SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) is a systemic infection. Patients with cancer are immunocompromised and may be vulnerable to COVID-related morbidity and mortality. The objectives of this study were to ...determine if patients with cancer have worse outcomes compared with patients without cancer and to identify demographic and clinical predictors of morbidity and mortality among patients with cancer.
We used data from adult patients who tested positive for COVID-19 and were admitted to two New York-Presbyterian hospitals between March 3 and May 15, 2020. Patients with cancer were matched 1:4 to controls without cancer in terms of age, sex, and number of comorbidities. Using Kaplan-Meier curves and the log-rank test, we compared morbidity (intensive care unit admission and intubation) and mortality outcomes between patients with cancer and controls. Among those with cancer, we identified demographic and clinical predictors of worse outcomes using Cox proportional hazard models.
We included 585 patients who were COVID-19 positive, of whom 117 had active malignancy, defined as those receiving cancer-directed therapy or under active surveillance within 6 months of admission. Presenting symptoms and in-hospital complications were similar between the cancer and noncancer groups. Nearly one half of patients with cancer were receiving therapy, and 45% of patients received cytotoxic or immunosuppressive treatment within 90 days of admission. There were no statistically significant differences in morbidity or mortality (
= .894) between patients with and without cancer.
We observed that patients with COVID-19 and cancer had similar outcomes compared with matched patients without cancer. This finding suggests that a diagnosis of active cancer alone and recent anticancer therapy do not predict worse COVID-19 outcomes and therefore, recommendations to limit cancer-directed therapy must be considered carefully in relation to cancer-specific outcomes and death.
Observational studies of dietary fat intake and breast cancer have reported inconsistent findings. This topic was addressed in additional analyses of the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) Dietary ...Modification (DM) clinical trial that evaluated a low-fat dietary pattern influence on breast cancer incidence.
In the WHI DM trial, 48,835 postmenopausal women, ages 50-79 years, with no prior breast cancer, and a dietary fat intake of ≥ 32% of energy were randomly assigned at 40 US centers to a usual diet comparison group (60%) or dietary intervention group (40%). The goals were to reduce fat intake to 20% of energy and increase vegetable, fruit, and grain intake. Breast cancers were confirmed after central medical record review and serial National Death Index linkages to enhance mortality findings.
During 8.5 years of dietary intervention, breast cancer incidence and deaths as a result of breast cancer were nonsignificantly lower in the intervention group, while deaths after breast cancer were statistically significantly lower both during intervention and through a 16.1-year (median) follow-up. Now, after a long-term, cumulative 19.6-year (median) follow-up, the significant reduction in deaths after breast cancer persists (359 0.12%
652 0.14% deaths; hazard ratio HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.96;
= .01), and a statistically significant reduction in deaths as a result of breast cancer (breast cancer followed by death attributed to the breast cancer) emerged (132 0.037%, annualized risk
251 0.047% deaths, respectively; HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.97;
= .02).
Adoption of a low-fat dietary pattern associated with increased vegetable, fruit, and grain intake, demonstrably achievable by many, may reduce the risk of death as a result of breast cancer in postmenopausal women.
COVID-19 has disproportionately affected racial and ethnic minority groups, and race and ethnicity have been associated with disease severity. However, the association of socioeconomic determinants ...with racial disparities in COVID-19 outcomes remains unclear.
To evaluate the association of race and ethnicity with COVID-19 outcomes and to examine the association between race, ethnicity, COVID-19 outcomes, and socioeconomic determinants.
A systematic search of PubMed, medRxiv, bioRxiv, Embase, and the World Health Organization COVID-19 databases was performed for studies published from January 1, 2020, to January 6, 2021.
Studies that reported data on associations between race and ethnicity and COVID-19 positivity, disease severity, and socioeconomic status were included and screened by 2 independent reviewers. Studies that did not have a satisfactory quality score were excluded. Overall, less than 1% (0.47%) of initially identified studies met selection criteria.
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Associations were assessed using adjusted and unadjusted risk ratios (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs), combined prevalence, and metaregression. Data were pooled using a random-effects model.
The main measures were RRs, ORs, and combined prevalence values.
A total of 4 318 929 patients from 68 studies were included in this meta-analysis. Overall, 370 933 patients (8.6%) were African American, 9082 (0.2%) were American Indian or Alaska Native, 101 793 (2.4%) were Asian American, 851 392 identified as Hispanic/Latino (19.7%), 7417 (0.2%) were Pacific Islander, 1 037 996 (24.0%) were White, and 269 040 (6.2%) identified as multiracial and another race or ethnicity. In age- and sex-adjusted analyses, African American individuals (RR, 3.54; 95% CI, 1.38-9.07; P = .008) and Hispanic individuals (RR, 4.68; 95% CI, 1.28-17.20; P = .02) were the most likely to test positive for COVID-19. Asian American individuals had the highest risk of intensive care unit admission (RR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.60-2.34, P < .001). The area deprivation index was positively correlated with mortality rates in Asian American and Hispanic individuals (P < .001). Decreased access to clinical care was positively correlated with COVID-19 positivity in Hispanic individuals (P < .001) and African American individuals (P < .001).
In this study, members of racial and ethnic minority groups had higher risks of COVID-19 positivity and disease severity. Furthermore, socioeconomic determinants were strongly associated with COVID-19 outcomes in racial and ethnic minority populations.
Audit and feedback is widely used as a strategy to improve professional practice either on its own or as a component of multifaceted quality improvement interventions. This is based on the belief ...that healthcare professionals are prompted to modify their practice when given performance feedback showing that their clinical practice is inconsistent with a desirable target. Despite its prevalence as a quality improvement strategy, there remains uncertainty regarding both the effectiveness of audit and feedback in improving healthcare practice and the characteristics of audit and feedback that lead to greater impact.
To assess the effects of audit and feedback on the practice of healthcare professionals and patient outcomes and to examine factors that may explain variation in the effectiveness of audit and feedback.
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) 2010, Issue 4, part of The Cochrane Library. www.thecochranelibrary.com, including the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register (searched 10 December 2010); MEDLINE, Ovid (1950 to November Week 3 2010) (searched 09 December 2010); EMBASE, Ovid (1980 to 2010 Week 48) (searched 09 December 2010); CINAHL, Ebsco (1981 to present) (searched 10 December 2010); Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index, ISI Web of Science (1975 to present) (searched 12-15 September 2011).
Randomised trials of audit and feedback (defined as a summary of clinical performance over a specified period of time) that reported objectively measured health professional practice or patient outcomes. In the case of multifaceted interventions, only trials in which audit and feedback was considered the core, essential aspect of at least one intervention arm were included.
All data were abstracted by two independent review authors. For the primary outcome(s) in each study, we calculated the median absolute risk difference (RD) (adjusted for baseline performance) of compliance with desired practice compliance for dichotomous outcomes and the median percent change relative to the control group for continuous outcomes. Across studies the median effect size was weighted by number of health professionals involved in each study. We investigated the following factors as possible explanations for the variation in the effectiveness of interventions across comparisons: format of feedback, source of feedback, frequency of feedback, instructions for improvement, direction of change required, baseline performance, profession of recipient, and risk of bias within the trial itself. We also conducted exploratory analyses to assess the role of context and the targeted clinical behaviour. Quantitative (meta-regression), visual, and qualitative analyses were undertaken to examine variation in effect size related to these factors.
We included and analysed 140 studies for this review. In the main analyses, a total of 108 comparisons from 70 studies compared any intervention in which audit and feedback was a core, essential component to usual care and evaluated effects on professional practice. After excluding studies at high risk of bias, there were 82 comparisons from 49 studies featuring dichotomous outcomes, and the weighted median adjusted RD was a 4.3% (interquartile range (IQR) 0.5% to 16%) absolute increase in healthcare professionals' compliance with desired practice. Across 26 comparisons from 21 studies with continuous outcomes, the weighted median adjusted percent change relative to control was 1.3% (IQR = 1.3% to 28.9%). For patient outcomes, the weighted median RD was -0.4% (IQR -1.3% to 1.6%) for 12 comparisons from six studies reporting dichotomous outcomes and the weighted median percentage change was 17% (IQR 1.5% to 17%) for eight comparisons from five studies reporting continuous outcomes. Multivariable meta-regression indicated that feedback may be more effective when baseline performance is low, the source is a supervisor or colleague, it is provided more than once, it is delivered in both verbal and written formats, and when it includes both explicit targets and an action plan. In addition, the effect size varied based on the clinical behaviour targeted by the intervention.
Audit and feedback generally leads to small but potentially important improvements in professional practice. The effectiveness of audit and feedback seems to depend on baseline performance and how the feedback is provided. Future studies of audit and feedback should directly compare different ways of providing feedback.
The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) Statement aims to improve the reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs); however, it lacks guidance on the reporting of ...patient-reported outcomes (PROs), which are often inadequately reported in trials, thus limiting the value of these data. In this article, we describe the development of the CONSORT PRO extension based on the methodological framework for guideline development proposed by the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network. Five CONSORT PRO checklist items are recommended for RCTs in which PROs are primary or important secondary end points. These recommendations urge that the PROs be identified as a primary or secondary outcome in the abstract, that a description of the hypothesis of the PROs and relevant domains be provided (ie, if a multidimensional PRO tool has been used), that evidence of the PRO instrument's validity and reliability be provided or cited, that the statistical approaches for dealing with missing data be explicitly stated, and that PRO-specific limitations of study findings and generalizability of results to other populations and clinical practice be discussed. Examples and an updated CONSORT flow diagram with PRO items are provided. It is recommended that the CONSORT PRO guidance supplement the standard CONSORT guidelines for reporting RCTs with PROs as primary or secondary outcomes. Improved reporting of PRO data should facilitate robust interpretation of the results from RCTs and inform patient care.
•This is an overview of the state of tES/TMS applied in drug addictions.•Neuroscience will be translated into tES/TMS tools for clinical practice in addiction.•Heterogeneity of methods and outcome ...measures in the literature are addressed.•This article provides guidelines for best practices in tES/TMS addiction research.
There is growing interest in non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) as a novel treatment option for substance-use disorders (SUDs). Recent momentum stems from a foundation of preclinical neuroscience demonstrating links between neural circuits and drug consuming behavior, as well as recent FDA-approval of NIBS treatments for mental health disorders that share overlapping pathology with SUDs. As with any emerging field, enthusiasm must be tempered by reason; lessons learned from the past should be prudently applied to future therapies. Here, an international ensemble of experts provides an overview of the state of transcranial-electrical (tES) and transcranial-magnetic (TMS) stimulation applied in SUDs. This consensus paper provides a systematic literature review on published data – emphasizing the heterogeneity of methods and outcome measures while suggesting strategies to help bridge knowledge gaps. The goal of this effort is to provide the community with guidelines for best practices in tES/TMS SUD research. We hope this will accelerate the speed at which the community translates basic neuroscience into advanced neuromodulation tools for clinical practice in addiction medicine.
To evaluate the performance of active surveillance as a management strategy in broad populations and to inform the development of surveillance schedules by individual patient data regarding timing ...and type of relapse.
Retrospective study including data from 2,483 clinical stage I (CSI) patients, 1,139 CSI nonseminoma and 1,344 CSI seminoma managed with active surveillance, with the majority treated between 1998 and 2010. Clinical outcomes including relapse and death, time distribution, extent of relapse and method of relapse detection observed on active surveillance were recorded.
Relapse occurred in 221 (19%) CSI-nonseminoma and 173 (13%) CSI-seminoma patients. Median time to relapse was 4 months (range, 2-61 months), 8 months (range, 2-77 months) and 14 months (range, 2-84 months) for lymphovascular invasion-positive CSI nonseminoma, lymphovascular invasion-negative CSI nonseminoma and CSI seminoma. Most relapses were observed within the first 2 years/3 years after orchiectomy for CSI nonseminoma (90%)/CSI seminoma (92%). Relapses were detected by computed tomography scan/tumor-markers in 87%/3% of seminoma recurrences, in 48%/38% of lymphovascular invasion-negative and 41%/61% of lymphovascular invasion-positive patients, respectively. 90% of CSI-nonseminoma and 99% of CSI-seminoma relapses exhibited International Germ Cell Collaborative Group good-risk features. Three patients with CSI nonseminoma died of disease (0.3%). One patient with CSI seminoma and two patients with CSI nonseminoma died because of treatment-related events. Overall, advanced disease was seen in both early- and late-relapse patients. All late recurrences were cured with standard therapy. Five-year disease-specific survival was 99.7% (95% CI, 99.24% to 99.93%).
Active surveillance for CSI testis cancer leads to excellent outcomes. The vast majority of relapses occur within 2 years of orchiectomy for CSI nonseminoma and within 3 years for CSI seminoma. Late and advanced stage relapse are rarely seen. These data may inform further refinement of rationally designed surveillance schedules.
The weaning process concerns all patients receiving mechanical ventilation. A previous classification into simple, prolonged, and difficult weaning ignored weaning failure and presupposed the use of ...spontaneous breathing trials.
To describe the weaning process, defined as starting with any attempt at separation from mechanical ventilation and its prognosis, according to a new operational classification working for all patients under ventilation.
This was a multinational prospective multicenter observational study over 3 months of all patients receiving mechanical ventilation in 36 intensive care units, with daily collection of ventilation and weaning modalities. Pragmatic definitions of separation attempt and weaning success allowed us to allocate patients in four groups.
A total of 2,729 patients were enrolled. Although half of them could not be classified using the previous definition, 99% entered the groups on the basis of our new definition as follows: 24% never started a weaning process, 57% had a weaning process of less than 24 hours (group 1), 10% had a difficult weaning of more than 1 day and less than 1 week (group 2), and 9% had a prolonged weaning duration of 1 week or more (group 3). Duration of ventilation, intensive care unit stay, and mortality (6, 17, and 29% for the three groups, respectively) all significantly increased from one group to the next. The unadjusted risk of dying was 19% after the first separation attempt and increased to 37% after 10 days.
A new classification allows us to categorize all weaning situations. Every additional day without a weaning success after the first separation attempt increases the risk of dying.
The objective of the study was to determine the change in quality of evidence in updates of Cochrane reviews that were initially published between January 1, 2013 and June 30, 2014. We used the ...Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to document evidence quality.
We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on March 20, 2020 to identify which of the reviews from the initial (2013/14) sample had been updated. Using the same methods to determine the quality of evidence in the previous analysis, we assessed the quality of evidence for the first-listed primary outcomes in the updated reviews.
Of the 608 reviews in the original sample, 154 had been updated with and 151 contained available data for both original and updated systematic reviews (24.8%). The updated reviews included: 15 (9.9%) with high-quality evidence, 56 (37.1%) with moderate-quality evidence, 47 (31.1%) with low-quality evidence, and 33 (21.9%) with very low-quality evidence. No change in the GRADE quality of evidence was found for most (103, 68.2%) of the updated reviews. The quality of evidence rating was downgraded in 28 reviews (58.3%) and upgraded in 20 (41.7%), although only six reviews were promoted to high quality.
Updated systematic reviews continued to suggest that only a minority of outcomes for health care interventions are supported by high-quality evidence. The quality of the evidence did not consistently improve or worsen in updated reviews.
PDF
