A population-scale temporal case-control evaluation of COVID-19 disease phenotype and related outcome rates in patients with cancer in England (UKCCP).

Patients with cancer are at increased risk of hospitalisation and mortality following severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. However, the SARS-CoV-2 phenotype evolution in patients with cancer since 2020 has not previously been described. We therefore evaluated SARS-CoV-2 on a UK populationscale from 01/11/2020-31/08/2022, assessing case-outcome rates of hospital assessment(s), intensive care admission and mortality. We observed that the SARS-CoV-2 disease phenotype has become less severe in patients with cancer and the non-cancer population. Case-hospitalisation rates for patients with cancer dropped from 30.58% in early 2021 to 7.45% in 2022 while case-mortality rates decreased from 20.53% to 3.25%. However, the risk of hospitalisation and mortality remains 2.10x and 2.54x higher in patients with cancer, respectively. Overall, the SARS-CoV-2 disease phenotype is less severe in 2022 compared to 2020 but patients with cancer remain at higher risk than the non-cancer population. Patients with cancer must therefore be empowered to live more normal lives, to see loved ones and families, while also being safeguarded with expanded measures to reduce the risk of transmission.

The National COVID Cancer Antibody Survey: a hyper-accelerated study proof of principle for cancer research.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a range of novel and adaptive research designs. In this perspective, we use our experience coordinating the National COVID Cancer Antibody Survey to demonstrate how a balance between speed and integrity can be achieved within a hyper-accelerated study design. Using the COVID-19 pandemic as an example, we show this approach is necessary in the face of uncertain and evolving situations wherein reliable information is needed in a timely fashion to guide policy. We identify streamlined participant involvement, healthcare systems integration, data architecture and real-world real-time analytics as key areas that differentiate this design from traditional cancer trials, and enable rapid results. Caution needs to be taken to avoid the exclusion of patient subgroups without digital access or literacy. We summarise the merits and defining features of hyper-accelerated cancer studies.

Association of SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Antibody Vaccine Response With Infection Severity in Patients With Cancer: A National COVID Cancer Cross-sectional Evaluation.

Importance: Accurate identification of patient groups with the lowest level of protection following COVID-19 vaccination is important to better target resources and interventions for the most vulnerable populations. It is not known whether SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing has clinical utility for high-risk groups, such as people with cancer. Objective: To evaluate whether spike protein antibody vaccine response (COV-S) following COVID-19 vaccination is associated with the risk of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection or hospitalization among patients with cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a population-based cross-sectional study of patients with cancer from the UK as part of the National COVID Cancer Antibody Survey. Adults with a known or reported cancer diagnosis who had completed their primary SARS-CoV-2 vaccination schedule were included. This analysis ran from September 1, 2021, to March 4, 2022, a period covering the expansion of the UK's third-dose vaccination booster program. Interventions: Anti-SARS-CoV-2 COV-S antibody test (Elecsys; Roche). Main Outcomes and Measures: Odds of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection and COVID-19 hospitalization. Results: The evaluation comprised 4249 antibody test results from 3555 patients with cancer and 294 230 test results from 225 272 individuals in the noncancer population. The overall cohort of 228 827 individuals (patients with cancer and the noncancer population) comprised 298 479 antibody tests. The median age of the cohort was in the age band of 40 and 49 years and included 182 741 test results (61.22%) from women and 115 737 (38.78%) from men. There were 279 721 tests (93.72%) taken by individuals identifying as White or White British. Patients with cancer were more likely to have undetectable anti-S antibody responses than the general population (199 of 4249 test results [4.68%] vs 376 of 294 230 [0.13%]; P < .001). Patients with leukemia or lymphoma had the lowest antibody titers. In the cancer cohort, following multivariable correction, patients who had an undetectable antibody response were at much greater risk for SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection (odds ratio [OR], 3.05; 95% CI, 1.96-4.72; P < .001) and SARS-CoV-2-related hospitalization (OR, 6.48; 95% CI, 3.31-12.67; P < .001) than individuals who had a positive antibody response. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that COV-S antibody testing allows the identification of patients with cancer who have the lowest level of antibody-derived protection from COVID-19. This study supports larger evaluations of SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing. Prevention of SARS-CoV-2 transmission to patients with cancer should be prioritized to minimize impact on cancer treatments and maximize quality of life for individuals with cancer during the ongoing pandemic.

COVID-19: Third dose booster vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough coronavirus infection, hospitalisations and death in patients with cancer: A population-based study.

PURPOSE: People living with cancer and haematological malignancies are at an increased risk of hospitalisation and death following infection with acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Coronavirus third dose vaccine boosters are proposed to boost waning immune responses in immunocompromised individuals and increase coronavirus protection; however, their effectiveness has not yet been systematically evaluated. METHODS: This study is a population-scale real-world evaluation of the United Kingdom's third dose vaccine booster programme for cancer patients from 8th December 2020 to 7th December 2021. The cancer cohort comprises individuals from Public Health England's national cancer dataset, excluding individuals less than 18 years. A test-negative case-control design was used to assess the third dose booster vaccine effectiveness. Multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to compare risk in the cancer cohort relative to the general population. RESULTS: The cancer cohort comprised of 2,258,553 tests from 361,098 individuals. Third dose boosters were evaluated by reference to 87,039,743 polymerase chain reaction coronavirus tests. Vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough infections, symptomatic infections, coronavirus hospitalisation and death in cancer patients were 59.1%, 62.8%, 80.5% and 94.5%, respectively. Lower vaccine effectiveness was associated with a cancer diagnosis within 12 months, lymphoma, recent systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT) or radiotherapy. Patients with lymphoma had low levels of protection from symptomatic disease. In spite of third dose boosters, following multivariable adjustment, individuals with cancer remain at an increased risk of coronavirus hospitalisation and death compared to the population control (OR 3.38, 3.01, respectively. p < 0.001 for both). CONCLUSIONS: Third dose boosters are effective for most individuals with cancer, increasing protection from coronavirus. However, their effectiveness is heterogenous and lower than the general population. Many patients with cancer will remain at the increased risk of coronavirus infections even after 3 doses. In the case of patients with lymphoma, there is a particularly strong disparity of vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough infection and severe disease. Breakthrough infections will disrupt cancer care and treatment with potentially adverse consequences on survival outcomes. The data support the role of vaccine boosters in preventing severe disease, and further pharmacological intervention to prevent transmission and aid viral clearance to limit the disruption of cancer care as the delivery of care continues to evolve during the coronavirus pandemic.

Single- Versus Double-Layer Uterine Closure After Cesarean Section Delivery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Cesarean section (CS) delivery is a common procedure, and its incidence is increasing globally. To compare single-layer (SL) with double-layer (DL) uterine closure techniques after cesarean section in terms of ultrasonographic findings and rate of CS complications. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched for relevant randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Retrieved articles were screened, and relevant studies were included in a meta-analysis. Continuous data were pooled as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI), and dichotomous data were pooled as relative risk (RR) and 95% CI. Analysis was conducted using RevMan software (Version 5.4). Eighteen RCTs were included in our study. Pooled results favored DL uterine closure in terms of residual myometrial thickness (MD = -1.15; 95% CI -1.69, -0.60; P < 0.0001) and dysmenorrhea (RR = 1.36; 95% CI 1.02, 1.81; P = 0.04), while SL closure had shorter operation time than DL closure (MD = -2.25; 95% CI -3.29, -1.21; P < 0.00001). Both techniques had similar results in terms of uterine dehiscence or rupture (RR = 1.88; 95% CI 0.63, 5.62; P = 0.26), healing ratio (MD = -5.00; 95% CI -12.40, 2.39; P = 0.18), maternal infectious morbidity (RR = 0.94; 95% CI 0.66, 1.34; P = 0.72), hospital stay (MD = -0.12; 95% CI -0.30, 0.06; P = 0.18), and readmission rate (RR = 0.95; 95% CI 0.64, 1.40; P = 0.78). Double-layer uterine closure shows more residual myometrial thickness and lower incidence of dysmenorrhea than single-layer uterine closure of cesarean section scar. But single-layer closure has the advantage of the shorter operation time. Both methods have comparable blood loss amount, healing ratio, hospital stay duration, maternal infection risk, readmission rate, and uterine dehiscence or rupture risk.