The Risk and Prognosis of COVID-19 Infection in Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Numerous studies have been published regarding outcomes of cancer patients infected with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus causing the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. However, most of these are single-center studies with a limited number of patients. To better assess the outcomes of this new infection in this subgroup of susceptible patients, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 infection on cancer patients. We performed a literature search using PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus for studies that reported the risk of infection and complications of COVID-19 in cancer patients and retrieved 22 studies (1018 cancer patients). The analysis showed that the frequency of cancer among patients with confirmed COVID-19 was 2.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.3-3) in the overall cohort. These patients had a mortality of 21.1% (95% CI: 14.7-27.6), severe/critical disease rate of 45.4% (95% CI: 37.4-53.3), intensive care unit (ICU) admission rate of 14.5% (95% CI: 8.5-20.4), and mechanical ventilation rate of 11.7% (95% CI: 5.5-18). The double-arm analysis showed that cancer patients had a higher risk of mortality (odds ratio [OR]=3.23, 95% CI: 1.71-6.13), severe/critical disease (OR=3.91, 95% CI: 2.70-5.67), ICU admission (OR=3.10, 95% CI: 1.85-5.17), and mechanical ventilation (OR=4.86, 95% CI: 1.27-18.65) than non-cancer patients. Furthermore, cancer patients had significantly lower platelet levels and higher D-dimer levels, C-reactive protein levels, and prothrombin time. In conclusion, these results indicate that cancer patients are at a higher risk of COVID-19 infection-related complications. Therefore, cancer patients need diligent preventive care measures and aggressive surveillance for earlier detection of COVID-19 infection.

Quality assessment of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for the management of pregnant women with sickle cell disease using the AGREE II instrument: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The management of pregnant women with sickle cell disease (SCD) poses a major challenge for maternal healthcare services owing to the potential for complications associated with morbidity and mortality. Trustworthy evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have a major impact on the positive outcomes of appropriate healthcare. The objective of this study was to critically appraise the quality of recent CPGs for SCD in pregnant women. METHODS: Clinical questions were identified and the relevant CPG and bibliographic databases were searched and screened for eligible CPGs. Each CPG was appraised by four independent appraisers using the AGREE II Instrument. Inter-rater analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Four eligible CPGs were appraised: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE), and Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG). Among them, the overall assessments of three CPGs (NICE, RCOG, NHLBI) scored greater than 70%; these findings were consistent with the high scores in the six domains of AGREE II, including:[1] scope and purpose,[2] stakeholder involvement,[3] rigor of development,[4] clarity of presentation,[5] applicability, and [6] editorial independence domains. Domain [3] scored (90%, 73%, 71%), domain [5] (90%, 46%, 47%), and domain [6] (71%, 77%, 52%) for NICE, RCOG, and NHLBI, respectively. Overall, the clinical recommendations were not significantly different between the included CPGs. CONCLUSIONS: Three evidence-based CPGs presented superior methodological quality. NICE demonstrated the highest quality followed by RCOG and NHLBI and all three CPGs were recommended for use in practice.

My jamais vu in post allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant: a review on secondary hemophagocytosis in adults.

Post allogenic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH) is an aggressive disease with unknown etiology. It has a poorly understood pathophysiology and poor outcome if untreated early. It's a state of hypercytokinemia. There are many proposed diagnostic criteria for Post HCT HLH. It usually occurs early in the first 2-6 weeks after allogeneic HCT but can present late. The incidence is highest among cord blood transplant compared with other sources of stem cells with a higher incidence in HLA mismatch donors. Post HCT HLH has a marked low survival rate, when compared with Non-HLH post HCT patients and specifically poor outcome is associated in patients with liver dysfunction, graft failure, and those with endothelial complications. Steroid is the mainstay treatment which can be followed up by cyclosporine and etoposide though an optimal therapy is not known. Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) has been tried in virus associated HLH. Second bone marrow transplant is a rescue procedure in patient with HLH due to graft failure, though a very careful selection of individual patients is mandatory. It has been recently found that etoposide based conditioning regimen may reduce HLH post HCT. A prospective study on post HCT HLH are needed to evaluate this unrecognized condition.