Lung Transplant Success in COVID-19 Patients Requiring V-V ECMO: One-Year Follow-Up.

Odish MF ，Pollema T ，Lin CM ，Owens RL ，Yi C ，LeBlanc S ，Roche C ，Gaissert C ，Yung G ，Kafi A ，Golts EM ，Afshar K ... -  《-》

Comparison of Two Modern Survival Prediction Tools, SORG-MLA and METSSS, in Patients With Symptomatic Long-bone Metastases Who Underwent Local Treatment With Surgery Followed by Radiotherapy and With Radiotherapy Alone.

Survival estimation for patients with symptomatic skeletal metastases ideally should be made before a type of local treatment has already been determined. Currently available survival prediction tools, however, were generated using data from patients treated either operatively or with local radiation alone, raising concerns about whether they would generalize well to all patients presenting for assessment. The Skeletal Oncology Research Group machine-learning algorithm (SORG-MLA), trained with institution-based data of surgically treated patients, and the Metastases location, Elderly, Tumor primary, Sex, Sickness/comorbidity, and Site of radiotherapy model (METSSS), trained with registry-based data of patients treated with radiotherapy alone, are two of the most recently developed survival prediction models, but they have not been tested on patients whose local treatment strategy is not yet decided. (1) Which of these two survival prediction models performed better in a mixed cohort made up both of patients who received local treatment with surgery followed by radiotherapy and who had radiation alone for symptomatic bone metastases? (2) Which model performed better among patients whose local treatment consisted of only palliative radiotherapy? (3) Are laboratory values used by SORG-MLA, which are not included in METSSS, independently associated with survival after controlling for predictions made by METSSS? Between 2010 and 2018, we provided local treatment for 2113 adult patients with skeletal metastases in the extremities at an urban tertiary referral academic medical center using one of two strategies: (1) surgery followed by postoperative radiotherapy or (2) palliative radiotherapy alone. Every patient's survivorship status was ascertained either by their medical records or the national death registry from the Taiwanese National Health Insurance Administration. After applying a priori designated exclusion criteria, 91% (1920) were analyzed here. Among them, 48% (920) of the patients were female, and the median (IQR) age was 62 years (53 to 70 years). Lung was the most common primary tumor site (41% [782]), and 59% (1128) of patients had other skeletal metastases in addition to the treated lesion(s). In general, the indications for surgery were the presence of a complete pathologic fracture or an impending pathologic fracture, defined as having a Mirels score of ≥ 9, in patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification of less than or equal to IV and who were considered fit for surgery. The indications for radiotherapy were relief of pain, local tumor control, prevention of skeletal-related events, and any combination of the above. In all, 84% (1610) of the patients received palliative radiotherapy alone as local treatment for the target lesion(s), and 16% (310) underwent surgery followed by postoperative radiotherapy. Neither METSSS nor SORG-MLA was used at the point of care to aid clinical decision-making during the treatment period. Survival was retrospectively estimated by these two models to test their potential for providing survival probabilities. We first compared SORG to METSSS in the entire population. Then, we repeated the comparison in patients who received local treatment with palliative radiation alone. We assessed model performance by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), calibration analysis, Brier score, and decision curve analysis (DCA). The AUROC measures discrimination, which is the ability to distinguish patients with the event of interest (such as death at a particular time point) from those without. AUROC typically ranges from 0.5 to 1.0, with 0.5 indicating random guessing and 1.0 a perfect prediction, and in general, an AUROC of ≥ 0.7 indicates adequate discrimination for clinical use. Calibration refers to the agreement between the predicted outcomes (in this case, survival probabilities) and the actual outcomes, with a perfect calibration curve having an intercept of 0 and a slope of 1. A positive intercept indicates that the actual survival is generally underestimated by the prediction model, and a negative intercept suggests the opposite (overestimation). When comparing models, an intercept closer to 0 typically indicates better calibration. Calibration can also be summarized as log(O:E), the logarithm scale of the ratio of observed (O) to expected (E) survivors. A log(O:E) > 0 signals an underestimation (the observed survival is greater than the predicted survival); and a log(O:E) < 0 indicates the opposite (the observed survival is lower than the predicted survival). A model with a log(O:E) closer to 0 is generally considered better calibrated. The Brier score is the mean squared difference between the model predictions and the observed outcomes, and it ranges from 0 (best prediction) to 1 (worst prediction). The Brier score captures both discrimination and calibration, and it is considered a measure of overall model performance. In Brier score analysis, the "null model" assigns a predicted probability equal to the prevalence of the outcome and represents a model that adds no new information. A prediction model should achieve a Brier score at least lower than the null-model Brier score to be considered as useful. The DCA was developed as a method to determine whether using a model to inform treatment decisions would do more good than harm. It plots the net benefit of making decisions based on the model's predictions across all possible risk thresholds (or cost-to-benefit ratios) in relation to the two default strategies of treating all or no patients. The care provider can decide on an acceptable risk threshold for the proposed treatment in an individual and assess the corresponding net benefit to determine whether consulting with the model is superior to adopting the default strategies. Finally, we examined whether laboratory data, which were not included in the METSSS model, would have been independently associated with survival after controlling for the METSSS model's predictions by using the multivariable logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses. Between the two models, only SORG-MLA achieved adequate discrimination (an AUROC of > 0.7) in the entire cohort (of patients treated operatively or with radiation alone) and in the subgroup of patients treated with palliative radiotherapy alone. SORG-MLA outperformed METSSS by a wide margin on discrimination, calibration, and Brier score analyses in not only the entire cohort but also the subgroup of patients whose local treatment consisted of radiotherapy alone. In both the entire cohort and the subgroup, DCA demonstrated that SORG-MLA provided more net benefit compared with the two default strategies (of treating all or no patients) and compared with METSSS when risk thresholds ranged from 0.2 to 0.9 at both 90 days and 1 year, indicating that using SORG-MLA as a decision-making aid was beneficial when a patient's individualized risk threshold for opting for treatment was 0.2 to 0.9. Higher albumin, lower alkaline phosphatase, lower calcium, higher hemoglobin, lower international normalized ratio, higher lymphocytes, lower neutrophils, lower neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, lower platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio, higher sodium, and lower white blood cells were independently associated with better 1-year and overall survival after adjusting for the predictions made by METSSS. Based on these discoveries, clinicians might choose to consult SORG-MLA instead of METSSS for survival estimation in patients with long-bone metastases presenting for evaluation of local treatment. Basing a treatment decision on the predictions of SORG-MLA could be beneficial when a patient's individualized risk threshold for opting to undergo a particular treatment strategy ranged from 0.2 to 0.9. Future studies might investigate relevant laboratory items when constructing or refining a survival estimation model because these data demonstrated prognostic value independent of the predictions of the METSSS model, and future studies might also seek to keep these models up to date using data from diverse, contemporary patients undergoing both modern operative and nonoperative treatments. Level III, diagnostic study.

Lee CC ，Chen CW ，Yen HK ，Lin YP ，Lai CY ，Wang JL ，Groot OQ ，Janssen SJ ，Schwab JH ，Hsu FM ，Lin WH ... -  《-》

Sex and gender as predictors for allograft and patient-relevant outcomes after kidney transplantation.

Sex, as a biological construct, and gender, defined as the cultural attitudes and behaviours attributed by society, may be associated with allograft loss, death, cancer, and rejection. Other factors, such as recipient age and donor sex, may modify the association between sex/gender and post-transplant outcomes. We sought to evaluate the prognostic effects of recipient sex and, separately, gender as independent predictors of graft loss, death, cancer, and allograft rejection following kidney or simultaneous pancreas-kidney (SPK) transplantation. We aimed to evaluate this prognostic effect by defining the relationship between recipient sex or gender and post-transplantation outcomes identifying reasons for variations between sexes and genders, and then quantifying the magnitude of this relationship. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from inception up to 12 April 2023, through contact with the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Information Specialist, using search terms relevant to this review and no language restrictions. Cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies were included if sex or gender were the primary exposure and clearly defined. Studies needed to focus on our defined outcomes post-transplantation. Sex was defined as the chromosomal, gonadal, and anatomical characteristics associated with the biological sex, and we used the terms "males" and "females". Gender was defined as the attitudes and behaviours that a given culture associates with a person's biological sex, and we used the terms "men" and "women". Two authors independently assessed the references for eligibility, extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. Whenever appropriate, we performed random-effects meta-analyses to estimate the mean difference in outcomes. The outcomes of interest included the Standardised Outcomes in Nephrology-Kidney Transplant (SONG-Tx) core outcomes, allograft loss, death, cancer (overall incidence and site-specific) and acute or chronic graft rejection. Fifty-three studies (2,144,613 patients; range 59 to 407,963) conducted between 1990 and 2023 were included. Sixteen studies were conducted in the Americas, 12 in Europe, 11 in the Western Pacific, four in the Eastern Mediterranean, three in Africa, two in Southeast Asia, and five across multiple regions. All but one study focused on sex rather than gender as the primary exposure of interest. The number identified as male was 54%; 49 studies included kidney transplant recipients, and four studies included SPK transplant recipients. Twenty-four studies included adults and children, 25 studies included only adults, and four studies included only children. Data from 33 studies were included in the meta-analyses. Among these, six studies presented unadjusted hazard ratios (HRs) that assessed the effect of recipient sex on kidney allograft loss. The other studies reported risk ratios (RRs) for the pre-defined outcomes. Notably, the decision to restrict the meta-analyses to unadjusted estimates arose from the variation in covariate adjustment methods across studies, lacking a common set of adjusted variables. Only three studies considered the modifying effect of recipient age on graft loss or death, which is likely crucial to evaluating sex differences in post-transplant outcomes. No studies considered the modifying effect of recipient age on cancer incidence or allograft rejection risk. In low certainty evidence, compared with male recipients, being female may make little or no difference in kidney allograft loss post-transplantation (7 studies, 5843 patients: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.12; I2 = 73%). This was also observed in studies that included time-to-event analyses (6 studies, 238,937 patients; HR 1.07, 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.20; I2 = 44%). Two recent large registry-based cohort studies that considered the modifying effects of donor sex and recipient age showed that female recipients under 45 years of age had significantly higher graft loss rates than age-matched male recipients in the setting of a male donor. In contrast, female recipients 60 years and older had lower graft loss rates than age-matched male recipients, regardless of donor sex. Compared with male recipients, being female may make little or no difference in death up to 30 years post-transplantation; however, the evidence is very uncertain (13 studies, 60,818 patients: RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.09; I2 = 92%). Studies that considered the modifying effect of recipient age and donor sex showed that female recipients had a higher excess death risk than males under 45 years of age in the setting of a male donor. Compared with male recipients, being female may make little or no difference in cancer incidence up to 20 years post-transplantation; however, the evidence is very uncertain (7 studies, 25,076 patients; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.01; I2 = 60%). Compared with male recipients, being female may make little or no difference in the incidence of acute and chronic kidney allograft rejection up to 15 years post-transplantation (9 studies, 6158 patients: RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.05; I2 =54%; low certainty evidence). One study assessed gender and reported that when compared with men, women experienced better five-year survival in high (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.87) and middle-income areas (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.92), with no difference in low-income areas (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.01). There was considerable uncertainty regarding any association between sex or gender and post-transplant patient-relevant outcomes. This was primarily due to clinical and methodological heterogeneity. The observed clinical heterogeneity between studies could be attributed to diverse patient characteristics within sample populations. As a result of limited sex-stratified demographic data being provided, further investigation of this heterogeneity was constrained. However, factors contributing to this finding may include recipient age, donor age, types, and sex. Methodological heterogeneity was noted with the interchangeable use of sex and gender, outcome misclassification, the use of different measures of effects, inconsistent covariate profiles, and disregard for important effect modification. There is very low to low certainty evidence to suggest there are no differences in kidney and pancreas allograft survival, patient survival, cancer, and acute and chronic allograft rejection between male and female kidney and SPK transplant recipients.

Jayanti S ，Beruni NA ，Chui JN ，Deng D ，Liang A ，Chong AS ，Craig JC ，Foster B ，Howell M ，Kim S ，Mannon RB ，Sapir-Pichhadze R ，Scholes-Robertson NJ ，Strauss AT ，Jaure A ，West L ，Cooper TE ，Wong G ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Workplace interventions to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection outside of healthcare settings.

Although many people infected with SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) experience no or mild symptoms, some individuals can develop severe illness and may die, particularly older people and those with underlying medical problems. Providing evidence-based interventions to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection has become more urgent with the potential psychological toll imposed by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Controlling exposures to occupational hazards is the fundamental method of protecting workers. When it comes to the transmission of viruses, workplaces should first consider control measures that can potentially have the most significant impact. According to the hierarchy of controls, one should first consider elimination (and substitution), then engineering controls, administrative controls, and lastly, personal protective equipment. This is the first update of a Cochrane review published 6 May 2022, with one new study added. To assess the benefits and harms of interventions in non-healthcare-related workplaces aimed at reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to other interventions or no intervention. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collections, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv to 13 April 2023. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies of interventions. We included adult workers, both those who come into close contact with clients or customers (e.g. public-facing employees, such as cashiers or taxi drivers), and those who do not, but who could be infected by coworkers. We excluded studies involving healthcare workers. We included any intervention to prevent or reduce workers' exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in the workplace, defining categories of intervention according to the hierarchy of hazard controls (i.e. elimination; engineering controls; administrative controls; personal protective equipment). We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were incidence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection (or other respiratory viruses), SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, and absenteeism from work. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, quality of life, hospitalisation, and uptake, acceptability, or adherence to strategies. We used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool to assess risk of bias, and GRADE methods to evaluate the certainty of evidence for each outcome. We identified 2 studies including a total of 16,014 participants. Elimination-of-exposure interventions We included one study examining an intervention that focused on elimination of hazards, which was an open-label, cluster-randomised, non-inferiority trial, conducted in England in 2021. The study compared standard 10-day self-isolation after contact with an infected person to a new strategy of daily rapid antigen testing and staying at work if the test is negative (test-based attendance). The trialists hypothesised that this would lead to a similar rate of infections, but lower COVID-related absence. Staff (N = 11,798) working at 76 schools were assigned to standard isolation, and staff (N = 12,229) working at 86 schools were assigned to the test-based attendance strategy. The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of symptomatic polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-positive SARS-CoV-2 infection (rate ratio (RR) 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 2.21; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of any PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.21; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). COVID-related absenteeism rates were 3704 absence days in 566,502 days-at-risk (6.5 per 1000 working days) in the control group and 2932 per 539,805 days-at-risk (5.4 per 1000 working days) in the intervention group (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.25). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence to low due to imprecision. Uptake of the intervention was 71% in the intervention group, but not reported for the control intervention. The trial did not measure our other outcomes of SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, all-cause mortality, quality of life, or hospitalisation. We found seven ongoing studies using elimination-of-hazard strategies, six RCTs and one non-randomised trial. Administrative control interventions We found one ongoing RCT that aims to evaluate the efficacy of the Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine in preventing COVID-19 infection and reducing disease severity. Combinations of eligible interventions We included one non-randomised study examining a combination of elimination of hazards, administrative controls, and personal protective equipment. The study was conducted in two large retail companies in Italy in 2020. The study compared a safety operating protocol, measurement of body temperature and oxygen saturation upon entry, and a SARS-CoV-2 test strategy with a minimum activity protocol. Both groups received protective equipment. All employees working at the companies during the study period were included: 1987 in the intervention company and 1798 in the control company. The study did not report an outcome of interest for this systematic review. Other intervention categories We did not find any studies in this category. We are uncertain whether a test-based attendance policy affects rates of PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 infection (any infection; symptomatic infection) compared to standard 10-day self-isolation amongst school and college staff. A test-based attendance policy may result in little to no difference in absenteeism rates compared to standard 10-day self-isolation. The non-randomised study included in our updated search did not report any outcome of interest for this Cochrane review. As a large part of the population is exposed in the case of a pandemic, an apparently small relative effect that would not be worthwhile from the individual perspective may still affect many people, and thus become an important absolute effect from the enterprise or societal perspective. The included RCT did not report on any of our other primary outcomes (i.e. SARS-CoV-2-related mortality and adverse events). We identified no completed studies on any other interventions specified in this review; however, eight eligible studies are ongoing. More controlled studies are needed on testing and isolation strategies, and working from home, as these have important implications for work organisations.

Constantin AM ，Noertjojo K ，Sommer I ，Pizarro AB ，Persad E ，Durao S ，Nussbaumer-Streit B ，McElvenny DM ，Rhodes S ，Martin C ，Sampson O ，Jørgensen KJ ，Bruschettini M ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support for SARS-CoV-2: a multi-centered, prospective, observational study in critically ill 92 patients in Saudi Arabia.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been used as a rescue strategy in patients with severe with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to SARS-CoV-2 infection, but there has been little evidence of its efficacy. To describe the effect of ECMO rescue therapy on patient-important outcomes in patients with severe SARS-CoV-2. A case series study was conducted for the laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 patients who were admitted to the ICUs of 22 Saudi hospitals, between March 1, 2020, and October 30, 2020, by reviewing patient's medical records prospectively. ECMO use was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (40.2% vs. 48.9%; p = 0.000); lower COVID-19 virological cure (41.3% vs 14.1%, p = 0.000); and longer hospitalization (20.2 days vs 29.1 days; p = 0.000), ICU stay (12.6 vs 26 days; p = 0.000) and mechanical ventilation use (14.2 days vs 22.4 days; p = 0.000) compared to non-ECMO group. Also, there was a high number of patients with septic shock (19.6%) and multiple organ failure (10.9%); and more complications occurred at any time during hospitalization [pneumothorax (5% vs 29.3%, p = 0.000), bleeding requiring blood transfusion (7.1% vs 38%, p = 0.000), pulmonary embolism (6.4% vs 15.2%, p = 0.016), and gastrointestinal bleeding (3.3% vs 8.7%, p = 0.017)] in the ECMO group. However, PaO2 was significantly higher in the 72-h post-ECMO initiation group and PCO2 was significantly lower in the 72-h post-ECMO start group than those in the 12-h pre-ECMO group (62.9 vs. 70 mmHg, p = 0.002 and 61.8 vs. 51 mmHg, p = 0.042, respectively). Following the use of ECMO, the mortality rate of patients and length of ICU and hospital stay were not improved. However, these findings need to be carefully interpreted, as most of our cohort patients were relatively old and had multiple severe comorbidities. Future randomized trials, although challenging to conduct, are highly needed to confirm or dispute reported observations.

Alhumaid S ，Al Mutair A ，Alghazal HA ，Alhaddad AJ ，Al-Helal H ，Al Salman SA ，Alali J ，Almahmoud S ，Alhejy ZM ，Albagshi AA ，Muhammad J ，Khan A ，Sulaiman T ，Al-Mozaini M ，Dhama K ，Al-Tawfiq JA ，Rabaan AA ... -  《-》