Treatment and Survival Among Patients With Colorectal Cancer in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Multicentric Population-Based Follow-Up Study.

BACKGROUND: The burden of colorectal cancer (CRC) is increasing in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). However, little is known about CRC treatment and survival in the region. METHODS: A random sample of 653 patients with CRC diagnosed from 2011 to 2015 was obtained from 11 population-based cancer registries in SSA. Information on clinical characteristics, treatment, and/or vital status was obtained from medical records in treating hospitals for 356 (54%) of the patients ("traced cohort"). Concordance of CRC treatment with NCCN Harmonized Guidelines for SSA was assessed. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to examine the association between survival and human development index (HDI). RESULTS: Of the 356 traced patients with CRC, 51.7% were male, 52.8% were from countries with a low HDI, 55.1% had colon cancer, and 73.6% were diagnosed with nonmetastatic (M0) disease. Among the patients with M0 disease, however, only 3.1% received guideline-concordant treatment, 20.6% received treatment with minor deviations, 31.7% received treatment with major deviations, and 35.1% received no treatment. The risk of death in patients who received no cancer-directed therapy was 3.49 (95% CI, 1.83-6.66) times higher than in patients who received standard treatment or treatment with minor deviations. Similarly, the risk of death in patients from countries with a low HDI was 1.67 (95% CI, 1.07-2.62) times higher than in those from countries with a medium HDI. Overall survival at 1 and 3 years was 70.9% (95% CI, 65.5%-76.3%) and 45.3% (95% CI, 38.9%-51.7%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Fewer than 1 in 20 patients diagnosed with potentially curable CRC received standard of care in SSA, reinforcing the need to improve healthcare infrastructure, including the oncology and surgical workforce.

Guideline Concordance of Treatment and Outcomes Among Adult Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Patients in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Multinational, Population-Based Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Although non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) is the 6th most common malignancy in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), little is known about its management and outcome. Herein, we examined treatment patterns and survival among NHL patients. METHODS: We obtained a random sample of adult patients diagnosed between 2011 and 2015 from 11 population-based cancer registries in 10 SSA countries. Descriptive statistics for lymphoma-directed therapy (LDT) and degree of concordance with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines were calculated, and survival rates were estimated. FINDINGS: Of 516 patients included in the study, sub-classification was available for 42.1% (121 high-grade and 64 low-grade B-cell lymphoma, 15 T-cell lymphoma and 17 otherwise sub-classified NHL), whilst the remaining 57.9% were unclassified. Any LDT was identified for 195 of all patients (37.8%). NCCN guideline-recommended treatment was initiated in 21 patients. This corresponds to 4.1% of all 516 patients, and to 11.7% of 180 patients with sub-classified B-cell lymphoma and NCCN guidelines available. Deviations from guideline-recommended treatment were initiated in another 49 (9.5% of 516, 27.2% of 180). By registry, the proportion of all patients receiving guideline-concordant LDT ranged from 30.8% in Namibia to 0% in Maputo and Bamako. Concordance with treatment recommendations was not assessable in 75.1% of patients (records not traced (43.2%), traced but no sub-classification identified (27.8%), traced but no guidelines available (4.1%)). By registry, diagnostic work-up was in part importantly limited, thus impeding guideline evaluation significantly. Overall 1-year survival was 61.2% (95%CI 55.3%-67.1%). Poor ECOG performance status, advanced stage, less than 5 cycles and absence of chemo (immuno-) therapy were associated with unfavorable survival, while HIV status, age, and gender did not impact survival. In diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, initiation of guideline-concordant treatment was associated with favorable survival. INTERPRETATION: This study shows that a majority of NHL patients in SSA are untreated or undertreated, resulting in unfavorable survival. Investments in enhanced diagnostic services, provision of chemo(immuno-)therapy and supportive care will likely improve outcomes in the region.

[Sustainability in private surgical practice-A narrative review]. / Nachhaltigkeit in der chirurgischen Niederlassung ­ ein narratives Review.

Background: Surgery is contributing to the climate crisis, not least in the outpatient sector. The present publication aims to identify the challenges this poses, and to provide clear, preferably evidence-based recommendations on environmental protection while simultaneously reducing costs. Method: Narrative review with a non-systematic search and selection in PubMed/MEDLINE and grey area literature as well as expert interviews. Results: Numerous primary articles, evidence syntheses, practical recommendations for action and checklists were identified and two experts were interviewed. Environmental issues were identified in the production and procurement, transport of people and goods, usage of materials, pharmaceuticals including anesthetic gases and energy consumption in the outpatient practice and also in disposal, recycling, and sterilization. High-quality publications do not describe a lack of knowledge on alternatives but on a lack of implementation in clinical practice. Therefore, the identified issues were classified in the 5­R scheme (reduce, reuse, recycle, rethink, research) to present recommendations for action, which are synergetic in terms of cost reduction, patient and staff satisfaction. Furthermore, changes in regulatory frameworks are discussed. Conclusion: Outpatient surgery comes with relevant consumption of resources and carbon emissions. There are numerous opportunities for action that combine environmental protection with cost reduction as well as patient and staff satisfaction. Incentives, guidelines, and legal framework conditions are needed for comprehensive environmental protection in the private sector.

[Sustainability in private surgical practice-A narrative review]. / Nachhaltigkeit in der chirurgischen Niederlassung ­ ein narratives Review.

BACKGROUND: Surgery is contributing to the climate crisis, not least in the outpatient sector. The present publication aims to identify the challenges this poses, and to provide clear, preferably evidence-based recommendations on environmental protection while simultaneously reducing costs. METHOD: Narrative review with a non-systematic search and selection in PubMed/MEDLINE and grey area literature as well as expert interviews. RESULTS: Numerous primary articles, evidence syntheses, practical recommendations for action and checklists were identified and two experts were interviewed. Environmental issues were identified in the production and procurement, transport of people and goods, usage of materials, pharmaceuticals including anesthetic gases and energy consumption in the outpatient practice and also in disposal, recycling, and sterilization. High-quality publications do not describe a lack of knowledge on alternatives but on a lack of implementation in clinical practice. Therefore, the identified issues were classified in the 5­R scheme (reduce, reuse, recycle, rethink, research) to present recommendations for action, which are synergetic in terms of cost reduction, patient and staff satisfaction. Furthermore, changes in regulatory frameworks are discussed. CONCLUSION: Outpatient surgery comes with relevant consumption of resources and carbon emissions. There are numerous opportunities for action that combine environmental protection with cost reduction as well as patient and staff satisfaction. Incentives, guidelines, and legal framework conditions are needed for comprehensive environmental protection in the private sector.

Remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Remdesivir is an antiviral medicine approved for the treatment of mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This led to widespread implementation, although the available evidence remains inconsistent. This update aims to fill current knowledge gaps by identifying, describing, evaluating, and synthesising all evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the effects of remdesivir on clinical outcomes in COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of remdesivir and standard care compared to standard care plus/minus placebo on clinical outcomes in patients treated for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which comprises the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv) as well as Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded and Emerging Sources Citation Index) and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies, without language restrictions. We conducted the searches on 31 May 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included RCTs evaluating remdesivir and standard care for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to standard care plus/minus placebo irrespective of disease severity, gender, ethnicity, or setting. We excluded studies that evaluated remdesivir for the treatment of other coronavirus diseases. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool for RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach for outcomes that were reported according to our prioritised categories: all-cause mortality, in-hospital mortality, clinical improvement (being alive and ready for discharge up to day 28) or worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death up to day 28), quality of life, serious adverse events, and adverse events (any grade). We differentiated between non-hospitalised individuals with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection or mild COVID-19 and hospitalised individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine RCTs with 11,218 participants diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection and a mean age of 53.6 years, of whom 5982 participants were randomised to receive remdesivir. Most participants required low-flow oxygen at baseline. Studies were mainly conducted in high- and upper-middle-income countries. We identified two studies that are awaiting classification and five ongoing studies. Effects of remdesivir in hospitalised individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19 With moderate-certainty evidence, remdesivir probably makes little or no difference to all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.06; risk difference (RD) 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 21 fewer to 6 more; 4 studies, 7142 participants), day 60 (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.05; RD 35 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 73 fewer to 12 more; 1 study, 1281 participants), or in-hospital mortality at up to day 150 (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.03; RD 11 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 25 fewer to 5 more; 1 study, 8275 participants). Remdesivir probably increases the chance of clinical improvement at up to day 28 slightly (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.17; RD 68 more per 1000, 95% CI 37 more to 105 more; 4 studies, 2514 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). It probably decreases the risk of clinical worsening within 28 days (hazard ratio (HR) 0.67, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.82; RD 135 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 198 fewer to 69 fewer; 2 studies, 1734 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Remdesivir may make little or no difference to the rate of adverse events of any grade (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.18; RD 23 more per 1000, 95% CI 46 fewer to 104 more; 4 studies, 2498 participants; low-certainty evidence), or serious adverse events (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.07; RD 44 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 96 fewer to 19 more; 4 studies, 2498 participants; low-certainty evidence). We considered risk of bias to be low, with some concerns for mortality and clinical course. We had some concerns for safety outcomes because participants who had died did not contribute information. Without adjustment, this leads to an uncertain amount of missing values and the potential for bias due to missing data. Effects of remdesivir in non-hospitalised individuals with mild COVID-19 One of the nine RCTs was conducted in the outpatient setting and included symptomatic people with a risk of progression. No deaths occurred within the 28 days observation period. We are uncertain about clinical improvement due to very low-certainty evidence. Remdesivir probably decreases the risk of clinical worsening (hospitalisation) at up to day 28 (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.75; RD 46 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 57 fewer to 16 fewer; 562 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We did not find any data for quality of life. Remdesivir may decrease the rate of serious adverse events at up to 28 days (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.70; RD 49 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 60 fewer to 20 fewer; 562 participants; low-certainty evidence), but it probably makes little or no difference to the risk of adverse events of any grade (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.10; RD 42 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 111 fewer to 46 more; 562 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We considered risk of bias to be low for mortality, clinical improvement, and safety outcomes. We identified a high risk of bias for clinical worsening. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available evidence up to 31 May 2022, remdesivir probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality or in-hospital mortality of individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19. The hospitalisation rate was reduced with remdesivir in one study including participants with mild to moderate COVID-19. It may be beneficial in the clinical course for both hospitalised and non-hospitalised patients, but certainty remains limited. The applicability of the evidence to current practice may be limited by the recruitment of participants from mostly unvaccinated populations exposed to early variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus at the time the studies were undertaken.  Future studies should provide additional data on the efficacy and safety of remdesivir for defined core outcomes in COVID-19 research, especially for different population subgroups.

Systemic corticosteroids for the treatment of COVID-19: Equity-related analyses and update on evidence.

BACKGROUND: Systemic corticosteroids are used to treat people with COVID-19 because they counter hyper-inflammation. Existing evidence syntheses suggest a slight benefit on mortality. Nonetheless, size of effect, optimal therapy regimen, and selection of patients who are likely to benefit most are factors that remain to be evaluated. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether and at which doses systemic corticosteroids are effective and safe in the treatment of people with COVID-19, to explore equity-related aspects in subgroup analyses, and to keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which includes PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and medRxiv), Web of Science (Science Citation Index, Emerging Citation Index), and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 6 January 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated systemic corticosteroids for people with COVID-19. We included any type or dose of systemic corticosteroids and the following comparisons: systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care, different types, doses and timings (early versus late) of corticosteroids. We excluded corticosteroids in combination with other active substances versus standard care, topical or inhaled corticosteroids, and corticosteroids for long-COVID treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess the risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' 2 tool for RCTs. We rated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality up to 30 and 120 days, discharged alive (clinical improvement), new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death (clinical worsening), serious adverse events, adverse events, hospital-acquired infections, and invasive fungal infections. MAIN RESULTS: We included 16 RCTs in 9549 participants, of whom 8271 (87%) originated from high-income countries. A total of 4532 participants were randomised to corticosteroid arms and the majority received dexamethasone (n = 3766). These studies included participants mostly older than 50 years and male. We also identified 42 ongoing and 23 completed studies lacking published results or relevant information on the study design. Hospitalised individuals with a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of symptomatic COVID-19 Systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care plus/minus placebo We included 11 RCTs (8019 participants), one of which did not report any of our pre-specified outcomes and thus our analyses included outcome data from 10 studies. Systemic corticosteroids plus standard care compared to standard care probably reduce all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) slightly (risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 0.97; 7898 participants; estimated absolute effect: 274 deaths per 1000 people not receiving systemic corticosteroids compared to 246 deaths per 1000 people receiving the intervention (95% CI 230 to 265 per 1000 people); moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on all-cause mortality (up to 120 days) (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.34; 485 participants). The chance of clinical improvement (discharged alive at day 28) may slightly increase (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.11; 6786 participants; low-certainty evidence) while the risk of clinical worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death) may slightly decrease (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.01; 5586 participants; low-certainty evidence). For serious adverse events (two RCTs, 678 participants), adverse events (three RCTs, 447 participants), hospital-acquired infections (four RCTs, 598 participants), and invasive fungal infections (one study, 64 participants), we did not perform any analyses beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics due to very low-certainty evidence (high risk of bias, heterogeneous definitions, and underreporting). Different types, dosages or timing of systemic corticosteroids We identified one RCT (86 participants) comparing methylprednisolone to dexamethasone, thus the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of methylprednisolone on all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.07; 86 participants). None of the other outcomes of interest were reported in this study. We included four RCTs (1383 participants) comparing high-dose dexamethasone (12 mg or higher) to low-dose dexamethasone (6 mg to 8 mg). High-dose dexamethasone compared to low-dose dexamethasone may reduce all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.04; 1269 participants; low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of high-dose dexamethasone on all-cause mortality (up to 120 days) (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.08; 1383 participants) and it may have little or no impact on clinical improvement (discharged alive at 28 days) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.09; 200 participants; low-certainty evidence). Studies did not report data on clinical worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death). For serious adverse events, adverse events, hospital-acquired infections, and invasive fungal infections, we did not perform analyses beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics due to very low-certainty evidence. We could not identify studies for comparisons of different timing and systemic corticosteroids versus other active substances. Equity-related subgroup analyses We conducted the following subgroup analyses to explore equity-related factors: sex, age (< 70 years; ≥ 70 years), ethnicity (Black, Asian or other versus White versus unknown) and place of residence (high-income versus low- and middle-income countries). Except for age and ethnicity, no evidence for differences could be identified. For all-cause mortality up to 30 days, participants younger than 70 years seemed to benefit from systemic corticosteroids in comparison to those aged 70 years and older. The few participants from a Black, Asian, or other minority ethnic group showed a larger estimated effect than the many White participants. Outpatients with asymptomatic or mild disease There are no studies published in populations with asymptomatic infection or mild disease. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Systemic corticosteroids probably slightly reduce all-cause mortality up to 30 days in people hospitalised because of symptomatic COVID-19, while the evidence is very uncertain about the effect on all-cause mortality up to 120 days. For younger people (under 70 years of age) there was a potential advantage, as well as for Black, Asian, or people of a minority ethnic group; further subgroup analyses showed no relevant effects. Evidence related to the most effective type, dose, or timing of systemic corticosteroids remains immature. Currently, there is no evidence on asymptomatic or mild disease (non-hospitalised participants). Due to the low to very low certainty of the current evidence, we cannot assess safety adequately to rule out harmful effects of the treatment, therefore there is an urgent need for good-quality safety data. Findings of equity-related subgroup analyses should be interpreted with caution because of their explorative nature, low precision, and missing data. We identified 42 ongoing and 23 completed studies lacking published results or relevant information on the study design, suggesting there may be possible changes of the effect estimates and certainty of the evidence in the future.

Early spontaneous breathing for acute respiratory distress syndrome in individuals with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) represents the most severe course of COVID-19 (caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus), usually resulting in a prolonged stay in an intensive care unit (ICU) and high mortality rates. Despite the fact that most affected individuals need invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), evidence on specific ventilation strategies for ARDS caused by COVID-19 is scarce. Spontaneous breathing during IMV is part of a therapeutic concept comprising light levels of sedation and the avoidance of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA). This approach is potentially associated with both advantages (e.g. a preserved diaphragmatic motility and an optimised ventilation-perfusion ratio of the ventilated lung), as well as risks (e.g. a higher rate of ventilator-induced lung injury or a worsening of pulmonary oedema due to increases in transpulmonary pressure). As a consequence, spontaneous breathing in people with COVID-19-ARDS who are receiving IMV is subject to an ongoing debate amongst intensivists. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of early spontaneous breathing activity in invasively ventilated people with COVID-19 with ARDS compared to ventilation strategies that avoid spontaneous breathing. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which includes CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, Clinical Trials.gov WHO ICTRP, and medRxiv) and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies from their inception to 2 March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: Eligible study designs comprised randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated spontaneous breathing in participants with COVID-19-related ARDS compared to ventilation strategies that avoided spontaneous breathing (e.g. using NMBA or deep sedation levels). Additionally, we considered controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series with comparison group, prospective cohort studies and retrospective cohort studies. For these non-RCT studies, we considered a minimum total number of 50 participants to be compared as necessary for inclusion. Prioritised outcomes were all-cause mortality, clinical improvement or worsening, quality of life, rate of (serious) adverse events and rate of pneumothorax. Additional outcomes were need for tracheostomy, duration of ICU length of stay and duration of hospitalisation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed the methods outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Two review authors independently screened all studies at the title/abstract and full-text screening stage. We also planned to conduct data extraction and risk of bias assessment in duplicate. We planned to conduct meta-analysis for each prioritised outcome, as well as subgroup analyses of mortality regarding severity of oxygenation impairment and duration of ARDS. In addition, we planned to perform sensitivity analyses for studies at high risk of bias, studies using NMBA in addition to deep sedation level to avoid spontaneous breathing and a comparison of preprints versus peer-reviewed articles. We planned to assess the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We identified no eligible studies for this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no direct evidence on whether early spontaneous breathing in SARS-CoV-2-induced ARDS is beneficial or detrimental to this particular group of patients.  RCTs comparing early spontaneous breathing with ventilatory strategies not allowing for spontaneous breathing in SARS-CoV-2-induced ARDS are necessary to determine its value within the treatment of severely ill people with COVID-19. Additionally, studies should aim to clarify whether treatment effects differ between people with SARS-CoV-2-induced ARDS and people with non-SARS-CoV-2-induced ARDS.

Inhaled corticosteroids for the treatment of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled corticosteroids are well established for the long-term treatment of inflammatory respiratory diseases such as asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. They have been investigated for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The anti-inflammatory action of inhaled corticosteroids might have the potential to reduce the risk of severe illness resulting from hyperinflammation in COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether inhaled corticosteroids are effective and safe in the treatment of COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which includes CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and medRxiv), Web of Science (Science Citation Index, Emerging Citation Index), and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 7 October 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating inhaled corticosteroids for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, sex, or ethnicity. We included the following interventions: any type or dose of inhaled corticosteroids. We included the following comparison: inhaled corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care (with or without placebo). We excluded studies examining nasal or topical steroids. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. For risk of bias assessment, we used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the outcomes of mortality, admission to hospital or death, symptom resolution, time to symptom resolution, serious adverse events, adverse events, and infections. MAIN RESULTS: Inhaled corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care (with/without placebo) - People with a confirmed diagnosis of moderate-to-severe COVID-19 We found no studies that included people with a confirmed diagnosis of moderate-to-severe COVID-19. - People with a confirmed diagnosis of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection or mild COVID-19 We included three RCTs allocating 3607 participants, of whom 2490 had confirmed mild COVID-19. We analysed a subset of the total number of participants recruited to the studies (2171, 52% female) as some trials had a platform design where not all participants were allocated to treatment groups simultaneously. The included studies were community-based, recruiting people who were able to use inhaler devices to deliver steroids and relied on remote assessment and self-reporting of outcomes. Most people were older than 50 years and had co-morbidities such as hypertension, lung disease, or diabetes. The studies were conducted in high-income countries prior to wide-scale vaccination programmes. A total of 1057 participants were analysed in the inhaled corticosteroid arm (budesonide: 860 participants; ciclesonide: 197 participants), and 1075 participants in the control arm. No studies included people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. With respect to the following outcomes, inhaled corticosteroids compared to standard care: - may result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality (at up to day 30) (risk ratio (RR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 1.67; 2132 participants; low-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this means that for every nine deaths per 1000 people not receiving inhaled corticosteroids, there were six deaths per 1000 people who did receive the intervention (95% CI 2 to 16 per 1000 people); - probably reduces admission to hospital or death (at up to 30 days) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.99; 2025 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - probably increases resolution of all initial symptoms at day 14 (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.30; 1986 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - may reduce the duration to symptom resolution (at up to day 30) (by -4.00 days, 95% CI -6.22 to -1.78 less than control group rate of 12 days; 139 participants; low-certainty evidence); - the evidence is very uncertain about the effect on serious adverse events (during study period) (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.76; 1586 participants; very low-certainty evidence); - may result in little to no difference in adverse events (at up to day 30) (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.31; 400 participants; low-certainty evidence); - may result in little to no difference in infections (during study period) (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.58; 400 participants; low-certainty evidence). As studies did not report outcomes for subgroups (e.g. age, ethnicity, sex), we did not perform subgroup analyses. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In people with confirmed COVID-19 and mild symptoms who are able to use inhaler devices, we found moderate-certainty evidence that inhaled corticosteroids probably reduce the combined endpoint of admission to hospital or death and increase the resolution of all initial symptoms at day 14. Low-certainty evidence suggests that corticosteroids make little to no difference in all-cause mortality up to day 30 and may decrease the duration to symptom resolution. We do not know whether inhaled corticosteroids increase or decrease serious adverse events due to heterogeneity in the way they were reported across the studies. There is low-certainty evidence that inhaled corticosteroids may decrease infections. The evidence we identified came from studies in high-income settings using budesonide and ciclesonide prior to vaccination roll-outs. We identified a lack of evidence concerning quality of life assessments, serious adverse events, and people with asymptomatic infection or with moderate-to-severe COVID-19. The 10 ongoing and four completed, unpublished RCTs that we identified in trial registries address similar settings and research questions as in the current body of evidence. We expect to incorporate the findings of these studies in future versions of this review. We monitor newly published results of RCTs on inhaled corticosteroids on a weekly basis and will update the review when the evidence or our certainty in the evidence changes.

Awake Prone Positioning, High-Flow Nasal Oxygen and Non-Invasive Ventilation as Non-Invasive Respiratory Strategies in COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory failure is the most important organ dysfunction of COVID-19 patients. While non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen are frequently used, efficacy and safety remain uncertain. Benefits and harms of awake prone positioning (APP) in COVID-19 patients are unknown. METHODS: We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HFNC vs. NIV and APP vs. standard care. We meta-analyzed data for mortality, intubation rate, and safety. RESULTS: Five RCTs (2182 patients) were identified. While it remains uncertain whether HFNC compared to NIV alters mortality (RR: 0.92, 95% CI 0.65-1.33), HFNC may increase rate of intubation or death (composite endpoint; RR 1.22, 1.03-1.45). We do not know if HFNC alters risk for harm. APP compared to standard care probably decreases intubation rate (RR 0.83, 0.71-0.96) but may have little or no effect on mortality (RR: 1.08, 0.51-2.31). CONCLUSIONS: Certainty of evidence is moderate to very low. There is no compelling evidence for either HFNC or NIV, but both carry substantial risk for harm. The use of APP probably has benefits although mortality appears unaffected.

Breast Cancer Diagnostics, Therapy, and Outcomes in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Population-Based Registry Study.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer (BC) is the most common cancer in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). However, little is known about the actual therapy received by women with BC and their survival outcome at the population level in SSA. This study aims to describe the cancer-directed therapy received by patients with BC at the population level in SSA, compare these results with the NCCN Harmonized Guidelines for SSA (NCCN Harmonized Guidelines), and evaluate the impact on survival. METHODS: Random samples of patients with BC (≥40 patients per registry), diagnosed from 2009 through 2015, were drawn from 11 urban population-based cancer registries from 10 countries (Benin, Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, Ethiopia, Kenya, Mali, Mozambique, Namibia, Uganda, and Zimbabwe). Active methods were used to update the therapy and outcome data of diagnosed patients ("traced patients"). Excess hazards of death by therapy use were modeled in a relative survival context. RESULTS: A total of 809 patients were included. Additional information was traced for 517 patients (63.8%), and this proportion varied by registry. One in 5 traced patients met the minimum diagnostic criteria (cancer stage and hormone receptor status known) for use of the NCCN Harmonized Guidelines. The hormone receptor status was unknown for 72.5% of patients. Of the traced patients with stage I-III BC (n=320), 50.9% received inadequate or no cancer-directed therapy. Access to therapy differed by registry area. Initiation of adequate therapy and early-stage diagnosis were the most important determinants of survival. CONCLUSIONS: Downstaging BC and improving access to diagnostics and care are necessary steps to increase guideline adherence and improve survival for women in SSA. It will also be important to strengthen health systems and facilities for data management in SSA to facilitate patient follow-up and disease surveillance.

Systemic corticosteroids for the treatment of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Systemic corticosteroids are used to treat people with COVID-19 because they counter hyper-inflammation. Existing evidence syntheses suggest a slight benefit on mortality. So far, systemic corticosteroids are one of the few treatment options for COVID-19. Nonetheless, size of effect, certainty of the evidence, optimal therapy regimen, and selection of patients who are likely to benefit most are factors that remain to be evaluated. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether systemic corticosteroids are effective and safe in the treatment of people with COVID-19, and to keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which includes PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and medRxiv), Web of Science (Science Citation Index, Emerging Citation Index), and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 16 April 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated systemic corticosteroids for people with COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, participant age, gender or ethnicity.  We included any type or dose of systemic corticosteroids. We included the following comparisons: systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care (plus/minus placebo), dose comparisons, timing comparisons (early versus late), different types of corticosteroids and systemic corticosteroids versus other active substances.  We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome or Middle East respiratory syndrome), corticosteroids in combination with other active substances versus standard care, topical or inhaled corticosteroids, and corticosteroids for long-COVID treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess the risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' 2 tool for RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality, ventilator-free days, new need for invasive mechanical ventilation, quality of life, serious adverse events, adverse events, and hospital-acquired infections. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 RCTs in 8075 participants, of whom 7041 (87%) originated from high-income countries. A total of 3072 participants were randomised to corticosteroid arms and the majority received dexamethasone (n = 2322). We also identified 42 ongoing studies and 16 studies reported as being completed or terminated in a study registry, but without results yet.  Hospitalised individuals with a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of symptomatic COVID-19 Systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care plus/minus placebo  We included 10 RCTs (7989 participants), one of which did not report any of our pre-specified outcomes and thus our analysis included outcome data from nine studies.  All-cause mortality (at longest follow-up available): systemic corticosteroids plus standard care probably reduce all-cause mortality slightly in people with COVID-19 compared to standard care alone (median 28 days: risk difference of 30 in 1000 participants fewer than the control group rate of 275 in 1000 participants; risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.00; 9 RCTs, 7930 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).  Ventilator-free days: corticosteroids may increase ventilator-free days (MD 2.6 days more than control group rate of 4 days, 95% CI 0.67 to 4.53; 1 RCT, 299 participants; low-certainty evidence). Ventilator-free days have inherent limitations as a composite endpoint and should be interpreted with caution.  New need for invasive ventilation: the evidence is of very low certainty. Because of high risk of bias arising from deaths that occurred before ventilation we are uncertain about the size and direction of the effects. Consequently, we did not perform analysis beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics.  Quality of life/neurological outcome: no data were available. Serious adverse events: we included data on two RCTs (678 participants) that evaluated systemic corticosteroids compared to standard care (plus/minus placebo); for adverse events and hospital-acquired infections, we included data on five RCTs (660 participants). Because of high risk of bias, heterogeneous definitions, and underreporting we are uncertain about the size and direction of the effects. Consequently, we did not perform analysis beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics (very low-certainty evidence).    Different types, dosages or timing of systemic corticosteroids  We identified one study that compared methylprednisolone with dexamethasone. The evidence for mortality and new need for invasive mechanical ventilation is very low certainty due to the small number of participants (n = 86). No data were available for the other outcomes. We did not identify comparisons of different dosages or timing. Outpatients with asymptomatic or mild disease Currently, there are no studies published in populations with asymptomatic infection or mild disease. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-certainty evidence shows that systemic corticosteroids probably slightly reduce all-cause mortality in people hospitalised because of symptomatic COVID-19. Low-certainty evidence suggests that there may also be a reduction in ventilator-free days. Since we are unable to  adjust for the impact of early death on subsequent endpoints, the findings for ventilation outcomes and harms have limited applicability to inform treatment decisions. Currently, there is no evidence for asymptomatic or mild disease (non-hospitalised participants).  There is an urgent need for good-quality evidence for specific subgroups of disease severity, for which we propose level of respiratory support at randomisation. This applies to the comparison or subgroups of different types and doses of corticosteroids, too. Outcomes apart from mortality should be measured and analysed appropriately taking into account confounding through death if applicable.  We identified 42 ongoing and 16 completed but not published RCTs in trials registries suggesting possible changes of effect estimates and certainty of the evidence in the future. Most ongoing studies target people who need respiratory support at baseline. With the living approach of this review, we will continue to update our search and include eligible trials and published data.

Presentation, patterns of care, and outcomes of patients with prostate cancer in sub-Saharan Africa: A population-based registry study.

BACKGROUND: Although prostate cancer (PCa) is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in men of sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), little is known about its management and survival. The objective of the current study was to describe the presentation, patterns of diagnosis, treatment, and survival of patients with PCa in 10 countries of SSA. METHODS: In this observational registry study with data collection from 2010 to 2018, the authors drew a random sample of 738 patients with PCa who were registered in 11 population-based cancer registries. They described proportions of patients receiving recommended care and presented survival estimates. Multivariable Cox regression was used to calculate hazard ratios comparing the survival of patients with and without cancer-directed therapies (CDTs). RESULTS: The study included 693 patients, and tumor characteristics and treatment information were available for 365 patients, 37.3% of whom had metastatic disease. Only 11.2% had a complete diagnostic workup for risk stratification. Among the nonmetastatic patients, 17.5% received curative-intent therapy, and 27.5% received no CDT. Among the metastatic patients, 59.6% received androgen deprivation therapy. The 3- and 5-year age-standardized relative survival for 491 patients with survival time information was 58.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 48.5%-67.7%) and 56.9% (95% CI, 39.8%-70.9%), respectively. In a multivariable analysis, survival was considerably poorer among patients without CDT versus those with therapy. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that a large proportion of patients with PCa in SSA are not staged or are insufficiently staged and undertreated, and this results in unfavorable survival. These findings reemphasize the need for improving diagnostic workup and access to care in SSA in order to mitigate the heavy burden of the disease in the region.

Cervical Cancer in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Multinational Population-Based Cohort Study of Care and Guideline Adherence.

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer (CC) is the most common female cancer in many countries of sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). We assessed treatment guideline adherence and its association with overall survival (OS). METHODS: Our observational study covered nine population-based cancer registries in eight countries: Benin, Ethiopia, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Mali, Mozambique, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. Random samples of 44-125 patients diagnosed from 2010 to 2016 were selected in each. Cancer-directed therapy (CDT) was evaluated for degree of adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (U.S.) Guidelines. RESULTS: Of 632 patients, 15.8% received CDT with curative potential: 5.2% guideline-adherent, 2.4% with minor deviations, and 8.2% with major deviations. CDT was not documented or was without curative potential in 22%; 15.7% were diagnosed with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IV disease. Adherence was not assessed in 46.9% (no stage or follow-up documented, 11.9%, or records not traced, 35.1%). The largest share of guideline-adherent CDT was observed in Nairobi (49%) and the smallest in Maputo (4%). In patients with FIGO stage I-III disease (n = 190), minor and major guideline deviations were associated with impaired OS (hazard rate ratio [HRR], 1.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36-8.37; HRR, 1.97; CI, 0.59-6.56, respectively). CDT without curative potential (HRR, 3.88; CI, 1.19-12.71) and no CDT (HRR, 9.43; CI, 3.03-29.33) showed substantially worse survival. CONCLUSION: We found that only one in six patients with cervical cancer in SSA received CDT with curative potential. At least one-fifth and possibly up to two-thirds of women never accessed CDT, despite curable disease, resulting in impaired OS. Investments into more radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and surgical training could change the fatal outcomes of many patients. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Despite evidence-based interventions including guideline-adherent treatment for cervical cancer (CC), there is huge disparity in survival across the globe. This comprehensive multinational population-based registry study aimed to assess the status quo of presentation, treatment guideline adherence, and survival in eight countries. Patients across sub-Saharan Africa present in late stages, and treatment guideline adherence is remarkably low. Both factors were associated with unfavorable survival. This report warns about the inability of most women with cervical cancer in sub-Saharan Africa to access timely and high-quality diagnostic and treatment services, serving as guidance to institutions and policy makers. With regard to clinical practice, there might be cancer-directed treatment options that, although not fully guideline adherent, have relevant survival benefit. Others should perhaps not be chosen even under resource-constrained circumstances.

Clinical presentation and diagnosis of adult patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) is the sixth most common cancer in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Comprehensive diagnostics of NHL are essential for effective treatment. Our objective was to assess the frequency of NHL subtypes, disease stage and further diagnostic aspects. Eleven population-based cancer registries in 10 countries participated in our observational study. A random sample of 516 patients was included. Histological confirmation of NHL was available for 76.2% and cytological confirmation for another 17.3%. NHL subclassification was determined in 42.1%. Of these, diffuse large B cell lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukaemia and Burkitt lymphoma were the most common subtypes identified (48.8%, 18.4% and 6.0%, respectively). We traced 293 patients, for whom recorded data were amended using clinical records. For these, information on stage, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) status and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) was available for 60.8%, 52.6% and 45.1%, respectively. Stage at diagnosis was advanced for 130 of 178 (73.0%) patients, HIV status was positive for 97 of 154 (63.0%) and ECOG PS was ≥2 for 81 of 132 (61.4%). Knowledge about NHL subclassification and baseline clinical characteristics is crucial for guideline-recommended treatment. Hence, regionally adapted investments in pathological capacity, as well as standardised clinical diagnostics, will significantly improve the therapeutic precision for NHL in SSA.

Addis Ababa population-based pattern of cancer therapy, Ethiopia.

Cancer in Sub-Saharan Africa is becoming an important challenge for health services due to rising numbers of patients. In Addis Ababa with around 3.5 million inhabitants, more than 2000 cases are diagnosed annually. In this retrospective population-based cohort study we assessed completeness of and waiting time for cancer-therapy among patients registered in the Addis Ababa City Cancer Registry (AACCR), Ethiopia. Patient hospital files were retrieved to complete the data from AACCR. A total of 588 files were found (51% of those diagnosed from January to March 2012 and 2014). We analyzed completeness and waiting time of chemotherapy and radiotherapy; with completeness defined as ≥85% therapy received according to local guidelines. Analysis was done for the five most common cancer-types commonly treated with chemotherapy (breast, colorectal, non-Hodgkin`s lymphoma, lung and ovarian) and the four most common cancer-types commonly treated with radiotherapy (breast, cervical, head and neck and rectal). In our study, half of the patients (54.1%) received adequately dosed chemotherapy and 24.5% of patients received adequately dosed radiotherapy. The median waiting time was 2.1 months (Range: 0 to 20.72) for chemotherapy and 7 months (Range: 0.17 to 21.8) for radiotherapy. This study underscores the need for health system measures to improve cancer-directed therapy in Ethiopia, especially concerning radiotherapy.