Immunocompromised individuals are not optimally protected by COVID-19 vaccines and potentially require additional preventive interventions to mitigate the risk of severe COVID-19. We aimed to characterise and describe the risk of severe COVID-19 across immunocompromised groups as the pandemic began to transition to an endemic phase. COVID-19-related hospitalisations, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, and deaths (01/01/2022-31/12/2022) were compared among different groups of immunocompromised individuals vs the general population, using a retrospective cohort design and electronic health data from a random 25% sample of the English population aged ≥12 years (Registration number: ISRCTN53375662). Overall, immunocompromised individuals accounted for 3.9% of the study population, but 22% (4585/20,910) of COVID-19 hospitalisations, 28% (125/440) of COVID-19 ICU admissions, and 24% (1145/4810) of COVID-19 deaths in 2022. Restricting to those vaccinated with ≥3 doses of COVID-19 vaccine (∼84% of immunocompromised and 51% of the general population), all immunocompromised groups remained at increased risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes, with adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRR) for hospitalisation ranging from 1.3 to 13.1. At highest risk for COVID-19 hospitalisation were individuals with: solid organ transplant (aIRR 13.1, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 11.2–15.3), moderate to severe primary immunodeficiency (aIRR 9.7, 95% CI 6.3–14.9), stem cell transplant (aIRR 11.0, 95% CI 6.8–17.6), and recent treatment for haematological malignancy (aIRR 10.6, 95% CI 9.5–11.9). Results were similar for COVID-19 ICU admissions and deaths. Immunocompromised individuals continue to be impacted disproportionately by COVID-19 and have an urgent need for additional preventive measures beyond current vaccination programmes. These data can help determine the immunocompromised groups for which targeted prevention strategies may have the highest impact. This study was funded by 10.13039/100004325 AstraZeneca UK .

Learning Objectives: Describe associations between epidemiologic factors and breast cancer risk in the countries included in this review. Compare presentation profiles among the countries studied and discuss implications for outcomes. This review presents an overview of breast cancer care, burden, and outcomes in Latin America, as well as the challenges and opportunities for improvement. Information was gleaned through a review of the literature, public databases, and conference presentations, in addition to a survey of clinical experts and patient organizations from the region. Breast cancer annual incidence (114,900 cases) and mortality (37,000 deaths) are the highest of all women's cancers in Latin America, and they are increasing. Twice as many breast cancer deaths are expected by 2030. In Peru, Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil, diagnosis and death at younger ages deprives society of numerous productive years, as does high disease occurrence in Argentina and Uruguay. Approximately 30%–40% of diagnoses are metastatic disease. High mortality-to-incidence ratios (MIRs) in Latin America indicate poor survival, partly because of the late stage at diagnosis and poorer access to treatment. Between 2002 and 2008, MIRs decreased in all countries, albeit unevenly. Costa Rica's change in MIR outpaced incidence growth, indicating impressive progress in breast cancer survival. The situation is similar, although to a lesser extent, in Colombia and Ecuador. The marginal drops of MIRs in Brazil and Mexico mainly reflect incidence growth rather than progress in outcomes. Panama's MIR is still high. Epidemiological data are scattered and of varying quality in Latin America. However, one could ascertain that the burden of breast cancer in the region is considerable and growing due to demographic changes, particularly the aging population, and socioeconomic development. Early diagnosis and population-wide access to evidence-based treatment remain unresolved problems, despite progress achieved by some countries.

To describe chemotherapy treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in metastatic soft tissue sarcoma (mSTS) patients with favorable response to chemotherapy. Multicenter (25) multi-country (9) retrospective chart review of mSTS patients with favorable response to chemotherapy, defined as stable disease or better following four cycles. Two hundred and thirteen patients (58% female; mean age 54.7 years) received a mean of 2.7 lines of chemotherapy and 5.2 cycles per line. The most common first-line regimens were doxorubicin (34%) and anthracycline plus ifosfamide (30%). Favorable response was achieved by 83% to first-line and 42% and 38% in second- and third-line chemotherapy. The most common reason for chemotherapy discontinuation in lines with a favorable response was reaching a predefined number of cycles in first line (64% of 213) and disease progression in second or later lines (41% of 138). The mean time off chemotherapy was 38.0 weeks after first line, falling to 2.7–6.4 weeks in second or later lines. Median overall and progression-free survival were 23.5 (95% confidence interval 20.5–28.1) and 8.3 (7.4–9.9) months from first favorable response to chemotherapy. mSTS patients achieving favorable response to chemotherapy have poor outcomes. Additional treatment options are needed.

Objective: To estimate the prevalence, incidence, and describe the characteristics and management of patients with heart failure with preserved (HFpEF), mildly reduced (HFmrEF), and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in Spain. Methods: Adults with ≥1 inpatient or outpatient HF diagnosis between 1 January 2013 and 30 September 2019 were identified through the BIG-PAC database. Annual incidence and prevalence by EF phenotype were estimated. Characteristics by EF phenotype were described in the 2016 and 2019 HF prevalent cohorts and outcomes in the 2016 HF prevalent cohort. Results: Overall, HF incidence and prevalence were 0.32/100 person-years and 2.34%, respectively, but increased every year. In 2019, 49.3% had HFrEF, 38.1% had HFpEF, and 4.3% had HFmrEF (in 8.3%, EF was not available). Compared with HFrEF, patients with HFpEF were largely female, older, and had more atrial fibrillation but less atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Among patients with HFrEF, 76.3% were taking renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, 69.5% beta-blockers, 36.8% aldosterone antagonists, 12.5% sacubitril/valsartan and 6.7% SGLT2 inhibitors. Patients with HFpEF and HFmrEF took fewer HF drugs compared to HFrEF. Overall, the event rates of HF hospitalization were 231.6/1000 person-years, which is more common in HFrEF patients. No clinically relevant differences were found in patients with HFpEF, regardless EF (50- < 60% vs. ≥60%). Conclusions: >2% of patients have HF, of which around 50% have HFrEF and 40% have HFpEF. The prevalence of HF is increasing over time. Clinical characteristics by EF phenotype are consistent with previous studies. The risk of outcomes, particularly HF hospitalization, remains high, likely related to insufficient HF treatment.

Objectives To assess the costs of diagnostic workup and surgery of three strategies for patients with colorectal cancer liver-metastases (CRCLM): gadoxetic-acid-enhanced MRI (Gd-EOB-DTPA-MRI), MRI with extracellular contrast-media (ECCM-MRI) or contrast-enhanced MDCT (CE-MDCT). Methods The within-trial cost evaluation was modelled as a decision-tree to calculate the cost of diagnosis and surgery. The model used clinical outcomes and resource utilization data from a prospective randomized multicentre study. Analyses were performed for the 354-patient safety population from eight participating countries. Results The diagnostic workup cost using Gd-EOB-DTPA-MRI upfront resulted in savings compared to ECCM-MRI in all countries except Thailand (difference <2 %). Compared to CE-MDCT, initial imaging with Gd-EOB-DTPA-MRI was less costly in all countries except Korea and Spain (differences 4 and 8 %, respectively). Significantly more patients in the Gd-EOB-DTPA-MRI group were eligible for surgery (39.3 % (48/122) vs. 31.0 % (36/116) and 26.7 % (31/116) for ECCM-MRI and CE-MDCT, respectively), allowing more patients to undergo potentially curative surgery, but resulting in higher treatment costs for the strategy starting with Gd-EOB-DTPA-MRI. Conclusions The benefits of Gd-EOB-DTPA-MRI due to less additional imaging and similar diagnostic workup costs in the three groups suggest that Gd-EOB-DTPA-MRI should be the preferred initial imaging procedure to evaluate hepatic resectability in patients with CRCLM. Key Points • Diagnostic imaging cost to evaluate resectability was similar among the groups • Cost for imaging was rather small compared to the cost of surgery • Significantly more patients in the Gd-EOB-DTPA-MRI arm were eligible for surgery • Gd-EOB-DTPA-MRI is recommended for evaluating hepatic resectability in patients with CRCLM