Global overview of the management of acute cholecystitis during the COVID-19 pandemic (CHOLECOVID study)

Background: This study provides a global overview of the management of patients with acute cholecystitis during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: CHOLECOVID is an international, multicentre, observational comparative study of patients admitted to hospital with acute cholecystitis during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data on management were collected for a 2-month study interval coincident with the WHO declaration of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and compared with an equivalent pre-pandemic time interval. Mediation analysis examined the influence of SARS-COV-2 infection on 30-day mortality. Results: This study collected data on 9783 patients with acute cholecystitis admitted to 247 hospitals across the world. The pandemic was associated with reduced availability of surgical workforce and operating facilities globally, a significant shift to worse severity of disease, and increased use of conservative management. There was a reduction (both absolute and proportionate) in the number of patients undergoing cholecystectomy from 3095 patients (56.2 per cent) pre-pandemic to 1998 patients (46.2 per cent) during the pandemic but there was no difference in 30-day all-cause mortality after cholecystectomy comparing the pre-pandemic interval with the pandemic (13 patients (0.4 per cent) pre-pandemic to 13 patients (0.6 per cent) pandemic; P = 0.355). In mediation analysis, an admission with acute cholecystitis during the pandemic was associated with a non-significant increased risk of death (OR 1.29, 95 per cent c.i. 0.93 to 1.79, P = 0.121). Conclusion: CHOLECOVID provides a unique overview of the treatment of patients with cholecystitis across the globe during the first months of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. The study highlights the need for system resilience in retention of elective surgical activity. Cholecystectomy was associated with a low risk of mortality and deferral of treatment results in an increase in avoidable morbidity that represents the non-COVID cost of this pandemic

Efficacy and safety of adalimumab as monotherapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis for whom previous disease modifying antirheumatic drug treatment has failed

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of monotherapy with adalimumab in patients with RA for whom previous DMARD treatment has failed. Methods: In a 26 week, double blind, placebo controlled, phase III trial, 544 patients with RA were randomised to monotherapy with adalimumab 20 mg every other week, 20 mg weekly, 40 mg every other week, 40 mg weekly, or placebo. The primary efficacy end point was ≥20% improvement in the ACR core criteria (ACR20 response). Secondary efficacy end points included ACR50, ACR70, EULAR responses, and the Disability Index of the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ DI). Results: After 26 weeks, patients treated with adalimumab 20 mg every other week, 20 mg weekly, 40 mg every other week, and 40 mg weekly had significantly better response rates than those treated with placebo: ACR20 (35.8%, 39.3%, 46.0%, 53.4%, respectively v 19.1%; p⩽0.01); ACR50 (18.9%, 20.5%, 22.1%, 35.0% v 8.2%; p⩽0.05); ACR70 (8.5%, 9.8%, 12.4%, 18.4% v 1.8%; p⩽0.05). Moderate EULAR response rates were significantly greater with adalimumab than with placebo (41.5%, 48.2%, 55.8%, 63.1% v 26.4%; p⩽0.05). Patients treated with adalimumab achieved better improvements in mean HAQ DI than those receiving placebo (–0.29, –0.39, –0.38, –0.49 v –0.07; p⩽0.01). No significant differences were found between adalimumab and placebo treated patients for serious adverse events, serious infections, or malignancies. Injection site reaction occurred in 10.6% and 0.9% of adalimumab and placebo treated patients, respectively (p⩽0.05). Conclusion: Among patients with RA for whom previous DMARD treatment had failed, adalimumab monotherapy achieved significant, rapid, and sustained improvements in disease activity and improved physical function and was safe and well tolerated

In COVID-19 Patients Who Suffer In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest, Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Outcomes May Be Impacted by Arrest Etiology and Local Pandemic Conditions

OBJECTIVES: The utility and risks to providers of performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation after in-hospital cardiac arrest in COVID-19 patients have been questioned. Additionally, there are discrepancies in reported COVID-19 in-hospital cardiac arrest survival rates. We describe outcomes after cardiopulmonary resuscitation for in-hospital cardiac arrest in two COVID-19 patient cohorts. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York, NY. PATIENTS: Those admitted with COVID-19 between March 1, 2020, and May 31, 2020, as well as between March 1, 2021, and May 31, 2021, who received resuscitation after in-hospital cardiac arrest. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 103 patients with coronavirus disease 2019 who were resuscitated after in-hospital cardiac arrest in spring 2020, most self-identified as Hispanic/Latino or African American, 35 (34.0%) had return of spontaneous circulation for at least 20 minutes, and 15 (14.6%) survived to 30 days post-arrest. Compared with nonsurvivors, 30-day survivors experienced in-hospital cardiac arrest later (day 22 vs day 7; = 0.008) and were more likely to have had an acute respiratory event preceding in-hospital cardiac arrest (93.3% vs 27.3%; \u3c 0.001). Among 30-day survivors, 11 (73.3%) survived to hospital discharge, at which point 8 (72.7%) had Cerebral Performance Category scores of 1 or 2. Among 26 COVID-19 patients resuscitated after in-hospital cardiac arrest in spring 2021, 15 (57.7%) had return of spontaneous circulation for at least 20 minutes, 3 (11.5%) survived to 30 days post in-hospital cardiac arrest, and 2 (7.7%) survived to hospital discharge, both with Cerebral Performance Category scores of 2 or less. Those who survived to 30 days post in-hospital cardiac arrest were younger (46.3 vs 67.8; = 0.03), but otherwise there were no significant differences between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with COVID-19 who received cardiopulmonary resuscitation after in-hospital cardiac arrest had low survival rates. Our findings additionally show return of spontaneous circulation rates in these patients may be impacted by hospital strain and that patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest preceded by acute respiratory events might be more likely to survive to 30 days, suggesting Advanced Cardiac Life Support efforts may be more successful in this subpopulation