A nationwide cross-sectional study using a web-based questionnaire survey of the duration of isolation of COVID-19 inpatients with cancer at Japanese cancer centers.

There is no clear consensus regarding the optimal isolation duration for immunocompromised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Therefore, we conducted a questionnaire survey at eight Japanese cancer centers to investigate the practices of infectious disease specialists regarding the duration of isolation for COVID-19 inpatients with cancer. For asymptomatic to severely ill COVID-19 inpatients without severe immunodeficiency, four centers reported at least 10 days of isolation without testing, and two reported at least 20 days. Two centers incorporated polymerase chain reaction (PCR) as a criterion for terminating the isolation of inpatients without severe immunodeficiency. For severely immunocompromised COVID-19 inpatients, at least 20 days of isolation were required in seven facilities, regardless of illness severity. Additionally, seven centers had implemented Ct or antigen quantification test values as criteria for de-isolating severely immunocompromised inpatients. No cases caused nosocomial outbreaks after isolation was terminated based on each facility's criteria for isolation termination. Thus, cancer patients required longer isolation periods than the general population in most facilities, and for those with severe immunodeficiency, the isolation periods were longer and more tightly controlled with tests.

Impact of Isolation measures on pregnancy outcome during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This study aims to explore the impact of isolation measures implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic on childbirth outcomes in pregnant women. The design was a retrospective cohort study. The pregnant women during the outbreak lockdown and isolation from February 1 to April 30, 2020, were defined as the exposed population, and the pregnant women in the same time frame in 2019 as the non-exposed population. All data for the study were obtained from the National Health Care Data Platform of Shandong University. Generalized linear regression models were used to analyze the differences in pregnancy outcomes between the two study groups. A total of 34,698 pregnant women from Shandong Province, China in the data platform met the criteria and were included in the study. The proportions were 11.53% and 8.93% for macrosomia in the exposed and the non-exposed groups and were 3.47% and 4.37% for low birth weight infants, respectively, which were significantly different. They were 22.55% and 25.94% attributed to average exposed effect for macrosomia and low birth weight infants. Meanwhile, the mean weight and standard deviation of full-term infants in the exposure group were 3414.80 ± 507.43 g, which were significantly higher than in the non-exposed group (3347.22 ± 502.57 g, P < 0.001). The effect of exposure was significant in the third trimester. In conclusion, the isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic increases the birth weight of infants and the probability of macrosomia, regardless of which trimester in isolation a pregnant woman was, while the third trimester is the sensitive window of exposure. Our findings provide a basis for health care and policy development during pregnancy in COVID-19, due to COVID-19 still showing a pandemic trend around the world in 2022.

COVID-19 and isolation: Risks and implications in the scenario of new variants.

With the emergence of new variants of SARS-CoV-2, questions about transmissibility, vaccine efficacy, and impact on mortality are important to support decision-making in public health measures. Modifications related to transmissibility combined with the fact that much of the population has already been partially exposed to infection and/or vaccination, have stimulated recommendations to reduce the isolation period for COVID-19. However, these new guidelines have raised questions about their effectiveness in reducing contamination and minimizing impact in work environments. Therefore, a collaborative task force was developed to review the subject in a non-systematic manner, answering questions about SARS-CoV-2 variants, COVID-19 vaccines, isolation/quarantine periods, testing to end the isolation period, and the use of masks as mitigation procedures. Overall, COVID-19 vaccines are effective in preventing severe illness and death but are less effective in preventing infection in the case of the Omicron variant. Any strategy that is adopted to reduce the isolation period should take into consideration the epidemiological situation of the geographical region, individual clinical characteristics, and mask for source control. The use of tests for isolation withdrawal should be evaluated with caution, due to results depending on various conditions and may not be reliable.

COVID-19 and isolation: Risks and implications in the scenario of new variants

Abstract With the emergence of new variants of SARS-CoV-2, questions about transmissibility, vaccine efficacy, and impact on mortality are important to support decision-making in public health measures. Modifications related to transmissibility combined with the fact that much of the population has already been partially exposed to infection and/or vaccination, have stimulated recommendations to reduce the isolation period for COVID-19. However, these new guidelines have raised questions about their effectiveness in reducing contamination and minimizing impact in work environments. Therefore, a collaborative task force was developed to review the subject in a non-systematic manner, answering questions about SARS-CoV-2 variants, COVID-19 vaccines, isolation/quarantine periods, testing to end the isolation period, and the use of masks as mitigation procedures. Overall, COVID-19 vaccines are effective in preventing severe illness and death but are less effective in preventing infection in the case of the Omicron variant. Any strategy that is adopted to reduce the isolation period should take into consideration the epidemiological situation of the geographical region, individual clinical characteristics, and mask for source control. The use of tests for isolation withdrawal should be evaluated with caution, due to results depending on various conditions and may not be reliable.

[Outcomes following the triage of patients for urological cancer and non-cancer surgery during Covid-19 pandemic peak]. / Évaluation des mesures de triages de la première vague pandémique Covid-19 pour sélectionner les patients à opérer pour cancers et urgences urologiques.

INTRODUCTION: Faced with the first wave of Covid-19 pandemic, guidelines for surgical triage were developed to free up healthcare resources. The aim of our study was to assess clinical characteristics and surgical outcomes of triaged patients during the first Covid-19 crisis. METHOD: We conducted a cohort-controlled, non-randomized, study in a University Hospital of south-eastern France. Data were collected prospectively from consecutive patients after triage during the period from March 15th to May 1st and compared with control data from outside pandemic period. Primary endpoint was intensive care unit (ICU) admissions for surgery-related complications. Rates of surgery-specific death, postponed operations, positive PCR testing and Clavien-Dindo complications and data from cancer and non- cancer subgroups were assessed. RESULTS: After triage, 96 of 142 elective surgeries were postponed. Altogether, 71 patients, median age 68 y.o (IQR: 56-75 y.o), sex ratio M/F of 4/1, had surgery, among whom, 48 (68%) had uro-oncological surgery. No patients developed Covid-19 pneumonia in the post-surgery period. Three (4%) were admitted to the ICU, one of whom died from multi-organ failure due to septic shock caused by klebsiella pneumonia following a delay in treatment. Three Covid-19 RT-PCR were done and all were negative. There was no difference in mortality rates or ICU admission rates between control and Covid- era patients. CONCLUSIONS: Surgery after triage during the first Covid-19 pandemic was not associated with worse short-term outcomes. Urological cancers could be operated on safely in our context but delays in care for aggressive genitourinary diseases could be life threatening. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.