Search

This cross-sectional study aimed to assess the association between drugs and alcohol intake and sexual abuse in adolescents, otherwise defined as Drug Facilitated Sexual Assault (DFSA). We considered the survivors who accessed care at the Centre "Soccorso Violenza Sessuale" (SVS - Sexual Violence Relief Centre) in Turin (Italy), between May 2003 and May 2022. We found that 973 patients aged 13-24 among which 228 were victims of DFSA. Epidemiological and anamnestic aspects of the episode of sexual violence were examined, with a specific focus on investigating the alcohol and/or drug intake as reported by the victim, along with the results of the toxicological analysis. the study further accounts for the variations caused by the COVID-19 pandemic on DFSA-related accesses. Our findings show that 23% of adolescents accessing care at SVS were subjected to DFSA. Six out ten adolescents knew their aggressor, at times a partner (10%) oran acquaintance (43%). In 12% of cases violence was perpetrated by a group of people (12%). Almost 90% of young victims described alcohol consumption, while 37% reported drug use at the time of the assault. Alcohol taken alone or in combination with other substances was the most detected drug in our sample throughout the period considered. Given the large use of psychoactive substances among adolescents, it is imperative to implement harm reduction strategies alongside educational activities aimed at fostering awareness about consent. Health personnel should be trained to manage the needs of victims of DFSA clinically and forensically., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

The objective of our study was to determine the joint protective effect of a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination on the risk of a new infection and hospitalization. Two case-control studies nested in a cohort of COVID-19 patients cared for by the Local Health Unit (LHU) of Vercelli, Italy, were performed, one to estimate the risk of infection and the second to estimate the risk of hospitalization. Each new infection and hospitalization was matched with up to 4 disease-free subjects who were the same age, sex and index date (i.e., controls). Study subjects were followed up from cohort entry date to disease outcome, end of follow-up or emigration. Vaccination was associated with a 36% (OR 0.64; 95%CI 0.62-0.66) and 90% (OR 0.10; 95%CI 0.07-0.14) reduction in the risk of infection and hospitalization, respectively. Prior infection was associated with a 65% (OR 0.35; 95%CI 0.30-0.40) and 90% (OR 0.10; 95%CI 0.07-0.14) reduction in the risk of infection and hospitalization, respectively. Vaccinated and recovered subjects showed a 63% (OR 0.37; 95%CI 0.34-0.14) and 98% (OR 0.02; 95%CI 0-0.13) reduction in the risk of infection and hospitalization, respectively. Vaccination remains an essential public health tool for preventing severe forms of COVID-19. Our study shows that vaccination or previous infection has a strong protective effect against Sars-CoV-2 hospitalization. The protective role against infection appears to be present although with a lower efficacy rate than that presented in the RCTs., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Child abuse is an endemic phenomenon that refers to any form of violence aimed at children and adolescents. The Emergency Room is often the entry point to healthcare for the abused child., Methods: This is a cross-sectional study including minors, aged 0-18 years, of all genders, who experienced any form of violence examined at the Paediatric Emergency Department of the 'Maggiore della Carità' Hospital in Novara (North-West Italy) between 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2021. Data were extrapolated by looking at the diagnosis at discharge. A comparison of the different variables collected was made between the pre-COVID-19 period and the COVID era., Results: 120 minors presented to the paediatric emergency room seeking help for violence. The average age was 10 years, 55% of the victims were male and 75% of them were Italian. In the pre-COVID period, the number of presentations for abuse was 62, while in the COVID period it was 58 with an increase of peer violence (from 38.71% to 62.07%) and with a statistically significant impact of the pandemic on the phenomenon ( p -value < 0.00001). In general, peer violence accounts for 50% of the cases reviewed and resulted in fewer reports to the judicial authority and requests for forensic advice., Conclusion: The SARS-CoV-2-related pandemic has had an impact on total emergency room admissions and the types of abuse perpetrated.

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.)

Platelet-derived extracellular vesicles (PLT-EVs), the most abundant circulating EVs, have been found to be increased in several human diseases, including viral infections. Recently, we documented that PLT-EV counts are higher in SARS-CoV-2+ patients, enrolled during the first two waves of COVID-19, occurred in Italy last year, and we suggested PLT-EVs as a biomarker of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The present study is aimed at testing the ability of PLT-EV levels, measured at hospital admission and within one week of hospitalization, to predict patient's outcome. We applied an easy, fast, and reliable method, based on flow cytometry, for the detection of PLT-EVs in unmanipulated blood samples. In a cohort of SARS-CoV-2 patients, enrolled during the third wave of COVID-19 in Italy, we confirmed that PLT-EV counts are higher in comparison to healthy controls. Moreover, their number is not affected by prehospitalization treatment neither with heparin nor with steroids that are recommended by WHO guidelines. Noteworthy, we identified two pattern of patients, those who increased their PTL-EV level during first week and those reducing it. The former group representented more compromised patients, with higher 4C score, and unfavorable outcome. In conclusion, our new findings would suggest that a worse evolution of the disease is linked with increasing PLT-EV levels in the week after hospital admission., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Davide Raineri et al.)

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.)

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.)

Introduction: The clinical course of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is highly heterogenous, ranging from asymptomatic to fatal forms. The identification of clinical and laboratory predictors of poor prognosis may assist clinicians in monitoring strategies and therapeutic decisions., Materials and Methods: In this study, we retrospectively assessed the prognostic value of a simple tool, the complete blood count, on a cohort of 664 patients ( F 260; 39%, median age 70 (56-81) years) hospitalized for COVID-19 in Northern Italy. We collected demographic data along with complete blood cell count; moreover, the outcome of the hospital in-stay was recorded., Results: At data cut-off, 221/664 patients (33.3%) had died and 453/664 (66.7%) had been discharged. Red cell distribution width (RDW) ( χ 2 10.4; p < 0.001), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte (NL) ratio ( χ 2 7.6; p = 0.006), and platelet count ( χ 2 5.39; p = 0.02), along with age ( χ 2 87.6; p < 0.001) and gender ( χ 2 17.3; p < 0.001), accurately predicted in-hospital mortality. Hemoglobin levels were not associated with mortality. We also identified the best cut-off for mortality prediction: a NL ratio > 4.68 was characterized by an odds ratio for in-hospital mortality (OR) = 3.40 (2.40-4.82), while the OR for a RDW > 13.7% was 4.09 (2.87-5.83); a platelet count > 166,000/ μ L was, conversely, protective (OR: 0.45 (0.32-0.63))., Conclusion: Our findings arise the opportunity of stratifying COVID-19 severity according to simple lab parameters, which may drive clinical decisions about monitoring and treatment., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflict of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2021 Mattia Bellan et al.)

Sars-Cov-2 infection causes fever and cough that may rapidly lead to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Few biomarkers have been identified but, unfortunately, these are individually poorly specific, and novel biomarkers are needed to better predict patient outcome. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of circulating platelets (PLT)-derived extracellular vesicles (EVs) as biomarkers for Sars-Cov-2 infection, by setting a rapid and reliable test on unmanipulated blood samples. PLT-EVs were quantified by flow cytometry on two independent cohorts of Sars-CoV-2+ (n = 69), Sars-Cov-2- (n = 62) hospitalized patients, and healthy controls. Diagnostic performance of PLT-EVs was evaluated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. PLT-EVs count were higher in Sars-Cov-2+ compared to Sars-Cov-2- patients or HC. ROC analysis of the combined cohorts showed an AUC = 0.79 and an optimal cut-off value of 1472 EVs/μL, with 75% sensitivity and 74% specificity. These data suggest that PLT-EVs might be an interesting biomarker deserving further investigations to test their predictive power.

Clinical features and natural history of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) differ widely among different countries and during different phases of the pandemia. Here, we aimed to evaluate the case fatality rate (CFR) and to identify predictors of mortality in a cohort of COVID-19 patients admitted to three hospitals of Northern Italy between March 1 and April 28, 2020. All these patients had a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection by molecular methods. During the study period 504/1697 patients died; thus, overall CFR was 29.7%. We looked for predictors of mortality in a subgroup of 486 patients (239 males, 59%; median age 71 years) for whom sufficient clinical data were available at data cut-off. Among the demographic and clinical variables considered, age, a diagnosis of cancer, obesity and current smoking independently predicted mortality. When laboratory data were added to the model in a further subgroup of patients, age, the diagnosis of cancer, and the baseline PaO 2 /FiO 2 ratio were identified as independent predictors of mortality. In conclusion, the CFR of hospitalized patients in Northern Italy during the ascending phase of the COVID-19 pandemic approached 30%. The identification of mortality predictors might contribute to better stratification of individual patient risk.

As the clinical outcome of octogenarian patients hospitalised for COVID-19 is very poor, here we assessed the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients aged 80 year or older hospitalised for COVID-19 receiving non-invasive respiratory support (NIRS). A multicentre, retrospective, observational study was conducted in seven hospitals in Northern Italy. All patients aged ≥80 years with COVID-19 associated hypoxemic acute respiratory failure (hARF) undergoing NIRS between 24 February 2020, and 31 March 2021, were included. Out of 252 study participants, 156 (61.9%) and 163 (64.6%) died during hospital stay and within 90 days from hospital admission, respectively. In this case, 228 (90.5%) patients only received NIRS (NIRS group), while 24 (9.5%) were treated with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) after NIRS failure (NIRS+IMV group). In-hospital mortality did not significantly differ between NIRS and NIRS+IMV group (61.0% vs. 70.8%, respectively; p = 0.507), while survival probability at 90 days was significantly higher for NIRS compared to NIRS+IMV patients (0.379 vs. 0.147; p = 0.0025). The outcome of octogenarian patients with COVID-19 receiving NIRS is quite poor. Caution should be used when considering transition from NIRS to IMV after NIRS failure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]