in-hospital mortality (IHM), intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and the use of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Associations between ethnic groups and clinical outcomes adjusted for patient characteristics and baseline Charlson Comorbidity Index values and wave were evaluated using logistic regression. (3) Results: Of 23,953 patients (median age 69.5 years, 42.9% women), 7.0% were Latin American, 1.2% were North African, 0.5% were Asian, 0.5% were Sub-Saharan African, and 89.7% were European. Ethnic minority patients were significantly younger than European patients (median (IQR) age 49.1 (40.5-58.9) to 57.1 (44.1-67.1) vs. 71.5 (59.5-81.4) years, p < 0.001). The unadjusted IHM was higher in European (21.6%) versus North African (11.4%), Asian (10.9%), Latin American (7.1%), and Sub-Saharan African (3.2%) patients. After further adjustment, the IHM was lower in Sub-Saharan African (OR 0.28 (0.10-0.79), p = 0.017) versus European patients, while ICU admission rates were higher in Latin American and North African versus European patients (OR (95%CI) 1.37 (1.17-1.60), p < 0.001) and (OR (95%CI) 1.74 (1.26-2.41), p < 0.001). Moreover, Latin American patients were 39% more likely than European patients to use IMV (OR (95%CI) 1.43 (1.21-1.71), p < 0.001). (4) Conclusion: The adjusted IHM was similar in all groups except for Sub-Saharan Africans, who had lower IHM. Latin American patients were admitted to the ICU and required IMV more often

Frequency, risk factors, and outcomes of hospital readmissions of COVID-19 patients

To determine the proportion of patients with COVID-19 who were readmitted to the hospital and the most common causes and the factors associated with readmission. Multicenter nationwide cohort study in Spain. Patients included in the study were admitted to 147 hospitals from March 1 to April 30, 2020. Readmission was defined as a new hospital admission during the 30 days after discharge. Emergency department visits after discharge were not considered readmission. During the study period 8392 patients were admitted to hospitals participating in the SEMI-COVID-19 network. 298 patients (4.2%) out of 7137 patients were readmitted after being discharged. 1541 (17.7%) died during the index admission and 35 died during hospital readmission (11.7%, p = 0.007). The median time from discharge to readmission was 7 days (IQR 3-15 days). The most frequent causes of hospital readmission were worsening of previous pneumonia (54%), bacterial infection (13%), venous thromboembolism (5%), and heart failure (5%). Age [odds ratio (OR): 1.02; 95% confident interval (95% CI): 1.01-1.03], age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity index score (OR: 1.13; 95% CI: 1.06-1.21), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR: 1.84; 95% CI: 1.26-2.69), asthma (OR: 1.52; 95% CI: 1.04-2.22), hemoglobin level at admission (OR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.86-0.99), ground-glass opacification at admission (OR: 0.86; 95% CI:0.76-0.98) and glucocorticoid treatment (OR: 1.29; 95% CI: 1.00-1.66) were independently associated with hospital readmission. The rate of readmission after hospital discharge for COVID-19 was low. Advanced age and comorbidity were associated with increased risk of readmission

Efficacy of naloxegol on symptoms and quality of life related to opioid-induced constipation in patients with cancer: a 3-month follow-up analysis

Objectives: Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) can affect up to 63% of all patients with cancer. The objectives of this study were to assess quality of life as well as efficacy and safety of naloxegol, in patients with cancer with OIC. Methods: An observational study was made of a cohort of patients with cancer and with OIC exhibiting an inadequate response to laxatives and treated with naloxegol. The sample consisted of adult outpatients with a Karnofsky performance status score ≥50. The Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life Questionnaire (PAC-QOL) and the Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms (PAC-SYM) were applied for 3 months. Results: A total of 126 patients (58.2% males) with a mean age of 61.3 years (range 34-89) were included. Clinically relevant improvements (>0.5 points) were recorded in the PAC-QOL and PAC-SYM questionnaires (p<0.0001) from 15 days of treatment. The number of days a week with complete spontaneous bowel movements increased significantly (p<0.0001) from 2.4 to 4.6 on day 15, 4.7 after 1 month and 5 after 3 months. Pain control significantly improved (p<0.0001) during follow-up. A total of 13.5% of the patients (17/126) presented some gastrointestinal adverse reaction, mostly of mild (62.5%) or moderate intensity (25%). Conclusions: Clinically relevant improvements in OIC-related quality of life, number of bowel movements and constipation-related symptoms were recorded as early as after 15 days of treatment with naloxegol in patients with cancer and OIC, with a good safety profile

Inappropriate antibiotic use in the COVID-19 era: Factors associated with inappropriate prescribing and secondary complications. Analysis of the registry SEMI-COVID

Background: Most patients with COVID-19 receive antibiotics despite the fact that bacterial co-infections are rare. This can lead to increased complications, including antibacterial resistance. We aim to analyze risk factors for inappropriate antibiotic prescription in these patients and describe possible complications arising from their use. Methods: The SEMI-COVID-19 Registry is a multicenter, retrospective patient cohort. Patients with antibiotic were divided into two groups according to appropriate or inappropriate prescription, depending on whether the patient fulfill any criteria for its use. Comparison was made by means of multilevel logistic regression analysis. Possible complications of antibiotic use were also identified. Results: Out of 13,932 patients, 3047 (21.6%) were prescribed no antibiotics, 6116 (43.9%) were appropriately prescribed antibiotics, and 4769 (34.2%) were inappropriately prescribed antibiotics. The following were independent factors of inappropriate prescription: February-March 2020 admission (OR 1.54, 95%CI 1.18-2.00), age (OR 0.98, 95%CI 0.97-0.99), absence of comorbidity (OR 1.43, 95%CI 1.05-1.94), dry cough (OR 2.51, 95%CI 1.94-3.26), fever (OR 1.33, 95%CI 1.13-1.56), dyspnea (OR 1.31, 95%CI 1.04-1.69), flu-like symptoms (OR 2.70, 95%CI 1.75-4.17), and elevated C-reactive protein levels (OR 1.01 for each mg/L increase, 95% CI 1.00-1.01). Adverse drug reactions were more frequent in patients who received ANTIBIOTIC (4.9% vs 2.7%, p < .001). Conclusion: The inappropriate use of antibiotics was very frequent in COVID-19 patients and entailed an increased risk of adverse reactions. It is crucial to define criteria for their use in these patients. Knowledge of the factors associated with inappropriate prescribing can be helpful

Healthcare workers hospitalized due to COVID-19 have no higher risk of death than general population. Data from the Spanish SEMI-COVID-19 Registry

Aim To determine whether healthcare workers (HCW) hospitalized in Spain due to COVID-19 have a worse prognosis than non-healthcare workers (NHCW). Methods Observational cohort study based on the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry, a nationwide registry that collects sociodemographic, clinical, laboratory, and treatment data on patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in Spain. Patients aged 20-65 years were selected. A multivariate logistic regression model was performed to identify factors associated with mortality. Results As of 22 May 2020, 4393 patients were included, of whom 419 (9.5%) were HCW. Median (interquartile range) age of HCW was 52 (15) years and 62.4% were women. Prevalence of comorbidities and severe radiological findings upon admission were less frequent in HCW. There were no difference in need of respiratory support and admission to intensive care unit, but occurrence of sepsis and in-hospital mortality was lower in HCW (1.7% vs. 3.9%; p = 0.024 and 0.7% vs. 4.8%; p<0.001 respectively). Age, male sex and comorbidity, were independently associated with higher in-hospital mortality and healthcare working with lower mortality (OR 0.211, 95%CI 0.067-0.667, p = 0.008). 30-days survival was higher in HCW (0.968 vs. 0.851 p<0.001). Conclusions Hospitalized COVID-19 HCW had fewer comorbidities and a better prognosis than NHCW. Our results suggest that professional exposure to COVID-19 in HCW does not carry more clinical severity nor mortality

Predicting critical illness on initial diagnosis of COVID-19 based on easily obtained clinical variables: development and validation of the PRIORITY model

Objectives: We aimed to develop and validate a prediction model, based on clinical history and examination findings on initial diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), to identify patients at risk of critical outcomes. Methods: We used data from the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry, a cohort of consecutive patients hospitalized for COVID-19 from 132 centres in Spain (23rd March to 21st May 2020). For the development cohort, tertiary referral hospitals were selected, while the validation cohort included smaller hospitals. The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital death, mechanical ventilation, or admission to intensive care unit. Clinical signs and symptoms, demographics, and medical history ascertained at presentation were screened using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator, and logistic regression was used to construct the predictive model. Results: There were 10 433 patients, 7850 in the development cohort (primary outcome 25.1%, 1967/7850) and 2583 in the validation cohort (outcome 27.0%, 698/2583). The PRIORITY model included: age, dependency, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, dyspnoea, tachypnoea, confusion, systolic blood pressure, and SpO2 ≤93% or oxygen requirement. The model showed high discrimination for critical illness in both the development (C-statistic 0.823; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.813, 0.834) and validation (C-statistic 0.794; 95%CI 0.775, 0.813) cohorts. A freely available web-based calculator was developed based on this model (https://www.evidencio.com/models/show/2344). Conclusions: The PRIORITY model, based on easily obtained clinical information, had good discrimination and generalizability for identifying COVID-19 patients at risk of critical outcomes