Coronavirus disease 2019 in patients with inborn errors of immunity: An international study

\ua9 2020 The Authors. Background: There is uncertainty about the impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in individuals with rare inborn errors of immunity (IEI), a population at risk of developing severe coronavirus disease 2019. This is relevant not only for these patients but also for the general population, because studies of IEIs can unveil key requirements for host defense. Objective: We sought to describe the presentation, manifestations, and outcome of SARS-CoV-2 infection in IEI to inform physicians and enhance understanding of host defense against SARS-CoV-2. Methods: An invitation to participate in a retrospective study was distributed globally to scientific, medical, and patient societies involved in the care and advocacy for patients with IEI. Results: We gathered information on 94 patients with IEI with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Their median age was 25 to 34 years. Fifty-three patients (56%) suffered from primary antibody deficiency, 9 (9.6%) had immune dysregulation syndrome, 6 (6.4%) a phagocyte defect, 7 (7.4%) an autoinflammatory disorder, 14 (15%) a combined immunodeficiency, 3 (3%) an innate immune defect, and 2 (2%) bone marrow failure. Ten were asymptomatic, 25 were treated as outpatients, 28 required admission without intensive care or ventilation, 13 required noninvasive ventilation or oxygen administration, 18 were admitted to intensive care units, 12 required invasive ventilation, and 3 required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Nine patients (7 adults and 2 children) died. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that (1) more than 30% of patients with IEI had mild coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and (2) risk factors predisposing to severe disease/mortality in the general population also seemed to affect patients with IEI, including more younger patients. Further studies will identify pathways that are associated with increased risk of severe disease and are nonredundant or redundant for protection against SARS-CoV-2

Disorders of sex development: effect of molecular diagnostics

Disorders of sex development (DSDs) are a diverse group of conditions that can be challenging to diagnose accurately using standard phenotypic and biochemical approaches. Obtaining a specific diagnosis can be important for identifying potentially life-threatening associated disorders, as well as providing information to guide parents in deciding on the most appropriate management for their child. Within the past 5 years, advances in molecular methodologies have helped to identify several novel causes of DSDs; molecular tests to aid diagnosis and genetic counselling have now been adopted into clinical practice. Occasionally, genetic profiling of embryos prior to implantation as an adjunct to assisted reproduction, prenatal diagnosis of at-risk pregnancies and confirmatory testing of positive results found during newborn biochemical screening are performed. Of the available genetic tests, the candidate gene approach is the most popular. New high-throughput DNA analysis could enable a genetic diagnosis to be made when the aetiology is unknown or many differential diagnoses are possible. Nonetheless, concerns exist about the use of genetic tests. For instance, a diagnosis is not always possible even using new molecular approaches (which can be worrying for the parents) and incidental information obtained during the test might cause anxiety. Careful selection of the genetic test indicated for each condition remains important for good clinical practice. The purpose of this Review is to describe advances in molecular biological techniques for diagnosing DSDs

The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study

AIM: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery. METHODS: This was an international prospective cohort study of consecutive colorectal cancer patients with a decision for curative surgery (January-April 2020). Surgical delay was defined as an operation taking place more than 4 weeks after treatment decision, in a patient who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy. A subgroup analysis explored the effects of delay in elective patients only. The impact of longer delays was explored in a sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome was complete resection, defined as curative resection with an R0 margin. RESULTS: Overall, 5453 patients from 304 hospitals in 47 countries were included, of whom 6.6% (358/5453) did not receive their planned operation. Of the 4304 operated patients without neoadjuvant therapy, 40.5% (1744/4304) were delayed beyond 4 weeks. Delayed patients were more likely to be older, men, more comorbid, have higher body mass index and have rectal cancer and early stage disease. Delayed patients had higher unadjusted rates of complete resection (93.7% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.032) and lower rates of emergency surgery (4.5% vs. 22.5%, P < 0.001). After adjustment, delay was not associated with a lower rate of complete resection (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.90-1.55, P = 0.224), which was consistent in elective patients only (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69-1.27, P = 0.672). Longer delays were not associated with poorer outcomes. CONCLUSION: One in 15 colorectal cancer patients did not receive their planned operation during the first wave of COVID-19. Surgical delay did not appear to compromise resectability, raising the hypothesis that any reduction in long-term survival attributable to delays is likely to be due to micro-metastatic disease

Effects of hospital facilities on patient outcomes after cancer surgery: an international, prospective, observational study

Background Early death after cancer surgery is higher in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) compared with in high-income countries, yet the impact of facility characteristics on early postoperative outcomes is unknown. The aim of this study was to examine the association between hospital infrastructure, resource availability, and processes on early outcomes after cancer surgery worldwide.Methods A multimethods analysis was performed as part of the GlobalSurg 3 study-a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study of patients who had surgery for breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and 30-day major complication rates. Potentially beneficial hospital facilities were identified by variable selection to select those associated with 30-day mortality. Adjusted outcomes were determined using generalised estimating equations to account for patient characteristics and country-income group, with population stratification by hospital.Findings Between April 1, 2018, and April 23, 2019, facility-level data were collected for 9685 patients across 238 hospitals in 66 countries (91 hospitals in 20 high-income countries; 57 hospitals in 19 upper-middle-income countries; and 90 hospitals in 27 low-income to lower-middle-income countries). The availability of five hospital facilities was inversely associated with mortality: ultrasound, CT scanner, critical care unit, opioid analgesia, and oncologist. After adjustment for case-mix and country income group, hospitals with three or fewer of these facilities (62 hospitals, 1294 patients) had higher mortality compared with those with four or five (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3.85 [95% CI 2.58-5.75]; p&lt;0.0001), with excess mortality predominantly explained by a limited capacity to rescue following the development of major complications (63.0% vs 82.7%; OR 0.35 [0.23-0.53]; p&lt;0.0001). Across LMICs, improvements in hospital facilities would prevent one to three deaths for every 100 patients undergoing surgery for cancer.Interpretation Hospitals with higher levels of infrastructure and resources have better outcomes after cancer surgery, independent of country income. Without urgent strengthening of hospital infrastructure and resources, the reductions in cancer-associated mortality associated with improved access will not be realised

Guideline for Care of Patients with the Diagnoses of Craniosynostosis: Working Group on Craniosynostosis

This guideline for care of children with craniosynostosis was developed by a national working group with representatives of 11 matrix societies of specialties and the national patients' society. All medical aspects of care for nonsyndromic and syndromic craniosynostosis are included, as well as the social and psychologic impact for the patient and their parents. Managerial aspects are incorporated as well, such as organizing a timely referral to the craniofacial center, requirements for a dedicated craniofacial center, and centralization of this specialized care. The conclusions and recommendations within this document are founded on the available literature, with a grading of the level of evidence, thereby highlighting the areas of care that are in need of high-quality research. The development of this guideline was made possible by an educational grant of the Dutch Order of Medical Specialists. The development of this guideline was supported by an educational grant of the Dutch Order of Medical Specialists

Dimethyl fumarate in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome