Search

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.)

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.

To determine short-term outcomes after an episode of acute heart failure in patients with mid-range ejection fraction (40%-49%; HFmrEF) compared with patients with reduced (<40%) and preserved (>49%) ejection fractions (HFrEF and HFpEF, respectively) and according to their final destination after emergency department (ED) care. This is an exploratory, secondary analysis of the Epidemiology of Acute Heart Failure in the Emergency departments Registry, which includes consecutive acute heart failure patients diagnosed in 41 Spanish EDs. Patients with echocardiography data were included and divided into HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality, and secondary outcomes were in-hospital all-cause mortality, hospital length of stay >10 days, and 30-day postdischarge ED revisit due to AHF and combined end point (ED revisit and/or death). We included 6,856 patients (age 79 [10]; 52.1% women): 21.6% had HFrEF, 14.3% HFmrEF, and 64.1% HFpEF. The main destinations for the 982 HFmrEF patients after ED management were internal medicine (293, 29.8%), cardiology (194, 19.9%) and not hospitalized (241, 24.5%), whereas the remaining 254 patients were admitted to other departments, including geriatric wards, short-stay units and intensive care units. Outcomes for HFmrEF did not differ compared with either HFrEF or HFpEF. Compared with HFmrEF admitted to cardiology, internal medicine admission or direct ED discharge increased the 30-day postdischarge ED revisit (hazard ratio [HR] 1.713, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.042 to 2.816; and HR 1.683, 95% CI 1.046 to 2.708, respectively) and the 30-day postdischarge combined end point (HR 1.732, 95% CI 1.070 to 2.803; and HR 1.727, 95% CI 1.083 to 2.756, respectively). In conclusion, patients in the newly created HFmrEF category suffering from an acute decompensation have similar short-term outcomes as those in the classical HFrEF and HFpEF categories; nonetheless, HFmrEF patients handled in cardiology wards during decompensation obtain better outcomes, and reasons for these differences have to be unmasked and corrected., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.)