scholarly journals Respiratory rehabilitation for patients with COVID-19 infection and chronic respiratory failure: a real-life retrospective study by a Lombard network

Author(s):  
Michele Vitacca ◽  
Beatrice Salvi ◽  
Marta Lazzeri ◽  
Elisabetta Zampogna ◽  
Giancarlo Piaggi ◽  
...  

The Lombardy region has been one of the areas most affected by the COVID-19 pandemic since the first months of 2020, providing real-life experiences in the acute phase. It is unclear how the respiratory rehabilitation network responded to this emergency. The aims of this retrospective study were: i) to analyze clinical, functional, and disability data at admission; ii) describe assessment tools and rehabilitative programs; iii) evaluate improvement after rehabilitation. The study was conducted on data collected from ten pulmonary rehabilitation centers in Lombardy, between the period of March 1st 2020 to March 1st 2021, in patients with respiratory failure recovering from COVID-19 both at admission and discharge. The study included demographics, comorbidities, nutritional status, risk of falls, disability status (Barthel index; Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB); 6 minutes walking test (6MWT), symptoms (dyspnoea with Barthel Dyspnoea and MRC Dyspnoea Scale), length of stay, discharge destination, need for mechanical ventilation, respiratory function, assessment/outcomes indices, and prescribed rehabilitative programs. 413 patients were analyzed. Length of stay in acute and rehabilitative units was less than 30 days. Fifty % of patients used non-invasive ventilation during their stay. Functional status was mildly compromised for forced volumes and oxygenation, while severely compromised for diffusion capacity. Independency was low while physical performance status very low.  At discharge, 318 (77%) patients were sent home, 83 (20.1%) were transferred to an acute unit and 12 (2.9%) passed away. Barthel Index and 6MWT were the most used, while MRC score was the least used outcome parameter. The 5 main rehabilitative activities were walking (90.8 %), transfer from bed to armchair (77.5%), limb mobilization in bed (76%), balance (71.2%), and cycle-ergometer or treadmill (43.1%). A huge difference was found in admission, discharge, and delta change among different rehabilitative centers. When available, all outcomes showed a significant improvement. With the limitation of a retrospective study with a clear amount of missing data, COVID-19 subjects admitted to rehabilitative centers presented a reduced physical performance, symptoms of dyspnoea, and severe disability. The 6MWT and Barthel index were the most used measurement.

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hirsh Koyi ◽  
Gunnar Hillerdal ◽  
Olov Andersson ◽  
Karl-Gustav Kölbeck ◽  
Per Liv ◽  
...  

An increasing proportion of cancer patients are aged >65 years and many are aged >70 years. Treatment of the elderly with lung cancer has, therefore, become an important issue; so we performed a retrospective study of our patients to demonstrate how elderly patients with NSCLC are treated in real-life, clinical practice. All patients aged ≥70 years with NSCLC at our department were reviewed retrospectively. In total, 1059 patients (50.8% of all NSCLC patients). Of these patients, 243 (22.9%) received chemotherapy, 164 (70.4%) of whom were treated with a platinum doublet using carboplatin. Second- and third-line chemotherapy were given to 31.4% and 13.9% of patients, respectively. Median overall survival was 289 and 320 days for male and female patients, respectively. Patients with performance status (PS) 0 experienced significantly better survival than patients with PS1 or PS 2: 410, 314, and 204 days, respectively. Age was of less importance, with patients aged 70–79 years versus those aged ≥80 years. Treatment of elderly NSCLC patients with chemotherapy is feasible if they have a good PS and appears to prolong survival. In this study, we found no significant differences in survival either between age groups or genders.


2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (11) ◽  
pp. 887-895 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martina Catalano ◽  
Giandomenico Roviello ◽  
Raffaele Conca ◽  
Alberto D’Angelo ◽  
Valeria Emma Palmieri ◽  
...  

Background: The phase III MPACT trial demonstrated the superiority of gemcitabine (Gem) combined with Nab-paclitaxel (Nab-P) versus gemcitabine alone in previously untreated patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of Gem/Nab-P in routine clinical practice. Methods: From January 2015 to December 2018, patients with metastatic PDAC receiving firstline treatment with a combination of gemcitabine and Nab-paclitaxel were included in a multicentre retrospective observational study. Exploratory analyses of efficacy, and prognostic and predictive markers, were performed. Results: The cohort comprised 115 patients (median age 65 [range 50-84] years) with good performance status (ECOG PS 0-1). The median overall survival (OS) was 11 months (95% CI; 9-13) and the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6 months (95% CI 5-7). Partial response and stable disease were achieved in 44 and 30 patients, respectively, yielding an overall disease control rate (DCR) of 64.3%. Grade 3-4 hematological toxicity frequency was 22.61% for neutropenia, 5.22% for anemia, and 3.48% for thrombocytopenia. Grade 3 asthenia was recorded in 2.61% of patients. No grade 4 non-hematological events were reported. Dose reduction was necessary in 51.3% of the patients. Conclusions: Our results confirm the efficacy and safety of a first-line regimen comprising gemcitabine and Nab-paclitaxel in metastatic PDAC in a real-life population.


2021 ◽  
pp. 107815522110055
Author(s):  
Ruggero Lasala ◽  
Fiorenzo Santoleri ◽  
Alessia Romagnoli ◽  
Felice Musicco ◽  
Paolo Abrate ◽  
...  

Introduction Pivotal Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) constitute scientific evidence in support of therapeutic choices when a drug is authorized in the market. In RCTs, patients are selected in a rigorous manner, in order to avoid bias that may influence efficacy assessments. Therefore, patients who take the drug in Real Life Studies (RLSs) are not the same as those participating in RCTs, which, in turn, leads to low data transferability from RCTs to RLS. The objective of this study was to evaluate the differences between RCTs and RLS, in terms of patient baseline characteristics. Materials and Methods Our study includes all oral target therapies for RCC (Renal Cell Carcinoma) marketed in Europe before March 31, 2019. For each treatment, we considered both RCTs and RLSs, the former gathered from Summary of Product Characteristics published on the European Medicine Agency (EMA) website, and the latter yielded by our search in relevant literature. For each drug considered, we then compared the baseline characteristics of patients included in the RCT samples with those of the samples included in the RLSs using the Chi-squared and Mann-Whitney tests. Results We considered six medicines, for a total of 9 pivotal RCTs and 31 RLSs. RCTs reported the same type of patient baseline characteristics, whereas RLSs are more varied in reporting. Some patient baseline characteristics (metastases, previous treatments, etc.) were significantly different between RCTs and RLs. Other characteristics, such as ECOG Performance Status, brain metastases, and comorbidities, liver and kidney failure, are comprised in exclusion criteria of RCTs, though are included in RLS. Discussion and Conclusion: While evaluating equal treatments for the same indications, RCTs and RLSs do not always assess patients with the same characteristics. It would be necessary to produce evidence from RLSs so as to have an idea of treatment effectiveness in patients groups that are not eligible or underrepresented in RCTs.


2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. ii133-ii133
Author(s):  
Cristina Smolenschi ◽  
Emeline Colomba ◽  
Elie Rassy ◽  
Naima Lezghed ◽  
Mohamed Kettab ◽  
...  

Abstract Angiogenesis represents a hallmark of glioblastoma but most trials disappointed and failed to change the poor outcome of this disease. However, Bevacizumab (Bev) is widely used in clinical practice by expert oncologists due to experience or efficacy in real life.We retrospectively reviewed the use of Bev and its benefit in terms of Time to treatment failure (TTF), Overall Survival(OS), Objective Response Rate (ORR) and clinical benefit. METHODS: We analyzed two hundred and two patients treated at Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus with Bev until definitive failure for recurrent glioblastoma between 2006 and 2016. Patients were treated with Bev alone or in association with radiotherapy, temozolomide, lomustine or irinotecan. RESULTS: The median duration of Bev treatment until definitive failure was 6 months. The median TTF was 7.27 months(95%CI 6.30-8.24) and the median OS from diagnosis was 22.43 months(95%CI 19.68-25.18). Two patients were still alive without active treatment at the end of study. A hundred and fourteen (56%) patients experienced symptom amelioration and seventy-five (37%) improved their Performance Status. Fifty percent of patients exhibited Partial and Complete Response on MRI, as best radiological response, within 1.6 months. No patient had anaphylactic reaction. Grade 1-2 hypertension(HT)(17%) and grade 1(10%) proteinuria were most common. Six patients presented lethal toxicity: 4 with GI perforation, 1 p with cerebral hemorrhage and 1 p with arterial bleeding. HT was correlated with treatment response in 67% of patients. A neutrophil count superior to 6000/mm³ was associated with longer TTF(mTTF 8.23m(95%CI 6.64-9.82). CONCLUSION: This retrospective study reports a substantial clinical benefit of Bev in patients with recurrent glioblastoma with an acceptable toxicity profile. As the panel of therapeutic option is still very limited in these tumors, this work supports the maintained use of Bev as a therapeutic option.


Heart & Lung ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 50 (3) ◽  
pp. 425-429
Author(s):  
İsmet Sayan ◽  
Mustafa Altınay ◽  
Ayşe Surhan Çınar ◽  
Hacer Şebnem Türk ◽  
Nebia Peker ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ines Gragueb-Chatti ◽  
Alexandre Lopez ◽  
Dany Hamidi ◽  
Christophe Guervilly ◽  
Anderson Loundou ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Dexamethasone decreases mortality in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and has become the standard of care during the second wave of pandemic. Dexamethasone is an immunosuppressive treatment potentially increasing the risk of secondary hospital acquired infections in critically ill patients. We conducted an observational retrospective study in three French intensive care units (ICUs) comparing the first and second waves of pandemic to investigate the role of dexamethasone in the occurrence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and blood stream infections (BSI). Patients admitted from March to November 2020 with a documented COVID-19 and requiring mechanical ventilation (MV) for ≥ 48 h were included. The main study outcomes were the incidence of VAP and BSI according to the use of dexamethasone. Secondary outcomes were the ventilator-free days (VFD) at day-28 and day-60, ICU and hospital length of stay and mortality. Results Among the 151 patients included, 84 received dexamethasone, all but one during the second wave. VAP occurred in 63% of patients treated with dexamethasone (DEXA+) and 57% in those not receiving dexamethasone (DEXA−) (p = 0.43). The cumulative incidence of VAP, considering death, duration of MV and late immunosuppression as competing factors was not different between groups (p = 0.59). A multivariate analysis did not identify dexamethasone as an independent risk factor for VAP occurrence. The occurrence of BSI was not different between groups (29 vs. 30%; p = 0.86). DEXA+ patients had more VFD at day-28 (9 (0–21) vs. 0 (0–11) days; p = 0.009) and a reduced ICU length of stay (20 (11–44) vs. 32 (17–46) days; p = 0.01). Mortality did not differ between groups. Conclusions In this cohort of COVID-19 patients requiring invasive MV, dexamethasone was not associated with an increased incidence of VAP or BSI. Dexamethasone might not explain the high rates of VAP and BSI observed in critically ill COVID-19 patients.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document