scholarly journals Optimising triage procedures for patients with cancer needing active anticancer treatment in the COVID-19 era

ESMO Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (5) ◽  
pp. e000885
Author(s):  
Grazia Arpino ◽  
Carmine De Angelis ◽  
Pietro De Placido ◽  
Erica Pietroluongo ◽  
Luigi Formisano ◽  
...  

BackgroundImmunosuppression induced by anticancer therapy in a COVID-19-positive asymptomatic patient with cancer may have a devastating effect and, eventually, be lethal. To identify asymptomatic cases among patients receiving active cancer treatment, the Federico II University Hospital in Naples performs rapid serological tests in addition to hospital standard clinical triage for COVID-19 infection.MethodsFrom 6 to 17 April 2020, all candidates for chemotherapy, radiotherapy or target/immunotherapy, if negative at the standard clinical triage on the day scheduled for anticancer treatment, received a rapid serological test on peripheral blood for COVID-19 IgM and IgG detection. In case of COVID-19 IgM and/or IgG positivity, patients underwent a real-time PCR (RT-PCR) SARS-CoV-2 test to confirm infection, and active cancer treatment was delayed.ResultsOverall 466 patients, negative for COVID-19 symptoms, underwent serological testing in addition to standard clinical triage. The average age was 61 years (range 25–88 years). Most patients (190, 40.8%) had breast cancer, and chemotherapy with or without immunotherapy was administered in 323 (69.3%) patients. Overall 433 (92.9%) patients were IgG-negative and IgM-negative, and 33 (7.1%) were IgM-positive and/or IgG-positive. Among the latter patients, 18 (3.9%), 11 (2.4%) and 4 (0.9%) were IgM-negative/IgG-positive, IgM-positive/IgG-negative and IgM-positive/IgG-positive, respectively. All 33 patients with a positive serological test, tested negative for RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 test. No patient in our cohort developed symptoms suggestive of active COVID-19 infection.ConclusionRapid serological testing at hospital admission failed to detect active asymptomatic COVID-19 infection. Moreover, it entailed additional economic and human resources, delayed therapy administrationand increased hospital accesses.

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
G Del Castillo ◽  
A Castrofino ◽  
F Grosso ◽  
A Barone ◽  
L Crottogini ◽  
...  

Abstract Issue COVID-19 pandemic began in Italy on February 20th, 2020. Since the beginning of the emergency Healthcare Workers' (HCWs) involvement was prominent, mainly due to direct assistance to COVID-19 patients. Therefore, we implemented a prevention policy for HCW screening through serological and RT-PCR testing. Description of the problem HCW screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection is essential for prevention and control of the pandemic. Lombardy's Healthcare authorities settled a screening process for HCWs divided into three steps: 1) body temperature assessment at the beginning and the end of work shift, if fever > 37.5 °C was present the HCW was sent back home and a nasopharyngeal swab was performed; 2) progressive recruitment for serological testing; 3) on those positive to IgG a nasopharyngeal swab was performed and tested for viral RNA by RT-PCR. Results Among 79185 HCW tested, 9589 (12%) were positive on serological IgG testing. Of the 9589 positive a nasopharyngeal swab was performed on 6884. Of these 358 (5%) tested positive and the remaining 6526 (95%) negative to RT-PCR. We calculated a Positive Predictive Value of 5.2%. The rate of positive serological tests for each Healthcare facility varied between 0% and 78%. Five percent of all facilities, belonging to Brescia, Bergamo and Cremona area, reported a positivity rate higher than 40% in HCWs. A second cluster (18% of all facilities), involving the same geographical area, reported a rate between 20% and 40%, whereas the remaining facilities (76%) of the region a rate <20%. Lessons Serological IgG testing can be, if followed by immediate nasopharyngeal swab testing, a valid screening intervention on asymptomatic HCWs especially in a high infection prevalence setting. Key messages Serological IgG testing can be, if followed by immediate nasopharyngeal swab testing, a valid screening intervention on asymptomatic HCWs. Infection prevention in HCW may benefit from a screening campaign especially in high prevalence settings.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Giovanni Merlino ◽  
Carmelo Smeralda ◽  
Gian Luigi Gigli ◽  
Simone Lorenzut ◽  
Sara Pez ◽  
...  

AbstractTo date, very few studies focused their attention on efficacy and safety of recanalisation therapy in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients with cancer, reporting conflicting results. We retrospectively analysed data from our database of consecutive patients admitted to the Udine University Hospital with AIS that were treated with recanalisation therapy, i.e. intravenous thrombolysis (IVT), mechanical thrombectomy (MT), and bridging therapy, from January 2015 to December 2019. We compared 3-month dependency, 3-month mortality, and symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage (SICH) occurrence of patients with active cancer (AC) and remote cancer (RC) with that of patients without cancer (WC) undergoing recanalisation therapy for AIS. Patients were followed up for 3 months. Among the 613 AIS patients included in the study, 79 patients (12.9%) had either AC (n = 46; 7.5%) or RC (n = 33; 5.4%). Although AC patients, when treated with IVT, had a significantly increased risk of 3-month mortality [odds ratio (OR) 6.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.42–20.07, p = 0.001] than WC patients, stroke-related deaths did not differ between AC and WC patients (30% vs. 28.8%, p = 0.939). There were no significant differences between AC and WC patients, when treated with MT ± IVT, regarding 3-month dependency, 3-month mortality and SICH. Functional independence, mortality, and SICH were similar between RC and WC patients. In conclusion, recanalisation therapy might be used in AIS patients with nonmetastatic AC and with RC. Further studies are needed to explore the outcome of AIS patients with metastatic cancer undergoing recanalisation therapy.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
José Rodrigues Pereira ◽  
Ilka Lopes Santoro ◽  
Maria Silvia Biagioni Santos ◽  
Andreia Padilha de Toledo ◽  
Greice Elen Copelli ◽  
...  

1AbstractSince its discovery, more than 37 million people have been infected by SARS-CoV-2 with deaths around 1 million worldwide. The prevalence is not known because infected individuals may be asymptomatic. In addition, the use of specific diagnostic tests is not always conclusive, raising doubts about the etiology of the disease.The best diagnostic method and the ideal time of collection remains the subject of study. The gold standard for diagnosing COVID 19 is the RT PCR molecular test, usually using an oropharynx and nasopharynx swab. Its sensitivity is 70% and drops significantly after the second week of symptoms. Serological tests, in turn, have increased sensitivity after 14 days, and can contribute to the diagnosis when SARS-CoV-2 infection is suspected, even with negative RT PCR.Our study showed sensitivity and specificity of 100% of the serological test (ELISA method) for cases of viral pneumonia caused by the new coronavirus, suggesting that this test could assist in the diagnosis of pulmonary interstitial changes that have not yet been etiologically clarified. We found a greater immune response in men, regardless of the severity of symptoms. The greater the severity, the higher the levels of IgA and IgG, mainly found in patients with multilobar impairment and in need for oxygen. We concluded that the serological test collected around 30 days after the onset of symptoms is the best diagnostic tool in the convalescence phase, not only for epidemiological purposes, but also for the etiological clarification of pulmonary changes that have not yet been diagnosed.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Berhanu Nega Alemu ◽  
Adamu Addissie ◽  
Gemechis Mamo ◽  
Negussie Deyessa ◽  
Tamrat Abebe ◽  
...  

AbstractBackgroundAnti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests are being increasingly used for sero-epidemiological purposes to provide better understanding of the extent of the infection in the community, and monitoring the progression of the COVID-19 epidemic. We conducted sero-prevalence study to estimate prior infection with with SARS-CoV-2 in Addis Ababa.MethodsA cross-sectional study was done from April 23 to 28, 2020 among 301 randomly selected residents of Addis Ababa; with no known history of contact with confirmed COVID-19 person. Interviews on socio demographic and behavioural risk factor followed by serological tests were performed for SARS-CoV-2 IgM, and IgG antibodies, using COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test Cassette. The test has sensitivity of 87·9% and specificity of 100% for lgM; and a sensitivity of 97·2% and specificity of 100% for IgG. RT-PCR test was also done on combined nasopharyngeal and oropharengeal swabs as an important public health consideration.FindingsThe unadjusted antibody-based crude SARS-CoV-2 prevalence was 7·6% and the adjusted true SARS-CoV-2 prevalence was estimated at 8·8% (95% CI 5·5%-11·6%) for the study population. Higher sero-prevalence were observed for males (9.0%), age below 50 years (8.2%), students and unemployed (15.6%), those with primary education (12.1%), smokers (7.8%), alcohol consumers (8.6%), chatt-chewers (13.6%) and shish smokers (18.8%). Seroprevalence was not significantly associated neither with socio-demographic not behavioral characteristics. According to the findings, possibly more individuals had been infected in Addis Ababa than what was being detected and reported by RT-PCR test suggestive of community transmission. The use of serological test for epidemiological estimation of the extent of SARS-CoV-2 epidemic gives a more precise estimate of magnitude which would be used for further monitoring and surveillance of the magnitude of the SARS CoV-2 infection.


Author(s):  
Angelo Virgilio Paradiso ◽  
SimonaDe Summa ◽  
Nicola Silvestris ◽  
Stefania Tommasi ◽  
Antonio Tufaro ◽  
...  

AbstractHealth workers are at high risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and, if asymptomatic, for transmitting the virus on to fragile cancer patients. We screened 525 health workers of our Cancer Institute with rapid serological test Viva-Diag analyzingCOVID-19 associated-IgG/IgM. Six subjects (1,1%) resulted with Viva-Diag test not-negative for IgM. All 6 cases had RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 test negative; repeating analysis ofIgG/IgM expression by CLIA assay also, 2 cases resulted IgM positive and 1 case IgG/IgM positive. This latter subject reported a contact with an infected SARS-CoV-2 person, a month earlier.In conclusion our study seems to suggest: a) a different analytical sensitivity inIgG/IgM evaluation for Viva-Diag and CLIA assays needing to be further determined; b) the ability of Viva-Diagrapid COVID-19 test to evidence health workers positive for Immunoglobulins expression. Discordant results of rapid serological tests with respect to RT-PCR stress the different clinical meaning the two assays can have, question clearly referring to further studies to optimize the utilization of rapid serological test in asymptomatic subjects at high risk for infection.


Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 3652-3652
Author(s):  
Ibrahim Saber ◽  
Maragatha Kuchibhatla ◽  
Alys Adamski ◽  
Lisa C. Richardson ◽  
Nimia Reyes ◽  
...  

Introduction: Venous thromboembolism (VTE), defined as deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), or both, represents a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer. VTE is the second leading cause of death in patients with cancer, after cancer itself, in the United States. Previous studies have suggested differences by race in the occurrence of VTE among cancer patients. The purpose of this study was to investigate clinical differences in black and white patients with VTE and cancer. Methods: We conducted an analysis of a CDC/Duke VTE surveillance project at the three hospitals in Durham County, North Carolina (Duke University Hospital, Duke Regional Hospital and the Durham VA Medical Center) from April 2012 through March 2014. A combination of electronic and manual review methods were used to identify unique Durham County residents with new diagnoses of objectively confirmed VTE. Data abstracted included demographics, risk factors including cancer, clinical data, treatment, and outcomes. Results: A total of 1028 patients with a new VTE were identified during the surveillance period. Twenty-seven patients who were not black or white (e.g., race not listed; Asian; etc), and 41 with VTE affecting areas other than PE or limb DVT (e.g., cerebral sinus venous thrombosis) were excluded from this analysis. Of the remaining 960 patients, slightly more than half were female (497/960=51.8%), more than half were black (508/960=52.9%), almost a third were obese (337/960 = 35.1%), and median age was 59 years old. At the time of their VTE diagnosis, 184 patients with VTE (19.2%) had active cancer, defined as metastatic or diagnosed within the previous 6 months. The proportion of VTE associated with cancer varied by race. Among the 508 black patients with VTE, 111 (21.9%) had active cancer; in comparison, among the 452 white patients with VTE, 73 (16.1%) had active cancer (p-value=0.025). Black patients with VTE and cancer were older, had a lower body mass index (BMI), and were less likely to have sustained a prior VTE compared to black patients with VTE who did not have cancer (Table 1). Similarly, white patients with VTE and cancer had a lower BMI than white patients without cancer (Table 1). However, in contrast to the findings for black patients, white patients with VTE and cancer were not significantly older and did not show differences in having a prior VTE than white patients with VTE who did not have cancer. Additionally, white patients with VTE and cancer were much more likely to have sustained a PE, with or without DVT, and less likely to have sustained a DVT alone, than white patients with VTE who did not have cancer (Table 1). Black and white patients with both VTE and cancer, were similar in several aspects; however, white patients were less likely to have sustained a DVT alone and more likely to have sustained a PE, with or without DVT, compared to black patients. The types of cancer most frequently encountered in black patients with VTE were gastrointestinal (24.3%), genitourinary (23.4%), and lung (18.9%), followed by breast (8.1%), gynecologic (9.0%) and hematologic malignancies (9.9%). The types of cancer most frequently encountered in white patients with VTE were lung (27.4%), breast (16.4%), and gastrointestinal (13.7%), followed by genitourinary (9.6%), gynecologic (8.2%) and hematologic malignancies (6.8%). Black and white patients with VTE and cancer were treated similarly to black and white patients with VTE who did not have cancer, with most receiving anticoagulant therapy and fewer than 10% receiving an IVC filter (Table 1). Enoxaparin was used most frequently, followed by warfarin. Conclusions: There are several notable demographic and clinical differences between patients with VTE with and without cancer. While differences were observed for both black and white patients, several factors that were variable according to cancer status were unique to either black patients or white patients. One notable difference between black and white patients with both VTE and cancer was a lower proportion of DVT only and a higher proportion of PE, with or without DVT, in white patients. Disclosures Ortel: Instrumentation Laboratories: Consultancy.


ESMO Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. e000810 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dominic Fong ◽  
Simon Rauch ◽  
Christian Petter ◽  
Eva Haspinger ◽  
Monika Alber ◽  
...  

BackgroundOptimal management of patients with cancer during COVID-19 pandemic is still pending.MethodsOur patients were advised to maintain their scheduled appointments, and planned cancer treatment was continued without unnecessary delays in an outpatient setting. Additional strict preventive infection measures were rapidly implemented at our outpatient department. When COVID-19 test became widely available, universal testing of healthcare workers and vigorous screening of all patients coming to our facility for COVID-19 infection were performed by SARS-CoV-2 real-time reverse transcription PCR on rhinopharyngeal swab.ResultsAs of the data cut-off on 9 April 2020, a total of 156 oncology patients with a median age of 67 (range 26–86) years and 63 haematology patients (median age 69 years, range 23–89) were screened for COVID-19 during active cancer treatment. Prevalence (1.8%; 4/219) of COVID-19 in patients with cancer was significantly higher compared with a respective control group of asymptomatic counterparts (p=0.018). Outcomes of COVID-19 positive patients were good, with only one observed death due to progression of advanced metastatic disease.ConclusionOur data indicate that continuation of anticancer treatment in epidemic areas during the COVID-19 pandemic seems to be safe and feasible, if adequate and strict preventive measures are vigorously and successfully carried out.


2022 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Robert Makulo ◽  
Madone Ndona Mandina ◽  
Placide Kingebeni Mbala ◽  
Roger Dimosi Wumba ◽  
Pierre Zalagile Akilimali ◽  
...  

Abstract Background In symptomatic patients, the diagnostic approach of COVID-19 should be holistic. We aimed to evaluate the concordance between RT-PCR and serological tests (IgM/IgG), and identify the factors that best predict mortality (clinical stages or viral load). Methods The study included 242 patients referred to the University hospital of Kinshasa for suspected COVID-19, dyspnea or ARDS between June 1st, 2020 and August 02, 2020. Both antibody-SARS-CoV2 IgM/IgG and RT-PCR method were performed on the day of admission to hospital. The clinical stages were established according to the COVID-19 WHO classification. The viral load was expressed by the CtN2 (cycle threshold value of the nucleoproteins) and the CtE (envelope) genes of SARS- CoV-2 detected using GeneXpert. Kappa test and Cox regression were used as appropriate. Results The GeneXpert was positive in 74 patients (30.6%). Seventy two patients (29.8%) had positive IgM and 34 patients (14.0%) had positive IgG. The combination of RT-PCR and serological tests made it possible to treat 104 patients as having COVID-19, which represented an increase in cases of around 41% compared to the result based on GeneXpert alone. The comparison between the two tests has shown that 57 patients (23.5%) had discordant results. The Kappa coefficient was 0.451 (p < 0.001). We recorded 23 deaths (22.1%) among the COVID-19 patients vs 8 deaths (5.8%) among other patients. The severe-critical clinical stage increased the risk of mortality vs. mild-moderate stage (aHR: 26.8, p < 0.001). The values of CtE and CtN2 did not influence mortality significantly. Conclusion In symptomatic patients, serological tests are a support which makes it possible to refer patients to the dedicated COVID-19 units and treat a greater number of COVID-19 patients. WHO Clinical classification seems to predict mortality better than SARS-Cov2 viral load.


Viruses ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (11) ◽  
pp. 2313
Author(s):  
Indrė Kučinskaitė-Kodzė ◽  
Martynas Simanavičius ◽  
Aistis Šimaitis ◽  
Aurelija Žvirblienė

Background: Dynamics of antibody responses were investigated after a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in a private company during the first wave of the pandemic. Methods: Workers of a sewing company (Lithuania) with known SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR result during the outbreak (April 2020) were invited to participate in the study. Virus-specific IgG and IgM were monitored 2, 6 and 13 months after the outbreak via rapid IgG/IgM serological test and SARS-CoV-2 S protein-specific IgG ELISA. Results: Six months after the outbreak, 95% (CI 86–99%) of 59 previously infected individuals had virus-specific antibodies irrespective of the severity of infection. One-third of seropositive individuals had virus-specific IgM along with IgG indicating that IgM may persist for 6 months. Serological testing 13 months after the outbreak included 47 recovered individuals that remained non-vaccinated despite a wide accessibility of COVID-19 vaccines. The seropositivity rate was 83% (CI 69–91%) excluding one case of confirmed asymptomatic reinfection in this group. Between months 6 and 13, IgG levels either declined or remained stable in 31 individual and increased in 7 individuals possibly indicating an exposure to SARS-CoV-2 during the second wave of the pandemic. Conclusions: Detectable levels of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies persist up to 13 months after infection for the majority of the cases.


Author(s):  
Michael Horn ◽  
Hulda R. Jonsdottir ◽  
Daniel Brigger ◽  
Lauro Damonti ◽  
Franziska Suter-Riniker ◽  
...  

Background: Serological tests are a powerful tool in the monitoring of infectious diseases and the detection of host immunity. However, manufacturers often provide diagnostic accuracy data generated through biased studies and the performance in clinical practice is essentially unclear.  Objectives: We aimed to determine the diagnostic accuracy of various serological testing strategies for (a) identification of patients with previous coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) and (b) prediction of neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in real-life clinical settings.  Methods: We prospectively included 2’573 consecutive health-care workers and 1’085 inpatients with suspected or possible previous COVID-19 at a Swiss University Hospital. Various serological immunoassays based on different analytical techniques (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays, ELISA; chemiluminescence immunoassay, CLIA; electrochemiluminescence immunoassay, ECLIA; lateral-flow immunoassay, LFI), epitopes of SARS-CoV-2 (nucleocapsid, N; receptor-binding domain, RBD; extended RBD, RBD+; S1 or S2 domain of the spike [S] protein, S1/S2), and antibody subtypes (IgG, pan-Ig) were conducted. A positive real-time PCR test from a nasopharyngeal swab was defined as previous COVID-19. Neutralization assays with live SARS-CoV-2 were performed in a subgroup of patients to assess neutralization activity (n=201).  Results: The sensitivity to detect patients with previous COVID-19 was ≥85% in anti-N ECLIA (86.8%) and anti-S1 ELISA (86.2%). Sensitivity was 84.7% in anti-S1/S2 CLIA, 84.0% in anti-RBD+ LFI, 81.0% in anti-N CLIA, 79.2% in anti-RBD ELISA, and 65.6% in anti-N ELISA. The specificity was 98.4% in anti-N ECLIA, 98.3% in anti-N CLIA, 98.2% in anti-S1 ELISA, 97.7% in anti-N ELISA, 97.6% in anti-S1/S2 CLIA, 97.2% in anti-RBD ELISA, and 96.1% in anti-RBD+ LFI. The sensitivity to detect neutralizing antibodies was ≥85% in anti-S1 ELISA (92.7%), anti-N ECLIA (91.7%), anti-S1/S2 CLIA (90.3%), anti-RBD+ LFI (87.9%), and anti-RBD ELISA (85.8%). Sensitivity was 84.1% in anti-N CLIA, and 66.2% in anti-N ELISA. The specificity was ≥97% in anti-N CLIA (100%), anti-S1/S2 CLIA (97.7%), and anti-RBD+ LFI (97.9%). Specificity was 95.9% in anti-RBD ELISA, 93.0% in anti-N ECLIA, 92% in anti-S1 ELISA, and 65.3% in anti-N ELISA. Diagnostic accuracy measures were consistent among subgroups.  Conclusions: The diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies varied remarkably in clinical practice, and the sensitivity to identify patients with previous COVID-19 deviated substantially from the manufacturer’s specifications. The data presented here should be considered when using such tests to estimate the infection burden within a specific population and determine the likelihood of protection against re-infection.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document