Supportive care in patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic

Elevating Cancer Care Standards Worldwide: An Analysis of Global Initiatives and Progress

Cancer remains a widespread and significant global health issue, with consequential impacts on individuals, families, and societies across the globe. Although there have been noteworthy advancements in the prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and study of cancer, the impact of this disease continues to be significant on health care systems and people worldwide. Furthermore, there are still differences in obtaining the advantages of modern cancer treatment, which can partly be attributed to the lack of standardized standards for providing top-notch cancer care. To tackle these difficulties, a multitude of projects and organizations have emerged to address the standard of cancer care on a global level. This paper provides a comprehensive review and analysis of the worldwide influence of programs and organizations that seek to improve the quality of cancer care. This document examines the progression of these initiatives, their cooperation with international organizations, possible paths for additional advancement, and suggestions for enhancing the standard of cancer treatment worldwide.

Clinical outcomes of coronavirus disease in patients with breast cancer treated with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor following chemotherapy: Triangulation of evidence using population-based cohort and Mendelian randomization analyses

Recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) administration in patients with cancer and coronavirus disease (COVID-19) remains controversial. Concerns exist that it may worsen COVID-19 outcomes by triggering an inflammatory cytokine storm, despite its common use for managing chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) or febrile neutropenia post-chemotherapy. Here, we determined whether prophylactic or therapeutic G-CSF administration following chemotherapy exacerbates COVID-19 progression to severe/critical conditions in breast cancer patients with COVID-19. Between December 2022 and February 2023, all 503 enrolled breast cancer patients had concurrent COVID-19 and received G-CSF post-chemotherapy, with most being vaccinated pre-chemotherapy. We prospectively observed COVID-19-related adverse outcomes, conducted association analyses, and subsequently performed Mendelian randomization (MR) analyses to validate the causal effect of genetically predicted G-CSF or its associated granulocyte traits on COVID-19 adverse outcomes. Only 0.99% (5/503) of breast cancer patients experienced COVID-19-related hospitalization following prophylactic or therapeutic G-CSF administration after chemotherapy. No mortality or progression to severe/critical COVID-19 occurred after G-CSF administration. Notably, no significant associations were observed between the application, dosage, or response to G-CSF and COVID-19-related hospitalization (all p >.05). Similarly, the MR analyses showed no evidence of causality of genetically predicted G-CSF or related granulocyte traits on COVID-19-related hospitalization or COVID-19 severity (all p >.05). There is insufficient evidence to substantiate the notion that the prophylactic or therapeutic administration of G-CSF after chemotherapy for managing CIN in patients with breast cancer and COVID-19 would worsen COVID-19 outcomes, leading to severe or critical conditions, or even death, especially considering the context of COVID-19 vaccination.

Romiplostim in chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia: A review of the literature

Chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia (CIT) is a common challenge of cancer therapy and can lead to chemotherapy dose reduction, delay, and/or discontinuation, affecting relative dose intensity, and possibly adversely impacting cancer care. Besides changing anticancer regimens, standard management of CIT has been limited to platelet transfusions and supportive care. Use of the thrombopoietin receptor agonist romiplostim, already approved for use in immune thrombocytopenia, has shown promising signs of efficacy in CIT. In a phase 2 prospective randomized study of solid tumor patients with platelet counts <100 × 109/L for ≥4 weeks due to CIT, weekly romiplostim corrected the platelet count to >100 × 109/L in 93% (14/15) of patients within 3 weeks versus 12.5% (1/8) of untreated patients (p < 0.001). Including patients treated with romiplostim in an additional single-arm cohort, 85% (44/52) of all romiplostim-treated patients responded with platelet count correction within 3 weeks. Several retrospective studies of CIT have also shown responses to weekly romiplostim, with the largest study finding that poor response to romiplostim was predicted by tumor invasion of the bone marrow (odds ratio, 0.029; 95% CI: 0.0046-0.18; p < 0.001), prior pelvic irradiation (odds ratio, 0.078; 95% CI: 0.0062-0.98; p = 0.048), and prior temozolomide treatment (odds ratio 0.24; 95% CI: 0.061-0.96; p = 0.043). Elsewhere, lower baseline TPO levels were predictive of romiplostim response (p = 0.036). No new safety signals have emerged from romiplostim CIT studies. Recent treatment guidelines, including those from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, now support consideration of romiplostim use in CIT. Data are expected from two ongoing phase 3 romiplostim CIT trials.

Improving Practice in a Head and Neck Oncology Clinic Using the PRO-CTCAE Tool

Background

Patients with head and neck cancer undergoing treatment report many side effects. Using patient-reported outcomes can assist with care management.

Objectives

The purpose of this quality improvement project was to implement the patient-reported outcome version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) measurement system, reduce patient hydration visits, and measure provider satisfaction with the PRO-CTCAE survey.

Methods

Statistical analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS software. Descriptive statistics for means were used to summarize the data for survey completion rate and for the provider satisfaction questionnaire. A Fisher's exact test was used to compare hydration visits before and after implementation of the PRO-CTCAE survey.

Findings

The PRO-CTCAE surveys had a response rate of 91.2% (323/354) when telehealth visits were omitted. Hydration in the presurvey group was 23.5% (150/637) and in the postsurvey group was 38.5% (165/429), a 15% absolute percentage increase (Fisher's exact p < .001). Among providers, the positive response rate was 100% for five questions and 88.9% for two questions.

Implications

The PRO-CTCAE survey allowed the patient to report their symptoms prior to discussing them with their provider. Providers were able to expedite symptom management and get information to patients in a timely manner. The PRO-CTCAE survey should be considered a part of a multidisciplinary approach to caring for patients.

How Can Oncology Nurses and Advanced Practice Providers Reduce the Burden of Chemotherapy-Induced Febrile Neutropenia in the US?

Background

Neutropenia and febrile neutropenia (FN) are serious complications of myelosuppressive chemotherapy and present a considerable burden to patients with cancer. Febrile neutropenia is associated with increased risks of infection and hospitalization, a particular concern during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Oncology nurses and advanced practice providers (APPs; including nurse practitioners, physician assistants, advanced practice nurses, and pharmacists) play a vital role in the management of patients with cancer and the prevention of infections.

Objectives

The objectives of this article are to summarize the burden of chemotherapy-related neutropenia and FN in patients with cancer in the US and to evaluate the role of oncology nurses and APPs in preventing and managing FN.

Methods

This article provides a narrative review of US studies reporting on the burden of FN, FN during COVID-19, adherence to guidelines for the use of prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs), the involvement of oncology nurses in FN prevention, management, and patient quality of life, and inappropriate and/or incomplete G-CSF treatment.

Findings

Despite advances in supportive care for patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy, neutropenia and FN present a considerable burden to patients, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Oncology nurses and APPs play a vital role in the appropriate and timely delivery of supportive care, which can improve patient outcomes and minimize treatment costs.

Leveraging G-CSF prescribing in the outpatient setting: considerations beyond clinical factors-a questionnaire study

PURPOSE

This study aims to delineate G-CSF treatment practices, assess decision criteria, and measure their implementation in ambulatory settings for patients with breast (BC), lung (LC), or gastrointestinal cancers (GIC), beyond standard recommendations.

METHODS

In this non-interventional, cross-sectional, multicenter study, clinical cases were presented using conversational interfaces (chatbots), simulating a conversation with one or more virtual interlocutors through voice or text exchange. The clinical simulations were configured by four parameters: types of cancer, risk of FN related to chemotherapy and comorbidities, access to care, and therapy setting (adjuvant/neoadjuvant/metastatic).

RESULTS

The questionnaire was completed by 102 physicians. Most practitioners (84.5%) reported prescribing G-CSF, regardless of tumor type. G-CSF was prescribed more frequently for adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy than for metastatic cases. The type of chemotherapy was cited as the first reason for prescribing G-CSF, with access to care being the second. Regarding the type of chemotherapy, physicians do not consider this factor alone, but combined with comorbidities and age (56.7% of cases). Pegfilgrastim long-acting was prescribed in most cases of BC and LC (70.1% and 86%, respectively), while filgrastim short-acting was named in the majority of cases of GIC (61.7%); 76.3% of physicians prescribed G-CSF as primary prophylaxis.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that recommended practices are broadly followed. In the majority of cases, G-CSF is prescribed as primary prophylaxis. In addition, physicians seem more inclined to prescribe G-CSF to adjuvant/neoadjuvant patients rather than metastatic patients. Finally, the type of chemotherapy tends to be a more significant determining factor than the patient's background.

Turnaround Time of the Hematology Results of Cancer Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Opportunity to Initiate a Quality Improvement Process

INTRODUCTION

Turnaround time (TAT) is a crucial clinical parameter that reflects the performance of a laboratory especially in the context of oncology and the COVID-19 pandemic. Based on the Lean Six Sigma methodology, we performed a retrospective analysis of the TAT of the complete blood count (CBC) of cancer patients with the aim of reducing this delay in the future.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Over one month of the COVID-19 pandemic, a retrospective evaluative audit was carried out on the TAT of the CBC in an oncology department. The root causes of failures of the overall analysis process were detected. The initiation of an improvement approach was implemented through the creation of an improvement flowchart and a new request form. The hospital information system (HIS) data were exported to Microsoft Excel® (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Washington, United States). Using the collected data, the mean, standard deviation, median, and interquartile range were calculated using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 23, (Released 2015; IBM Corp., Armonk, New York, United States). All time intervals were expressed in minutes.

RESULTS

Among 263 intra-laboratory TATs analyzed, the median intra-lab TAT was 56 minutes (interquartile range (IQR): 36-80 minutes). A total of 82% of the analyses were performed in less than 90 minutes with a predominance of the interval 30-59 at 42.9%. The main causes of failures were essentially the lack of time stamping of the samples as well as the lack of real-time communication between the biologists and the clinicians. The proposed improvement model is currently being approved by all practitioners whose main items are as follows: At the clinical department level, distinguish the request forms but also the labels of the samples of the oncology hospital by a particular color, indication of clinical signs and sampling time on the request forms and on the HIS. At the laboratory level, create a specific chain for oncology department samples, alarm notification on the HIS, and rapid telecommunication of results for vital situations.

CONCLUSION

The intra-lab TAT of our study is biologically acceptable. Because our work is limited by the phases outside the control of the laboratory, it should lead to a continuous improvement project.

Response to Savolitinib in a Patient with Advanced Poorly Differentiated Lung Carcinoma Positive for a Novel EML4-MET Gene Fusion

Background

Cellular-mesenchymal to epithelial transition factor (c-MET) alterations have significant therapeutic implications in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Although MET fusion is a rare genomic event, advances in detection technologies have enabled the identification of various MET fusion partner genes. However, standard therapeutic options for MET fusion in NSCLC cases remain undefined. This report presents a novel fusion variant, EML4-MET, encompassing exons 1 to 13 of EML4 and exons 15 to 21 of MET, including the entire MET kinase domain, and discusses the response of this case to savolitinib treatment.

Case Presentation

A 65-year-old woman was diagnosed with advanced poorly differentiated lung carcinoma. Molecular profiling of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), carried out by next-generation sequencing (NGS), identified a novel EML4-MET fusion. The patient was administered the MET receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor savolitinib at 400 mg daily. One month later, computed tomography (CT) revealed some lesions with volume reduction. However, COVID-19 diminished the efficacy of savolitinib. Regrettably, the patient succumbed to respiratory and circulatory failure due to disease progression in March 2023.

Conclusion

This case uncovers a new type of MET fusion and expands the range of potential MET fusion targets in NSCLC. The patient responded to savolitinib, suggesting a reference basis for the treatment of similar cases with EML4-MET fusion in the future. Additional research is warranted to assess the biological significance of the EML4-MET fusion in NSCLC.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Treatment of Cancer Patients at a Hospital in Peru

BACKGROUND

The appearance of the new coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, in Wuhan - China, in 2019 led to the declaration of a COVID-19 pandemic by the World Health Organization. Peru confirmed its first case on March 6, 2020, prompting a significant change in medical care.

PURPOSE

Our objective was to determine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer treatment in Peru.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of hospital data from the National Institute of Neoplastic Diseases revealed substantial decreases in oncological treatments in 2020 compared to 2019.

RESULTS

Oncological treatments involving bone marrow transplantation had a greater impact between the months of April and September, at -100% (p=0.003). However, treatments involving surgery in April (-95% [p≤0.001]), radiotherapy in May (-76% [p=0.002]) and chemotherapy in June (-71% [p≤0.001]) also showed significant impacts. Comparative analysis with international data revealed similar trends in cancer care interruptions in different countries. However, variations in the magnitude of the impact were observed, influenced by regional health policies and the severity of the pandemic.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings underscore the challenges cancer care providers face during public health crises, requiring adaptive strategies to ensure continued access to essential treatments. Addressing these challenges requires comprehensive public health responses to mitigate the impact of future crises on cancer care systems.

Analysis of the status and content of consultations with a Cancer Consultation and Support Centre during the COVID-19 pandemic

PURPOSE

Cancer Consultation and Support Centres (CCSCs) in Japan have been established at designated cancer hospitals nationwide and these centres provide information and consultation support for cancer care. The purpose of this study is to analyse the status and content of consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic using consultation record data from the Cancer Consultation Support Centre (CCSC) database from January 2020 to March 2021.

METHODS

First, we examined the number and percentage of cases involving and not involving COVID-19 and compared the items of the entry forms between the groups. The comparison between the two groups suggests that the traditional consultation items used before the COVID-19 pandemic did not adequately cover the consultation content during the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, we categorised the content of consultation records related to COVID-19.

RESULTS

As a result, the content was consolidated into 16 categories, which were appropriately captured from five different aspects.

CONCLUSION

Using the resulting categories, we were able to create a complementary consultation entry form that could be operational during the COVID epidemic and consult consultants for the support they needed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not applicable.

Psychological Distress and Concerns of In-Home Older People Living with Cancer and Their Impact on Supportive Care Needs: An Observational Survey

(1) Background: Cancer patients are experiencing psychological problems after diagnosis, such as emotional distress and social anxiety, which may increase their demands for emotional and supportive care. This study aimed to assess the influence of both emotional distress and concerns on the supportive care needs of cancer patients receiving home-based healthcare. (2) Methods: In this door-to-door screening program, 97 cancer patients were approached, with a mean age of 73 years old (mean = 73.43; SD = 6.60). (3) Results: As expected, 42.3% of patients highlighted their treatment as their main psychological priority, with 20.6% identifying concerns about the future of their family in this regard. No significant associations with respect to sex were identified in terms of focus, though females reported the need for more frequent psychological support (58.7% vs. 37.3%, respectively, p = 0.035) compared to males. Patients who had experienced an increased number of concerns during the last weeks (IRR = 1.02; 95% CI: 1.00-1.03, p = 0.007) had a significantly greater risk of presenting an increased rate of supportive care needs. Notably, male patients with bone cancer presented a significantly greater number of supportive care needs (mean rank 45.5 vs. 9.0, p = 0.031) respectively, in comparison to those with other types of cancer. (4) Conclusions: Supportive care needs arise from a greater concern and specific type of cancer, highlighting the need for supportive care, such as psychosocial and psychological support. This may have significant implications for treatment and patient outcomes in home care settings.

Health-related quality of life and patient-centred outcomes with COVID-19 vaccination in patients with breast cancer and gynaecological malignancies

Introduction

Safety and tolerability of COVID-19 vaccines were demonstrated by several clinical trials which led to the first FDA/EMA approvals in 2021. Because of mass immunizations, most social restrictions were waived with effects on quality of life. Therefore, our a-priori hypothesis was that COVID-19 vaccination impacted the health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) in patients with breast and gynecological cancer.

Methods

From March 15th until August 11th, 2022, fully vaccinated patients with breast and gynecological cancer treated in the oncological outpatient clinics of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, LMU University Hospital, Munich, Germany filled out a vaccine related QoL survey. Patients were asked about demographics (age, comorbidities), clinical parameters related to previous COVID-19 infections, and HR-QoL related parameters (living situation, responsibilities in everyday life). Subsequently, a questionnaire with 12 items was designed using a 5-point Likert scale (0 - strongly disagree/4 - strongly agree), covering the aspects health and therapy, social environment, participation in everyday life and overall assessment.

Results

By August 11th, 2022, 108 out of 114 (94.7%) patients had received at least three doses of COVID-19 vaccine and six patients at least two doses. More than half of the surveyed patients were >55y (52.6%; mean: 55.1y, range 29-86y). Patients with breast cancer (n= 83) had early (59.0%) or metastatic cancer (41.0%); gynecological cancers (n=31) also included metastatic (54.8%) and non-metastatic cancer (45.2%). 83.3% of the patients stated that COVID-19 vaccination had a positive impact on their HR-QoL. Furthermore, 29 patients (25.4%) had undergone a COVID-19 infection. These patients reported self-limiting symptoms for a median duration of 5.9 days and no hospital admissions were registered.

Conclusions

Our study demonstrates that vaccination against COVID-19 was positively associated with HR-QoL in patients with breast and gynecological cancer. Furthermore, vaccinated patients who underwent COVID-19 disease experienced only self-limiting symptoms.

Cost-effectiveness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) for the prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with cancer

PURPOSE

Clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of all approved granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs), including filgrastim and pegfilgrastim, as primary febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis in patients receiving high- or intermediate-risk regimens (in those with additional patient risk factors). Previous studies have examined G-CSF cost-effectiveness by cancer type in patients with a high baseline risk of FN. This study evaluated patients with breast cancer (BC), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) receiving therapy who were at intermediate risk for FN and compared primary prophylaxis (PP) and secondary prophylaxis (SP) using biosimilar filgrastim or biosimilar pegfilgrastim in Austria, France, and Germany.

METHODS

A Markov cycle tree-based model was constructed to evaluate PP versus SP in patients with BC, NSCLC, or NHL receiving therapy over a lifetime horizon. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated over a range of willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds for incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity analyses evaluated uncertainty.

RESULTS

Results demonstrated that using biosimilar filgrastim as PP compared to SP resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) well below the most commonly accepted WTP threshold of €30,000. Across all three countries, PP in NSCLC had the lowest cost per QALY, and in France, PP was both cheaper and more effective than SP. Similar results were found using biosimilar pegfilgrastim, with ICERs generally higher than those for filgrastim.

CONCLUSIONS

Biosimilar filgrastim and pegfilgrastim as primary prophylaxis are cost-effective approaches to avoid FN events in patients with BC, NSCLC, or NHL at intermediate risk for FN in Austria, France, and Germany.

A study indicates an essential link between a mild deterioration in excretory kidney function and the risk of neutropenia during cancer chemotherapy

PURPOSE

Neutropenia, defined as a number of neutrophils in patients' blood specimen lower than 1500 cells/μm3, is a common adverse event during myelosuppressive oncological chemotherapy, predisposing to febrile neutropenia (FN). Patients with coexisting moderate-to-severe chronic kidney disease (CKD) have an increased risk of FN, included in the guidelines for the primary prophylaxis of FN. However, this does not include mild kidney function impairment with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) 60-89 ml/min/1.73 m2. This prospective study analyzed the risk of neutropenia in patients on chemotherapy without indication for the primary prophylaxis of FN.

METHODS

The study enrolled 38 patients starting chemotherapy, including 26 (68.4%) patients aged 65 years or more. The median duration of follow-up was 76 days. The methodology of creatinine assessment enabled the use of the recommended CKD-EPI formula for identifying patients with a mild reduction of glomerular filtration.

RESULTS

Sixteen (42.1%) patients developed at least G2 neutropenia without episodes of FN. Only five (13.1%) patients had eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73 m2, while 15 (62.5%) eGFR < 90 ml/min/1.73 m2. The relative risk of neutropenia in patients with impaired eGFR was over six times higher than in patients with eGFR > 90 ml/min/1.73 m2 (RR = 6.08; 95%CI:1.45-27.29; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Our observation indicates that even a mild reduction in eGFR is a risk factor for the development of neutropenia and a potential risk factor for FN. Authors are advised to check the author instructions for the journal they are submitting to for word limits and if structural elements like subheadings, citations, or equations are permitted.

Does COVID-19 pandemic impact cancer outcomes in metastatic setting? A comparative cohort study among metastatic patients treated at day care hospital

INTRODUCTION

COVID-19 outbreak rapidly spread since early 2020 leading to the implementation of nationwide lockdowns. To cope with this sudden change, management guidelines were quickly published to adapt oncological care, with potential impact on cancer outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective comparative cohort study to assess the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak in 2020 on cancer outcomes in metastatic patients. Two cohorts of metastatic patients receiving intravenous (iv) therapy in a French oncological day care hospital were assessed: a 2020 cohort during the first French lockdown, and a 2018 historical cohort before the COVID-19 pandemic. We performed a propensity score analysis to match patients from the two cohorts. After one-year follow-up, we compared progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) between cohorts. Adaptations of medical oncological treatments in 2020 were also analysed.

RESULTS

The 376 patients of the 2020 cohort were matched with 376 of the 2018 cohort. No SARS-CoV-2 infection was observed in the 2020 cohort. The adjusted PFS was significantly shorter in 2020 compared to 2018 (HR = 1.23; 95% CI: 1.03-1.46), as well as among patients without treatment adaptation compared to matched patients of the 2018 cohort (HR = 1.33; 95% CI: 1.10-1.61). We did not observe any significant difference of PFS among the group with treatment adaptations. OS was not significantly different.

CONCLUSION

Metastatic cancer patients treated during the first lockdown had a higher risk of disease progression 1 year after COVID-19 outbreak. However, oncological treatment adaptations or SARS-CoV-2 infections do not explain these results. A longer follow-up is needed to observe the impact on OS.

Adult Patients with Cancer Have Impaired Humoral Responses to Complete and Booster COVID-19 Vaccination, Especially Those with Hematologic Cancer on Active Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The exclusion of patients with cancer in clinical trials evaluating COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and safety, in combination with the high rate of severe infections, highlights the need for optimizing vaccination strategies. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the published available data from prospective and retrospective cohort studies that included patients with either solid or hematological malignancies according to the PRISMA Guidelines. A literature search was performed in the following databases: Medline (Pubmed), Scopus, Clinicaltrials.gov, EMBASE, CENTRAL and Google Scholar. Overall, 70 studies were included for the first and second vaccine dose and 60 studies for the third dose. The Effect Size (ES) of the seroconversion rate after the first dose was 0.41 (95%CI: 0.33-0.50) for hematological malignancies and 0.56 (95%CI: 0.47-0.64) for solid tumors. The seroconversion rates after the second dose were 0.62 (95%CI: 0.57-0.67) for hematological malignancies and 0.88 (95%CI: 0.82-0.93) for solid tumors. After the third dose, the ES for seroconversion was estimated at 0.63 (95%CI: 0.54-0.72) for hematological cancer and 0.88 (95%CI: 0.75-0.97) for solid tumors. A subgroup analysis was performed to evaluate potential factors affecting immune response. Production of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was found to be more affected in patients with hematological malignancies, which was attributed to the type of malignancy and treatment with monoclonal antibodies according to the subgroup analyses. Overall, this study highlights that patients with cancer present suboptimal humoral responses after COVID-19 vaccination. Several factors including timing of vaccination in relevance with active therapy, type of therapy, and type of cancer should be considered throughout the immunization process.

The Role of Granulocyte-Colony Stimulating Factor Biosimilars for Supportive Cancer Care: A Year in Review

This year-in-review article provides insights into clinical updates relating to granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) biosimilars research presented at five key congresses in 2022. These include the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 55th Annual Meeting (3rd–7th June 2022, Chicago, Illinois, USA), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress (9th–13th September 2022, Paris, France), ESMO Asia Congress (2nd–4th December 2022, Singapore), San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS; 6th–10th December 2022, Texas, USA), and American Society of Hematology (ASH) 64th Annual Meeting and Exposition (10th–13th December 2022, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA). Alongside reviewing the current research presented at these key congresses, with a focus on the use of G-CSF agents and biosimilars in patients undergoing treatment for breast, colorectal, and gynaecological cancers, this article provides an overview of current guidelines on the use of G-CSF in supportive cancer care to manage chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia and explores trends in G-CSF biosimilars research.

Cancer care in German centers of excellence during the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic

PURPOSE

An increasing number of international studies demonstrate serious negative effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the timely diagnosis of cancer and on cancer treatment. Our study aimed to quantitatively and qualitatively evaluate the capacities of German Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCCs) in different areas of complex oncology care during the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

Prospective panel survey over 23 rounds among 18 CCCs in Germany between March 2020 and June 2022.

RESULTS

The COVID-19 pandemic substantially affected the oncological care system in Germany during the first 2 years. Persistent limitations of care in CCCs primarily affected follow-up (- 21%) and psycho-oncologic care (- 12%), but also tumor surgery (- 9%). Substantial limitations were also reported for all other areas of multidisciplinary oncological care.

CONCLUSIONS

This study documents the limitations of oncological care during the COVID-19 pandemic and highlights the need to develop strategies to avoid similar limitations in the future.

Willingness to receive COVID-19 vaccination and adverse effects after vaccination in breast cancer survivors during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional retrospective study of a Chinese population

Background

Breast cancer (BC) patients have a higher mortality rate after COVID-19 infection, but data on vaccination of BC patients and attitude towards COVID-19 vaccination and safety after vaccination are lacking. We wanted to understand the willingness and factors of BC survivors to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, and their adverse reactions. The purpose is to judge the safety of vaccination, and find strategies to promote vaccination in BC patients.

Methods

Offline and online questionnaire surveys were provided in outpatient clinics and on an online follow-up platform, respectively, to collect information. Factors influencing vaccination willingness were analyzed by univariate and multivariate logistic regression. All statistical tests were performed bilaterally, and a P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Patients who have been vaccinated need to fill in questions about the impact on quality of life after vaccination, the type and frequency of vaccination, and side effects.

Results

A total of 497 valid questionnaires were collected; 289 (58.1%) BC survivors were vaccinated with a COVID-19 vaccine, and 379 (76.26%) BC survivors had a fully or basically accepting attitude toward vaccination. Survivors over 70 years of age, educated only to high school level, and those receiving chemotherapy had significantly lower levels of acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines. Multivariate logistic regression analyses suggested that treatment status and cognitive attitude were independent factors influencing COVID-19 vaccination among BC survivors. The main reason for being vaccinated was "doctor recommendation" (57.26%). Unwillingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine was mainly due to "the unknown safety of the vaccine in cancer patients" (67.80%). A total of 97.56% of the survivors believed that vaccination had no or almost no effect on their quality of life. Among the BC survivors, 18 (6.23%) had adverse reactions after vaccination. All adverse reactions were grade 1 or 2, and no adverse reactions of grade 3 or above were reported. The adverse reactions reported by 15 survivors (83.33%) markedly improved within 1 week.

Conclusions

In terms of cognitive attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines, elderly individuals and those with a lower education level were less receptive to vaccination. Therefore, attention to elderly survivors can help improve the vaccination rate.

Assessment of Clinical Indicators Registered on Admission to the Hospital Related to Mortality Risk in Cancer Patients with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Oncology patients are a particularly vulnerable group to the severe course of COVID-19 due to, e.g., the suppression of the immune system. The study aimed to find links between parameters registered on admission to the hospital and the risk of later death in cancer patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

The study included patients with a reported history of malignant tumor (n = 151) and a control group with no history of cancer (n = 151) hospitalized due to COVID-19 between March 2020 and August 2021. The variables registered on admission were divided into categories for which we calculated the multivariate Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

Multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were successfully obtained for the following categories: Patient data, Comorbidities, Signs recorded on admission, Medications used before hospitalization and Laboratory results recorded on admission. With the models developed for oncology patients, we identified the following variables that registered on patients' admission were linked to significantly increased risk of death. They are: male sex, presence of metastases in neoplastic disease, impaired consciousness (somnolence or confusion), wheezes/rhonchi, the levels of white blood cells and neutrophils.

CONCLUSION

Early identification of the indicators of a poorer prognosis may serve clinicians in better tailoring surveillance or treatment among cancer patients with COVID-19.

Social Distancing to Avoid SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Cancer and Noncancer Patients

BACKGROUND

Social distancing has been recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to avoid exposure to SARS-CoV-2 ( Epidemiol Prev 2020;44:353-362).Cancer patients on or after active therapy seem to be more prone to COVID being symptomatic and life-threatening. When evaluating cancer patients' risk of acquiring COVID, it is essential to know the behavior of cancer patients that will affect their risk of exposure. However, it is not known to what degree social distancing is practiced by cancer patients compared with noncancer patients and what factors lead to the decision to distance oneself.

METHOD

After a pilot phase using patients' MyChart messaging, links to the electronic questionnaires were texted to patients using Twillio. Responses were stored on REDCap (Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN). Six questions about their social distancing behavior and mask wearing were posed and responses were compared between cancer and noncancer patients. Demographics, comorbidities, and a questionnaire about anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale) were recorded. To assess differences between cancer and noncancer groups, Bonferroni-corrected χ 2 tests and proportions confidence intervals were used.

RESULTS

The pilot survey was sent in mid-2020 and the full survey followed in January 2021 during a high community COVID incidence. Three hundred eighty-seven cancer patients (32.4% responded) and 503 noncancer patients (22.9% responded) completed the survey. Questions about leaving their houses, driving, shopping, friends, and family indicated that patients with cancer are more cautious ( P < 0.001). Cancer patients were up to 20% more likely to distance themselves. No difference was seen in wearing a mask-both groups wore approximately 90% of the time. Most respondents were female (63% versus 71%). Cancer patients were older (>60 y, 69% versus 45%) and less likely to work (52% versus 31%) or less likely to be White collar workers (21% versus 38%). In both groups, 54% marked "not at all anxious."

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer patients' responses revealed a distancing behavior that would likely lower the risk exposure to SARS-CoV-2. It is unclear which of the demographic differences would account for this behavior, although remarkably anxiety was not a clear motivating factor. The high acceptance of masks is encouraging. Early publications during the pandemic and patient education suggesting a higher COVID risk for cancer patients may have reduced risk prone behavior. Considering COVID's impact on the vulnerable cancer population and uncertainty in immunosuppressed patients about clearing the virus or adequately responding to a vaccine, further studies about health behavior and health promotion during the pandemic are needed.

Mitigating acute chemotherapy-associated adverse events in patients with cancer

Despite the enthusiasm surrounding novel targeted agents and immunotherapies, chemotherapy remains the mainstay treatment for most human malignancies, either alone or in combination. Yet, the burden of chemotherapy-associated adverse events (CAAEs) remains high and, importantly, is associated with considerable morbidity, mortality and costs that affect patients across multiple dimensions, including physical, emotional and social functioning. CAAEs can directly affect patient outcomes and indirectly increase the risk of cancer recurrence by compromising treatment intensity and continuity. Systematic efforts to identify and critically summarize the evidence on management approaches for CAAEs remain limited. Herein, we review the most common acute CAAEs having a major effect on survival, quality of life, function and/or continuation of optimal therapy. We focus on selected acute toxicities that occur during treatment, summarizing their underlying pathophysiology, multifactorial aetiologies, evidenced-based treatments, prevention strategies and management recommendations. We also summarize the available evidence on risk factors, validated risk assessment tools and other efforts to optimize symptom control in patients most likely to benefit in order to personalize the prevention and treatment of acute CAAEs. Finally, we discuss innovative symptom monitoring and supportive care interventions that are under development to further improve the outcomes of patients with cancer.

Prevalence and Outcomes of COVID-19 among Hematology/Oncology Patients and Providers of a Community-Facing Health System during the B1.1.529 (“Omicron”) SARS-CoV-2 Variant Wave

Simple Summary

The COVID-19 pandemic continues, and cancer patients are at high risk for both contracting as well as dying from the infection. There is not as much data known about newer COVID-19 variants such as Omicron compared to earlier waves for patients with cancer. In this study, we retrospectively evaluated how COVID-19 positivity affected both patients and their providers in our community-facing cancer clinic. We found that 33.3% compared to 8.7% of cancer providers versus patients, respectively, tested positive for COVID-19 from December 2021 through April 2022 (p = 0.038). Furthermore, we saw that almost two-thirds of cancer patients experienced delays in receiving cancer treatments. Finally, over 10% of cancer patients (4 of 90) died during the Omicron wave. This study confirms that COVID-19 remains a formidable infection in terms of cancer patients’ treatment as well as livelihood, and continues to result in considerable health care disparities for disadvantaged populations.

Abstract

(1) Background: the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic continues, and patients actively receiving chemotherapy are known to be at enhanced risk for developing symptomatic disease with poorer outcomes. Our study evaluated the prevalence of COVID-19 among patients and providers of our community-facing county health system during the B1.1.529 (“Omicron”) COVID-19 variant wave. (2) Methods: We retrospectively analyzed patients that received care and clinical providers whom worked at the Jackson Memorial Hospital Hematology/Oncology clinic in Miami, Florida, USA, from 1 December 2021 through 30 April 2022. We assessed demographic variables and quality outcomes among patients. (3) Results: 1031 patients and 18 providers were retrospectively analyzed. 90 patients tested positive for COVID-19 (8.73%), while 6 providers tested positive (33.3%) (p = 0.038). There were 4 (10.3%) COVID-19-related deaths (and another outside our study timeframe) and 39 non-COVID-19-related deaths (89.7%) in the patient population (p = 0.77). COVID-19 accounted for 4.44% of our clinic’s total mortality, and delayed care in 64.4% of patients. (4) Conclusions: The prevalence of COVID-19 positivity in our patient cohort mirrored local, state, and national trends, however a statistically significant greater proportion of our providers tested positive. Almost two-thirds of patients experienced a cancer treatment delay, significantly impacting oncologic care.

Conceptual Framework for Cancer Care During a Pandemic Incorporating Evidence From the COVID-19 Pandemic

PURPOSE

With successive infection waves and the spread of more infectious variants, the COVID-19 pandemic continues to have major impacts on health care. To achieve best outcomes for patients with cancer during a pandemic, efforts to minimize the increased risk of severe pandemic infection must be carefully balanced against unintended adverse impacts of the pandemic on cancer care, with consideration to available health system capacity. Cancer Australia's conceptual framework for cancer care during a pandemic provides a planning resource for health services and policy-makers that can be broadly applied globally and to similar pandemics.

METHODS

Evidence on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer care and health system capacity to June 2021 was reviewed, and the conceptual framework was developed and updated.

RESULTS

Components of health system capacity vary during a pandemic, and capacity relative to pandemic numbers and severity affects resources available for cancer care delivery. The challenges of successive pandemic waves and high numbers of pandemic cases necessitate consideration of changing health system capacity in decision making about cancer care. Cancer Australia’s conceptual framework provides guidance on continuation of care across the cancer pathway, in the face of challenges to health systems, while minimizing infection risk for patients with cancer and unintended consequences of delays in screening, diagnosis, and cancer treatment and backlogs because of service interruption.

CONCLUSION

Evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic supports continuation of cancer care wherever possible during similar pandemics. Cancer Australia's conceptual framework, underpinned by principles for optimal cancer care, informs decision making across the cancer care continuum. It incorporates consideration of changes in health system capacity and capacity for cancer care, in relation to pandemic progression, enabling broad applicability to different global settings.

The Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Oncology Patient Management

The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the way cancer patients should be managed. Using published literature on best practices on oncology patient management, we developed checklists to establish which recommendations were followed and differences between healthcare staff and institutions in a local health unit (overseeing two regional hospitals and 14 primary Healthcare Centers) in an interior region in Portugal. Checklists were delivered and completed by 15 physicians, 18 nurses and 5 pharmacists working at the Hospitals, and 29 physicians and 46 nurses from primary healthcare centers. Hospital staff do not show statistically significant differences regarding most proposed recommendations for the oncology clinical pathway, human resources, treatments, patient management and service management. Primary healthcare centers seem to follow a similar trend. As a local health unit, general recommendations for Oncology Patient Management show statistically significantly different values on education of suspected cases, identification, isolation procedures and samples collection; extension of work schedules; and education on cancer patient and COVID-19 positive referral procedures. All the checklists indicated good-to-high internal consistency. Our analysis showed cohesive work between groups regarding control and prevention of sources of infection; therefore, it is considered the highest priority to ensure that all other services, including oncology, continue functioning. Patient management measures such as adjustments in treatments, analysis, patient care, referrals and emergencies were not ranked higher by responders.

Telehealth Adoption in an Outpatient Oncology Ward: A Best Practice Implementation Project

Telehealth is increasingly taking place to support the transition of care and self-management of people living with cancer in outpatient oncology settings. Despite its recognised value, the scientific evidence points to disparities with regard to implementation of telehealth that might compromise the equity of access. Following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) implementation approach, this project aims to promote the implementation of best practice recommendations for telehealth adoption in an outpatient oncology setting. Assisted by the Practical Application of Clinical Evidence System (PACES), the implementation process comprises three phases of (i) a baseline audit, (ii) feedback to the healthcare team and establishment of implementation strategies with the Getting Research into Practice (GRiP) tool, and (iii) a follow-up audit. The project is expected to allow the identification of barriers and facilitators for the implementation of telehealth in outpatient oncology and develop a strategy plan for its adoption, with the involvement of end-users and stakeholders. The successful adoption of telehealth according to the best available evidence will likely enhance equity of access to healthcare and quality of care at a distance.

Needs of cancer patients during the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron lockdown: A population-based survey in Shanghai, China

The aim of this study was to investigate the medical and healthcare needs of cancer patients during the Shanghai lockdown due to the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron pandemic. From April 15 to April 21, 2022, 4,195 cancer patients from every district in Shanghai were surveyed using quota sampling via an online platform. The questionnaire consisted of three main parts: demographic and sociological data, disease diagnosis, and different dimensions of patients' needs. Correlation analysis was used to examine the relationship between participants' need scores in each dimension, and generalized linear regression models were used to analyze the factors influencing patients' need scores. The mean age of participants was 63.23 years (SD: 7.43 years), with more female than male participants (80.38% vs. 19.62%). Among participants, the three leading groups of patients were those with breast cancer (39.02%), colorectal cancer (12.82%), or tracheal and bronchial lung cancer (10.23%). Social support, dietary/nutritional support, and psychological counselling ranked as the top three needs of cancer patients. In addition, vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 may reduce psychological anxiety in cancer patients. Compared to participants who had never received the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, participants who had received one, two, or three doses of the vaccine were respectively 36% (odds ratio (OR): 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.56-0.73), 38% (OR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.59-0.54), and 37% (OR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.60-0.66) less likely to have an increased need for psychological counseling. In light of constraints on offline medical resources for cancer patients during the lockdown, the current authors have begun to re-examine the universal accessibility and spread of telemedicine in the future. In addition, immune barriers can be established for cancer patients and vaccination guidelines for different disease stages, tumor types, and treatment regimens can be explored in detail.

Organisation of cancer care in troubling times: A scoping review of expert guidelines and their implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic

This scoping review mapped the main themes in existing expert guidelines for cancer care issued during the COVID-19 crisis from the period of March 2020-August 2021. The guidelines published during the research period principally relate to the first two waves in Europe and until the beginning of the vaccination campaign. They elaborated recommendations for cancer care reorganisation, in particular triage and quality of care issues. The article highlights the ethical, epistemological, as well as practical reasons that guidelines were not always followed to provide some lessons learned for future crises to enable better guideline development processes. We also elaborate early evidence on the impact of triage decisions and different perspectives on cancer care reorganisation from ethics and social science literature.

Report from the Ready for the Next Round Thought-Leadership Roundtables on Building Resilience in Cancer Care and Control in Canada-Colorectal Cancer Canada; 2021

(1) Background: The COVID-19 pandemic illuminated vulnerabilities in the Canadian health care system and exposed gaps and challenges across the cancer care continuum. Canada is experiencing significant disruptions to cancer-related services, and the impact these disruptions (delays/deferrals/cancellations) have on the health care system and patients are yet to be determined. Given the potential adverse ramifications, how can Canada’s health care systems build resilience for future threats? (2) Methods: To answer this question, CCC facilitated a series of four thought-leadership roundtables, each representing the views of four different stakeholder groups: patients, physicians, health care system leaders, and researchers. (3) Results: Six themes of strength were identified to serve as a springboard for building resilience including, (1) advancing virtual care and digital health technologies to prevent future interruptions in cancer care delivery. (2) developing real-time data metrics, data sharing, and evidence-based decision-making. (3) enhancing public–private-non-profit partnerships to advance research and strengthen connections across the system. (4) advancing patient-centricity in cancer research to drive and encourage precision medicine approaches to care. (5) investing in training and hiring a robust supply of health care human resources. (6) implementing a national strategy and infrastructure to ensure inter-provincial collaborative data sharing (4). Conclusions: A resilient health care system that can respond to shocks and threats is not an emergency system; it is a robust everyday system that can respond to emergencies.

[G-CSF for prophylaxis of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia, anemia in cancer : Guidelines on supportive treatment part 1]

Infections in patients with neutropenia following chemotherapy are mostly manifested as fever (febrile neutropenia, FN). Some of the most important determinants of the risk of FN are the type of chemotherapy, the dose intensity and patient-specific factors. When the risk of FN is 20% or more granulopoiesis is prophylactically stimulated with granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) after the treatment. Anemia should always be clarified and if necessary be treated according to the cause when symptomatic. If an absolute or functional iron deficiency is present, intravenous iron substitution is mostly necessary. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents can be used after chemotherapy with hemoglobin (Hb) levels less than 10 g/dl (6.2 mmol/l). In cases of chronic anemia and Hb levels less than 7-8 g/dl (<4.3-5.0 mmol/l) the indications for transfusion of erythrocyte concentrates should be assessed primarily based on the individual clinical symptoms.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Oncology Care and Clinical Trials

Simple Summary

The coronavirus pandemic has had a considerable impact on all parts of society. Unsurprisingly, healthcare has been particularly affected, including cancer care and trials of new drugs. This article will summarize the impact the pandemic has had on cancer healthcare taking into consideration how the pandemic affected potential cancer patients and stopped them seeking medical advice for new symptoms. The pandemic also affected the ability of people to access healthcare services and undergo the tests necessary to diagnose cancer. This article will also discuss the impact of the pandemic on existing treatments and the trials of new drugs. In light of the unprecedented speed of development of new treatments and vaccines for the virus itself, it will also review whether some of these adaptations could be used to accelerate the development of novel cancer therapies.

Abstract

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused considerable global disruption to clinical practice. This article will review the impact that the pandemic has had on oncology clinical trials. It will assess the effect of the COVID-19 situation on the initial presentation and investigation of patients with suspected cancer. It will also review the impact of the pandemic on the subsequent management of cancer patients, and how clinical trial approval, recruitment, and conduct were affected during the pandemic. An intriguing aspect of the pandemic is that clinical trials investigating treatments for COVID-19 and vaccinations against the causative virus, SARS-CoV-2, have been approved and conducted at an unprecedented speed. In light of this, this review will also discuss the potential that this enhanced regulatory environment could have on the running of oncology clinical trials in the future.

Management of adverse events in patients with acute myeloid leukemia in remission receiving oral azacitidine: experience from the phase 3 randomized QUAZAR AML-001 trial

Background

Most older patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who attain morphologic remission with intensive chemotherapy (IC) will eventually relapse and post-relapse prognosis is dismal. In the pivotal QUAZAR AML-001 trial, oral azacitidine maintenance therapy significantly prolonged overall survival by 9.9 months (P < 0.001) and relapse-free survival by 5.3 months (P < 0.001) compared with placebo in patients with AML in first remission after IC who were not candidates for transplant. Currently, the QUAZAR AML-001 trial provides the most comprehensive safety information associated with oral azacitidine maintenance therapy. Reviewed here are common adverse events (AEs) during oral azacitidine treatment in QUAZAR AML-001, and practical recommendations for AE management based on guidance from international cancer consortiums, regulatory authorities, and the authors’ clinical experience treating patients in the trial.

Methods

QUAZAR AML-001 is an international, placebo-controlled randomized phase 3 study. Patients aged ≥ 55 years with AML and intermediate- or poor-risk cytogenetics at diagnosis, who had attained first complete remission (CR) or CR with incomplete blood count recovery (CRi) within 4 months before study entry, were randomized 1:1 to receive oral azacitidine 300 mg or placebo once-daily for 14 days in repeated 28-day cycles. Safety was assessed in all patients who received ≥ 1 dose of study drug.

Results

A total of 469 patients received oral azacitidine (n = 236) or placebo (n = 233). Median age was 68 years. Patients received a median of 12 (range 1–80) oral azacitidine treatment cycles or 6 (1–73) placebo cycles. Gastrointestinal AEs were common and typically low-grade. The most frequent grade 3–4 AEs during oral azacitidine therapy were hematologic events. AEs infrequently required permanent discontinuation of oral azacitidine (13%), suggesting they were effectively managed with use of concomitant medications and oral azacitidine dosing modifications.

Conclusion

Oral azacitidine maintenance had a generally favorable safety profile. Prophylaxis with antiemetic agents, and blood count monitoring every other week, are recommended for at least the first 2 oral azacitidine treatment cycles, and as needed thereafter. Awareness of the type, onset, and duration of common AEs, and implementation of effective AE management, may maximize treatment adherence and optimize the survival benefits of oral azacitidine AML remission maintenance therapy.

Trial registration This trial is registered on clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01757535 as of December 2012.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13045-021-01142-x.

Emerging issues related to COVID-19 vaccination in patients with cancer

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in millions of deaths globally. The pandemic has had a severe impact on oncology care and research. Patients with underlying cancer are more vulnerable to contracting COVID-19, and also have a more severe clinical course following the infection. The rollout of COVID-19 vaccines in many parts of the world has raised hopes of controlling the pandemic. In this editorial, the authors outline key characteristics of the currently approved COVID-19 vaccines, provide a brief overview of key emerging issues such as vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia and SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern, and review the available data related to the efficacy and side effects of vaccinating patients with cancer.

COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and thrombotic conditions: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 is an infectious disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 associated with haematological manifestations (thrombolytic events).

AIMS

Considering the high prevalence of the thrombotic scenarios associated with COVID-19, the aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of the available literature, concerning the relation of COVID-19 and the thrombotic events, and identify prognostic factors for these events.

MATERIALS & METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases were searched. Independent reviewers conducted all flow diagram steps. For qualitative analysis, Oxford level of evidence and Newcastle-Ottawa scale were used in the eligible articles. For the prognostic factors, a meta-analysis was conducted to age, number of neutrophils and platelets, and levels of ferritin, C-reactive protein, lactate dehydrogenase and D-dimer. Publication bias was accessed by funnel plot and by trim-and-fill test. Trim-and-fill test was also applied to evaluate meta-analysis bias.

RESULTS

Twenty articles were included in the qualitative analysis, and 6 articles were included in the meta-analysis. Case-control studies showed bias related to exposure, and the main bias in cohort studies were related to selection and outcome. All articles received score 4 for the level of evidence. Hypertension and diabetes were the comorbidities more frequently associated with thrombolytic events. Significant results were found regarding D-dimer (P < .0001) and age (P = .0202) for thrombotic events in patients diagnosed with COVID-19.

CONCLUSION

Patients older than 60 years, with hypertension, diabetes and D-Dimer values above 3.17 µg/mL, can be considered prognostic factors for developing thrombotic events due to COVID-19.