Treatment of giant cell arteritis with ultra-short glucocorticoids and tocilizumab: the role of imaging in a prospective observational study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of tocilizumab (TCZ) monotherapy after ultra-short-pulse glucocorticoids (GCs) on clinical manifestations, and vessel inflammation and damage in large vessel-GCA (LV-GCA). METHODS: In this prospective observational study, we enrolled patients with active LV-GCA. All patients received 500 mg per day i.v. methylprednisolone for three consecutive days and weekly s.c. TCZ injections from day 4 until week 52. PET/CT was performed on all patients at baseline and at weeks 24 and 52. The primary end points were the reduction in the PET vascular activity score (PETVAS) at weeks 24 and 52 compared with baseline, and the proportion of patients with relapse-free remission at weeks 24 and 52. The secondary end point was the proportion of patients with new aortic dilation at weeks 24 and 52. RESULTS: A total of 18 patients were included (72% female, mean age 68.5 years). Compared with the baseline value, a significant reduction in the PETVAS was observed at weeks 24 and 52, mean (95% CI) reductions -8.6 (-11.5 to -5.7) and -10.4 (-13.6 to -7.2), P = 0.001 and 0.002, respectively. The proportion of patients with relapse-free remission at weeks 24 and 52 was 10/18 (56%, 95% CI 31-78) and 8/17 (47%, 95% CI 23-72), respectively. At weeks 24 and 52, no patient had shown new aortic dilation. However, 4 patients who had shown aortic dilation at baseline showed a significant increase in aortic diameter (≥5 mm) at week 52. CONCLUSION: TCZ monotherapy after ultra-short-pulse GCs controlled the clinical symptoms of GCA and reduced vascular inflammation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, https://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT05394909.

Neutralizing antibodies to Omicron after the fourth SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine dose in immunocompromised patients highlight the need of additional boosters.

Introduction: Immunocompromised patients have been shown to have an impaired immune response to COVID-19 vaccines. Methods: Here we compared the B-cell, T-cell and neutralizing antibody response to WT and Omicron BA.2 SARS-CoV-2 virus after the fourth dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in patients with hematological malignancies (HM, n=71), solid tumors (ST, n=39) and immune-rheumatological (IR, n=25) diseases. The humoral and T-cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination were analyzed by quantifying the anti-RBD antibodies, their neutralization activity and the IFN-γ released after spike specific stimulation. Results: We show that the T-cell response is similarly boosted by the fourth dose across the different subgroups, while the antibody response is improved only in patients not receiving B-cell targeted therapies, independent on the pathology. However, 9% of patients with anti-RBD antibodies did not have neutralizing antibodies to either virus variants, while an additional 5.7% did not have neutralizing antibodies to Omicron BA.2, making these patients particularly vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 infection. The increment of neutralizing antibodies was very similar towards Omicron BA.2 and WT virus after the third or fourth dose of vaccine, suggesting that there is no preferential skewing towards either virus variant with the booster dose. The only limited step is the amount of antibodies that are elicited after vaccination, thus increasing the probability of developing neutralizing antibodies to both variants of virus. Discussion: These data support the recommendation of additional booster doses in frail patients to enhance the development of a B-cell response directed against Omicron and/or to enhance the T-cell response in patients treated with anti-CD20.

Humoral and T-Cell Immune Response After 3 Doses of Messenger RNA Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Vaccines in Fragile Patients: The Italian VAX4FRAIL Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with solid or hematological tumors or neurological and immune-inflammatory disorders are potentially fragile subjects at increased risk of experiencing severe coronavirus disease 2019 and an inadequate response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination. METHODS: We designed a prospective Italian multicenter study to assess humoral and T-cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients (n = 378) with solid tumors (ST), hematological malignancies (HM), neurological disorders (ND), and immunorheumatological diseases (ID). A group of healthy controls was also included. We analyzed the immunogenicity of the primary vaccination schedule and booster dose. RESULTS: The overall seroconversion rate in patients after 2 doses was 62.1%. Significantly lower rates were observed in HM (52.4%) and ID (51.9%) than in ST (95.6%) and ND (70.7%); a lower median antibody level was detected in HM and ID versus ST and ND (P < .0001). Similar rates of patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 T-cell response were found in all disease groups, with a higher level observed in ND. The booster dose improved the humoral response in all disease groups, although to a lesser extent in HM patients, whereas the T-cell response increased similarly in all groups. In the multivariable logistic model, independent predictors of seroconversion were disease subgroup, treatment type, and age. Ongoing treatment known to affect the immune system was associated with the worst humoral response to vaccination (P < .0001) but had no effect on T-cell responses. CONCLUSIONS: Immunosuppressive treatment more than disease type per se is a risk factor for a low humoral response after vaccination. The booster dose can improve both humoral and T-cell responses.

Research, education, ethics consultation: evaluating a Bioethics Unit in an Oncological Research Hospital.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to quantitatively and qualitatively evaluate the activities of a Bioethics Unit (BU) 5 years since its implementation (2016-2020). The BU is a research unit providing empirical research on ethical issues related to clinical practice, clinical ethics consultation, and ethical education for health care professionals (HPS). METHODS: We performed an explanatory, sequential, mixed-method, observational study, using the subsequent qualitative data to explain the initial quantitative findings. Quantitative data were collected from an internal database and analyzed by descriptive analysis. Qualitative evaluation was performed by semi-structured interviews with 18 HPs who were differently involved in the BU's activities and analyzed by framework analysis. RESULTS: Quantitative results showed an extensive increment of the number of BU research projects over the years and the number of work collaborations with other units and wards. Qualitative findings revealed four main themes, concerning: 1. the reasons for contacting the BU and the type of collaboration; 2. the role of the bioethicist; 3. the impact of BU activities on HPs, in terms of developing deeper and more mature thinking; 4. the need to extend ethics support to other settings. Overall, our results showed that performing both empirical bioethics research and more traditional clinical ethics activities at the same unit would produce an impetus to increase collaboration and spread an 'ethical culture' among local HPs. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings contribute to a growing body of literature on the models of clinical ethics support services and the role of empirical research in bioethics internationally. They also prepare the ground for the implementation of a multidisciplinary Clinical Ethics Committee (CEC) that aims to support the BU's ethics consultation service within the local context.

Safety of third dose of COVID-19 vaccination in frail patients: Results from the prospective Italian VAX4FRAIL study.

Importance: Despite people with impaired immune competence due to an underlying disease or ongoing therapy, hereinafter frail patients, are (likely to be) the first to be vaccinated, they were usually excluded from clinical trials. Objective: To report adverse reactions of frail patients after receipt of the third dose (booster) administered after completion of a two-dose mRNA vaccination and to compare with those reported after the receipt of the first two doses. Design: A multicenter, observational, prospective study aimed at evaluating both the safety profile and the immune response of Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccines in frail patients. Setting: National Project on Vaccines, COVID-19 and Frail Patients (VAX4FRAIL). Participants: People consenting and included in the VAX4FRAIL trial. Exposure: A series of three doses of COVID-19 mRNA vaccination from the same manufacturer. Main outcomes and measures: Evaluation of a self-assessment questionnaire addressing a predefined list of eight symptoms on a five-item Likert scale. Symptoms were classified as severe if the patient rated them as severe or overwhelming. Results: Among 320 VAX4FRAIL participants diagnosed/treated for hematological malignancies (N=105; 32.8%), solid tumors (N=48; 15.0%), immune-rheumatological diseases (N=60; 18.8%), neurological diseases (N=107; 33.4%), and receiving the booster dose, 70.3% reported at least one loco-regional or systemic reactions. Adverse events were mostly mild or moderate, none being life-threatening. Only six of the 320 (1.9%) patients had their treatment postponed due to the vaccine. The safety profile of the booster compared to previously administered two doses showed a stable prevalence of patients with one or more adverse events (73.5%, 79.7% and 73.9% respectively), and a slightly increment of patients with one or more severe adverse events (13.4%, 13.9% and 19.2% respectively). Conclusions and relevance: The booster of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine was safely administered in the largest prospective cohort of frail patients reported so far. VAX4FRAIL will continue to monitor the safety of additional vaccine doses, especially systemic adverse events that can be easily prevented to avoid interruption of continuity of care. Clinical trial registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04848493, identifier NCT04848493.

Italian health professionals on the mandatory COVID-19 vaccine: An online cross-sectional survey.

Italy was the first country in Europe to make vaccination against COVID-19 mandatory for healthcare professionals by imposing restrictions in cases of non-compliance. This study investigates the opinions of the Italian healthcare professionals' categories affected by the regulation. We performed a qualitative online survey: the questionnaire comprised both close- and open-ended questions. The final dataset included n = 4,677 valid responses. Responses to closed-ended questions were analyzed with descriptive statistics. The framework method was applied for analyzing the open-ended questions. The sample spanned all health professions subject to compulsory vaccination, with a prevalence of physicians (43.8%) and nurses (26.3%). The vaccine adhesion before the introduction of the obligation was substantial. 10.4% declared not to have adhered to the vaccination proposal. Thirty-five percent of HPs who opted not to get vaccinated said they experienced consequences related to their choice. The trust in the vaccine seems slightly cracked, demonstrating overall vaccine confidence among professionals. Nonetheless, our results show that whether (or not) professionals adhere to vaccination is not a reliable indicator of consent to how it was achieved. There are criticisms about the lawfulness of the obligation. The data show a great variety of participants interpreting their roles concerning public and individual ethics. The scientific evidence motivates ethics-related decisions-the epidemic of confusing and incorrect information affected professionals. The Law triggered an increased disaffection with the health system and conflicts between professionals. Dealing with the working climate should be a commitment to assume soon.

Development of Approaches and Metrics to Measure the Impact and Improve the Clinical Outcomes of Patients With Frailty in the Era of COVID-19. The COMETA Italian Protocol.

The outbreak of the coronavirus 2 disease 2019 (COVID-19) puts an enormous burden on healthcare systems worldwide. This may worsen outcomes in patients with severe chronic diseases such as cancer, autoimmune diseases, and immune deficiencies. In this critical situation, only a few available data exist, which do not allow us to provide practical guides for the treatment of oncological or immunocompromised patients. Therefore, a further step forward is needed, addressing the specific needs and demands of frail patients in the pandemic era. Here we aim to present a protocol of a study approved by an ethical committee named "CO.M.E.TA". CO.M.E.TA protocol is a network project involving six Italian institutions and its goals are: i) to measure and compare the impact of the pandemic on the access of cancer and immunocompromised patients to therapies in three Italian regions; ii) to assess how reorganizational measures put in place in these different institutions have impacted specific metrics of performance; iii) to establish a COVID-19 Biobank of biological samples from SARS-CoV-2 infected patients to be used to study immunological alterations in patients with immune frailty.

Intravenous methylprednisolone pulses in hospitalised patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

RATIONALE: Pulse glucocorticoid therapy is used in hyperinflammation related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We evaluated the efficacy and safety of pulse intravenous methylprednisolone in addition to standard treatment in COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 304 hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia were randomised to receive 1 g of methylprednisolone intravenously for three consecutive days or placebo in addition to standard dexamethasone. The primary outcome was the duration of patient hospitalisation, calculated as the time interval between randomisation and hospital discharge without the need for supplementary oxygen. The key secondary outcomes were survival free from invasive ventilation with orotracheal intubation and overall survival. RESULTS: Overall, 112 (75.4%) out of 151 patients in the pulse methylprednisolone arm and 111 (75.2%) of 150 in the placebo arm were discharged from hospital without oxygen within 30 days from randomisation. Median time to discharge was similar in both groups (15 days, 95% CI 13.0-17.0 days and 16 days, 95% CI 13.8-18.2 days, respectively; hazard ratio (HR) 0.92, 95% CI 0.71-1.20; p=0.528). No significant differences between pulse methylprednisolone and placebo arms were observed in terms of admission to intensive care unit with orotracheal intubation or death (20.0% versus 16.1%; HR 1.26, 95% CI 0.74-2.16; p=0.176) or overall mortality (10.0% versus 12.2%; HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.42-1.64; p=0.584). Serious adverse events occurred with similar frequency in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Methylprenisolone pulse therapy added to dexamethasone was not of benefit in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.

mRNA-COVID19 Vaccination Can Be Considered Safe and Tolerable for Frail Patients.

Background: Frail patients are considered at relevant risk of complications due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection and, for this reason, are prioritized candidates for vaccination. As these patients were originally not included in the registration trials, fear related to vaccine adverse events and disease worsening was one of the reasons for vaccine hesitancy. Herein, we report the safety profile of the prospective, multicenter, national VAX4FRAIL study (NCT04848493) to evaluate vaccines in a large trans-disease cohort of patients with solid or hematological malignancies and neurological and rheumatological diseases. Methods: Between March 3 and September 2, 2021, 566 patients were evaluable for safety endpoint: 105 received the mRNA-1273 vaccine and 461 the BNT162b2 vaccine. Frail patients were defined per protocol as patients under treatment with hematological malignancies (n = 131), solid tumors (n = 191), immune-rheumatological diseases (n = 86), and neurological diseases (n = 158), including multiple sclerosis and generalized myasthenia. The impact of the vaccination on the health status of patients was assessed through a questionnaire focused on the first week after each vaccine dose. Results: The most frequently reported moderate-severe adverse events were pain at the injection site (60.3% after the first dose, 55.4% after the second), fatigue (30.1%-41.7%), bone pain (27.4%-27.2%), and headache (11.8%-18.9%). Risk factors associated with the occurrence of severe symptoms after vaccine administration were identified through a multivariate logistic regression analysis: age was associated with severe fever presentation (younger patients vs. middle-aged vs. older ones), female individuals presented a higher probability of severe pain at the injection site, fatigue, headache, and bone pain; and the mRNA-1237 vaccine was associated with a higher probability of severe pain at the injection site and fever. After the first dose, patients presenting a severe symptom were at a relevant risk of recurrence of the same severe symptom after the second one. Overall, 11 patients (1.9%) after the first dose and 7 (1.2%) after the second one required postponement or suspension of the disease-specific treatment. Finally, two fatal events occurred among our 566 patients. These two events were considered unrelated to the vaccine. Conclusions: Our study reports that mRNA-COVID-19 vaccination is safe also in frail patients; as expected, side effects were manageable and had a minimum impact on patient care path.

Predictive factors of clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19 treated with tocilizumab: A monocentric retrospective analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this retrospective observational study is to analyse clinical, serological and radiological predictors of outcome in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia treated with tocilizumab, providing clinical guidance to its use in real-life. METHOD: This is a retrospective, monocentric observational cohort study. All consecutive patients hospitalized between February the 11th and April 14th 2020 for severe COVID-19 pneumonia at Reggio Emilia AUSL and treated with tocilizumab were enrolled. The patient's clinical status was recorded every day using the WHO ordinal scale for clinical improvement. Response to treatment was defined as an improvement of one point (from the status at the beginning of tocilizumab treatment) during the follow-up on this scale. Bivariate association of main patients' characteristics with outcomes was explored by descriptive statistics and Fisher or Kruskal Wallis tests (respectively for qualitative or quantitative variables). Each clinically significant predictor was checked by a loglikelihood ratio test (in univariate logistic models for each of the considered outcomes) against the null model. RESULTS: A total of 173 patients were included. Only hypertension, the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, PaO2/FiO2, respiratory rate and C-reactive protein were selected for the multivariate analysis. In the multivariable model, none of them was significantly associated with response. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluating a large number of clinical variables, our study did not find new predictors of outcome in COVID19 patients treated with tocilizumab. Further studies are needed to investigate the use of tocilizumab in COVID-19 and to better identify clinical phenotypes which could benefit from this treatment.

How Many Cancer Patients Need Palliative Care? A Population-Based Study.

BACKGROUND: The number of cancer patients potentially amenable to palliative care is conventionally estimated from cancer deaths, as reported in the death certificates. However, a more representative population should also include cancer patients who die from causes other than cancer, as they may develop other life-limiting chronic conditions leading to terminal prognosis. AIM: This study aimed at refining the assessment of the number of cancer patients potentially in need of palliative care, by linked hospital and death data. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Residents in the Emilia Romagna Region in Italy, who died between 2009 and 2017. RESULTS: We identified a potential palliative care population of 157,547 cancer patients. The use of different administrative data sources enhanced the sensitivity of our selection. Starting from a standard estimate of 129,212 patients based on cancer as the primary cause of death, we showed that the additional use of hospital records identified a further 11.4% of possible palliative care patients 14,687. Also considering cancer as secondary cause of death, the estimate further increased by 10.6% (13,648 new cases). Notably, the proportion of cancer patients selected by the additional data sources were characterized by more advanced age and higher prevalence of comorbidity. CONCLUSION: Healthcare services addressing the issue of estimating palliative care needs of cancer patients at a population level should consider that relying on the death certificate alone may lead to underestimating these needs of about 22%.

Pathologists' assistants, an essential healthcare workforce: the experience of a surgical pathology department in Italy.

AIMS: The progressive increase of both the workload and the complexity of laboratory procedures, along with shortage of staff, has made evident the need to increase the efficiency in the pathology departments. To support the pathologists, a new technical professional role, the pathologists' assistant (PA), has been introduced. METHODS: We decided to carry out a retrospective analysis on PAs' performance. This was compared with that of junior/senior pathologists in the amount and type of surgical specimens examined, the number of lymph node retrieved in colorectal resections, the number of cases needing a second grossing procedure and the average time spent in grossing. As the COVID-19 pandemic period in fact resulted in a dramatic reduction of histological cases in our department, we divided PA activities into two periods, according to the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: 'Simple' specimens made up the majority (92%) of the specimens examined by PAs in pre-COVID-19 period while 'complex' specimens, often neoplastic, represented the minor part (7%). However, 'simple' specimens dropped to 81% and 'complex' specimens rose to 18% in the COVID-19 period, when PAs had the chance to test themselves with more complicated surgical samples, under the supervision of a pathologist. Lymph node retrieval rate and average time spent in grossing are in line with literature data and confirm that PAs performance is comparable with pathologists' one, in selected settings. CONCLUSION: In our experience, PA has represented a fundamental time-saving resource for the pathologists, who can devote time almost exclusively to diagnostic reporting.

Effectiveness of a nurse-delivered (FOCUS+) and a web-based (iFOCUS) psychoeducational intervention for people with advanced cancer and their family caregivers (DIAdIC): study protocol for an international randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, millions of people with advanced cancer and their family caregivers are experiencing physical and psychological distress. Psychosocial support and education can reduce distress and prevent avoidable healthcare resource use. To date, we lack knowledge from large-scale studies on which interventions generate positive outcomes for people with cancer and their informal caregivers' quality of life. This protocol describes the DIAdIC study that will evaluate the effectiveness of two psychosocial and educational interventions aimed at improving patient-family caregiver dyads' emotional functioning and self-efficacy. METHODS: We will conduct an international multicenter three-arm randomized controlled trial in Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Italy, The Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. In each country, 156 dyads (936 in total) of people with advanced cancer and their family caregiver will be randomized to one of the study arms: 1) a nurse-led face-to-face intervention (FOCUS+), 2) a web-based intervention (iFOCUS) or 3) a control group (care as usual). The two interventions offer tailored psychoeducational support for patient-family caregiver dyads. The nurse-led face-to-face intervention consists of two home visits and one online video session and the web-based intervention is completed independently by the patient-family caregiver dyad in four online sessions. The interventions are based on the FOCUS intervention, developed in the USA, that addresses five core components: family involvement, optimistic outlook, coping effectiveness, uncertainty reduction, and symptom management. The FOCUS intervention will be adapted to the European context. The primary outcomes are emotional functioning and self-efficacy of the patient and the family caregiver, respectively. The secondary outcomes are quality of life, benefits of illness, coping, dyadic communication, and ways of giving support of the patient and family caregiver. DISCUSSION: DIAdIC aims to develop cost-effective interventions that integrate principles of early palliative care into standard care. The cross-country setup in six European countries allows for comparison of effectiveness of the interventions in different healthcare systems across Europe. By focusing on empowerment of the person with cancer and their family caregiver, the results of this RCT can contribute to the search for cost-effective novel interventions that can relieve constraints on professional healthcare. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registration on ClinicalTrials.gov on 12/11/2020, identifier NCT04626349 . DATE AND VERSION IDENTIFIER: 20211209_DIAdIC_Protocol_Article.

COVID-19 Vaccination in Fragile Patients: Current Evidence and an Harmonized Transdisease Trial.

Patients diagnosed with malignancy, neurological and immunological disorders, i.e., fragile patients, have been excluded from COVID-19 vaccine trials. However, this population may present immune response abnormalities, and relative reduced vaccine responsiveness. Here we review the limited current evidence on the immune responses to vaccination of patients with different underlying diseases. To address open questions we present the VAX4FRAIL study aimed at assessing immune responses to vaccination in a large transdisease cohort of patients with cancer, neurological and rheumatological diseases.

Preparedness and Capacity of Indian Palliative Care Services to Respond to the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Online Rapid Assessment Survey.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has been causing a high burden of suffering for patients and families. There is limited evidence on the preparedness of Indian palliative care services for the pandemic. AIM: This study aimed to assess the preparedness and capacity of Indian palliative care services in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey was developed based on prior evidence and international health regulations. It was emailed to the Indian Palliative Care Association members and investigators' professional networks in India. One participant per palliative care service was requested. Descriptive analysis was used. RESULTS: Representatives of 78 palliative care services completed the survey. Three in four services had COVID-19 case definition and adapted their protocols for infection control (75%). About half of the services (55%) reported concerns about achieving appropriate hand hygiene in the community. More than half of the services (59%) had capacity to train nonspecialists for symptom control and psychological support. About half of the services reported that they had plans to redeploy staff (56%) and resources (53%) in the case of outbreaks. Two-fifths of the services used paper records to store an updated contact list of staff (40%) and did not have designated focal contacts for information update (40%). Staff anxiety related to personal infection risk and family care was relatively high (median score = 7 on a 1-10 scale). CONCLUSION: We recommend the following resource allocation to enable palliative care services to support the Indian health system in delivering essential care in this and future pandemics: (1) infection control, especially in the community; (2) training using existing clinical protocols to strengthen palliative care across the health system; and (3) redeployment plans.

A focused ethnography in the context of a European cancer research hospital accreditation program.

BACKGROUND: A quality accreditation program (AP) is designed to guarantee predefined quality standards of healthcare organizations. Evidence of the impact of quality standards remains scarce and somewhat challenging to document. This study aimed to investigate the accreditation of a cancer research hospital (Italy), promoted by the Organization of European Cancer Institutes (OECI), by focusing on the individual, group, and organizational experiences resulting from the OECI AP. METHODS: A focused ethnography study was carried out to analyze the relevance of participation in the accreditation process. Twenty-nine key informants were involved in four focus group meetings, and twelve semistructured interviews were conducted with professionals and managers. Inductive qualitative content analysis was applied to examine all transcripts. RESULTS: Four main categories emerged: a) OECI AP as an opportunity to foster diversity within professional roles; b) OECI AP as a possibility for change; c) perceived barriers; and d) OECI AP-solicited expectations. CONCLUSIONS: The accreditation process is an opportunity for improving the quality and variety of care services for cancer patients through promoting an interdisciplinary approach to care provision. Perceiving accreditation as an opportunity is a prerequisite for overcoming the barriers that professionals involved in the process may report. Critical to a positive change is sharing the values and the framework, which are at the basis of accreditation programs. Improving the information-sharing process among managers and professionals may limit the risk of unmet expectations and prevent demotivation by future accreditation programs. Finally, we found that positive changes are more likely to happen when an accreditation process is considered an activity whose results depend on managers' and professionals' joint work.

High-dose glucocorticoids pulse-therapy for beta-coronaviridae pneumonia: a systematic literature review and case-series of Coronavirus disease-2019.

OBJECTIVES: The results of the RECOVERY trial identified dexamethasone as the first pharmacological therapy that reduces mortality in patients with COVID-19. The aim of this paper is to conduct a systematic literature review on safety and efficacy of pulse glucocorticoid therapy for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS)-CoronaVirus (CoV), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS)-CoV or SARS-CoV-2 infections and describe a case-series of COVID-19 patients treated with off-label pulse doses of methylprednisolone. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature review on safety and efficacy of pulse therapy for betacoronaviridae infections as described in the protocol registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020190183). All consecutive patients admitted to Arcispedale Santa Maria Nuova di Reggio Emilia or Guastalla Hospital with COVID-19 between March 1st and April 30th, 2020 and treated with methylprednisolone 1 gram/day for at least three days were included in the case series. A retrospective review of available computed tomography (CT) scan and chest x-ray was performed independently by two radiologists blinded to clinical data, and discordances were resolved by consensus. RESULTS: Twenty papers were included for SARS, but only two were comparative and were included in the primary endpoint analysis. Likewise, eleven papers were included for COVID-19, four of which were comparative and were considered for the primary outcome analysis. Included studies for both SARS and COVID-19 are mostly retrospective and highly heterogeneous, with lethality ranging from 0% to 100% and ICU admission rate ranging from 9% to 100%. Fourteen patients were included in our case series, 7 males and 7 females. CONCLUSIONS: No randomised controlled trial is available yet for corticosteroids pulse-therapy defined as at least ≥500mg/day methylprednisolone in patients with emerging coronavirus pneumonia. Lethality among our cohort is high (4/14), but this finding should be interpreted with caution due to the fact that in our setting pulse-steroids were used in patients not eligible for other treatments because of comorbidities or as rescue therapy. The incidence of steroid-related adverse events seems low in our cohort. The quality of the evidence on glucocorticoid pulse-therapy in SARS, MERS and COVID-19 is poor. Randomised controlled trials are greatly needed.

Parkinson's disease patients' needs during the COVID-19 pandemic in a red zone: A framework analysis of open-ended survey questions.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: During the first phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, a lockdown was imposed in Italy. The aim of this study was to investigate the perceptions, feelings and unmet needs of Parkinson's disease (PD) patients who experienced the 2-month lockdown in a "red zone" in the northern part of Italy during the COVID-19 outbreak. METHODS: The study had a descriptive design that used a cross-sectional online survey which included open-ended questions to elicit responses on the participant's feelings concerning their risk of contracting coronavirus, how their physical activity had changed, and their personal needs, dictated by their condition, which were not met in this pandemic period as compared to previous periods. Demographic data were analysed using descriptive frequencies, while the open-ended questions were analysed using thematic framework analysis. RESULTS: The study included 103 participants (63 men/40 women [61.17 vs. 38.83%]). Framework analysis led to the identification of four main themes: (i) fearing the risk of contracting coronavirus; (ii) reduction of physical activity; (iii) perception of the risk of not being able to access outpatient clinics or support services; and (iv) negative experiences of the important reduction in socialization. The perceptions of unmet needs appeared to be greater than the actual experience, particularly for the reduction in physical activity and the interruption of contacts with the neurologist and other specialists. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights how perceptions and actual experience shape the meaning of living with PD during the pandemic. Worth noting is the divergence between perceptions and real impact in some aspects of the COVID-19 outbreak.