Utilization of clinical practice guidelines for cancer care in routine practice and during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic in India.

AIM: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic affected cancer service delivery and the feasibility of following the standard treatment guidelines. The present paper describes the use of clinical care guidelines for cancer management in routine practice and the approach adopted towards cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic in India. METHODS: A web-based survey was done in 107 hospitals (including public and private health facilities) that hosted Hospital-Based Cancer Registries under the National Cancer Registry Programme. The participants comprised Principal Investigators of these registries, who were also medical, surgical, and radiation oncology clinicians. The survey was done between May 1, 2021, and July 31, 2021. Participants were provided with a web link for the survey questionnaire, confidential login, and password. RESULTS: The study found high utilization of Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) during practice, with eight out of ten physicians constantly to referring them. The study reported lack of knowledge, skills, and training to administer the treatment based on the guidelines followed by organizational infrastructure and affordability of treatment by the patients as the factors hampering utilization. International clinical guidelines were preferred when compared to national guidelines. The COVID-19 pandemic decreased the use of CPGs, wherein six out of ten clinicians reported their use. CONCLUSION: Stakeholders who formulate clinical guidelines must consider the practical aspects and feasibility of implementing such guidelines during a pandemic and similar situations. This should be coupled with adequate changes in care practice to ensure optimal care delivery and a continuum of cancer care in routine and pandemic-imposed situations.

Assessing the Global Impact of Ambient Air Pollution on Cancer Incidence and Mortality: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: This study aims to examine the association between exposure to major ambient air pollutants and the incidence and mortality of lung cancer and some nonlung cancers. METHODS: This meta-analysis used PubMed and EMBASE databases to access published studies that met the eligibility criteria. Primary analysis investigated the association between exposure to air pollutants and cancer incidence and mortality. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Meta-analysis was conducted using R software. RESULTS: The meta-analysis included 61 studies, of which 53 were cohort studies and eight were case-control studies. Particulate matter 2.5 mm or less in diameter (PM2.5) was the exposure pollutant in half (55.5%), and lung cancer was the most frequently studied cancer in 59% of the studies. A pooled analysis of exposure reported in cohort and case-control studies and cancer incidence demonstrated a significant relationship (relative risk [RR], 1.04 [95% CI, 1.02 to 1.05]; I2, 88.93%; P < .05). A significant association was observed between exposure to pollutants such as PM2.5 (RR, 1.08 [95% CI, 1.04 to 1.12]; I2, 68.52%) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) (RR, 1.03 [95% CI, 1.01 to 1.05]; I2, 73.52%) and lung cancer incidence. The relationship between exposure to the air pollutants and cancer mortality demonstrated a significant relationship (RR, 1.08 [95% CI, 1.07 to 1.10]; I2, 94.77%; P < .001). Among the four pollutants, PM2.5 (RR, 1.15 [95% CI, 1.08 to 1.22]; I2, 95.33%) and NO2 (RR, 1.05 [95% CI, 1.02 to 1.08]; I2, 89.98%) were associated with lung cancer mortality. CONCLUSION: The study confirms the association between air pollution exposure and lung cancer incidence and mortality. The meta-analysis results could contribute to community cancer prevention and diagnosis and help inform stakeholders and policymakers in decision making.

A systematic review and meta-analysis on the prevalence and impact of coronary artery disease in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Background: COVID-19 accounts for more than half a billion deaths globally. The clinical manifestations may vary in due course. Despite several studies aimed at determining the extent to which the disease's severity and mortality remain high when combined with other comorbidities, more research is required. Therefore, this review aimed to measure the pooled prevalence of coronary artery disease (CAD) among COVID-19 patients, specifically those with a history of CAD. Additionally, we aim to assess the association between mortality due to CAD and the severity of COVID-19 among hospitalized patients. Method: A comprehensive search in PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and the WHO COVID-19 database was conducted. English studies with original data on CAD, mortality, and ARDS among COVID-19 patients were included. PRISMA guidelines were followed. Results: Among the 2007 identified articles, 76 studies met the inclusion criteria. The pooled prevalence of CAD among COVID-19 patients was 14.4%(95% CI: 12.7-16.2). The highest prevalence was observed in European studies at 18.2%(95% CI: 13.3-24.2), while the lowest was in Asian studies at 10.4% (95% CI: 6.4-16.3). Participants with concurrent CAD at the time of hospital admission had twice the odds of mortality due to COVID-19 (2.64 [95% CI: 2.30-3.04]) with moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 45%, p < 0.01). Hospitalized COVID-19 patients with CAD had a 50% higher risk of ARDS (95% CI: 0.62-3.66), but this difference was not statistically significant. Conclusion: Although our analysis revealed evidence for a relationship between concurrent CAD at the time of hospital admission and mortality from COVID-19, however, global variation in health infrastructure, limitations of data reporting, and the effects of emerging variants must be considered in future investigations.

A rapid assessment of the impact of coronavirus disease (COVID- 19) pandemic on health care & service delivery for noncommunicable diseases in India.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic had disrupted the availability, access and utilisation of routine health care services. The present study aimed to assess the impact of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions on India's Non communicable Disease (NCD) health care service delivery. METHODS: The study included existing hospitals in disease registry network of the Indian Council of Medical Research-National Centre for Disease Informatics and Research (ICMR-NCDIR), Bengaluru. The study participants comprised site investigators who were clinicians from many specialities, including general medicine, surgery, cancer, neurology, cardiology, and endocrinology. A standardised questionnaire was prepared to collect data on NCD health care services at the respective hospitals over three months from March to May 2020. RESULTS: Out of 153 hospitals approached for the study, 106 (70%) agreed to participate. Of these, 16 hospitals fully converted for COVID-19 care were excluded from the study. Thus, data from 90 hospitals were included in the final analysis. There had been a total disruption of NCD-related healthcare services during the three months in 44% of the hospitals. In April 2020, the outpatient attendance for over one-third of the hospitals was reduced by more than 75%. Admissions for planned surgeries for cancer treatment were reduced by more than 75% for about 40% of the hospitals. Preventive activities and population-based screening for diabetes, hypertension and cancer appear to have been adversely affected, with about one-third of the hospitals reporting total disruption in April and May 2020. As many as 60% of the institutions reported adequate availability of doctors. Over 91% of the institutions had preparedness/action plans to ensure the continuity of NCD services. CONCLUSION: The study shows that despite adequate human and material resources, NCD outpatient services, elective surgeries and population-based screening were severely affected. Most institutions were prepared to overcome the pandemic-imposed disruption and ensure a continuum of care for NCDs'.