Clinical characteristics of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) early findings from a teaching hospital in Pavia, North Italy, 21 to 28 February 2020

We describe clinical characteristics, treatments and outcomes of 44 Caucasian patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) at a single hospital in Pavia, Italy, from 21\u201328 February 2020, at the beginning of the outbreak in Europe. Seventeen patients developed severe disease, two died. After a median of 6 days, 14 patients were discharged from hospital. Predictors of lower odds of discharge were age>65 years, antiviral treatment and for severe disease, lactate dehydrogenase >300 mg/dL

Lack of SARS-CoV-2 RNA environmental contamination in a tertiary referral hospital for infectious diseases in Northern Italy

none140noNAnoneColaneri M.; Seminari E.; Piralla A.; Zuccaro V.; Di Filippo A.; Baldanti F.; Bruno R.; Mondelli M.U.; Brunetti E.; Di Matteo A.; Maiocchi L.; Pagnucco L.; Mariani B.; Ludovisi S.; Lissandrin R.; Parisi A.; Sacchi P.; Patruno S.F.A.; Michelone G.; Gulminetti R.; Zanaboni D.; Novati S.; Maserati R.; Orsolini P.; Vecchia M.; Sciarra M.; Asperges E.; Sambo M.; Biscarini S.; Lupi M.; Roda S.; Chiara Pieri T.; Gallazzi I.; Sachs M.; Valsecchi P.; Perlini S.; Alfano C.; Bonzano M.; Briganti F.; Crescenzi G.; Giulia Falchi A.; Guarnone R.; Guglielmana B.; Maggi E.; Martino I.; Pettenazza P.; Pioli di Marco S.; Quaglia F.; Sabena A.; Salinaro F.; Speciale F.; Zunino I.; De Lorenzo M.; Secco G.; Dimitry L.; Cappa G.; Maisak I.; Chiodi B.; Sciarrini M.; Barcella B.; Resta F.; Moroni L.; Vezzoni G.; Scattaglia L.; Boscolo E.; Zattera C.; Michele Fidel T.; Vincenzo C.; Vignaroli D.; Bazzini M.; Iotti G.; Mojoli F.; Belliato M.; Perotti L.; Mongodi S.; Tavazzi G.; Marseglia G.; Licari A.; Brambilla I.; Daniela B.; Antonella B.; Patrizia C.; Giulia C.; Giuditta C.; Marta C.; Rossana D.; Milena F.; Bianca M.; Roberta M.; Enza M.; Stefania P.; Maurizio P.; Elena P.; Antonio P.; Francesca R.; Antonella S.; Maurizio Z.; Guy A.; Laura B.; Ermanna C.; Giuliana C.; Luca D.; Gabriella F.; Gabriella G.; Alessia G.; Viviana L.; Claudia L.; Valentina M.; Simona P.; Marta P.; Alice B.; Giacomo C.; Irene C.; Alfonso C.; Di Martino R.; Di Napoli A.; Alessandro F.; Guglielmo F.; Loretta F.; Federica G.; Alessandra M.; Federica N.; Giacomo R.; Beatrice R.; Maria S.I.; Monica T.; Nepita Edoardo V.; Calvi M.; Tizzoni M.; Nicora C.; Triarico A.; Petronella V.; Marena C.; Muzzi A.; Lago P.; Comandatore F.; Bissignandi G.; Gaiarsa S.; Rettani M.; Bandi C.Colaneri, M.; Seminari, E.; Piralla, A.; Zuccaro, V.; Di Filippo, A.; Baldanti, F.; Bruno, R.; Mondelli, M. U.; Brunetti, E.; Di Matteo, A.; Maiocchi, L.; Pagnucco, L.; Mariani, B.; Ludovisi, S.; Lissandrin, R.; Parisi, A.; Sacchi, P.; Patruno, S. F. A.; Michelone, G.; Gulminetti, R.; Zanaboni, D.; Novati, S.; Maserati, R.; Orsolini, P.; Vecchia, M.; Sciarra, M.; Asperges, E.; Sambo, M.; Biscarini, S.; Lupi, M.; Roda, S.; Chiara Pieri, T.; Gallazzi, I.; Sachs, M.; Valsecchi, P.; Perlini, S.; Alfano, C.; Bonzano, M.; Briganti, F.; Crescenzi, G.; Giulia Falchi, A.; Guarnone, R.; Guglielmana, B.; Maggi, E.; Martino, I.; Pettenazza, P.; Pioli di Marco, S.; Quaglia, F.; Sabena, A.; Salinaro, F.; Speciale, F.; Zunino, I.; De Lorenzo, M.; Secco, G.; Dimitry, L.; Cappa, G.; Maisak, I.; Chiodi, B.; Sciarrini, M.; Barcella, B.; Resta, F.; Moroni, L.; Vezzoni, G.; Scattaglia, L.; Boscolo, E.; Zattera, C.; Michele Fidel, T.; Vincenzo, C.; Vignaroli, D.; Bazzini, M.; Iotti, G.; Mojoli, F.; Belliato, M.; Perotti, L.; Mongodi, S.; Tavazzi, G.; Marseglia, G.; Licari, A.; Brambilla, I.; Daniela, B.; Antonella, B.; Patrizia, C.; Giulia, C.; Giuditta, C.; Marta, C.; D'Alterio, Rossana; Milena, F.; Bianca, M.; Roberta, M.; Enza, M.; Stefania, P.; Maurizio, P.; Elena, P.; Antonio, P.; Francesca, R.; Antonella, S.; Maurizio, Z.; Guy, A.; Laura, B.; Ermanna, C.; Giuliana, C.; Luca, D.; Gabriella, F.; Gabriella, G.; Alessia, G.; Viviana, L.; Meisina, Claudia; Valentina, M.; Simona, P.; Marta, P.; Alice, B.; Giacomo, C.; Irene, C.; Alfonso, C.; Di Martino, R.; Di Napoli, A.; Alessandro, F.; Guglielmo, F.; Loretta, F.; Federica, G.; Albertini, Alessandra; Federica, N.; Giacomo, R.; Beatrice, R.; Maria, S. I.; Monica, T.; Nepita Edoardo, V.; Calvi, M.; Tizzoni, M.; Nicora, C.; Triarico, A.; Petronella, V.; Marena, C.; Muzzi, A.; Lago, P.; Comandatore, F.; Bissignandi, G.; Gaiarsa, S.; Rettani, M.; Bandi, C

Using the Oxford Cognitive Screen to detect cognitive impairment in stroke patients: a comparison with the Mini-Mental State Examination

Background: The Oxford Cognitive Screen (OCS) was recently developed with the aim of describing the cognitive deficits after stroke. The scale consists of 10 tasks encompassing five cognitive domains: attention and executive function, language, memory, number processing, and praxis. OCS was devised to be inclusive and un-confounded by aphasia and neglect. As such, it may have a greater potential to be informative on stroke cognitive deficits of widely used instruments, such as the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) or the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, which were originally devised for demented patients. Objective: The present study compared the OCS with the MMSE with regards to their ability to detect cognitive impairments post-stroke. We further aimed to examine performance on the OCS as a function of subtypes of cerebral infarction and clinical severity. Methods: 325 first stroke patients were consecutively enrolled in the study over a 9-month period. The OCS and MMSE, as well as the Bamford classification and NIHSS, were given according to standard procedures. Results: About a third of patients (35.3%) had a performance lower than the cutoff (<22) on the MMSE, whereas 91.6% were impaired in at least one OCS domain, indicating higher incidences of impairment for the OCS. More than 80% of patients showed an impairment in two or more cognitive domains of the OCS. Using the MMSE as a standard of clinical practice, the comparative sensitivity of OCS was 100%. Out of the 208 patients with normal MMSE performance 180 showed impaired performance in at least one domain of the OCS. The discrepancy between OCS and MMSE was particularly strong for patients with milder strokes. As for subtypes of cerebral infarction, fewer patients demonstrated widespread impairments in the OCS in the Posterior Circulation Infarcts category than in the other categories. Conclusion: Overall, the results showed a much higher incidence of cognitive impairment with the OCS than with the MMSE and demonstrated no false negatives for OCS vs MMSE. It is concluded that OCS is a sensitive screen tool for cognitive deficits after stroke. In particular, the OCS detects high incidences of stroke-specific cognitive impairments, not detected by the MMSE, demonstrating the importance of cognitive profiling

Impact of multidisciplinary tumor boards on clinical management of cancer patients [Poster walk]

Background: Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards (MTBs) are teams in which different specialists work together closely sharing clinical decisions. MTBs are generally composed of a core of medical oncologists, radiologists, pathologists and surgeons. Other health professionals can join the team, depending on the type of tumor discussed. The objective of the study was to investigate the impact of MTBs on cancer patient management. Materials and Methods: A systematic literature review was performed through Pubmed and Scopus. The study was limited to the time interval 01/01/ 2004-30/04/2017 and inclusion criteria were the description of MTBs applicative experiences and their clinical/organizational impact. Data about first author, publication year, objective, study design, population, country, setting, MTB structure, key findings and effect (positive or negative) on reported outcome were extracted and summarized. A meta-analysis was performed through Revman and heterogeneity was quantified through Cochran Q and I2 tests. Results: Fifty-three out of 2041 potentially relevant articles were included in the review. Studies were focused on 11 tumors: esophagus (5 studies), stomach (4), pancreas (3), liver (2), colorectum (16), breast (2), brain (2), lung (8), head-neck (10), prostate (2), urinary tract (3). Concerning MTBs impact, 33 studies reported changes of survival time, 7 of diagnosis, 17 of therapy. A positive impact was reported in 58 (85%) cases. Impact was positive in 27 (82%), 7 (100%) and 15 (88%) cases as for survival time, diagnosis and therapy respectively. The meta-analysis of studies on colorectal cancer 3-year mortality resulted in an OR = 0.61 (95%CI=0.50-0.74; p = 0.54; I2 = 0%). Conclusions: The study showed a positive impact of MTBs on cancer patient management. In particular, an improvement of diagnostic/ therapeutic appropriateness and survival time was highlighted. Considering promising results, the research field deserves further in-depth studies. Key messages: MTBs are teams of different specialists and health professionals sharing evidence-based clinical decisions and coordinating the delivery of cancer care. MTBs positively impact on clinical management and outcomes of cancer patients