Evidence shows that a substantial proportion of patients with COVID-19 experiences long-term consequences of the disease, but the predisposing factors are poorly understood. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify factors present during COVID-19 hospitalization associated with an increased risk of exhibiting new or persisting symptoms (Post-COVID-19 Syndrome, PCS). MedLine and WebOfScience were last searched on 30 September 2021. We included English language clinical trials and observational studies investigating prognostic factors for PCS in adults previously hospitalized for COVID-19, reporting at least one individual prospective follow-up of minimum 12 weeks. Two authors independently assessed risk of bias, which was judged generally moderate. Risk factors were included in the analysis if their association with PCS was investigated by at least two studies. To summarize the prognostic effect of each factor (or group of factors), odds ratios were estimated using raw data. Overall, 20 articles met the inclusion criteria, involving 13,340 patients. Associations were statistically significant for two factors: female sex with any symptoms (OR 1.52; 95% CI 1.27–1.82), with mental health symptoms (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.21–2.29) and with fatigue (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.32–1.79); acute disease severity with respiratory symptoms (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.03–2.68). The I² statistics tests were calculated to quantify the degree of study heterogeneity. This is the first meta-analysis measuring the association between factors present during COVID-19 hospitalization and long-term sequelae. The role of female sex and acute disease severity as independent prognostic factors must be confirmed in robust longitudinal studies with longer follow-up. Identifying populations at greatest risk for PCS can enable the development of targeted prevention and management strategies. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42021253467.

To compare quality of life (QoL) of patients receiving early palliative care (EPC) vs. standard oncologic care (SOC). Pragmatic, multicenter, randomized trial at five University and Community Hospital Cancer Centers in Northern Italy. Advanced non-small cell lung, gastric, pancreatic and biliary tract cancer patients diagnosed within the previous 8 weeks. In the EPC arm, visits were performed systematically by a dedicated physician/nurse palliative care (PC) team, who assessed physical and psychosocial symptoms, and enacted the necessary services. In the SOC arm, PC visits were only carried out if requested. The primary outcome was the difference in the change of QoL [Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General measure (FACT-G)] from baseline to 12 weeks in the two groups. From November 2014 to March 2016, 281 patients were enrolled (142 EPC, 139 SOC); 218 completed FACT-G at 12 weeks. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were similar for the two groups. Values of FACT-G at baseline and 12 weeks were 72.3 (SD 12.6) and 70.1 (SD 15.5) for patients enrolled in the EPC arm, vs. 71.7 (SD 14.7) and 69.6 (SD 15.5) for the SOC arm, but the change scores did not differ significantly between groups. In the multivariable analysis, adjusting for QoL at baseline, two potential prospective prognostic factors were statistically significant: lung cancer (P=0.03) and interaction of living without a partner and intervention arm (P=0.01). Dying within 6 months (P<0.001) was also statistically significant. In this study, EPC did not improve QoL in advanced cancer patients, but our findings highlight aspects which may guide future research on EPC.

This study examined the effects of the routine assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) on the overall survival of adult patients with cancer. We included clinical trials and observational studies with a control group that compared PRO monitoring interventions in cancer clinical practice to usual care. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tools were used. In total, six studies were included in the systematic review: two randomized trials, one population-based retrospectively matched cohort study, two pre–post with historical control studies and one non-randomized controlled trial. Half were multicenter, two were conducted in Europe, three were conducted in the USA and was conducted in Canada. Two studies considered any type of cancer, two were restricted to lung cancer and two were restricted to advanced forms of cancer. PRO screening was electronic in four of the six studies. The meta-analysis included all six studies (intervention = 130.094; control = 129.903). The pooled mortality outcome at 1 year was RR = 0.77 (95%CI 0.76–0.78) as determined by the common effect model and RR = 0.82 (95%CI 0.60–1.12; p = 0.16) as determined by the random-effects model. Heterogeneity was statistically significant (I² = 73%; p < 0.01). The overall risk of bias was rated as moderate in five studies and serious in one study. This meta-analysis seemed to indicate the survival benefits of PRO screening. As routine PRO monitoring is often challenging, more robust evidence regarding the effects of PROs on mortality would support systematic applications.

Background: Concern is growing about the negative consequences that response measures to the COVID-19 epidemic may have on the management of other medical conditions. Methods: A retrospective descriptive case-series study conducted at a large University-hospital in northern Italy, an area severely hit by the epidemic. Results: Between 23 February and 14 May 2020, 4160 (52%) COVID-19 and 3778 (48%) non-COVID-19 patients were hospitalized. COVID-19 admissions peaked in the second half of March, a period characterized by an extremely high mortality rate (27.4%). The number of admissions in 2020 was similar to 2019, but COVID-19 patients gradually occupied all available beds. Comparison between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 admissions in 2020 revealed significant differences concerning all age classes and gender. Specifically, COVID-19 patients were older, predominantly male, and exhibited more comorbidities. Overall, admissions for non-communicable diseases (NCDs) in 2020 vs. 2019 dropped by approximately one third. Statistically significant reductions were observed for acute myocardial infarction (−78, −33.9%), cerebrovascular disease (−235, −41.5%), and cancer (−368, −31.9%). While the first two appeared equally distributed between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients, chronic NCDs were statistically significantly more frequent in the former, except cancer, which was less frequent in COVID-19 patients. Conclusions: Prevention of collateral damage to patients with other diseases should be an integral part of epidemic response plans. Prospective cohort studies are needed to understand the long-term impact.

Acute myocardial infarction is primarily due to coronary atherosclerotic plaque rupture and subsequent thrombus formation. Platelets play a key role in the genesis and progression of both atherosclerosis and thrombosis. Since platelets are anuclear cells that inherit their mRNA from megakaryocyte precursors and maintain it unchanged during their life span, gene expression profiling at the time of an acute myocardial infarction provides information concerning the platelet gene expression preceding the coronary event. In ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), a gene-by-gene analysis of the platelet gene expression identified five differentially expressed genes: FKBP5, S100P, SAMSN1, CLEC4E and S100A12. The logistic regression model used to combine the gene expression in a STEMI vs healthy donors score showed an AUC of 0.95. The same five differentially expressed genes were externally validated using platelet gene expression data from patients with coronary atherosclerosis but without thrombosis. Platelet gene expression profile highlights five genes able to identify STEMI patients and to discriminate them in the background of atherosclerosis. Consequently, early signals of an imminent acute myocardial infarction are likely to be found by platelet gene expression profiling before the infarction occurs.