Objective: Indoor microclimate may affect students’ wellbeing, cardiac autonomic control and cognitive performance with potential impact on learning capabilities. To assess the effects of classroom temperature variations on the autonomic profile and students’ cognitive capabilities. Approach: Twenty students attending Humanitas University School, (14M, age 21  ±  3 years) underwent a single-lead ECG continuous recording by a portable device during a 2 h lecture when classroom temperature was set ‘neutral’ (20 °C–22 °C, Day 1) and when classroom temperature was set to 24 °C–26 °C (Day 2). ECGs were sent by telemetry to a server for off-line analysis. Spectral analysis of RR variability provided indices of cardiac sympathetic (LFnu), vagal (HF, HFnu) and cardiac sympatho-vagal modulation (LF/HF). Symbolic analysis of RR variability provided the percentage of sequences of three heart periods with no significant change in RR interval (0V%) and with two significant variations (2V%) reflecting cardiac sympathetic and vagal modulation, respectively. Students’ cognitive performance (memory, verbal comprehension and reasoning) was assessed at the end of each lecture using the Cambridge Brain Sciences cognitive evaluation tool. Main results: Classroom temperature and CO2 were assessed every 5 min. Classroom temperatures were 22.4 °C  ±  0.1 °C (Day 1) and 26.2 °C  ±  0.1 °C (Day 2). Student’s thermal comfort was lower during Day 2 compared to Day 1. HR, LF/HF and 0V% were greater during Day 2 (79.5  ±  12.1 bpm, 6.9  ±  7.1 and 32.8%  ±  10.3%) than during Day 1 (72.6  ±  10.8 bpm, 3.4  ±  3.7, 21.4%  ±  9.2%). Conversely, 2V% was lower during Day 2 (23.1%  ±  8.1%) than during Day 1 (32.3%  ±  11.4%). Short-term memory, verbal ability and the overall cognitive C-score scores were lower during Day 2 (10.3  ±  0.3; 8.1  ±  1.2 and 10.9  ±  2.0) compared to Day 1 (11.7  ±  2.1; 10.7  ±  1.7 and 12.6  ±  1.8). Significance: During Day 2, a shift of the cardiac autonomic control towards a sympathetic predominance was observed compared to Day 1, in the presence of greater thermal discomfort. Furthermore, during Day 2 reduced cognitive performances were found.

COVID-19 diagnosis relies on molecular testing for SARS-CoV-2 via nasopharyngeal swab in the presence of suggestive clinical, radiological and laboratory findings. Since bronchoalveolar lavage liquid (BAL) collected during fibrobronchoscopy may increase test sensitivity compared to nasopharyngeal swabs, it was performed during the 2020 pandemic in clinically or radiologically suspected cases. Our aim was to determine whether clinical features, chest computed tomography (CT) findings or laboratory tests may predict patients testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 at BAL after a negative nasopharyngeal swab. We performed a retrospective cross-sectional study with multivariable analysis of suspected patients who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 at BAL after at least one negative nasopharyngeal swab. Univariable logistic regression for odds ratio and multivariate models was calculated to determine clinical, radiological and laboratory predictors. 32/198 (16%) patients had BAL positive for SARS-CoV-2, while 65/198 tested positive for other pathogens at BAL. Of the 32 patients positive for COVID, 4 had a coinfection at BAL, being thus positive both for COVID as well as for another pathogen while the remaining 105 patients were negative for COVID and other pathogens at BAL. COVID-19 patients had more often highly suggestive CT findings, higher number of involved lobes, more often ground glass opacity of more than 50% of lung parenchyma, and less frequently other radiologically suspected infections. At multivariate model, temperature also predicted BAL positivity. The procedure was well tolerated-with only one desaturation episode-while no healthcare worker was infected. In conclusion, when nasopharyngeal swabs are negative but there is clinical or imaging suspicion of COVID-19, BAL represents a complementary diagnostic tool, particularly in conjunction with suggestive/more extensive lung involvement at CT scan. The procedure did not carry increased risks for patients nor for operators, while allowing to free hospital resources, avoiding unnecessary isolations.

Background The impact of active cancer in COVID-19 patients is poorly defined; however, most studies showed a poorer outcome in cancer patients compared to the general population. Methods We analysed clinical data from 557 consecutive COVID-19 patients. Uni-multivariable analysis was performed to identify prognostic factors of COVID-19 survival; propensity score matching was used to estimate the impact of cancer. Results Of 557 consecutive COVID-19 patients, 46 had active cancer (8%). Comorbidities included diabetes ( n = 137, 25%), hypertension ( n = 284, 51%), coronary artery disease ( n = 114, 20%) and dyslipidaemia ( n = 122, 22%). Oncologic patients were older (mean age 71 vs 65, p = 0.012), more often smokers (20% vs 8%, p = 0.009), with higher neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (13.3 vs 8.2, p = 0.046). Fatality rate was 50% (CI 95%: 34.9;65.1) in cancer patients and 20.2% (CI 95%: 16.8;23.9) in the non-oncologic population. Multivariable analysis showed active cancer (HR active : 2.26, p = 0.001), age (HR age>65years : 1.08, p < 0.001), as well as lactate dehydrogenase (HR LDH>248mU/mL : 2.42, p = 0.007), PaO2/FiO2 (HR continuous : 1.00, p < 0.001), procalcitonin (HR PCT>0.5ng/mL : 2.21, p < 0.001), coronary artery disease (HR yes : 1.67, p = 0.010), cigarette smoking (HR yes : 1.65, p = 0.041) to be independent statistically significant predictors of outcome. Propensity score matching showed a 1.92× risk of death in active cancer patients compared to non-oncologic patients ( p = 0.013), adjusted for ICU-related bias. We observed a median OS of 14 days for cancer patients vs 35 days for other patients. Conclusion A near-doubled death rate between cancer and non-cancer COVID-19 patients was reported. Active cancer has a negative impact on clinical outcome regardless of pre-existing clinical comorbidities.