Infected pancreatic necrosis: outcomes and clinical predictors of mortality. A post hoc analysis of the MANCTRA-1 international study

: The identification of high-risk patients in the early stages of infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN) is critical, because it could help the clinicians to adopt more effective management strategies. We conducted a post hoc analysis of the MANCTRA-1 international study to assess the association between clinical risk factors and mortality among adult patients with IPN. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify prognostic factors of mortality. We identified 247 consecutive patients with IPN hospitalised between January 2019 and December 2020. History of uncontrolled arterial hypertension (p = 0.032; 95% CI 1.135-15.882; aOR 4.245), qSOFA (p = 0.005; 95% CI 1.359-5.879; aOR 2.828), renal failure (p = 0.022; 95% CI 1.138-5.442; aOR 2.489), and haemodynamic failure (p = 0.018; 95% CI 1.184-5.978; aOR 2.661), were identified as independent predictors of mortality in IPN patients. Cholangitis (p = 0.003; 95% CI 1.598-9.930; aOR 3.983), abdominal compartment syndrome (p = 0.032; 95% CI 1.090-6.967; aOR 2.735), and gastrointestinal/intra-abdominal bleeding (p = 0.009; 95% CI 1.286-5.712; aOR 2.710) were independently associated with the risk of mortality. Upfront open surgical necrosectomy was strongly associated with the risk of mortality (p < 0.001; 95% CI 1.912-7.442; aOR 3.772), whereas endoscopic drainage of pancreatic necrosis (p = 0.018; 95% CI 0.138-0.834; aOR 0.339) and enteral nutrition (p = 0.003; 95% CI 0.143-0.716; aOR 0.320) were found as protective factors. Organ failure, acute cholangitis, and upfront open surgical necrosectomy were the most significant predictors of mortality. Our study confirmed that, even in a subgroup of particularly ill patients such as those with IPN, upfront open surgery should be avoided as much as possible. Study protocol registered in ClinicalTrials.Gov (I.D. Number NCT04747990)

Italian Real-World Analysis of the Impact of Polypharmacy and Aging on the Risk of Multiple Drug-Drug Interactions (DDIs) in HCV Patients Treated with Pangenotypic Direct-Acting Antivirals (pDAA)

Purpose: The study aims at investigating the impact of polymedication and aging in the prevalence of multiple drug-drug interactions (DDIs) on HCV patients treated with sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (SOF/VEL) or glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (GLE/PIB).Patients and Methods: This is a retrospective analysis based on administrative data covering around 6.9 million individuals. Patients treated with SOF/VEL or GLE/PIB over November 2017-March 2020 were included. Index date corresponded to SOF/VEL or GLE/PIB first prescription during such period; patients were followed up for treatment duration. Analyses were then focused on patients with >= 2 comedications at risk of multiple DDIs. The severity and the effect of multiple DDI were identified using the Liverpool University tool.Results: A total of 2057 patients with SOF/VEL and 2128 with GLE/PIB were selected. Mean age of SOF/VEL patients was 58.5 years, higher than GLE/PIB ones (52.5 years) (p < 0.001), and patients >50 years were more present in SOF/VEL vs GLE/PIB cohorts: 72% vs 58%, (p < 0.001). Most prescribed co-medications were cardiovascular, alimentary and nervous system drugs. Proportion of patients with >= 2 comedications was higher in SOF/VEL compared to GLE/PIB cohort (56.5% vs 32.3%, p < 0.001). Those at high-risk of multiple DDIs accounted for 11.6% (N = 135) of SOF/VEL and 19.6% (N = 135) of GLE/PIB (p < 0.001) patients with >= 2 comedications. Among them, the potential effect of DDI was a decrease of DAA serum levels (11% of SOF/VEL and GLE/PIB patients) and an increased concentration of comedication serum levels (14% of SOF/VEL and 42% of GLE/PIB patients).Conclusion: This real-world analysis provided a thorough characterization on the burden of polymedication regimens in HCV patients treated with SOF/VEL or GLE/PIB that expose such patients to an increased risk of DDIs. In our sample population, SOF/ VEL regimen was more frequently detected on elderly patients and on those with >= 2 comedications at risk of multi-DDI, ie, among patients characterized by higher rates of comorbidities and polypharmacy

Real-World Analysis of Outcomes and Economic Burden in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease with and without Secondary Hyperparathyroidism among a Sample of the Italian Population

This real-world analysis evaluated the clinical and economic burden of non-dialysis-dependent CKD patients with and without secondary hyperparathyroidism (sHPT) in Italy. An observational retrospective study was conducted using administrative databases containing a pool of healthcare entities covering 2.45 million health-assisted individuals. Adult patients with hospitalization discharge diagnoses for CKD stages 3, 4, and 5 were included from 1 January 2012 to 31 March 2015 and stratified using the presence/absence of sHPT. Of the 5710 patients, 3119 were CKD-only (62%) and 1915 were CKD + sHPT (38%). The groups were balanced using Propensity Score Matching (PSM). Kaplan-Meier curves revealed that progression to dialysis and cumulative mortality had a higher incidence in the CKD + sHPT versus CKD-only group in CKD stage 3 patients and the overall population. The total direct healthcare costs/patient at one-year follow-up were significantly higher in CKD + sHPT versus CKD-only patients (EUR 8593 vs. EUR 5671, p p p p < 0.001). These findings suggest that sHPT, even at an early CKD stage, results in faster progression to dialysis, increased mortality, and higher healthcare expenditures, thus indicating that timely intervention can ameliorate the management of CKD patients affected by sHPT

Severe asthma: One disease and multiple definitions

Introduction There is, so far, no universal definition of severe asthma. This definition usually relies on: number of exacerbations, inhaled therapy, need for oral corticosteroids, and respiratory function. The use of such parameters varies in the different definitions used. Thus, according to the parameters chosen, each patient may result in having severe asthma or not. The aim of this study was to evaluate how the choice of a specific definition of severe asthma can change the allocation of patients. Methods Data collected from the Severe Asthma Network Italy (SANI) registry were analyzed. All the patients included were then reclassified according to the definitions of U-BIOPRED, NICE, WHO, ATS/ERS, GINA, ENFUMOSA, and TENOR. Results 540 patients, were extracted from the SANI database. We observed that 462 (86%) met the ATS/ERS criteria as well as the GINA criteria, 259 (48%) the U-Biopred, 222 (41%) the NICE, 125 (23%) the WHO, 313 (58%) the Enfumosa, and 251 (46%) the TENOR criteria. The mean eosinophil value were similar in the ATS/ERS, U-Biopred, and Enfumosa (528, 532 and 516 cells/mcl), higher in WHO and Tenor (567 and 570 cells/mcl) and much higher in the NICE classification (624 cells/mcl). Lung function tests resulted similarly in all groups, with WHO (67%) and ATS/ERS-GINA (73%), respectively, showing the lower and upper mean FEV1 values. Conclusions The present observations clearly evidence the heterogeneity in the distribution of patients when different definitions of severe asthma are used. However, the recent definition of severe asthma, provided by the GINA document, is similar to that indicated in 2014 by ATS/ERS, allowing mirror reclassification of the patients examined. This lack of homogeneity could complicate the access to biological therapies. The definition provided by the GINA document, which reflects what suggested by ATS/ERS, could partially overcome the problem

Awareness, discussion and non-prescribed use of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis among persons living with HIV/AIDS in Italy: a Nationwide, cross-sectional study among patients on antiretrovirals and their treating HIV physicians

Background: Before Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) was officially recommended and made available, a few surveys among gay and bisexual men, and persons living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA), identified an informal use of antiretrovirals (ARVs) for PrEP among HIV-negative individuals. Before PrEP availability in Italy, we aimed to assess whether PLWHA in Italy shared their ARVs with HIV-negative individuals, whether they knew people who were on PrEP, and describe the level of awareness and discussion on this preventive measure among them and people in their close circle. Methods: Two anonymous questionnaires investigating personal characteristics and PrEP awareness, knowledge, and experience were proposed to HIV specialists and their patients on ARVs in a one-week, cross-sectional survey (December 2013-January 2014). Among PLWHA, a Multivariable Logistic Regression analysis was conducted to identify factors associated with PrEP discussion with peers (close circle and/or HIV associations), and experience (use in close circle and/or personal ARV sharing). Results: Eighty-seven specialists in 31 representative Infectious Diseases departments administered the questionnaire to 1405 PLWHA. Among specialists, 98% reported awareness, 65% knew the dosage schedule, and 14% had previously suggested or prescribed PrEP. Among PLWHA, 45.6% were somehow aware, discussed or had direct or indirect experience of PrEP: 38% "had heard" of PrEP, 24% were aware of studies in HIV-negative individuals demonstrating a risk reduction through the use of ARVs, 22% had discussed PrEP, 12% with peers; 9% reported PrEP use in close circle and 1% personal ARV sharing. Factors predictive of either PrEP discussion with peers or experience differed between men and women, but across all genders were mainly related to having access to information, with HIV association membership being the strongest predictor. Conclusions: At a time and place where there were neither official information nor proposals or interventions to guide public policies on PrEP in Italy, a significant number of PLWHA were aware of it, and approximately 10% reported PrEP use in their close circle, although they rarely shared their ARVs with uninfected people for this purpose. Official policies and PrEP availability, along with implementation programs, could avoid risks from uncontrolled PrEP procurement and self-administration practices

Effects of pre‐operative isolation on postoperative pulmonary complications after elective surgery: an international prospective cohort study

We aimed to determine the impact of pre-operative isolation on postoperative pulmonary complications after elective surgery during the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. We performed an international prospective cohort study including patients undergoing elective surgery in October 2020. Isolation was defined as the period before surgery during which patients did not leave their house or receive visitors from outside their household. The primary outcome was postoperative pulmonary complications, adjusted in multivariable models for measured confounders. Pre-defined sub-group analyses were performed for the primary outcome. A total of 96,454 patients from 114 countries were included and overall, 26,948 (27.9%) patients isolated before surgery. Postoperative pulmonary complications were recorded in 1947 (2.0%) patients of which 227 (11.7%) were associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients who isolated pre-operatively were older, had more respiratory comorbidities and were more commonly from areas of high SARS-CoV-2 incidence and high-income countries. Although the overall rates of postoperative pulmonary complications were similar in those that isolated and those that did not (2.1% vs 2.0%, respectively), isolation was associated with higher rates of postoperative pulmonary complications after adjustment (adjusted OR 1.20, 95%CI 1.05-1.36, p = 0.005). Sensitivity analyses revealed no further differences when patients were categorised by: pre-operative testing; use of COVID-19-free pathways; or community SARS-CoV-2 prevalence. The rate of postoperative pulmonary complications increased with periods of isolation longer than 3 days, with an OR (95%CI) at 4-7 days or &gt;= 8 days of 1.25 (1.04-1.48), p = 0.015 and 1.31 (1.11-1.55), p = 0.001, respectively. Isolation before elective surgery might be associated with a small but clinically important increased risk of postoperative pulmonary complications. Longer periods of isolation showed no reduction in the risk of postoperative pulmonary complications. These findings have significant implications for global provision of elective surgical care

Effect of centre volume on pathological outcomes and postoperative complications after surgery for colorectal cancer: results of a multicentre national study

Background: The association between volume, complications and pathological outcomes is still under debate regarding colorectal cancer surgery. The aim of the study was to assess the association between centre volume and severe complications, mortality, less-than-radical oncologic surgery, and indications for neoadjuvant therapy.Methods: Retrospective analysis of 16,883 colorectal cancer cases from 80 centres (2018-2021). Outcomes: 30-day mortality; Clavien-Dindo grade >2 complications; removal of >= 12 lymph nodes; non-radical resection; neoadjuvant therapy. Quartiles of hospital volumes were classified as LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH, and VERY HIGH. Independent predictors, both overall and for rectal cancer, were evaluated using logistic regression including age, gender, AJCC stage and cancer site.Results: LOW-volume centres reported a higher rate of severe postoperative complications (OR 1.50, 95% c.i. 1.15-1.096, P = 0.003). The rate of >= 12 lymph nodes removed in LOW-volume (OR 0.68, 95% c.i. 0.56-0.85, P = 12 lymph nodes removed was lower in LOW-volume than in VERY HIGH-volume centres (OR 0.57, 95% c.i. 0.41-0.80, P = 0.001). A lower rate of neoadjuvant chemoradiation was associated with HIGH (OR 0.66, 95% c.i. 0.56-0.77, P < 0.001), MEDIUM (OR 0.75, 95% c.i. 0.60-0.92, P = 0.006), and LOW (OR 0.70, 95% c.i. 0.52-0.94, P = 0.019) volume centres (vs. VERY HIGH).Conclusion: Colorectal cancer surgery in low-volume centres is at higher risk of suboptimal management, poor postoperative outcomes, and less-than-adequate oncologic resections. Centralisation of rectal cancer cases should be taken into consideration to optimise the outcomes

Risk factors and action thresholds for the novel coronavirus pandemic. Insights from the Italian Society of Nephrology COVID-19 Survey

365noBackground and aim: Over 80% (365/454) of the nation’s centers participated in the Italian Society of Nephrology COVID-19 Survey. Out of 60,441 surveyed patients, 1368 were infected as of April 23rd, 2020. However, center-specific proportions showed substantial heterogeneity. We therefore undertook new analyses to identify explanatory factors, contextual effects, and decision rules for infection containment. Methods: We investigated fixed factors and contextual effects by multilevel modeling. Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analysis was used to develop decision rules. Results: Increased positivity among hemodialysis patients was predicted by center location [incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20–1.51], positive healthcare workers (IRR 1.09, 95% CI 1.02–1.17), test-all policy (IRR 5.94, 95% CI 3.36–10.45), and infected proportion in the general population (IRR 1.002, 95% CI 1.001–1.003) (all p < 0.01). Conversely, lockdown duration exerted a protective effect (IRR 0.95, 95% CI 0.94–0.98) (p < 0.01). The province-contextual effects accounted for 10% of the total variability. Predictive factors for peritoneal dialysis and transplant cases were center location and infected proportion in the general population. Using recursive partitioning, we identified decision thresholds at general population incidence ≥ 229 per 100,000 and at ≥ 3 positive healthcare workers. Conclusions: Beyond fixed risk factors, shared with the general population, the increased and heterogeneous proportion of positive patients is related to the center’s testing policy, the number of positive patients and healthcare workers, and to contextual effects at the province level. Nephrology centers may adopt simple decision rules to strengthen containment measures timely.nonenoneNordio M.; Reboldi G.; Di Napoli A.; Quintaliani G.; Alberici F.; Postorino M.; Aucella F.; Messa P.; Brunori G.; Brunori G.; Bosco M.; Malberti F.; Mandreoli M.; Mazzaferro S.; Movilli E.; Ravera M.; Salomone M.; Santoro D.; PostorinoLimido M.A.; Bonomini M.; Stingone A.; Maccarone M.; Di Loreto E.; Stacchiotti L.; Malandra R.; Chiarella S.; D'Agostino F.; Fuiano G.; Nicodemo L.; Bonofiglio R.; Greco S.; Mallamaci F.; Barreca E.; Caserta C.; Bruzzese V.; Galati D.; Tramontana D.; Viscione M.; Chiuchiolo L.; Tuccillo S.; Sepe M.; Vitale F.; Ciriana E.; Santoro D.; Martignetti V.; Caserta D.; Stizzo A.; Romano A.; Iulianiello G.; Cascone E.; Minicone P.; Chiricone D.; Delgado G.; Barbato A.; Celentano S.; Molfino I.; Coppola S.; Raiola I.; Abategiovanni M.; Borrelli S.; Margherita C.; Bruno F.; Ida M.; Aliperti E.; Potito D.; Cuomo G.; De Luca M.; Merola M.; Botta C.; Garofalo G.; Alinei P.; Paglionico C.; Roano M.; Vitale S.; Ierardi R.; Fimiani V.; Conte G.; Di Natale G.; Romano M.; Di Marino V.; Scafarto A.; Meccariello S.; Pecoraro C.; Di Stazio E.; Di Meglio E.; Cuomo A.; Maresca B.; Rotaia E.; Capasso G.; Auricchio M.; Pluvio C.; Maddalena L.; De Maio A.; Palladino G.; Buono F.; Gigliotti G.; Mandreoli M.; Mancini E.; La Manna G.; Storari A.; Mosconi G.; Cappelli G.; Scarpioni R.; Gregorini M.; Rigotti A.; Mancini W.; Bianco F.; Boscutti G.; Amici G.; Tosto M.; Fini R.; Pace G.; Cioffi A.; Boccia E.; Di Lullo L.; Di Zazzo G.; Simonelli R.; Bondatti F.; Miglio L.; Rifici N.; Treglia A.; Muci M.; Baldinelli G.; Rizzi E.; Lonzi M.; De Cicco C.; Forte F.; De Paolis P.; Grandaliano G.; Cuzziol C.; Torre V.M.; Sfregola P.; Rossi V.; Fabio G.; Flammini A.; Filippini A.; Onorato L.; Vendola F.; Di Daniela N.; Alfarone C.; Scabbia L.; Ferrazzano M.; Grotta B.D.; Gamberini M.; Fazzari L.; Mene P.; Morgia A.; Catucci A.; Palumbo R.; Puliti M.; Marinelli R.; Polito P.; Marrocco F.; Morabito S.; Rocca R.; Nazzaro L.; Lavini R.; Iamundo V.; Chiappini M.; Casarci M.; Morosetti M.; Hassan S.; Alfarone C.; Ferrazzano M.; Firmi G.; Galliani M.; Serraiocco M.; Feriozzi S.; Valentini W.; Sacco P.; Garibotto G.; Cappelli V.; Saffioti C.; Repetto M.; Rolla D.; Lorenz M.; Pedrini L.; Polonioli D.; Galli E.; Ruggenenti P.; Scolari F.; Bove S.; Costantino E.; Bracchi M.; Mangano S.; Depetri G.; Malberti F.; La Milia V.; Farina M.; Zecchini S.; Savino R.; Melandri M.; Guastoni C.; Paparella M.; Gallieni M.; Minetti E.; Bisegna S.; Messa P.; Righetti M.; Badalamenti S.; Guastoni C.; Alberghini E.; Bertoli S.; Fabbrini P.; Albrizio P.; Rampino T.; Colturi C.; Rombola G.; Lucatello A.; Guerrini E.; Ranghino A.; Lenci F.; Fanciulli E.; Santarelli S.; Damiani C.; Garofalo D.; Sopranzi F.; Santoferrara A.; Di Luca M.; Galiotta P.; Brigante M.; Manganaro M.; Maffei S.; Berto I.; Besso L.; Viglino G.; Besso L.; Cusinato S.; ChiarinottiChiappero D.F.; Tognarelli G.; Gianoglio B.; Salomone M.; Forneris G.; Biancone L.; Savoldi S.; Vitale C.; Boero R.; Filiberti O.; Borzumati M.; Gesualdo L.; Lomonte C.; Gernone G.; Pallotta G.; Di Paolo S.; Vernaglione L.; Specchio A.; Stallone G.; Dell'Aquila R.; Aucella F.; Sandri G.; Russo F.; Napoli M.; Marangi A.; Morrone L.; Di Stratis C.; Fresu A.; Cicu F.; Murtas S.; Manca O.; Pani A.; Pilloni M.; Pistis R.; Cadoni M.; Contu B.; Logias F.; Ivaldi R.; Fancello S.; Cossu M.; Lepori G.; Lepori G.; Vittoria S.; Battiati E.; Arnone M.; Rome M.; Barbera A.; Granata A.; Collura G.; Dico C.L.; Pugliese G.; Di Natale E.; Rizzari G.; Cottone L.; Longo N.; Battaglia G.; Marcantoni C.; Giannetto G.; Tumino G.; Randazzo F.; Bellissimo L.; Faro F.L.; Grippaldi F.; Urso S.; Quattrone G.; Todaro I.; Vincenzo D.; Murgo A.; Masuzzo M.; Pisacane A.; Monardo P.; Santoro D.; Pontorierro M.; Quari C.; Bauro A.; Chimenz R.R.; Alfio D.; Girasole F.; Cascio A.L.; Caviglia A.; Tornese F.; Sirna F.; Altieri C.; Cusumano R.; Saveriano V.; La Corte A.; Locascio G.; Rotolo U.; Rome M.; Musso S.; Risuglia L.; Blanco G.; Minardo G.; Castellino S.; Zappulla Z.; Randone S.; Di Francesca M.; Cassetti C.C.; Oddo G.; Buscaino G.; Mucaria F.; Barraco V.I.; Di Martino A.; Mucaria F.; Rallo D.; Dani L.; Campolo G.; Manescalchi F.; Biagini M.; Agate M.; Panichi V.; Casani A.; Traversari L.; Garosi G.; Brunori G.; Tabbi M.; Selvi A.; Cencioni L.; Fagugli R.; Timio F.; Leveque A.; Manes M.; Mennella G.; Calo L.; Fiorini F.; Abaterusso C.; Calzavara P.; Nordio M.; Meneghel G.; Bonesso C.; Gambaro G.; Gammaro L.; Rugiu C.; Dell'Aquila R.; Dell'Aquila R.; Ronco C.; Rugiu C.Nordio, M.; Reboldi, G.; Di Napoli, A.; Quintaliani, G.; Alberici, F.; Postorino, M.; Aucella, F.; Messa, P.; Brunori, G.; Brunori, G.; Bosco, M.; Malberti, F.; Mandreoli, M.; Mazzaferro, S.; Movilli, E.; Ravera, M.; Salomone, M.; Santoro, D.; Postorinolimido, M. A.; Bonomini, M.; Stingone, A.; Maccarone, M.; Di Loreto, E.; Stacchiotti, L.; Malandra, R.; Chiarella, S.; D'Agostino, F.; Fuiano, G.; Nicodemo, L.; Bonofiglio, R.; Greco, S.; Mallamaci, F.; Barreca, E.; Caserta, C.; Bruzzese, V.; Galati, D.; Tramontana, D.; Viscione, M.; Chiuchiolo, L.; Tuccillo, S.; Sepe, M.; Vitale, F.; Ciriana, E.; Santoro, D.; Martignetti, V.; Caserta, D.; Stizzo, A.; Romano, A.; Iulianiello, G.; Cascone, E.; Minicone, P.; Chiricone, D.; Delgado, G.; Barbato, A.; Celentano, S.; Molfino, I.; Coppola, S.; Raiola, I.; Abategiovanni, M.; Borrelli, S.; Margherita, C.; Bruno, F.; Ida, M.; Aliperti, E.; Potito, D.; Cuomo, G.; De Luca, M.; Merola, M.; Botta, C.; Garofalo, G.; Alinei, P.; Paglionico, C.; Roano, M.; Vitale, S.; Ierardi, R.; Fimiani, V.; Conte, G.; Di Natale, G.; Romano, M.; Di Marino, V.; Scafarto, A.; Meccariello, S.; Pecoraro, C.; Di Stazio, E.; Di Meglio, E.; Cuomo, A.; Maresca, B.; Rotaia, E.; Capasso, G.; Auricchio, M.; Pluvio, C.; Maddalena, L.; De Maio, A.; Palladino, G.; Buono, F.; Gigliotti, G.; Mandreoli, M.; Mancini, E.; La Manna, G.; Storari, A.; Mosconi, G.; Cappelli, G.; Scarpioni, R.; Gregorini, M.; Rigotti, A.; Mancini, W.; Bianco, F.; Boscutti, G.; Amici, G.; Tosto, M.; Fini, R.; Pace, G.; Cioffi, A.; Boccia, E.; Di Lullo, L.; Di Zazzo, G.; Simonelli, R.; Bondatti, F.; Miglio, L.; Rifici, N.; Treglia, A.; Muci, M.; Baldinelli, G.; Rizzi, E.; Lonzi, M.; De Cicco, C.; Forte, F.; De Paolis, P.; Grandaliano, G.; Cuzziol, C.; Torre, V. M.; Sfregola, P.; Rossi, V.; Fabio, G.; Flammini, A.; Filippini, A.; Onorato, L.; Vendola, F.; Di Daniela, N.; Alfarone, C.; Scabbia, L.; Ferrazzano, M.; Grotta, B. D.; Gamberini, M.; Fazzari, L.; Mene, P.; Morgia, A.; Catucci, A.; Palumbo, R.; Puliti, M.; Marinelli, R.; Polito, P.; Marrocco, F.; Morabito, S.; Rocca, R.; Nazzaro, L.; Lavini, R.; Iamundo, V.; Chiappini, M.; Casarci, M.; Morosetti, M.; Hassan, S.; Alfarone, C.; Ferrazzano, M.; Firmi, G.; Galliani, M.; Serraiocco, M.; Feriozzi, S.; Valentini, W.; Sacco, P.; Garibotto, G.; Cappelli, V.; Saffioti, C.; Repetto, M.; Rolla, D.; Lorenz, M.; Pedrini, L.; Polonioli, D.; Galli, E.; Ruggenenti, P.; Scolari, F.; Bove, S.; Costantino, E.; Bracchi, M.; Mangano, S.; Depetri, G.; Malberti, F.; La Milia, V.; Farina, M.; Zecchini, S.; Savino, R.; Melandri, M.; Guastoni, C.; Paparella, M.; Gallieni, M.; Minetti, E.; Bisegna, S.; Messa, P.; Righetti, M.; Badalamenti, S.; Guastoni, C.; Alberghini, E.; Bertoli, S.; Fabbrini, P.; Albrizio, P.; Rampino, T.; Colturi, C.; Rombola, G.; Lucatello, A.; Guerrini, E.; Ranghino, A.; Lenci, F.; Fanciulli, E.; Santarelli, S.; Damiani, C.; Garofalo, D.; Sopranzi, F.; Santoferrara, A.; Di Luca, M.; Galiotta, P.; Brigante, M.; Manganaro, M.; Maffei, S.; Berto, I.; Besso, L.; Viglino, G.; Besso, L.; Cusinato, S.; Chiarinottichiappero, D. F.; Tognarelli, G.; Gianoglio, B.; Salomone, M.; Forneris, G.; Biancone, L.; Savoldi, S.; Vitale, C.; Boero, R.; Filiberti, O.; Borzumati, M.; Gesualdo, L.; Lomonte, C.; Gernone, G.; Pallotta, G.; Di Paolo, S.; Vernaglione, L.; Specchio, A.; Stallone, G.; Dell'Aquila, R.; Aucella, F.; Sandri, G.; Russo, F.; Napoli, M.; Marangi, A.; Morrone, L.; Di Stratis, C.; Fresu, A.; Cicu, F.; Murtas, S.; Manca, O.; Pani, A.; Pilloni, M.; Pistis, R.; Cadoni, M.; Contu, B.; Logias, F.; Ivaldi, R.; Fancello, S.; Cossu, M.; Lepori, G.; Lepori, G.; Vittoria, S.; Battiati, E.; Arnone, M.; Rome, M.; Barbera, A.; Granata, A.; Collura, G.; Dico, C. L.; Pugliese, G.; Di Natale, E.; Rizzari, G.; Cottone, L.; Longo, N.; Battaglia, G.; Marcantoni, C.; Giannetto, G.; Tumino, G.; Randazzo, F.; Bellissimo, L.; Faro, F. L.; Grippaldi, F.; Urso, S.; Quattrone, G.; Todaro, I.; Vincenzo, D.; Murgo, A.; Masuzzo, M.; Pisacane, A.; Monardo, P.; Santoro, D.; Pontorierro, M.; Quari, C.; Bauro, A.; Chimenz, R. R.; Alfio, D.; Girasole, F.; Cascio, A. L.; Caviglia, A.; Tornese, F.; Sirna, F.; Altieri, C.; Cusumano, R.; Saveriano, V.; La Corte, A.; Locascio, G.; Rotolo, U.; Rome, M.; Musso, S.; Risuglia, L.; Blanco, G.; Minardo, G.; Castellino, S.; Zappulla, Z.; Randone, S.; Di Francesca, M.; Cassetti, C. C.; Oddo, G.; Buscaino, G.; Mucaria, F.; Barraco, V. I.; Di Martino, A.; Mucaria, F.; Rallo, D.; Dani, L.; Campolo, G.; Manescalchi, F.; Biagini, M.; Agate, M.; Panichi, V.; Casani, A.; Traversari, L.; Garosi, G.; Brunori, G.; Tabbi, M.; Selvi, A.; Cencioni, L.; Fagugli, R.; Timio, F.; Leveque, A.; Manes, M.; Mennella, G.; Calo, L.; Fiorini, F.; Abaterusso, C.; Calzavara, P.; Nordio, M.; Meneghel, G.; Bonesso, C.; Gambaro, G.; Gammaro, L.; Rugiu, C.; Dell'Aquila, R.; Dell'Aquila, R.; Ronco, C.; Rugiu, C

Risk factors and action thresholds for the novel coronavirus pandemic. Insights from the Italian Society of Nephrology COVID-19 Survey

Background and aim: Over 80% (365/454) of the nation\u2019s centers participated in the Italian Society of Nephrology COVID-19 Survey. Out of 60,441 surveyed patients, 1368 were infected as of April 23rd, 2020. However, center-specific proportions showed substantial heterogeneity. We therefore undertook new analyses to identify explanatory factors, contextual effects, and decision rules for infection containment. Methods: We investigated fixed factors and contextual effects by multilevel modeling. Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analysis was used to develop decision rules. Results: Increased positivity among hemodialysis patients was predicted by center location [incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20\u20131.51], positive healthcare workers (IRR 1.09, 95% CI 1.02\u20131.17), test-all policy (IRR 5.94, 95% CI 3.36\u201310.45), and infected proportion in the general population (IRR 1.002, 95% CI 1.001\u20131.003) (all p &lt; 0.01). Conversely, lockdown duration exerted a protective effect (IRR 0.95, 95% CI 0.94\u20130.98) (p &lt; 0.01). The province-contextual effects accounted for 10% of the total variability. Predictive factors for peritoneal dialysis and transplant cases were center location and infected proportion in the general population. Using recursive partitioning, we identified decision thresholds at general population incidence 65 229 per 100,000 and at 65 3 positive healthcare workers. Conclusions: Beyond fixed risk factors, shared with the general population, the increased and heterogeneous proportion of positive patients is related to the center\u2019s testing policy, the number of positive patients and healthcare workers, and to contextual effects at the province level. Nephrology centers may adopt simple decision rules to strengthen containment measures timely