To assess the association of public interest in coronavirus infections with the actual number of infected cases for selected countries across the globe. We performed a Google TrendsTM search for "Coronavirus" and compared Relative Search Volumes (RSV) indices to the number of reported COVID-19 cases by the European Center for Disease Control (ECDC) using time-lag correlation analysis. Worldwide public interest in Coronavirus reached its first peak end of January when numbers of newly infected patients started to increase exponentially in China. The worldwide Google TrendsTM index reached its peak on the 12th of March 2020 at a time when numbers of infected patients started to increase in Europe and COVID-19 was declared a pandemic. At this time the general interest in China but also the Republic of Korea has already been significantly decreased as compared to end of January. Correlations between RSV indices and number of new COVID-19 cases were observed across all investigated countries with highest correlations observed with a time lag of -11.5 days, i.e. highest interest in coronavirus observed 11.5 days before the peak of newly infected cases. This pattern was very consistent across European countries but also holds true for the US. In Brazil and Australia, highest correlations were observed with a time lag of -7 days. In Egypt the highest correlation is given with a time lag of 0, potentially indicating that in this country, numbers of newly infected patients will increase exponentially within the course of April. Public interest indicated by RSV indices can help to monitor the progression of an outbreak such as the current COVID-19 pandemic. Public interest is on average highest 11.5 days before the peak of newly infected cases.

Objective We aimed to assess risk factors for the development of severe infection in patients with antineutrophil cytoplasm antibody-associated vasculitis (AAV) receiving rituximab. Methods 192 patients with AAV were identified. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify risk factors for severe infection following rituximab. Severe infections were classified as grade ≥3 as proposed by the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events V.4.0. Results 95 severe infections were recorded in 49 (25.52%) patients, corresponding to an event rate of 26.06 per 100 person-years. The prophylactic use of trimethoprim–sulfamethoxazole was associated with a lower frequency of severe infections (HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.69), while older age (HR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.05), endobronchial involvement (HR 2.21, 95% CI 1.14 to 4.26), presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR 6.30, 95% CI 1.08 to 36.75) and previous alemtuzumab use (HR 3.97, 95% CI 1.50 to 10.54) increased the risk. When analysis was restricted to respiratory tract infections (66.3% of all infections), endobronchial involvement (HR 4.27, 95% CI 1.81 to 10.06), severe bronchiectasis (HR 6.14, 95% CI 1.18 to 31.91), higher neutrophil count (HR 1.19, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.33) and major relapse (HR 3.07, 95% CI 1.30 to 7.23) as indication for rituximab use conferred a higher risk, while refractory disease (HR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.90) as indication had a lower frequency of severe infections. Conclusions We found severe infections in one quarter of patients with AAV receiving rituximab. Trimethoprim–sulfamethoxazole prophylaxis reduced the risk, while especially bronchiectasis and endobronchial involvement are risk factors for severe respiratory infections.

Tumor mutational burden (TMB) is a genomic biomarker that predicts favorable responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Here, we set out to assess the predictive value of TMB on long-term survival outcomes in patients undergoing ICIs. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to 6 August 2019. We included retrospective studies or clinical trials of ICIs that reported hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and/or progression-free survival (PFS) according to TMB. Data on 5712 patients from 26 studies were included. Among patients who received ICIs, high TMB groups showed better OS (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.67) and PFS (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.67) compared to low TMB groups. In patients with high TMB, those who received ICIs had a better OS (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.95) and PFS (HR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.47 to 0.92) compared to those who received chemotherapy alone, while in patients with low TMB, such ICI benefits of OS or PFS were not statistically significant. In conclusion, TMB may be an effective biomarker to predict survival in patients undergoing ICI treatment. The role of TMB in identifying patient groups who may benefit from ICIs should be determined in future randomized controlled trials.