by Sophie Lekkerkerker, Karin A. H. Kaasjager, Saskia Haitjema, Cornelia Hulsbergen-Veelken, Karin H. Herbschleb, Marianne C. Verhaar, Meriem Khairoun, Gurbey Ocak
BackgroundAlthough immune checkpoint inhibitors improve survival in patients with malignancies, a substantial number of patients treated with these agents experience immune-related adverse events. It is unknown whether inflammation-related hematological ratios are associated with immune-related adverse events or mortality.
ObjectiveWe aimed to investigate the association between pretreatment inflammation-related hematological ratios and the occurrence of immune-related adverse events and mortality in patients receiving checkpoint inhibitors.
MethodsPatients treated with checkpoint inhibitors within a tertiary hospital in the Netherlands were studied using routine care data between January 2013 and May 2020. Cox regression analysis was performed to assess the association between neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), neutrophil-to-lymphocytes and platelets ratio (NLPR), and systemic immune-inflammation index (SII) and outcomes (immune-related adverse events or mortality).
ResultsAmong 664 patients treated with checkpoint inhibitors, 397 (59.8%) patients developed an immune-related adverse event and 363 (54.7%) patients died during a median follow-up period of 17 months (interquartile range 7–30 months). Hematological ratios were not associated with immune-related adverse events. However, highest tertiles as compared with lowest tertiles of all hematological ratios were independently associated with mortality (NLR: adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 2.23, 95% CI 1.69–2.95; PLR: adjusted HR 1.88, 95% CI 1.43–2.47; NLPR: adjusted 1.59, 95% CI 1.22–2.06; SII: adjusted HR 2.33, 95% CI 1.77–3.08).
ConclusionIn this study, pretreatment inflammation-based hematological ratios were not associated with future immune-related adverse events in patients treated with checkpoint inhibitors. However, elevated hematological ratios were associated with an increased mortality risk.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, a substantial decrease was observed in hospital admissions and in-hospital procedures for patients with acute cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). The extent to which measures to prevent COVID-19 transmission, for example, lockdowns, affected the outpatient care of patients at higher cardiovascular risk remains unclear. We aimed to compare outpatient department (OPD) attendance, cardiovascular risk management (CVRM) and cardiovascular health (CVH) of patients at higher cardiovascular risk referred to an OPD of a tertiary care centre between preCOVID-19, during and postCOVID-19 periods.
We included all adult patients at higher cardiovascular risk referred to the cardiology, vascular medicine, diabetology, geriatrics, nephrology or multidisciplinary vascular surgery OPDs of the University Medical Centre Utrecht, the Netherlands, between March 2019 and December 2022, in a prospective cohort study.
We assessed trends in the number of first and follow-up appointments and in the completeness of extractable CVRM indicators from the electronic health record (EHR) as a proxy for CVRM guideline adherence. CVH was determined using the Life’s Essential 8 metric (score 0–100, the higher score, the better). We investigated whether CVH differed between COVID-19 periods compared with the reference period (ie, 2019) and stratified by OPDs, using multivariable linear regression, adjusted for age, gender, CVD history and whether the patient had a previous appointment before the reference period.
Among 15 143 patients, we observed a 33% reduction in the weekly number of first appointments during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the largest reductions in the cardiology and nephrology OPDs, with no differences between women and men. Follow-up appointments conducted remotely, compared with before the COVID-19 pandemic, increased significantly for all OPDs. CVRM indicators were up to 11% less extractable during the first lockdown yet returned to prepandemic levels directly after the first lockdown period. The CVH score of patients visiting the nephrology, vascular medicine and geriatrics OPDs during the first lockdown was 11.23 (95% CI 2.74 to 19.72), 5.68 (95% CI 0.82 to 10.54) and 5.66 (95% CI 0.01 to 11.31) points higher, respectively, compared with the prepandemic period. In between the second and third lockdowns, the CVH score was comparable to the preCOVID reference period, yet for the cardiology OPD it was significantly higher (5.54, 95% CI 2.04 to 9.05).
During the COVID-19 pandemic, weekly numbers of first appointments to OPDs decreased, and a population with a higher CVH score (ie, better CVH) visited certain OPDs, especially during the first lockdown period. These suggest that patients with poorer CVH more often avoided or were unable to visit OPDs, which might have resulted in missed opportunities to control cardiovascular risk factors and potentially may have led to preventable disease outcomes. For future epidemics and pandemics, it seems vital to develop a strategy that includes an emphasis on seeking healthcare when needed, with specific attention to patients at higher CVD risk.