Search

Introduction: Identifying the complexity of palliative care needs is a key aspect of referral to specialized multidisciplinary early palliative care (EPC) teams. The PALCOM scale is an instrument consisting of five multidimensional assessment domains developed in 2018 and validated in 2023 to identify the level of complexity in patients with advanced cancer. (1) Objectives: The main objective of this study was to determine the degree of instability (likelihood of level change or death), health resource consumption and the survival of patients according to the level of palliative complexity assigned at the baseline visit during a 6-month follow-up. (2) Method: An observational, prospective, multicenter study was conducted using pooled data from the development and validation cohort of the PALCOM scale. The main outcome variables were as follows: (a) instability ratio (IR), defined as the probability of level change or death; (b) emergency department visits; (c) days of hospitalization; (d) hospital death; (e) survival. All the variables were analyzed monthly according to the level of complexity assigned at the baseline visit. (3) Results: A total of 607 patients with advanced cancer were enrolled. According to the PALCOM scale, 20% of patients were classified as low complexity, 50% as medium and 30% as high complexity. The overall IR was 45% in the low complexity group, 68% in the medium complexity group and 78% in the high complexity group ( p < 0.001). No significant differences in mean monthly emergency department visits (0.2 visits/ patient/month) were observed between the different levels of complexity. The mean number of days spent in hospital per month was 1.5 in the low complexity group, 1.8 in the medium complexity group and 3.2 in the high complexity group ( p < 0.001). The likelihood of in-hospital death was significantly higher in the high complexity group (29%) compared to the medium (16%) and low (8%) complexity groups ( p < 0.001). Six-month survival was significantly lower in the high complexity group (24%) compared to the medium (37%) and low (57%) complexity groups ( p < 0.001)., Conclusion: According to the PALCOM scale, more complex cases are associated with greater instability and use of hospital resources and lower survival. The data also confirm that the PALCOM scale is a consistent and useful tool for describing complexity profiles, targeting referrals to the EPC and managing the intensity of shared care.

Background: Despite the increasing number of ICU admissions among patients with solid tumours, there is a lack of tools with which to identify patients who may benefit from critical support. We aim to characterize the clinical profile and outcomes of patients with solid malignancies admitted to the ICU., Methods: Retrospective observational study of patients with cancer non-electively admitted to the ICU of the Hospital Clinic of Barcelona (Spain) between January 2019 and December 2019. Data regarding patient and neoplasm characteristics, ICU admission features and outcomes were collected from medical records., Results: 97 ICU admissions of 84 patients were analysed. Lung cancer (22.6%) was the most frequent neoplasm. Most of the patients had metastatic disease (79.5%) and were receiving oncological treatment (75%). The main reason for ICU admission was respiratory failure (38%). Intra-ICU and in-hospital mortality rates were 9.4% and 24%, respectively. Mortality rates at 1, 3 and 6 months were 19.6%, 36.1% and 53.6%. Liver metastasis, gastrointestinal cancer, hypoalbuminemia, elevated basal C-reactive protein, ECOG-PS greater than 2 at ICU admission, admission from ward and an APACHE II score over 14 were related to higher mortality. Functional status was severely affected at discharge, and oncological treatment was definitively discontinued in 40% of the patients., Conclusion: Medium-term mortality and functional deterioration of patients with solid cancers non-electively admitted to the ICU are high. Surrogate markers of cachexia, liver metastasis and poor ECOG-PS at ICU admission are risk factors for mortality.

We aimed to describe the characteristics and outcomes of biliary source bloodstream infections (BSIs) in oncological patients. Secondarily, we analyzed risk factors for recurrent BSI episodes. All episodes of biliary source BSIs in oncological patients were prospectively collected (2008-2019) and retrospectively analyzed. Logistic regression analyses were performed. A rule to stratify patients into risk groups for recurrent biliary source BSI was conducted. Four hundred biliary source BSIs were documented in 291 oncological patients. The most frequent causative agents were Escherichia coli (42%) and Klebsiella spp. (27%), and 86 (21.5%) episodes were caused by multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacilli (MDR-GNB). The rates of MDR-GNB increased over time. Overall, 73 patients developed 118 recurrent BSI episodes. Independent risk factors for recurrent BSI episodes were prior antibiotic therapy (OR 3.781, 95% CI 1.906-7.503), biliary prosthesis (OR 2.232, 95% CI 1.157-4.305), prior admission due to suspected biliary source infection (OR 4.409, 95% CI 2.338-8.311), and BSI episode caused by an MDR-GNB (OR 2.857, 95% CI 1.389-5.874). With these variables, a score was generated that predicted recurrent biliary source BSI with an area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of 0.819. Inappropriate empirical antibiotic treatment (IEAT) was administered in 23.8% of patients, and 30-d mortality was 19.5%. As a conclusion, biliary source BSI in oncological patients is mainly caused by GNB, with high and increasing MDR rates, frequent IEAT, and high mortality. Recurrent BSI episodes are frequent. A simple score to identify recurrent episodes was developed to potentially establish prophylactic strategies. IMPORTANCE This study shows that biliary source bloodstream infections (BSIs) in oncological patients are mainly caused by Gram-negative bacilli (GNB), with high and increasing rates of multidrug resistance. Importantly, recurrent biliary source BSI episodes were very frequent and associated with delays in chemotherapy, high rates of inappropriate empirical antibiotic therapy, and high 30-d mortality (19.5%). Using the variable independently associated with recurrent BSI episodes, a score was generated that predicted recurrent biliary source BSI with high accuracy. This score could be used to establish prophylactic strategies and lower the risk of relapsing episodes and the associated morbidity and mortality.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have revolutionized the landscape of cancer treatment. Although several studies have shown that ICIs have a better safety profile than chemotherapy, some patients develop immune-related adverse events (irAEs), which require specialized and multidisciplinary management. Since ICI indications are rapidly increasing, it is crucial that clinicians involved in cancer care learn to identify irAEs and manage them properly. Here, we report a case series of 23 patients with severe irAEs requiring hospitalization over a period of 12 months and seize the opportunity to review and update different general features related to irAEs along with the management of the most frequent severe irAEs in our series., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Background: Fifteen percent of patients with cancer experience symptomatic sequelae, which impair post-COVID-19 outcomes. In this study, we investigated whether a proinflammatory status is associated with the development of COVID-19 sequelae., Methods: OnCovid recruited 2795 consecutive patients who were diagnosed with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 infection between February 27, 2020, and February 14, 2021. This analysis focused on COVID-19 survivors who underwent a clinical reassessment after the exclusion of patients with hematological malignancies. We evaluated the association of inflammatory markers collected at COVID-19 diagnosis with sequelae, considering the impact of previous systemic anticancer therapy. All statistical tests were 2-sided., Results: Of 1339 eligible patients, 203 experienced at least 1 sequela (15.2%). Median baseline C-reactive protein (CRP; 77.5 mg/L vs 22.2 mg/L, P < .001), lactate dehydrogenase (310 UI/L vs 274 UI/L, P = .03), and the neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR; 6.0 vs 4.3, P = .001) were statistically significantly higher among patients who experienced sequelae, whereas no association was reported for the platelet to lymphocyte ratio and the OnCovid Inflammatory Score, which includes albumin and lymphocytes. The widest area under the ROC curve (AUC) was reported for baseline CRP (AUC = 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.63 to 0.69), followed by the NLR (AUC = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.55 to 0.61) and lactate dehydrogenase (AUC = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.52 to 0.61). Using a fixed categorical multivariable analysis, high CRP (odds ratio [OR] = 2.56, 95% CI: 1.67 to 3.91) and NLR (OR = 1.45, 95% CI: 1.01 to 2.10) were confirmed to be statistically significantly associated with an increased risk of sequelae. Exposure to chemotherapy was associated with a decreased risk of sequelae (OR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.36 to 0.91), whereas no associations with immune checkpoint inhibitors, endocrine therapy, and other types of systemic anticancer therapy were found., Conclusions: Although the association between inflammatory status, recent chemotherapy and sequelae warrants further investigation, our findings suggest that a deranged proinflammatory reaction at COVID-19 diagnosis may predict for sequelae development., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Effective and safe therapies are needed for the treatment of patients with giant cell arteritis (GCA). Emerging as a key cytokine in inflammation, granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF) may play a role in promoting inflammation in GCA., Objectives: To investigate expression of GM-CSF and its receptor in arterial lesions from patients with GCA. To analyse activation of GM-CSF receptor-associated signalling pathways and expression of target genes. To evaluate the effects of blocking GM-CSF receptor α with mavrilimumab in ex vivo cultured arteries from patients with GCA., Methods: Quantitative real time PCR, in situ RNA hybridisation, immunohistochemistry, immunofluorescence and confocal microscopy, immunoassay, western blot and ex vivo temporal artery culture., Results: GM-CSF and GM-CSF receptor α mRNA and protein were increased in GCA lesions; enhanced JAK2/STAT5A expression/phosphorylation as well as increased expression of target genes CD83 and Spi1/PU.1 were observed. Treatment of ex vivo cultured GCA arteries with mavrilimumab resulted in decreased transcripts of CD3ε, CD20, CD14 and CD16 cell markers, and reduction of infiltrating CD16 and CD3ε cells was observed by immunofluorescence. Mavrilimumab reduced expression of molecules relevant to T cell activation (human leukocyte antigen-DR [HLA-DR]) and Th1 differentiation (interferon-γ), the pro-inflammatory cytokines: interleukin 6 (IL-6), tumour necrosis factor α (TNFα) and IL-1β, as well as molecules related to vascular injury (matrix metalloprotease 9, lipid peroxidation products and inducible nitric oxide synthase [iNOS]). Mavrilimumab reduced CD34 + cells and neoangiogenesis in GCA lesions., Conclusion: The inhibitory effects of mavrilimumab on multiple steps in the GCA pathogenesis cascade in vitro are consistent with the clinical observation of reduced GCA flares in a phase 2 trial and support its development as a therapeutic option for patients with GCA., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SM, AJ and AD’A report employment by Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals Corp. during development of the manuscript. KB and JFP report current employment by Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals Corp. MCC reports consulting fees from GSK, Abbvie, Vifor and Janssen, and a research grant from Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals Corp. GE-F reports consulting fees from Janssen., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Importance: Whether the severity and mortality of COVID-19 in patients with cancer have improved in terms of disease management and capacity is yet to be defined., Objective: To test whether severity and mortality from COVID-19 among patients with cancer have improved during the course of the pandemic., Design, Setting, and Participants: OnCovid is a European registry that collects data on consecutive patients with solid or hematologic cancer and COVID-19. This multicenter case series study included real-world data from 35 institutions across 6 countries (UK, Italy, Spain, France, Belgium, and Germany). This update included patients diagnosed between February 27, 2020, and February, 14, 2021. Inclusion criteria were confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and a history of solid or hematologic cancer., Exposures: SARS-CoV-2 infection., Main Outcomes and Measures: Deaths were differentiated at 14 days and 3 months as the 2 landmark end points. Patient characteristics and outcomes were compared by stratifying patients across 5 phases (February to March 2020, April to June 2020, July to September 2020, October to December 2020, and January to February 2021) and across 2 major outbreaks (February to June 2020 and July 2020 to February 2021)., Results: At data cutoff, 2795 consecutive patients were included, with 2634 patients eligible for analysis (median [IQR] age, 68 [18-77] years ; 52.8% men). Eligible patients demonstrated significant time-dependent improvement in 14-day case-fatality rate (CFR) with estimates of 29.8% (95% CI, 0.26-0.33) for February to March 2020; 20.3% (95% CI, 0.17-0.23) for April to June 2020; 12.5% (95% CI, 0.06-22.90) for July to September 2020; 17.2% (95% CI, 0.15-0.21) for October to December 2020; and 14.5% (95% CI, 0.09-0.21) for January to February 2021 (all P < .001) across the predefined phases. Compared with the second major outbreak, patients diagnosed in the first outbreak were more likely to be 65 years or older (974 of 1626 [60.3%] vs 564 of 1008 [56.1%]; P = .03), have at least 2 comorbidities (793 of 1626 [48.8%] vs 427 of 1008 [42.4%]; P = .001), and have advanced tumors (708 of 1626 [46.4%] vs 536 of 1008 [56.1%]; P < .001). Complications of COVID-19 were more likely to be seen (738 of 1626 [45.4%] vs 342 of 1008 [33.9%]; P < .001) and require hospitalization (969 of 1626 [59.8%] vs 418 of 1008 [42.1%]; P < .001) and anti-COVID-19 therapy (1004 of 1626 [61.7%] vs 501 of 1008 [49.7%]; P < .001) during the first major outbreak. The 14-day CFRs for the first and second major outbreaks were 25.6% (95% CI, 0.23-0.28) vs 16.2% (95% CI, 0.13-0.19; P < .001), respectively. After adjusting for country, sex, age, comorbidities, tumor stage and status, anti-COVID-19 and anticancer therapy, and COVID-19 complications, patients diagnosed in the first outbreak had an increased risk of death at 14 days (hazard ratio [HR], 1.85; 95% CI, 1.47-2.32) and 3 months (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.08-1.51) compared with those diagnosed in the second outbreak., Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this registry-based study suggest that mortality in patients with cancer diagnosed with COVID-19 has improved in Europe; this improvement may be associated with earlier diagnosis, improved management, and dynamic changes in community transmission over time.

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<0·0001), complicated COVID-19 (p<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., Funding: National Institute for Health Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and the Cancer Treatment and Research Trust., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests DJP reports lecture fees from ViiV Healthcare, Bayer Healthcare, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Eisai, and Falk Foundation; travel expenses from Bristol Myers Squibb and Bayer Healthcare; consulting fees from Mina Therapeutics, Eisai, Roche, DaVolterra, and Astra Zeneca; and research funding (to institution) from Merck Sharp and Dohme and Bristol Myers Squibb, outside of the submitted work. MLa acted as consultant for Roche, Novartis, Lilly, and AstraZeneca, outside of the submitted work, and received speaker honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, Takeda, and Sandoz, outside of the submitted work. EF reports research funding to institution from Pfizer, outside of the submitted work, and travel expenses from Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and Esai, outside of the submitted work. TN-D reports consulting fees from Amgen, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Otsuka, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda, outside of the submitted work; speakers fees from AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Roche, and Takeda, outside of the submitted work; and travel, accommodation, and expenses from AstraZenca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Otsuka, Roche, and Takeda, outside of the submitted work. JB reports consulting fees for Merck Sharp and Dohme and Astra Zeneca, outside of the submitted work. APr reports personal honoraria from Pfizer, Roche, Merck Sharp and Dohme Oncology, Eli Lilly, and Daiichi Sankyo, outside of the submitted work; travel, accommodations, and expenses by Daiichi Sankyo, outside of the submitted work; research funding (to institution) from Roche and Novartis, outside of the submitted work; and consulting fees from NanoString Technologies, Amgen, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, and Bristol-Myers Squibb, outside of the submitted work. APar reports consulting fees from Takeda and Novartis, outside of the submitted work. MT reports travel grants from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, and Takeda, outside of the submitted work; and honoraria as a medical writer from Novartis and Amgen, outside the submitted work. AG reports consulting fees from Roche, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Eli Lilly, Pierre Fabre, Eisai, and Daichii Sankyo, outside the submitted work; speakers bureau for Eisai, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Roche, Teva, Gentili, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Celgene, and Daichii Sankyo, outside the submitted work; research funds (to institution) from Eisai, Eli Lilly, and Roche, outside the submitted work; support for attending meetings or travel from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, and Roche, outside the submitted work; and personal research funding from Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro Foundation UPO aging project, outside the submitted work. GG reports personal research funding outside of the submitted work from Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro Foundation, outside the submitted work; consulting fees from Janssen, Abbvie, AstraZeneca, and BeiGene, outside the submitted work; and speaker fees from Janssen and Abbvie, outside the submitted work. LR reports consulting fees from Servier, Amgen, ArQule, AstraZeneca, Basilea, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eisai, Exelixis, Genenta, Hengrui, Incyte, Ipsen, IQVIA, Lilly, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, Sanofi, and Zymeworks, outside the submitted work; lecture fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Bayer, Eisai, Gilead, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, Merck Serono, Roche, and Sanofi, outside the submitted work; travel expenses from Ipsen, outside the submitted work; and institutional research funding (to institution) from Agios, ARMO BioSciences, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Eisai, Exelixis, Fibrogen, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, and Zymeworks, outside the submitted work. JT reports having a scientific consultancy role for Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Avvinity, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, F Hoffmann-La Roche, Genentech, HalioDX, Hutchison MediPharma, Ikena Oncology, IQVIA, Lilly, Menarini, Merck Serono, Merus, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Mirati, Neophore, Novartis, Orion Biotechnology, Peptomyc, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Servier, Taiho, Tessa Therapeutics, and TheraMyc, outside of the submitted work; educational collaboration with Imedex, Medscape Education, MJH Life Sciences, PeerView Institute for Medical Education and Physicians Education Resource, outside of the submitted work; and institutional financial interest in form of financial support for clinical trials or contracted research for Amgen, Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Debiopharm International, F Hoffmann-La Roche, Genentech, HalioDX, Hutchison MediPharma International, Janssen-Cilag, MedImmune, Menarini, Merck Healt, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Merus, Mirati, Novartis Farmacéutica, Pfizer, Pharma Mar, Sanofi Aventis Recherche & Développement, Servier, Taiho, Spanish Association Against Cancer Scientific Foundation, and Cancer Research UK, outside the submitted work. ACo reports consulting fees from Merck Sharp and Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, and Roche, outside the submitted work; and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, and Astellas, outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The main aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of ethical dilemmas in the end-of-life process in advanced cancer patients., Methods: We carried out a multicenter, cross-sectional, observational, prospective study in a cohort of cancer patients whose life expectancy was ≤ 6 months. We recorded sociodemographic characteristics, diagnosis of cancer, symptom burden, cognitive and functional status, emotional impact, and sociofamilial risk factors. The main outcome measure was the detection of ethical dilemmas, based on the following definition: conflict in decision-making during the end-of-life process that involves the need to choose between morally acceptable opposing options, where none is clearly preferable to another., Results: We included 324 patients (mean age, 69 years; 58% men). We identified 117 dilemmas in 90 patients (27.8%). The dilemmas detected were as follows: (a) conflicts of information (adaptive denial, conspiracy of silence, information exceeding patient's desired limit), 15.7%; (b) discrepancies in proportionality (discussion on futility, rejection of treatment, withdrawal of life support measures), 16.7%; (c) unrealistic expectations about the outcome of clinical trials, 2.5%; and (d) request for euthanasia or medically assisted suicide, 1.2%. We observed a greater prevalence of ethical dilemmas in men, in patients receiving active cancer treatment, and in patients with emotional distress (p < 0.05)., Conclusions: The prevalence of ethical dilemmas during the end-of-life process in cancer patients is relevant. Most dilemmas were associated directly or indirectly with respect for patient autonomy. In this context, the communication skills of the health professionals and advanced care planning take on a key role.

Background: Despite high contagiousness and rapid spread, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has led to heterogeneous outcomes across affected nations. Within Europe (EU), the United Kingdom (UK) is the most severely affected country, with a death toll in excess of 100,000 as of January 2021. We aimed to compare the national impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the risk of death in UK patients with cancer versus those in continental EU., Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of the OnCovid study database, a European registry of patients with cancer consecutively diagnosed with COVID-19 in 27 centres from 27th February to 10th September 2020. We analysed case fatality rates and risk of death at 30 days and 6 months stratified by region of origin (UK versus EU). We compared patient characteristics at baseline including oncological and COVID-19-specific therapy across UK and EU cohorts and evaluated the association of these factors with the risk of adverse outcomes in multivariable Cox regression models., Findings: Compared with EU (n = 924), UK patients (n = 468) were characterised by higher case fatality rates (40.38% versus 26.5%, p < 0.0001) and higher risk of death at 30 days (hazard ratio [HR], 1.64 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.36-1.99]) and 6 months after COVID-19 diagnosis (47.64% versus 33.33%; p < 0.0001; HR, 1.59 [95% CI, 1.33-1.88]). UK patients were more often men, were of older age and have more comorbidities than EU counterparts (p < 0.01). Receipt of anticancer therapy was lower in UK than in EU patients (p < 0.001). Despite equal proportions of complicated COVID-19, rates of intensive care admission and use of mechanical ventilation, UK patients with cancer were less likely to receive anti-COVID-19 therapies including corticosteroids, antivirals and interleukin-6 antagonists (p < 0.0001). Multivariable analyses adjusted for imbalanced prognostic factors confirmed the UK cohort to be characterised by worse risk of death at 30 days and 6 months, independent of the patient's age, gender, tumour stage and status; number of comorbidities; COVID-19 severity and receipt of anticancer and anti-COVID-19 therapy. Rates of permanent cessation of anticancer therapy after COVID-19 were similar in the UK and EU cohorts., Interpretation: UK patients with cancer have been more severely impacted by the unfolding of the COVID-19 pandemic despite societal risk mitigation factors and rapid deferral of anticancer therapy. The increased frailty of UK patients with cancer highlights high-risk groups that should be prioritised for anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Continued evaluation of long-term outcomes is warranted., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement D.J.P. received lecture fees from ViiV Healthcare and Bayer Healthcare, travel expenses from BMS and Bayer Healthcare; consulting fees for MiNA Therapeutics, EISAI, Roche and AstraZeneca and research funding (to the institution) from MSD and BMS. A.P. has declared personal honoraria from Pfizer, Roche, MSD Oncology, Eli Lilly and Daiichi Sankyo; travel, accommodations and expenses paid by Daiichi Sankyo; research funding from Roche and Novartis and a consulting/advisory role for NanoString Technologies, Amgen, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer and Bristol Myers Squibb. T.N-D. has declared a consulting/advisory role for Amgen, Bayer, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Otsuka, Pfizer, Roche and Takeda; speaker fees from AstraZeneca, MSD, Roche, Takeda and travel, accommodations and expenses paid by AstraZenca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, MSD, Otsuka, Roche and Takeda. J.B. has declared a consulting/advisory role for MSD and AstraZeneca. PPS has declared a consulting/advisory role for Sanofi and AbbVie. A.P. has declared a consulting/advisory role for Takeda and Sanofi. MP has declared a consulting/advisory role for Gilead and Bayer. A.G. has declared a consulting/advisory role for Roche, MSD, Eli Lilly, Pierre Fabre, EISAI and Daiichi Sankyo; is on the speaker's bureau for Eisai, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Roche, Teva, Gentili, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Celgene and Daiichi Sankyo and declared research funds from EISAI, Eli Lilly and Roche. C.M.-V. has received travel grants and other honoraria from BMS, MSD, Novartis and Roche. L.R. received consulting fees from Amgen, ArQule, AstraZeneca, Basilea, Bayer, BMS, Celgene, Eisai, Exelixis, Genenta, Hengrui, Incyte, Ipsen, IQVIA, Lilly, MSD, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, Sanofi and Zymeworks; lecture fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Bayer, Eisai, Gilead, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, Merck Serono, Roche and Sanofi; travel expenses from Ipsen and institutional research funding from Agios, ARMO BioSciences, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Eisai, Exelixis, FibroGen, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, MSD, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche and Zymeworks. J.T. reports personal financial interest in form of a scientific consultancy role for Array BioPharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., Genentech, Inc., HalioDX SAS, Ikena Oncology, IQVIA, Imedex, Lilly, Menarini, Merck Serono, Merus, MSD, Mirati, NeoPhore, Novartis, Orion Biotechnology, Peptomyc, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Servier, Taiho, Tessa Therapeutics and TheraMyc. A.C. received consulting fees from MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca, Roche and speakers' fee from AstraZeneca, MSD, Novartis and Astellas. All the remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate the incidence and characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 infection among patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and to compare it to that described in the general population., Methods: For 5 weeks, we carried out a cross-sectional study consisting of telephone interviews of SLE patients. We collected epidemiological data, symptoms suggesting COVID-19, results of nasopharyngeal swabs, and ongoing treatments. In those patients who required hospital admission, clinical, radiological, and laboratory features, and outcome were investigated., Results: Four hundred patients with SLE completed the survey. Overall, 4 (1.00%, 95%CI 0.02-1.98) patients were classified as confirmed cases of COVID-19 and 26 (6.51%, 95%CI 4.08-8.94) as possible clinical cases. The incidence of confirmed cases in our series was similar to that of the Catalan population (1.00% versus 0.63%; p = 0.456), whereas the incidence of possible cases was higher in our series (6.51% versus 1.29%; p < 0.005). The only difference between SLE patients with confirmed and possible COVID-19 and those without was the percentage of patients who have had contact with a confirmed or possible case of COVID-19 (26.7% versus 9.2%; p = 0.003) CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of COVID-19 in SLE patients with inactive disease is low and, in our series, all cases with confirmed infection recovered. Key Points • In a cohort of SLE patients with stable and clinical inactive disease, the incidence of COVID-19 is low. • All SLE patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection recovered.

Background: Patients with cancer are particularly susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection. The systemic inflammatory response is a pathogenic mechanism shared by cancer progression and COVID-19. We investigated systemic inflammation as a driver of severity and mortality from COVID-19, evaluating the prognostic role of commonly used inflammatory indices in SARS-CoV-2-infected patients with cancer accrued to the OnCovid study., Methods: In a multicenter cohort of SARS-CoV-2-infected patients with cancer in Europe, we evaluated dynamic changes in neutrophil:lymphocyte ratio (NLR); platelet:lymphocyte ratio (PLR); Prognostic Nutritional Index (PNI), renamed the OnCovid Inflammatory Score (OIS); modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS); and Prognostic Index (PI) in relation to oncological and COVID-19 infection features, testing their prognostic potential in independent training (n=529) and validation (n=542) sets., Results: We evaluated 1071 eligible patients, of which 625 (58.3%) were men, and 420 were patients with malignancy in advanced stage (39.2%), most commonly genitourinary (n=216, 20.2%). 844 (78.8%) had ≥1 comorbidity and 754 (70.4%) had ≥1 COVID-19 complication. NLR, OIS, and mGPS worsened at COVID-19 diagnosis compared with pre-COVID-19 measurement (p<0.01), recovering in survivors to pre-COVID-19 levels. Patients in poorer risk categories for each index except the PLR exhibited higher mortality rates (p<0.001) and shorter median overall survival in the training and validation sets (p<0.01). Multivariable analyses revealed the OIS to be most independently predictive of survival (validation set HR 2.48, 95% CI 1.47 to 4.20, p=0.001; adjusted concordance index score 0.611)., Conclusions: Systemic inflammation is a validated prognostic domain in SARS-CoV-2-infected patients with cancer and can be used as a bedside predictor of adverse outcome. Lymphocytopenia and hypoalbuminemia as computed by the OIS are independently predictive of severe COVID-19, supporting their use for risk stratification. Reversal of the COVID-19-induced proinflammatory state is a putative therapeutic strategy in patients with cancer., Competing Interests: Competing interests: DJP received lecture fees from ViiV Healthcare and Bayer Healthcare and travel expenses from BMS and Bayer Healthcare; consulting fees for Mina Therapeutics, EISAI, Roche, and Astra Zeneca; research funding (to institution) from MSD and BMS. AP has declared personal honoraria from Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, MSD Oncology, Eli Lilly, and Daiichi Sankyo; travel, accommodations, and expenses paid by Daiichi Sankyo; research funding from Roche and Novartis; and consulting/advisory role for NanoString Technologies, Amgen, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer and Bristol-Myers Squibb. TND has declared consulting/advisory role for Amgen, Bayer, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Otsuka, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda; speakers fees from AstraZeneca, MSD, Roche, Takeda; and travel, accommodations and expenses paid by AstraZenca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, MSD, Otsuka, Roche, and Takeda. JB has declared consulting/advisory role for MSD and Astra Zeneca. PPS has declared consulting/advisory role for Sanofi and Abbvie. AP has declared consulting/advisory role for Takeda and Sanofi. MP has declared consulting/advisory role for Gilead and Bayer. AG has declared consulting/advisory role for Roche, MSD, Eli Lilly, Pierre Fabre, EISAI, and Daichii Sankyo; speakers bureau for Eisai, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Roche, Teva, Gentili, Pfizer, Astra Zeneca, Celgene, and Daichii Sankyo; research funds: EISAI, Eli Lilly, and Roche. LR reports receiving consulting fees from Amgen, ArQule, AstraZeneca, Basilea, Bayer, Celgene, Eisai, Exelixis, Hengrui, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, MSD, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, and Sanofi; lectures fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Eisai, Gilead, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, Roche, and Sanofi; travel fees from Ipsen; and institutional research funding from Agios, ARMO BioSciences, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Eisai, Exelixis, Fibrogen, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, MSD, and Roche. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

We describe the outcomes in cancer patients during the initial outbreak of the COVID-19 in Europe from the retrospective, multi-center observational OnCovid study. We identified 204 cancer patients from eight centers in the United Kingdom, Italy, and Spain aged > 18 (mean = 69) and diagnosed with COVID-19 between February 26th and April 1st, 2020. A total of 127 (62%) were male, 184 (91%) had a diagnosis of solid malignancy, and 103 (51%) had non-metastatic disease. A total of 161 (79%) had > 1 co-morbidity. A total of 141 (69%) patients had > 1 COVID-19 complication. A total of 36 (19%) were escalated to high-dependency or intensive care. A total of 59 (29%) died, 53 (26%) were discharged, and 92 (45%) were in-hospital survivors. Mortality was higher in patients aged > 65 (36% versus 16%), in those with > 2 co-morbidities (40% versus 18%) and developing > 1 complication from COVID-19 (38% versus 4%, p = 0.004). Multi-variable analyses confirmed age > 65 and > 2 co-morbidities to predict for patient mortality independent of tumor stage, active malignancy, or anticancer therapy. During the early outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Europe co-morbid burden and advancing age predicted for adverse disease course in cancer patients. The ongoing OnCovid study will allow us to compare risks and outcomes in cancer patients between the initial and later stages of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Fusarium infections are very rare in HIV-infected patients, even in patients in advanced stages of immunosuppression. All the reported cases in the literature are of disseminated infection, and with poor outcomes despite prompt and appropriate treatment. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of a localized infection with Fusarium keratoplasticum in an HIV-positive patient, successfully treated with a combination of antifungal therapy and surgical removal of the focus.

Background: Osteopontin (OPN) is a glycoprotein involved in Th1 and Th17 differentiation, tissue inflammation and remodelling. We explored the role of serum OPN (sOPN) as a biomarker in patients with giant cell arteritis (GCA)., Methods: sOPN was measured by immunoassay in 76 treatment-naïve patients with GCA and 25 age-matched and sex-matched controls. In 36 patients, a second measurement was performed after 1 year of glucocorticoid treatment. Baseline clinical and laboratory findings, as well as relapses and glucocorticoid requirements during follow-up, were prospectively recorded. sOPN and C reactive protein (CRP) were measured in 32 additional patients in remission treated with glucocorticoids or tocilizumab (interleukin 6 (IL-6) receptor antagonist). In cultured temporal arteries exposed and unexposed to tocilizumab, OPN mRNA expression and protein production were measured by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and immunoassay, respectively., Results: sOPN concentration (ng/mL; mean±SD) was significantly elevated in patients with active disease (116.75±65.61) compared with controls (41.10±22.65; p<0.001). A significant decline in sOPN was observed in paired samples as patients entered disease remission (active disease 102.45±57.72, remission 46.47±23.49; p<0.001). sOPN correlated with serum IL-6 (r=0.55; p<0.001). Baseline sOPN concentrations were significantly higher in relapsing versus non-relapsing patients (relapsers 129.08±74.24, non-relapsers 90.63±41.02; p=0.03). OPN mRNA expression and protein production in cultured arteries were not significantly modified by tocilizumab. In tocilizumab-treated patients, CRP became undetectable, whereas sOPN was similar in patients in tocilizumab-maintained (51.91±36.25) or glucocorticoid-maintained remission (50.65±23.59; p=0.49)., Conclusions: sOPN is a marker of disease activity and a predictor of relapse in GCA. Since OPN is not exclusively IL-6-dependent, sOPN might be a suitable disease activity biomarker in tocilizumab-treated patients., Competing Interests: Competing interests: GE-F, SP-G, JH-R, SHU and MCC have participated in the GiACTA trial sponsored by Hoffmann-La Roche. MCC has received consultation fees from Hoffman-La Roche.

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-associated vasculitis is a rare secondary systemic vasculitis involving small and medium arteries. We report a 42-year-old man with uncontrolled HIV infection presenting with long-lasting abdominal pain. An abdominal CT angiography revealed multiple microaneurysms and stenoses in intrarenal arteries, with involvement of mesenteric and hepatic arteries. HIV-associated vasculitis was diagnosed and glucocorticoids and raltegravir-based antiretroviral therapy were administered with good initial clinical and virological response. Several episodes of acute intestinal ischaemia were later developed requiring bowel resections of which histological examination showed vascular occlusive fibrotic changes without active vasculitic lesions. Vasculitis persisted in remission and intrarenal microaneurysms disappeared.