Elective cancer surgery in COVID-19-free surgical pathways during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: An international, multicenter, comparative cohort study

PURPOSE As cancer surgery restarts after the first COVID-19 wave, health care providers urgently require data to determine where elective surgery is best performed. This study aimed to determine whether COVID-19–free surgical pathways were associated with lower postoperative pulmonary complication rates compared with hospitals with no defined pathway. PATIENTS AND METHODS This international, multicenter cohort study included patients who underwent elective surgery for 10 solid cancer types without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Participating hospitals included patients from local emergence of SARS-CoV-2 until April 19, 2020. At the time of surgery, hospitals were defined as having a COVID-19–free surgical pathway (complete segregation of the operating theater, critical care, and inpatient ward areas) or no defined pathway (incomplete or no segregation, areas shared with patients with COVID-19). The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, unexpected ventilation). RESULTS Of 9,171 patients from 447 hospitals in 55 countries, 2,481 were operated on in COVID-19–free surgical pathways. Patients who underwent surgery within COVID-19–free surgical pathways were younger with fewer comorbidities than those in hospitals with no defined pathway but with similar proportions of major surgery. After adjustment, pulmonary complication rates were lower with COVID-19–free surgical pathways (2.2% v 4.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.86). This was consistent in sensitivity analyses for low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 1/2), propensity score–matched models, and patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 preoperative tests. The postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was also lower in COVID-19–free surgical pathways (2.1% v 3.6%; aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.76). CONCLUSION Within available resources, dedicated COVID-19–free surgical pathways should be established to provide safe elective cancer surgery during current and before future SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks

Elective Cancer Surgery in COVID-19-Free Surgical Pathways During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic: An International, Multicenter, Comparative Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: As cancer surgery restarts after the first COVID-19 wave, health care providers urgently require data to determine where elective surgery is best performed. This study aimed to determine whether COVID-19-free surgical pathways were associated with lower postoperative pulmonary complication rates compared with hospitals with no defined pathway. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This international, multicenter cohort study included patients who underwent elective surgery for 10 solid cancer types without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Participating hospitals included patients from local emergence of SARS-CoV-2 until April 19, 2020. At the time of surgery, hospitals were defined as having a COVID-19-free surgical pathway (complete segregation of the operating theater, critical care, and inpatient ward areas) or no defined pathway (incomplete or no segregation, areas shared with patients with COVID-19). The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, unexpected ventilation). RESULTS: Of 9,171 patients from 447 hospitals in 55 countries, 2,481 were operated on in COVID-19-free surgical pathways. Patients who underwent surgery within COVID-19-free surgical pathways were younger with fewer comorbidities than those in hospitals with no defined pathway but with similar proportions of major surgery. After adjustment, pulmonary complication rates were lower with COVID-19-free surgical pathways (2.2% v 4.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.86). This was consistent in sensitivity analyses for low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 1/2), propensity score-matched models, and patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 preoperative tests. The postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was also lower in COVID-19-free surgical pathways (2.1% v 3.6%; aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.76). CONCLUSION: Within available resources, dedicated COVID-19-free surgical pathways should be established to provide safe elective cancer surgery during current and before future SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks

A double-blind, delayed-start trial of rasagiline in Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND: A therapy that slows disease progression is the major unmet need in Parkinson's disease. METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we examined the possibility that rasagiline has disease-modifying effects in Parkinson's disease. A total of 1176 subjects with untreated Parkinson's disease were randomly assigned to receive rasagiline (at a dose of either 1 mg or 2 mg per day) for 72 weeks (the early-start group) or placebo for 36 weeks followed by rasagiline (at a dose of either 1 mg or 2 mg per day) for 36 weeks (the delayed-start group). To determine a positive result with either dose, the early-start treatment group had to meet each of three hierarchical end points of the primary analysis based on the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS, a 176-point scale, with higher numbers indicating more severe disease): superiority to placebo in the rate of change in the UPDRS score between weeks 12 and 36, superiority to delayed-start treatment in the change in the score between baseline and week 72, and noninferiority to delayed-start treatment in the rate of change in the score between weeks 48 and 72. RESULTS:Early-start treatment with rasagiline at a dose of 1 mg per day met all end points in the primary analysis: a smaller mean (+/-SE) increase (rate of worsening) in the UPDRS score between weeks 12 and 36 (0.09+/-0.02 points per week in the early-start group vs. 0.14+/-0.01 points per week in the placebo group, P=0.01), less worsening in the score between baseline and week 72 (2.82+/-0.53 points in the early-start group vs. 4.52+/-0.56 points in the delayed-start group, P=0.02), and noninferiority between the two groups with respect to the rate of change in the UPDRS score between weeks 48 and 72 (0.085+/-0.02 points per week in the early-start group vs. 0.085+/-0.02 points per week in the delayed-start group, P<0.001). All three end points were not met with rasagiline at a dose of 2 mg per day, since the change in the UPDRS score between baseline and week 72 was not significantly different in the two groups (3.47+/-0.50 points in the early-start group and 3.11+/-0.50 points in the delayed-start group, P=0.60). CONCLUSIONS: Early treatment with rasagiline at a dose of 1 mg per day provided benefits that were consistent with a possible disease-modifying effect, but early treatment with rasagiline at a dose of 2 mg per day did not. Because the two doses were associated with different outcomes, the study results must be interpreted with caution

Candida bloodstream infections in intensive care units: analysis of the extended prevalence of infection in intensive care unit study

To provide a global, up-to-date picture of the prevalence, treatment, and outcomes of Candida bloodstream infections in intensive care unit patients and compare Candida with bacterial bloodstream infection. DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of the Extended Prevalence of Infection in the ICU Study (EPIC II). Demographic, physiological, infection-related and therapeutic data were collected. Patients were grouped as having Candida, Gram-positive, Gram-negative, and combined Candida/bacterial bloodstream infection. Outcome data were assessed at intensive care unit and hospital discharge. SETTING: EPIC II included 1265 intensive care units in 76 countries. PATIENTS: Patients in participating intensive care units on study day. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: Of the 14,414 patients in EPIC II, 99 patients had Candida bloodstream infections for a prevalence of 6.9 per 1000 patients. Sixty-one patients had candidemia alone and 38 patients had combined bloodstream infections. Candida albicans (n = 70) was the predominant species. Primary therapy included monotherapy with fluconazole (n = 39), caspofungin (n = 16), and a polyene-based product (n = 12). Combination therapy was infrequently used (n = 10). Compared with patients with Gram-positive (n = 420) and Gram-negative (n = 264) bloodstream infections, patients with candidemia were more likely to have solid tumors (p < .05) and appeared to have been in an intensive care unit longer (14 days [range, 5-25 days], 8 days [range, 3-20 days], and 10 days [range, 2-23 days], respectively), but this difference was not statistically significant. Severity of illness and organ dysfunction scores were similar between groups. Patients with Candida bloodstream infections, compared with patients with Gram-positive and Gram-negative bloodstream infections, had the greatest crude intensive care unit mortality rates (42.6%, 25.3%, and 29.1%, respectively) and longer intensive care unit lengths of stay (median [interquartile range]) (33 days [18-44], 20 days [9-43], and 21 days [8-46], respectively); however, these differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Candidemia remains a significant problem in intensive care units patients. In the EPIC II population, Candida albicans was the most common organism and fluconazole remained the predominant antifungal agent used. Candida bloodstream infections are associated with high intensive care unit and hospital mortality rates and resource use