Search

Background During the first epidemic wave, COVID-19 surveillance focused on quantifying the magnitude and the escalation of a growing global health crisis. The scientific community first assessed risk through basic indicators, such as the number of cases or rates of new cases and deaths, and later began using other direct impact indicators to conduct more detailed analyses. We aimed at synthesizing the scientific community's contribution to assessing the direct impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on population health through indicators reported in research papers. Methods We conducted a rapid scoping review to identify and describe health indicators included in articles published between January 2020 and June 2021, using one strategy to search PubMed, EMBASE and WHO COVID-19 databases. Sixteen experts from European public health institutions screened papers and retrieved indicator characteristics. We also asked in an online survey how the health indicators were added to and used in policy documents in Europe. Results After reviewing 3891 records, we selected a final sample of 67 articles and 233 indicators. We identified 52 (22.3%) morbidity indicators from 33 articles, 105 severity indicators (45.1%, 27 articles) and 68 mortality indicators (29.2%, 51). Respondents from 22 countries completed 31 questionnaires, and the majority reported morbidity indicators (29, 93.5%), followed by mortality indicators (26, 83.9%). Conclusions The indicators collated here might be useful to assess the impact of future pandemics. Therefore, their measurement should be standardized to allow for comparisons between settings, countries and different populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background This study aimed to describe the mortality excess during the three first epidemic periods of COVID-19 in all regions of France. Methods Two complementary approaches were implemented. First, we described the number of death of patients infected with or diagnosed with COVID-19 in health care (HC) and medico-social (MS) institutions. Then, we estimated general all-cause mortality excess (all ages) by comparing the mortality observed with the expected mortality. We used a daily number of death model according to a negative binomial distribution, as a function of the long-term trend in mortality (penalized spline function of time) and its seasonal variation (cyclic spline function). The model provided expected mortality during epidemic periods with a 95% credibility interval. Each region defined three epidemic periods, including the overseas territories. Results The two approaches were consistent in the most affected regions but there are major regional disparities that vary according to the epidemic period. There is an east–west gradient in the relative excess of deaths from all-causes during each epidemic period. The deaths observed in HC and MS institutions alone do not explain the excess (or deficit) of mortality in each region and epidemic period. Conclusion An analysis by age group according to the two approaches and a comparison of death specific causes could provide a better understanding of these differences. Electronic death registration system (mortality by medical causes) would allow a rapid mortality related estimation to an emerging pathology like Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) but is still insufficient for real-time medical causes of death monitoring. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Fatigue is common in patients undergoing radiotherapy (RT) and can significantly impact quality of life. Melatonin, a safe inexpensive natural supplement, may improve symptoms and attenuate the side effects of RT. The purpose of this randomized double-blind placebo-controlled phase III trial was to assess the effects of melatonin for preventing fatigue and other symptoms in patients with breast cancer undergoing RT. Methods Female early stage or Ductal carcinoma in situ patients with breast cancer ≥18 years of age with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status <3, hemoglobin ≥9 g/dL, planned for outpatient RT treatment with curative intent, were randomized 1:1 to melatonin 20 mg or placebo, orally, starting the night before RT initiation until 2 weeks post-RT. Randomization was stratified according to treatment duration (<3 weeks, ≥3 weeks) and prior chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue scale), and secondary endpoints were FACIT-F subscales, Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) scores obtained at baseline, and 2 and 8 weeks post-RT. A 2-sided ANOVA F -test at a 4.5% significance level for the primary endpoint was used. Secondary analyses were reported using an F -test at a 5% significance level. The goal was to recruit approximately 140 patients with interim analysis planned mid-recruitment. Results Eighty-five patients were screened for eligibility; 79 patients were randomized: 40 to melatonin and 39 to placebo; 78 patients were treated and included in the interim analysis at the mid-recruitment point. Baseline patient characteristics of age, race, and ECOG performance status were similar in both arms. The treatment effect was studied using a longitudinal mixed effects model with the effect of treatment over time (treatment × time) as the primary outcome parameter. The treatment × time for FACIT-Fatigue did not demonstrate statistical significance (P -value.83) in the melatonin group compared to placebo. In addition, secondary analyses of FACIT physical, social, emotional, and functional well-being scores did not demonstrate statistical significance (P -values of.35,.06,.62, and.71, respectively). Total PROMIS scores, collected as secondary outcome reported by patients, did not demonstrate statistically significant change over time either (P -value is.34). The other secondary scale, ESAS, was analyzed for each individual item and found to be nonsignificant, anxiety (P  = .56), well-being (.82), drowsiness (.83), lack of appetite (.35), nausea (.79), pain (.50), shortness of breath (.77), sleep (.45), and tiredness (.56). Depression was the only item demonstrating statistical significance with a decrease of 0.01 unit in the placebo group, a change not considered clinically significant. Melatonin was well-tolerated with no grade 3 or 4 adverse events reported. The most common side effects were headache, somnolence, and abdominal pain. No patients died while participating in this study. Two patients died within a year of study completion from breast cancer recurrence. Sixteen patients withdrew prior to study completion for various reasons including adverse events, hospitalizations unrelated to study drug, RT discontinuation, and COVID-19 precautions. Conclusions In this double-blind placebo-controlled phase III trial, melatonin did not prevent or significantly improve fatigue and other symptoms in patients with early stage breast cancer undergoing RT. The analysis, showing little evidence of an effect, at mid-recruitment, assured early termination of the trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]