Dataset Information

Management and Outcome of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Pediatric Cancer Patients: A Single Centre Experience from a Developing Country.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Sufficient data pertaining to the impact of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on pediatric cancer patients is still lacking. The aim of this prospective study was to describe clinical management and outcomes of COVID-19 in pediatric oncology patients.

Patients and methods

Conducted between May 1, 2020 and November 30, 2020, this study included 76 pediatric oncology patients with confirmed COVID-19. Remdesivir (RDV) was the antiviral therapy used.

Results

The median age of patients was 9 years. Sixty patients were on first line treatment. Hematological malignancies constituted 86.8% of patients. Severe to critical infections were 35.4% of patients. The commonest symptom was fever (93.4%). Chemotherapy was delayed in 59.2% of patients and doses were modified in 30.2%. The 60-day overall survival (OS) stood at 86.8%, with mortalities occurring only among critical patients. Of sixteen acute leukemia patients in the first induction therapy, 13 survived and 10 achieved complete remission. A negative RT-PCR within 2 weeks and improvement of radiological findings were statistically related to disease severity (P = .008 and .002, respectively). Better OS was associated with regression of radiological findings after 30 days from infection (P = .002). Forty-five patients received RDV, 42.1% had severe and critical forms of infection compared to 25.7% in the No-RDV group and yet OS was comparable in both groups.

Conclusion

Most pediatric cancer patients with COVID-19 should have good clinical outcomes except for patients with critical infections. Cancer patients can tolerate chemotherapy including induction phase, alongside COVID-19 treatment. In severe and critical COVID-19, RDV might have a potential benefit.

SUBMITTER: Hammad M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8312090 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceRecent evidence suggests a multilevel inflammatory syndrome as a driving factor in some of the most severely ill coronavirus disease 2019 patients with overlapping features to other hyperinflammatory or autoimmune diseases. Therefore, plasma exchange is considered as potential therapy in these patients.ObjectivesWe characterize the longitudinal therapeutic efficacy and safety profile of plasma exchange in critically ill patients with clinical and laboratory evidences of coronavirus disease 2019-related immunopathology.Design setting and participantsA retropsective case-control study of critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 patients treated with plasma exchange at Heidelberg University Hospital between March and December 2020. Plasma exchange-treated patients were compared with coronavirus disease 2019 patients on standard therapy matched for age, gender, disease severity, and features of hyperinflammatory syndrome.Main outcome and measuresMortality rate and course of clinical and laboratory parameters in response to plasma exchange were assessed in coronavirus disease 2019 patients and in patients on standard care. A plasma volume of 50 mL per kg body weight or a maximum of 4 L was exchanged.ResultsIn total, 28 critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 patients were treated with a median of three plasma exchange procedures per patient. No relevant complications occurred during plasma exchange therapy. Inflammatory and biochemical markers of end-organ damage and endothelial activation were significantly reduced following plasma exchange together with normalization of body temperature, improved pulmonary function, and reduced vasopressor demand. Most importantly, these improvements were maintained after the last plasma exchange. In contrast, no such effects were observed in the control group, although baseline clinical and laboratory parameters were comparable. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed improved 30-day survival in the plasma exchange group compared with the control group (67.9% vs 42.9%; p = 0.044). In a multivariable analysis, the hazard ratio for death was 0.27 (95% CI, 0.11-0.68; p = 0.005) with plasma exchange versus standard care.Conclusions and relevanceOur data provide further evidence for plasma exchange as a novel therapeutic strategy in a subset of critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 patients by potentially reversing the complex coronavirus disease 2019 immunopathology. Randomized controlled trials are underway to confirm these positive results.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To develop outcome measures to assess practical management of primary surgical wounds and patient experience. DESIGN:Mixed methods, including qualitative interviews and data extraction from published randomised controlled trials (RCTs). SETTING:Two university-teaching NHS hospitals and three district NHS hospitals in the South West and Midlands regions of England. PARTICIPANTS:Sixty-four patients and 15 healthcare professionals from abdominal general surgical specialities and obstetrics (caesarean section). METHODS:Measures were developed according to standard guidelines to identify issues relevant to patients' experiences of surgical wounds and dressings, including analysis of existing RCT outcomes and semi-structured interviews. These were written into provisional questionnaire items for a single outcome measure. Cognitive interviews with patients and healthcare professionals assessed face validity, acceptability and relevance. Findings from interviews were regularly shared with the study team who suggested amendments to modify and reword items to improve understanding before further iterative testing with patients and healthcare professionals. RESULTS:Analyses of existing RCT outcomes and interviews produced a total of 69 issues. Pretesting and iterative revision established the need for two separate measures. One measure addresses healthcare professionals' experience of wound management in two key areas: exudate and its impact, and allergic reactions to the dressing. The other measure addresses patients' experience of wounds in seven key areas: wound comfort, dressing removal, dressings to protect the wound, impact on daily activities, ease of movement, anxiety about the wound and satisfaction with dressing. Each measure took less than five?min to complete and both were understood and acceptable to patients and healthcare professionals. CONCLUSION:This in-depth study has developed two measures to assess practical management of primary surgical wounds and patient experience. Further work to test their validity, reliability and application to other settings is now required. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:HTA - 12/200/04; Pre-results.

Project description:Background:In limited retrospective series, infliximab, adalimumab and vedolizumab have demonstrated efficacy in chronic antibiotic-refractory pouchitis. Here, we report single-centre data of all biological therapies in refractory pouchitis. Methods:We retrospectively assessed all records from patients with ulcerative colitis and ileal pouch -anal anastomosis who received infliximab, adalimumab or vedolizumab for pouchitis. Clinically relevant remission, defined as a modified Pouchitis Disease Activity Index?<5 and a reduction of modified Pouchitis Disease Activity Index ?2 points from baseline, was assessed at week 14. Results:Thirty-three unique patients were identified. Prior to colectomy, patients had been exposed to cyclosporine (n?=?14), infliximab (n?=?12), adalimumab (n?=?3), and/or vedolizumab (n?=?3). All developed chronic antibiotic-refractory pouchitis, for which they received infliximab (n?=?23), adalimumab (n?=?13) or vedolizumab (n?=?15). Clinically relevant remission was observed in 43.5% of patients in the infliximab group, and in 38.5% and 60.0% in the adalimumab and vedolizumab group, respectively. In the long-term, significantly more patients continued vedolizumab compared to anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy (hazard ratio 3.0, p?=?0.04). Adverse events (mainly infusion reactions) explained 40.7% of the patients discontinuing anti-TNF therapy, whereas discontinuation of vedolizumab was only related to insufficient efficacy. Four patients eventually required a permanent ileostomy. Conclusion:In this case series of chronic antibiotic-refractory pouchitis, biological therapy was effective in the majority of patients and only a minority eventually required a permanent ileostomy. The use of anti-TNF agents was hampered by a high rate of adverse events, partly related to immunogenicity as some patients had been exposed to anti-TNF prior to colectomy. Vedolizumab was also efficacious and may provide a safe alternative in these chronic antibiotic-refractory pouchitis patients.

Project description:BackgroundVentricular septal rupture (VSR) is a rare complication after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) especially in the reperfusion era but its associated mortality has remained high. This case series evaluated in-hospital and intermediate-term mortality in VSR patients. Additionally, we also analyzed risk factors, clinical presentation, intervention, and predictors of in-hospital mortality in VSR patients.MethodsData of 67 patients with echocardiography confirmed diagnosis of VSR from January 2011 to April 2020 was extracted from hospital medical records. Records were also reviewed to document 30 day and 1-year mortality, recurrent heart failure admission, repeat myocardial infarction, and revascularization. In addition, telephonic follow-up was done to assess health-related quality of life(HRQOL) assessed by KCCQ-12. SCAI shock classification was used to categorize severity of cardiogenic shock. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression was used to determine predictors of in-hospital mortality. Survival function was presented using the Kaplan-Meier survival curve.ResultsMean age of patients was 62.7 ± 11.1 years, 62.7% were males. 65.7% of the patients presented more than 24 hours after MI and did not receive reperfusion therapy. Median time from AMI to VSR diagnosis was 2 (1-5) days. VSR closure was attempted in 53.7% patients. In-hospital mortality was 65.7%. At univariate level, predictors of in-hospital mortality were non-surgical management, basal VSR, right ventricular dysfunction, early VSR post-MI, and severe cardiogenic shock at admission (class C, D, or E). Adjusted predictors of in-hospital mortality included non-surgical management, basal VSR and advanced cardiogenic shock. There were 5 deaths during median followup of 44.1 months. HRQOL in patients available on followup was good (54.5%) or excellent (45.5%).ConclusionHigh in-hospital mortality was seen in VSR patients. VSR closure is the preferred treatment to get long-term survival, however, timing of repair as well as severity of cardiogenic shock plays a significant role in determining prognosis.