A nationwide cross-sectional study using a web-based questionnaire survey of the duration of isolation of COVID-19 inpatients with cancer at Japanese cancer centers

There is no clear consensus regarding the optimal isolation duration for immunocompromised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Therefore, we conducted a questionnaire survey at eight Japanese cancer centers to investigate the practices of infectious disease specialists regarding the duration of isolation for COVID-19 inpatients with cancer. For asymptomatic to severely ill COVID-19 inpatients without severe immunodeficiency, four centers reported at least 10 days of isolation without testing, and two reported at least 20 days. Two centers incorporated polymerase chain reaction (PCR) as a criterion for terminating the isolation of inpatients without severe immunodeficiency. For severely immunocompromised COVID-19 inpatients, at least 20 days of isolation were required in seven facilities, regardless of illness severity. Additionally, seven centers had implemented Ct or antigen quantification test values as criteria for de-isolating severely immunocompromised inpatients. No cases caused nosocomial outbreaks after isolation was terminated based on each facility's criteria for isolation termination. Thus, cancer patients required longer isolation periods than the general population in most facilities, and for those with severe immunodeficiency, the isolation periods were longer and more tightly controlled with tests.

Impact of Isolation measures on pregnancy outcome during the COVID-19 pandemic

This study aims to explore the impact of isolation measures implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic on childbirth outcomes in pregnant women. The design was a retrospective cohort study. The pregnant women during the outbreak lockdown and isolation from February 1 to April 30, 2020, were defined as the exposed population, and the pregnant women in the same time frame in 2019 as the non-exposed population. All data for the study were obtained from the National Health Care Data Platform of Shandong University. Generalized linear regression models were used to analyze the differences in pregnancy outcomes between the two study groups. A total of 34,698 pregnant women from Shandong Province, China in the data platform met the criteria and were included in the study. The proportions were 11.53% and 8.93% for macrosomia in the exposed and the non-exposed groups and were 3.47% and 4.37% for low birth weight infants, respectively, which were significantly different. They were 22.55% and 25.94% attributed to average exposed effect for macrosomia and low birth weight infants. Meanwhile, the mean weight and standard deviation of full-term infants in the exposure group were 3414.80 ± 507.43 g, which were significantly higher than in the non-exposed group (3347.22 ± 502.57 g, P < 0.001). The effect of exposure was significant in the third trimester. In conclusion, the isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic increases the birth weight of infants and the probability of macrosomia, regardless of which trimester in isolation a pregnant woman was, while the third trimester is the sensitive window of exposure. Our findings provide a basis for health care and policy development during pregnancy in COVID-19, due to COVID-19 still showing a pandemic trend around the world in 2022.

[Outcomes following the triage of patients for urological cancer and non-cancer surgery during Covid-19 pandemic peak]

Introduction

Lors de la première vague épidémique Covid-19, des mesures de triage, sans PCR systématique, étaient mises en place pour sélectionner les patients à opérer. Notre étude a comparé leurs résultats chirurgicaux après triage à ceux d’un groupe contrôle.

Matériel

L’analyse portait sur l’ensemble des patients initialement programmés dans un centre Covid de référence et inclus consécutivement, du 15 mars au 1^er mai 2020 (NCT04352699). Leurs données étaient recueillies prospectivement et ultérieurement comparées à celles des patients opérés 1 an auparavant sur la même période dans ce centre. Le critère d’évaluation principal était l’admission post-opératoire en unité de soins intensifs (USI). La morbidité, la mortalité postopératoire, le report d’interventions, les tests PCR étaient évalués. Des analyses de sous-groupes étaient réalisés pour les patients opérés de cancer.

Résultats

Après triage, 96 des 142 interventions programmées ont dû être reportées. Sur les opérés, 48 (68 %) l’étaient pour cancer. Au total, aucun cas de pneumonie Covid-19 post-opératoire n’a été identifié. Trois patients (4 %) ont été admis en USI, dont un finalement décédé pour sepsis urinaire. Chez ces patients, les RT-PCR étaient négatives. Globalement, comparativement au groupe contrôle, aucune différence d’admission en USI, ni de taux de mortalité post-opératoire n’ont été rapportées.

Conclusions

Le triage de la première vague n’a pas surexposé les patients sélectionnés à un risque de complication ou de décès post-opératoire, particulièrement pas pour ceux opérés pour cancer. En revanche, 67 % des patients ont été reportés, avec un risque associé à des retard de soins pouvant conduire au décès.

Niveau de preuve

3.