5-alpha reductase inhibitors use in prostatic disease and beyond.

5-alpha reductase inhibitors (5-ARIs) are commonly used and widely available, with benefits observed from their effect on androgen signalling. Their effect relies on the inhibition of the 5-alpha reductase enzyme which aids in the conversion of testosterone to dihydrotestosterone. 5-ARIs have increasing clinical relevance outside of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Such development requires clinicians to have an updated review to guide clinical practices. This review details the pharmacology and mechanisms of action for 5-ARIs and how this relates to multiple clinical indications. Of note, is the debunked association between finasteride and increased risk of high-grade prostate cancer. Furthermore, adverse effects of 5-ARI use are detailed in this review, with specific mentions to post-finasteride syndrome. In addition to overviews pertaining to BPH and prostate cancer, much attention has also been focused on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). The androgen axis may be associated with an increased virulence for SARS-CoV-2 in men, with some reporting a correlation between the severity of illness and androgenic alopecia. Since these observations, the role of antiandrogens, including 5-ARIs, has been explored further in SARS-CoV-2. Increasing understanding of pathological processes involving the androgen axis in which 5-ARIs work, has led to increasing clinical indications for 5-ARIs. Several novel off-label indications have been suggested including its potential role in the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2, but to date, these claims have not been substantiated. Previously held truths regarding the role of 5-ARIs and prostate carcinogenesis have been contested, inadvertently leading to the re-exploration of 5-ARIs utility in prostate cancer. With growing evidence into pathological processes involving the androgen axis, 5-ARIs are likely to become increasingly more used. This review serves as a timely update of 5 ARIs pharmacology, current indications and potential future directions.

Social Determinants Contribute to Disparities in Test Positivity, Morbidity and Mortality: Data from a Multi-Ethnic Cohort of 1094 GU Cancer Patients Undergoing Assessment for COVID-19

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic exploits existing inequalities in the social determinants of health (SDOH) that influence disease burden and access to healthcare. The role of health behaviours and socioeconomic status in genitourinary (GU) malignancy has also been highlighted. Our aim was to evaluate predictors of patient-level and neighbourhood-level factors contributing to disparities in COVID-19 outcomes in GU cancer patients. Methods: Demographic information and co-morbidities for patients screened for COVID-19 across the Mount Sinai Health System (MSHS) up to 10 June 2020 were included. Descriptive analyses and ensemble feature selection were performed to describe the relationships between these predictors and the outcomes of positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test, COVID-19-related hospitalisation, intubation and death. Results: Out of 47,379 tested individuals, 1094 had a history of GU cancer diagnosis;of these, 192 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Ensemble feature selection identified social determinants including zip code, race/ethnicity, age, smoking status and English as the preferred first language-being the majority of significant predictors for each of this study's four COVID-19-related outcomes: a positive test, hospitalisation, intubation and death. Patient and neighbourhood level SDOH including zip code/ NYC borough, age, race/ethnicity, smoking status, and English as preferred language are amongst the most significant predictors of these clinically relevant outcomes for COVID-19 patients. Conclusion: Our results highlight the importance of these SDOH and the need to integrate SDOH in patient electronic medical records (EMR) with the goal to identify at-risk groups. This study's results have implications for COVID-19 research priorities, public health goals, and policy implementations.

What is the best way to manage ureteric calculi in the time of COVID-19? A comparison of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopy (URS) in an Australian health-care setting.

Objectives: To determine the best way to intervene for ureteric stones which still require treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic, with respect to infection control. In this setting, in which resources are constrained, extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) has prima facie advantages over ureteroscopy (URS). It is also necessary to also consider posttreatment resource consumption in regards to complications and repeat procedures. Subjects and methods: The ideal ureteric stone treatment during a pandemic such as COVID-19 would involve minimum resource consumption and a minimum number of patient attendances. We compared all patients initially treated with SWL to those initially treated with URS for acute ureteral colic within the state of Victoria, Australia in 2017. Results: A total of 2724 ureteric stones were analyzed, a cumulative "3-month exposure and burden on the healthcare system" was calculated for each patient by their initial procedure type. The readmission rate for URS was significantly higher than for SWL, 0.92 readmissions/patient for URS versus 0.54 readmissions/patient for SWL (P < .001). The cumulative hospital stay per patient for these two procedures was 2.35 days for SWL versus 3.21 days for URS (P < .001). The number of procedures per patient was 1.52 for SWL versus 1.89 for URS (P = .0213). Conclusions: Patients with ureteric stones treated initially by SWL have shorter length of stay with fewer overall attendances and procedures at 3 months than those treated with URS. During a pandemic such as COVID-19, SWL may have benefits in preserving hospital resources and limiting opportunity for virus transmission, compared to URS.

A COVID-19 Test Triage Tool, Predicting Negative Results and Reducing the Testing Burden on Healthcare Systems During a Pandemic.

Background: Detecting and isolating cases of COVID-19 are amongst the key elements listed by the WHO to reduce transmission. This approach has been reported to reduce those symptomatic with COVID-19 in the population by over 90%. Testing is part of a strategy that will save lives. Testing everyone maybe ideal, but it is not practical. A risk tool based on patient demographics and clinical parameters has the potential to help identify patients most likely to test negative for SARS-CoV-2. If effective it could be used to aide clinical decision making and reduce the testing burden. Methods: At the time of this analysis, a total of 9,516 patients with symptoms suggestive of Covid-19, were assessed and tested at Mount Sinai Institutions in New York. Patient demographics, clinical parameters and test results were collected. A robust prediction pipeline was used to develop a risk tool to predict the likelihood of a positive test for Covid-19. The risk tool was analyzed in a holdout dataset from the cohort and its discriminative ability, calibration and net benefit assessed. Results: Over 48% of those tested in this cohort, had a positive result. The derived model had an AUC of 0.77, provided reliable risk prediction, and demonstrated a superior net benefit than a strategy of testing everybody. When a risk cut-off of 70% was applied, the model had a negative predictive value of 96%. Conclusion: Such a tool could be used to help aide but not replace clinical decision making and conserve vital resources needed to effectively tackle this pandemic.

A pilot double-blind safety and feasibility randomized controlled trial of high-dose intravenous zinc in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Zinc inhibits replication of the SARS-CoV virus. We aimed to evaluate the safety, feasibility, and biological effect of administering high-dose intravenous zinc (HDIVZn) to patients with COVID-19. We performed a Phase IIa double-blind, randomized controlled trial to compare HDIVZn to placebo in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We administered trial treatment per day for a maximum of 7 days until either death or hospital discharge. We measured zinc concentration at baseline and during treatment and observed patients for any significant side effects. For eligible patients, we randomized and administered treatment to 33 adult participants to either HDIVZn (n = 15) or placebo (n = 18). We observed no serious adverse events throughout the study for a total of 94 HDIVZn administrations. However, three participants in the HDIVZn group reported infusion site irritation. Mean serum zinc on Day 1 in the placebo, and the HDIVZn group was 6.9 ± 1.1 and 7.7 ± 1.6 µmol/l, respectively, consistent with zinc deficiency. HDIVZn, but not placebo, increased serum zinc levels above the deficiency cutoff of 10.7 µmol/l (p < .001) on Day 6. Our study did not reach its target enrollment because stringent public health measures markedly reduced patient hospitalizations. Hospitalized COVID-19 patients demonstrated zinc deficiency. This can be corrected with HDIVZn. Such treatment appears safe, feasible, and only associated with minimal peripheral infusion site irritation. This pilot study justifies further investigation of this treatment in COVID-19 patients.

Zinc supplementation as an adjunct therapy for COVID-19: Challenges and opportunities.

An outbreak of a novel coronavirus (COVID-19 or 2019-CoV) infection has posed significant threats to international health and the economy. Patients with COVID-19 are at risk of cytokine storm, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), reduced blood oxygenation, mechanical ventilation, and a high death rate. Although recent studies have shown remdesivir and dexamethasone as treatment options, there is an urgent need to find a treatment to inhibit virus replication and to control the progression of the disease. Essential biometal zinc has generated a lot of excitement as one of the promising candidates to reduce the severity of COVID-19 infection. Several published observations outlined in the review are the reasons why there is a global enthusiasm that zinc therapy could be a possible therapeutic option. However, the biggest challenge in realising the therapeutic value of zinc is lack of optimal treatment modalities such as dose, duration of zinc supplementation and the mode of delivery. In this review, we discuss the regulatory mechanism that hinges upon the bioavailability of zinc. Finally, we propose that intravenous zinc could circumvent the confounding factors affecting the bioavailability of zinc and allow zinc to achieve its therapeutic potential. If successful, due to advantages such as lack of toxicity, low cost and ease of availability, intravenous zinc could be rapidly implemented clinically.

Randomised controlled trial for high-dose intravenous zinc as adjunctive therapy in SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) positive critically ill patients: trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) has caused an international pandemic of respiratory illness, resulting in significant healthcare and economic turmoil. To date, no robust vaccine or treatment has been identified. Elemental zinc has previously been demonstrated to have beneficial effects on coronaviruses and other viral respiratory infections due to its effect on RNA polymerase. Additionally, zinc has well-demonstrated protective effects against hypoxic injury-a clear mechanism of end-organ injury in respiratory distress syndrome. We aimed to assess the effect of high-dose intravenous zinc (HDIVZn) on SARS-CoV-2 infection. The end of study analyses will evaluate the reduction of impact of oxygen saturations or requirement of oxygen supplementation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We designed a double-blind randomised controlled trial of daily HDIVZn (0.5 mg/kg) versus placebo. Primary outcome measures are lowest oxygen saturation (or greatest level of supplemental oxygenation) for non-ventilated patients and worst PaO2/FiO2 for ventilated patients. Following power calculations, 60 hospitalised patients and 100 ventilated patients will be recruited to demonstrate a 20% difference. The duration of follow-up is up to the point of discharge. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained through the independent Human Research Ethics Committee. Participant recruitment will commence in May 2020. Results will be published in peer-reviewed medical journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN126200000454976.

Cancer in Lockdown: Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Patients with Cancer.

The lockdown measures of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic have disengaged patients with cancer from formal health care settings, leading to an increased use of social media platforms to address unmet needs and expectations. Although remote health technologies have addressed some of the medical needs, the emotional and mental well-being of these patients remain underexplored and underreported. We used a validated artificial intelligence framework to conduct a comprehensive real-time analysis of two data sets of 2,469,822 tweets and 21,800 discussions by patients with cancer during this pandemic. Lung and breast cancer are most prominently discussed, and the most concerns were expressed regarding delayed diagnosis, cancellations, missed treatments, and weakened immunity. All patients expressed significant negative sentiment, with fear being the predominant emotion. Even as some lockdown measures ease, it is crucial that patients with cancer are engaged using social media platforms for real-time identification of issues and the provision of informational and emotional support.

A Decision Aide for the Risk Stratification of GU Cancer Patients at Risk of SARS-CoV-2 Infection, COVID-19 Related Hospitalization, Intubation, and Mortality.

Treatment decisions for both early and advanced genitourinary (GU) malignancies take into account the risk of dying from the malignancy as well as the risk of death due to other causes such as other co-morbidities. COVID-19 is a new additional and immediate risk to a patient's morbidity and mortality and there is a need for an accurate assessment as to the potential impact on of this syndrome on GU cancer patients. The aim of this work was to develop a risk tool to identify GU cancer patients at risk of diagnosis, hospitalization, intubation, and mortality from COVID-19. A retrospective case showed a series of GU cancer patients screened for COVID-19 across the Mount Sinai Health System (MSHS). Four hundred eighty-four had a GU malignancy and 149 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Demographic and clinical variables of >38,000 patients were available in the institutional database and were utilized to develop decision aides to predict a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, as well as COVID-19-related hospitalization, intubation, and death. A risk tool was developed using a combination of machine learning methods and utilized BMI, temperature, heart rate, respiratory rate, blood pressure, and oxygen saturation. The risk tool for predicting a diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 had an AUC of 0.83, predicting hospitalization for management of COVID-19 had an AUC of 0.95, predicting patients requiring intubation had an AUC of 0.97, and for predicting COVID-19-related death, the risk tool had an AUC of 0.79. The models had an acceptable calibration and provided a superior net benefit over other common strategies across the entire range of threshold probabilities.

Impact of COVID-19 on medical education: introducing homo digitalis.

PURPOSE: To determine how members of the Société Internationale d'Urologie (SIU) are continuing their education in the time of COVID-19. METHODS: A survey was disseminated amongst SIU members worldwide by email. Results were analyzed to examine the influence of age, practice region and settings on continuing medical education (CME) of the respondents. RESULTS: In total, 2494 respondents completed the survey. Internet searching was the most common method of CME (76%; all ps < 0.001), followed by searching journals and textbook including the online versions (62%; all ps < 0.001). Overall, 6% of the respondents reported no time/interest for CME during the pandemic. Although most urologists report using only one platform for their CME (26.6%), the majority reported using ≥ 2 platforms, with approximately 10% of the respondents using up to 5 different platforms. Urologists < 40 years old were more likely to use online literature (69%), podcasts/AV media (38%), online CME courses/webinars (40%), and social media (39%). There were regional variations in the CME modality used but no significant difference in the number of methods by region. There was no significant difference in responses between urologists in academic/public hospitals or private practice. CONCLUSION: During COVID-19, urologists have used web-based learning for their CME. Internet learning and literature were the top frequently cited learning methods. Younger urologists are more likely to use all forms of digital learning methods, while older urologists prefer fewer methods.

Cross-continental comparison of safety and protection measures amongst urologists during COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the well-being of urologists worldwide during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, and whether they have adequate personal protective equipment knowledge and supplies appropriate to their clinical setting. METHODS: Urologists worldwide completed a Société Internationale d'Urologie online survey from 16 April 2020 until 1 May 2020. Analysis was carried out to evaluate their knowledge about protecting themselves and others in the workplace, including their confidence in their ability to remain safe at work, and any regional differences. RESULTS: There were 3488 respondents from 109 countries. Urologists who stated they were moderately comfortable that their work environment offers good protection against coronavirus disease 2019 showed a total mean satisfaction level of 5.99 (on a "0 = not at all" to "10 = very" scale). A large majority (86.33%) were confident about protecting themselves from coronavirus disease 2019 at work. However, only about one-third reported their institution provided the required personal protective equipment (35.78%), and nearly half indicated their hospital has or had limited personal protective equipment availability (48.08%). Worldwide, a large majority of respondents answered affirmatively for testing the healthcare team (83.09%). Approximately half of the respondents (52.85%) across all regions indicated that all surgical team members face an equal risk of contracting coronavirus disease 2019 (52.85%). Nearly one-third of respondents reported that they had experienced social avoidance (28.97%). CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that urologists lack up-to-date knowledge of preferred protocols for personal protective equipment selection and use, social distancing, and coronavirus disease 2019 testing. These data can provide insights into functional domains from which other specialties could also benefit.

Prioritising Urological Surgery in the COVID-19 Era: A Global Reflection on Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Determining whether members follow guidelines, including guidelines prepared to help direct practice management during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, is an important goal for medical associations. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether practice of urologists is in line with guidelines for the management of common urological conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic produced by leading (inter)national urological associations. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Self-selected urologists completed a voluntary survey available online from March 27 to April 11, 2020 and distributed globally by the Société Internationale d'Urologie. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Responses to two survey questions on the (1) management of 14 common urological procedures and (2) priority scoring of 10 common urological procedures were evaluated by practice setting and geographical region using chi-square and one-way analysis of variance analyses, respectively. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: There were 2494 respondents from 76 countries. Oncological conditions were prioritised over benign conditions, and benign conditions were deferred when feasible and safe. Oncological conditions with the greatest malignant potential were prioritised over less aggressive cancers. Respondents from Europe were least likely to postpone and most likely to prioritise conditions identified by guidelines as being of the highest priority. Respondents' priority scoring of urological procedures closely matched the priorities assigned by guidelines. The main limitation of this study is that respondents were self-selected, and access to the survey was limited by language and technology barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Prioritisation and management of urological procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic are in line with current guidelines. The greatest agreement was reported in Europe. Observed differences may be related to limited resources in some settings. PATIENT SUMMARY: When deciding how best to treat patients during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, urologists are taking into account both expert recommendations and the availability of important local resources.

Impact of COVID-19 on Urology Practice: A Global Perspective and Snapshot Analysis.

The global impact of the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic on urology practice remains unknown. Self-selected urologists worldwide completed an online survey by the Société Internationale d'Urologie (SIU). A total of 2494 urologists from 76 countries responded, including 1161 (46.6%) urologists in an academic setting, 719 (28.8%) in a private practice, and 614 (24.6%) in the public sector. The largest proportion (1074 (43.1%)) were from Europe, with the remainder from East/Southeast Asia (441 (17.7%)), West/Southwest Asia (386 (15.5%)), Africa (209 (8.4%)), South America (198 (7.9%)), and North America (186 (7.5%)). An analysis of differences in responses was carried out by region and practice setting. The results reveal significant restrictions in outpatient consultation and non-emergency surgery, with nonspecific efforts towards additional precautions for preventing the spread of COVID-19 during emergency surgery. These restrictions were less notable in East/Southeast Asia. Urologists often bear the decision-making responsibility regarding access to elective surgery (40.3%). Restriction of both outpatient clinics and non-emergency surgery is considerable worldwide but is lower in East/Southeast Asia. Measures to control the spread of COVID-19 during emergency surgery are common but not specific. The pandemic has had a profound impact on urology practice. There is an urgent need to provide improved guidance for this and future pandemics.