SARS-CoV-2 omicron (B.1.1.529)-related COVID-19 sequelae in vaccinated and unvaccinated patients with cancer: results from the OnCovid registry

Background COVID-19 sequelae can affect about 15% of patients with cancer who survive the acute phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection and can substantially impair their survival and continuity of oncological care. We aimed to investigate whether previous immunisation affects long-term sequelae in the context of evolving variants of concern of SARS-CoV-2. Methods OnCovid is an active registry that includes patients aged 18 years or older from 37 institutions across Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK with a laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and a history of solid or haematological malignancy, either active or in remission, followed up from COVID-19 diagnosis until death. We evaluated the prevalence of COVID-19 sequelae in patients who survived COVID-19 and underwent a formal clinical reassessment, categorising infection according to the date of diagnosis as the omicron (B.1.1.529) phase from Dec 15, 2021, to Jan 31, 2022; the alpha (B.1.1.7)-delta (B.1.617.2) phase from Dec 1, 2020, to Dec 14, 2021; and the pre-vaccination phase from Feb 27 to Nov 30, 2020. The prevalence of overall COVID-19 sequelae was compared according to SARS-CoV-2 immunisation status and in relation to post-COVID-19 survival and resumption of systemic anticancer therapy. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04393974. Findings At the follow-up update on June 20, 2022, 1909 eligible patients, evaluated after a median of 39 days (IQR 24-68) from COVID-19 diagnosis, were included (964 [ 50 center dot 7%] of 1902 patients with sex data were female and 938 [49 center dot 3%] were male). Overall, 317 (16 center dot 6%; 95% CI 14 center dot 8-18 center dot 5) of 1909 patients had at least one sequela from COVID-19 at the first oncological reassessment. The prevalence of COVID-19 sequelae was highest in the prevaccination phase (191 [19 center dot 1%; 95% CI 16 center dot 4-22 center dot 0] of 1000 patients). The prevalence was similar in the alpha-delta phase (110 [16 center dot 8%; 13 center dot 8- 20 center dot 3] of 653 patients, p=0 center dot 24), but significantly lower in the omicron phase (16 [6 center dot 2%; 3 center dot 5-10 center dot 2] of 256 patients, p<0 center dot 0001). In the alpha- delta phase, 84 (18 center dot 3%; 95% CI 14 center dot 6-22 center dot 7) of 458 unvaccinated patients and three (9 center dot 4%; 1 center dot 9- 27 center dot 3) of 32 unvaccinated patients in the omicron phase had sequelae. Patients who received a booster and those who received two vaccine doses had a significantly lower prevalence of overall COVID-19 sequelae than unvaccinated or partially vaccinated patients (ten [7 center dot 4%; 95% CI 3 center dot 5-13 center dot 5] of 136 boosted patients, 18 [9 center dot 8%; 5 center dot 8-15 center dot 5] of 183 patients who had two vaccine doses vs 277 [ 18 center dot 5%; 16 center dot 5-20 center dot 9] of 1489 unvaccinated patients, p=0 center dot 0001), respiratory sequelae (six [4 center dot 4%; 1 center dot 6-9 center dot 6], 11 [6 center dot 0%; 3 center dot 0-10 center dot 7] vs 148 [9 center dot 9%; 8 center dot 4- 11 center dot 6], p= 0 center dot 030), and prolonged fatigue (three [2 center dot 2%; 0 center dot 1-6 center dot 4], ten [5 center dot 4%; 2 center dot 6-10 center dot 0] vs 115 [7 center dot 7%; 6 center dot 3-9 center dot 3], p=0 center dot 037)

The rationale and study design of two phase II trials examining the effects of BI 685,509, a soluble guanylyl cyclase activator, on clinically significant portal hypertension in patients with compensated cirrhosis

Abstract Background Clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH) drives cirrhosis-related complications (i.e. hepatic decompensation). Impaired nitric oxide (NO) bioavailability promotes sinusoidal vasoconstriction, which is the initial pathomechanism of CSPH development. Activation of soluble guanylyl cyclase (sGC), a key downstream effector of NO, facilitates sinusoidal vasodilation, which in turn may improve CSPH. Two phase II studies are being conducted to assess the efficacy of the NO-independent sGC activator BI 685,509 in patients with CSPH due to various cirrhosis aetiologies. Methods The 1366.0021 trial (NCT05161481) is a randomised, placebo-controlled, exploratory study that will assess BI 685,509 (moderate or high dose) for 24 weeks in patients with CSPH due to alcohol-related liver disease. The 1366.0029 trial (NCT05282121) is a randomised, open-label, parallel-group, exploratory study that will assess BI 685,509 (high dose) alone in patients with hepatitis B or C virus infection or non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and in combination with 10 mg empagliflozin in patients with NASH and type 2 diabetes mellitus for 8 weeks. The 1366.0021 trial will enrol 105 patients, and the 1366.0029 trial will enrol 80 patients. In both studies, the primary endpoint is the change from baseline in hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) until the end of treatment (24 or 8 weeks, respectively). Secondary endpoints include the proportion of patients with an HVPG reduction of > 10% from baseline, the development of decompensation events and the change from baseline in HVPG after 8 weeks in the 1366.0021 trial. In addition, the trials will assess changes in liver and spleen stiffness by transient elastography, changes in hepatic and renal function and the tolerability of BI 685,509. Discussion These trials will enable the assessment of the short-term (8 weeks) and longer-term (24 weeks) effects and safety of sGC activation by BI 685,509 on CSPH due to various cirrhosis aetiologies. The trials will use central readings of the diagnostic gold standard HVPG for the primary endpoint, as well as changes in established non-invasive biomarkers, such as liver and spleen stiffness. Ultimately, these trials will provide key information for developing future phase III trials. Trial registration 1366.0021: EudraCT no. 2021–001,285-38; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05161481. Registered on 17 December 2021, https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05161481 . 1366.0029: EudraCT no. 2021–005,171-40; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05282121. Registered on 16 March 2022, https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05282121

Automated quality checks on repeat prescribing.

BACKGROUND: Good clinical practice in primary care includes periodic review of repeat prescriptions. Markers of prescriptions that may need review have been described, but manually checking all repeat prescriptions against the markers would be impractical. AIM: To investigate the feasibility of computerising the application of repeat prescribing quality checks to electronic patient records in United Kingdom (UK) primary care. DESIGN OF STUDY: Software performance test against benchmark manual analysis of cross-sectional convenience sample of prescribing documentation. SETTING: Three general practices in Greater Manchester, in the north west of England, during a 4-month period in 2001. METHOD: A machine-readable drug information resource, based on the British National Formulary (BNF) as the 'gold standard' for valid drug indications, was installed in three practices. Software raised alerts for each repeat prescribed item where the electronic patient record contained no valid indication for the medication. Alerts raised by the software in two practices were analysed manually. Clinical reaction to the software was assessed by semi-structured interviews in three practices. RESULTS: There was no valid indication in the electronic medical records for 14.8% of repeat prescribed items. Sixty-two per cent of all alerts generated were incorrect. Forty-three per cent of all incorrect alerts were as a result of errors in the drug information resource, 44% to locally idiosyncratic clinical coding, 8% to the use of the BNF without adaptation as a gold standard, and 5% to the inability of the system to infer diagnoses that, although unrecorded, would be 'obvious' to a clinical reading the record. The interviewed clinicians supported the goals of the software. CONCLUSION: Using electronic records for secondary decision support purposes will benefit from (and may require) both more consistent electronic clinical data collection across multiple sites, and reconciling clinicians' willingness to infer unstated but 'obvious' diagnoses with the machine's inability to do the same

Specialist palliative and end-of-life care for patients with cancer and SARS-CoV-2 infection: a European perspective

From Crossref journal articles via Jisc Publications RouterHistory: epub 2021-09-02Publication status: PublishedFunder: Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro; FundRef: 10.13039/501100005010; Grant(s): 14230Funder: Wellcome Trust; FundRef: 10.13039/100004440; Grant(s): PS3416Background: Specialist palliative care team (SPCT) involvement has been shown to improve symptom control and end-of-life care for patients with cancer, but little is known as to how these have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Here, we report SPCT involvement during the first wave of the pandemic and compare outcomes for patients with cancer who received and did not receive SPCT input from multiple European cancer centres. Methods: From the OnCovid repository ( N = 1318), we analysed cancer patients aged ⩾18 diagnosed with COVID-19 between 26 February and 22 June 2020 who had complete specialist palliative care team data (SPCT+ referred; SPCT− not referred). Results: Of 555 eligible patients, 317 were male (57.1%), with a median age of 70 years (IQR 20). At COVID-19 diagnosis, 44.7% were on anti-cancer therapy and 53.3% had ⩾1 co-morbidity. Two hundred and six patients received SPCT input for symptom control (80.1%), psychological support (54.4%) and/or advance care planning (51%). SPCT+ patients had more ‘Do not attempt cardio-pulmonary resuscitation’ orders completed prior to (12.6% versus 3.7%) and during admission (50% versus 22.1%, p &lt; 0.001), with more SPCT+ patients deemed suitable for treatment escalation (50% versus 22.1%, p &lt; 0.001). SPCT involvement was associated with higher discharge rates from hospital for end-of-life care (9.7% versus 0%, p &lt; 0.001). End-of-life anticipatory prescribing was higher in SPCT+ patients, with opioids (96.3% versus 47.1%) and benzodiazepines (82.9% versus 41.2%) being used frequently for symptom control. Conclusion: SPCT referral facilitated symptom control, emergency care and discharge planning, as well as high rates of referral for psychological support than previously reported. Our study highlighted the critical need of SPCTs for patients with cancer during the pandemic and should inform service planning for this population

Prevalence and impact of COVID-19 sequelae on treatment and survival of patients with cancer who recovered from SARS-CoV-2 infection: evidence from the OnCovid retrospective, multicentre registry study

Background: The medium-term and long-term impact of COVID-19 in patients with cancer is not yet known. In this study, we aimed to describe the prevalence of COVID-19 sequelae and their impact on the survival of patients with cancer. We also aimed to describe patterns of resumption and modifications of systemic anti-cancer therapy following recovery from SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: OnCovid is an active European registry study enrolling consecutive patients aged 18 years or older with a history of solid or haematological malignancy and who had a diagnosis of RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. For this retrospective study, patients were enrolled from 35 institutions across Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK. Patients who were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection between Feb 27, 2020, and Feb 14, 2021, and entered into the registry at the point of data lock (March 1, 2021), were eligible for analysis. The present analysis was focused on COVID-19 survivors who underwent clinical reassessment at each participating institution. We documented prevalence of COVID-19 sequelae and described factors associated with their development and their association with post-COVID-19 survival, which was defined as the interval from post-COVID-19 reassessment to the patients' death or last follow-up. We also evaluated resumption of systemic anti-cancer therapy in patients treated within 4 weeks of COVID-19 diagnosis. The OnCovid study is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04393974. Findings: 2795 patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection between Feb 27, 2020, and Feb 14, 2021, were entered into the study by the time of the data lock on March 1, 2021. After the exclusion of ineligible patients, the final study population consisted of 2634 patients. 1557 COVID-19 survivors underwent a formal clinical reassessment after a median of 22·1 months (IQR 8·4-57·8) from cancer diagnosis and 44 days (28-329) from COVID-19 diagnosis. 234 (15·0%) patients reported COVID-19 sequelae, including respiratory symptoms (116 [49·6%]) and residual fatigue (96 [41·0%]). Sequelae were more common in men (vs women; p=0·041), patients aged 65 years or older (vs other age groups; p=0·048), patients with two or more comorbidities (vs one or none; p=0·0006), and patients with a history of smoking (vs no smoking history; p=0·0004). Sequelae were associated with hospitalisation for COVID-19 (p&lt;0·0001), complicated COVID-19 (p&lt;0·0001), and COVID-19 therapy (p=0·0002). With a median post-COVID-19 follow-up of 128 days (95% CI 113-148), COVID-19 sequelae were associated with an increased risk of death (hazard ratio [HR] 1·80 [95% CI 1·18-2·75]) after adjusting for time to post-COVID-19 reassessment, sex, age, comorbidity burden, tumour characteristics, anticancer therapy, and COVID-19 severity. Among 466 patients on systemic anti-cancer therapy, 70 (15·0%) permanently discontinued therapy, and 178 (38·2%) resumed treatment with a dose or regimen adjustment. Permanent treatment discontinuations were independently associated with an increased risk of death (HR 3·53 [95% CI 1·45-8·59]), but dose or regimen adjustments were not (0·84 [0·35-2·02]). Interpretation: Sequelae post-COVID-19 affect up to 15% of patients with cancer and adversely affect survival and oncological outcomes after recovery. Adjustments to systemic anti-cancer therapy can be safely pursued in treatment-eligible patients