Search

Detection dogs were trained to detect SARS-CoV-2 infection based on armpit sweat odor. Sweat samples were collected using cotton pads under the armpits of negative and positive human patients, confirmed by qPCR, for periods of 15-30 min. Multiple hospitals and organizations throughout Belgium participated in this study. The sweat samples were stored at -20°C prior to being used for training purposes. Six dogs were trained under controlled atmosphere conditions for 2-3 months. After training, a 7-day validation period was conducted to assess the dogs' performances. The detection dogs exhibited an overall sensitivity of 81%, specificity of 98%, and an accuracy of 95%. After validation, training continued for 3 months, during which the dogs' performances remained the same. Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) analysis revealed a unique sweat scent associated with SARS-CoV-2 positive sweat samples. This scent consisted of a wide variety of volatiles, including breakdown compounds of antiviral fatty acids, skin proteins and neurotransmitters/hormones. An acceptability survey conducted in Belgium demonstrated an overall high acceptability and enthusiasm toward the use of detection dogs for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Compared to qPCR and previous canine studies, the detection dogs have good performances in detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans, using frozen sweat samples from the armpits. As a result, they can be used as an accurate pre-screening tool in various field settings alongside the PCR test., Competing Interests: CC is the founder of DrArmpit BV. AA and AM are founders of Arome Science Inc. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The reviewer A-LC is currently co-organizing a Research Topic with one of the authors DG., (Copyright © 2023 Callewaert, Pezavant, Vandaele, Meeus, Vankrunkelsven, Van Goethem, Plumacker, Misset, Darcis, Piret, De Vleeschouwer, Staelens, Van Varenbergh, Tombeur, Ottevaere, Montag, Vandecandelaere, Jonckheere, Vandekerckhove, Tobback, Wieers, Marot, Anseeuw, D’Hoore, Tuyls, De Tavernier, Catteeuw, Lotfi, Melnik, Aksenov, Grandjean, Stevens, Gasthuys and Guyot.)

Aims: To assess the effects on outcomes and hospital revenues (societal cost) of a by default strategy of same day discharge (SDD) in patients undergoing a cardiac catheterization procedure in a Belgian Hospital., Methods and Results: Outcome and complete financial data were obtained in all consecutive patients with a cardiac catheterization performed in 2019 (n=5237) and in 2021 (n=5377). Patient-reported experience, patient satisfaction and Net promotor score were obtained prospectively for the SDD cohort in 2021. The proportion of patients receiving catheterization procedure in SDD increased from 28 to 44 % (p<0.001). This translates to the saving of 889 conventional hospitalizations in 2021. All-cause death and readmission rate remained unchanged (0,17% vs 0,15% (p=0,004); and 0,7% vs 1,8% (p>0,05)) in 2019 and 2021, respectively. Patients satisfaction top box score was 91% and the Net Promotor Score was 89,5. The by default SDD strategy was associated with reduction in in-hospital health care spending, on average 3206€ per procedure is saved. This means a 57% decrease in hospital revenues and translates into an important decrease in physician income., Conclusion: Implementing a by default SDD cardiac catheterization strategy results in a reduction of societal cost, excellent patient satisfaction and unchanged clinical outcome. Yet, in the given context this approach negatively impacts hospital and physician revenues precluding the sustainability of such protocol., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest Dr. Collet reports receiving research grants from Biosensor, GE Healthcare, Medis Medical Imaging, Pie Medical Imaging, CathWorks, Boston Scientific, Siemens, HeartFlow. and Abbott Vascular; and consultancy fees from HeartFlow, Opsens, Pie Medical Imaging, Abbott Vascular and Philips. Dr. De Bruyne has an institutional consulting relationship with Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, CathWorks, Siemens, GE Healthcare, and Coroventis Research; receives institutional research grants from Abbott Vascular, Coroventis Research, CathWorks, Boston Scientific; and holds minor equities in Philips, Siemens, GE Healthcare, Edwards Life Sciences, HeartFlow, Opsens, and Celiad. Dr. Wyffels has an institutional consulting relationship with Siemens. Dr. Barbato reports receiving honoraria for presentaions and support for attending meetings from Abboth Vascular, Boston Scientific, Insighht Lifetech. Dr. Esposito and Dr. Bertolone reports research grant from the CardioPaTh PhD Program., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cancer seems to have an independent adverse prognostic effect on COVID-19-related mortality, but uncertainty exists regarding its effect across different patient subgroups. We report a population-based analysis of patients hospitalised with COVID-19 with prior or current solid cancer versus those without cancer., Methods: We analysed data of adult patients registered until 24 May 2020 in the Belgian nationwide database of Sciensano. The primary objective was in-hospital mortality within 30 days of COVID-19 diagnosis among patients with solid cancer versus patients without cancer. Severe event occurrence, a composite of intensive care unit admission, invasive ventilation and/or death, was a secondary objective. These endpoints were analysed across different patient subgroups. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to analyse the association between cancer and clinical characteristics (baseline analysis) and the effect of cancer on in-hospital mortality and on severe event occurrence, adjusting for clinical characteristics (in-hospital analysis)., Results: A total of 13 594 patients (of whom 1187 with solid cancer (8.7%)) were evaluable for the baseline analysis and 10 486 (892 with solid cancer (8.5%)) for the in-hospital analysis. Patients with cancer were older and presented with less symptoms/signs and lung imaging alterations. The 30-day in-hospital mortality was higher in patients with solid cancer compared with patients without cancer (31.7% vs 20.0%, respectively; adjusted OR (aOR) 1.34; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.58). The aOR was 3.84 (95% CI 1.94 to 7.59) among younger patients (<60 years) and 2.27 (95% CI 1.41 to 3.64) among patients without other comorbidities. Severe event occurrence was similar in both groups (36.7% vs 28.8%; aOR 1.10; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.29)., Conclusions: This population-based analysis demonstrates that solid cancer is an independent adverse prognostic factor for in-hospital mortality among patients with COVID-19. This adverse effect was more pronounced among younger patients and those without other comorbidities. Patients with solid cancer should be prioritised in vaccination campaigns and in tailored containment measurements., Competing Interests: Competing interests: EdA: honoraria and/or advisory board from Roche/GNE, Novartis, SeaGen and Zodiac; travel grants from Roche/GNE and GSK/Novartis; research grants to his institution from Roche/GNE, AstraZeneca, GSK/Novartis and Servier. MB: speaker honoraria and travel grants from Roche/GNE; research grants to her institution from Roche/GNE, AstraZeneca, GSK/Novartis and Servier. HW: his institution received consulting fees and honoraria from AstraZeneca, Biocartis, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, PUMA Biotechnology, Roche, Sirtex, Daiichi; his institution received unrestricted research grants from Roche and Novartis; he received travel support from Roche and Pfizer. AL: no conflicts of interest to disclose. SA: speaker fees from BMS, AstraZeneca, Roche, Sanofi and Novartis; travel grants from Pfizer, Roche; advisory board fee from Sanofi and Pierre Fabre. CF: advisory board fee from Lilly. JC: advisory board and lectures from Amgen, Servier, Bayer, Novartis, Pfizer, Celgen, Ipsen (paid to institution); travel grants from Roche, Pfizer, Amgen, Novartis. WL: honoraria and/or advisory board from BMS, MSD, Novartis, IPSEN and Bayer; travel support from Roche, MSD and IPSEN. JV: no conflicts of interest to disclose. AR: honoraria and/or advisory board from Sanofi, BMS, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche; travel support from Roche, BMS, MSD. PV: honoraria and/or advisory board from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, MSD, Merus; travel grants from Roche, AstraZeneca, MSD and Pfizer; speaker fees from Pfizer and Roche (paid to institution). JCG: advisory board and lectures from Ipsen, BMS, Janssen, Bayer, AstraZeneca. WD: honoraria and/or advisory board from Amgen, Pierre Fabre. DVB: no conflicts of interest to disclose JD: no conflicts of interest to disclose. SR: consulting fees and honoraria from J&J, Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Bayer, MSD, BMS, Ipsen; research grants from Roche, BSM and MSD; travel grants from Ipsen, Pfizer, Bayer. TG: no conflicts of interest to disclose. KP: honoraria for advisory/consultancy roles for AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Hoffmann/La Roche and Vifor Pharma (paid to institution); speaker fees for Eli Lilly, Mundi Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer and Hoffmann/La Roche (paid to institution); research funding from Sanofi (paid to institution); travel support from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar and Hoffmann/La Roche., (© Author (s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.)

Background: The aim of this study was to assess the real-world effectiveness and safety of certolizumab pegol (CZP) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients, and the impact on patients' productivity, pain, and fatigue, in Canadian practice., Methods: FαsT-CAN, a 2-year prospective, observational study, evaluated CZP use in Canadian adults with moderate to severe, active RA. The primary objective was to assess the proportion of patients achieving 28-joint Disease Activity Scores (DAS28) <2.6 at Week 104. Secondary and additional endpoints assessed the improvements in Patients' Assessment of Arthritis Pain (PtAAP), fatigue, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), and the proportion of patients achieving minimal clinically important differences (MCID) in HAQ-DI. Validated arthritis-specific Work Productivity Surveys (WPS-RA) assessed the RA-associated impact on productivity. Incidence of CZP-related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was reported for patients receiving ⩾1 dose of CZP (safety set)., Results: The full analysis set (baseline DAS28 ⩾ 2.6, ⩾1 dose of CZP and ⩾1 valid post-baseline DAS28 measurement) included 451 of the 546 patients recruited into the study; a total of 229/451 (50.8%) patients completed Week 104. At Week 104, 90/451 (20.0%) patients achieved DAS28 < 2.6. Rapid improvements in disease activity, pain, and fatigue were observed. At Week 104, 66.2% of patients achieved HAQ-DI MCID. Patients employed at Week 104, reported reduced absenteeism, and improved productivity. CZP-related TEAEs were consistent with the known CZP safety profile., Conclusions: CZP was an effective RA treatment in Canadian practice, and no new CZP-related safety signals were identified. The improvements in household and workplace productivity are the first observations in a real-world Canadian setting., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement: The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: LB: Advisory boards/consulting, and/or received research grants: Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Roche, UCB Pharma, AbbVie, Pfizer, Merck, Celgene, Sanofi, Eli Lilly and Novartis; BH: Advisory boards/consulting, and/or received research grants: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, UCB Pharma and Pfizer; AC: Advisory boards/consulting, and/or received research grants: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Genzyme, GSK, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, UCB Pharma; IF, SD: None declared; MK: Received research grants: Abbott, Amgen and Pfizer; DH: Advisory boards/consulting, conducted research, and/or received grants: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Adiga Life Sciences, Abbott, BMS, Celgene, Circassia, GSK, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Takeda, and UCB Pharma; SE, JS: Employees of UCB Pharma; SS: Consulting: Roche, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, and Amgen.