The case against censoring of progression-free survival in cancer clinical trials - A pandemic shutdown as an illustration.

BACKGROUND: Missing data may lead to loss of statistical power and introduce bias in clinical trials. The Covid-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on patient health care and on the conduct of cancer clinical trials. Although several endpoints may be affected, progression-free survival (PFS) is of major concern, given its frequent use as primary endpoint in advanced cancer and the fact that missed radiographic assessments are to be expected. The recent introduction of the estimand framework creates an opportunity to define more precisely the target of estimation and ensure alignment between the scientific question and the statistical analysis. METHODS: We used simulations to investigate the impact of two basic approaches for handling missing tumor scans due to the pandemic: a "treatment policy" strategy, which consisted in ascribing events to the time they are observed, and a "hypothetical" approach of censoring patients with events during the shutdown period at the last assessment prior to that period. We computed the power of the logrank test, estimated hazard ratios (HR) using Cox models, and estimated median PFS times without and with a hypothetical 6-month shutdown period with no patient enrollment or tumor scans being performed, varying the shutdown starting times. RESULTS: Compared with the results in the absence of shutdown, the "treatment policy" strategy slightly overestimated median PFS proportionally to the timing of the shutdown period, but power was not affected. Except for one specific scenario, there was no impact on the estimated HR. In general, the pandemic had a greater impact on the analyses using the "hypothetical" strategy, which led to decreased power and overestimated median PFS times to a greater extent than the "treatment policy" strategy. CONCLUSION: As a rule, we suggest that the treatment policy approach, which conforms with the intent-to-treat principle, should be the primary analysis to avoid unnecessary loss of power and minimize bias in median PFS estimates.

[Multiple myeloma: response to treatment and survival of patients according to the interim analysis of the Russian observational, retrospective-prospective, multicenter cohort study (MULTISPECT)].

AIM: The primary objective of the interim analysis of the MULTISPECT study was to evaluate the short-term efficacy of the treatment and long-term outcomes in cohorts of primary and pretreated patients with multiple myeloma (MM) receiving treatment in actual clinical practice in various regions of the Russian Federation. Secondary objectives were a description of the main characteristics of patients; analysis of the most commonly used therapy regimens of the 1st and later lines and the sequence of their changes; evaluation of the response to therapy. Additional objectives included evaluation of the effect of the new COVID-19 coronavirus infection on the course of MM in patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study is an observational retrospective-prospective multicenter cohort study. For its implementation, a structured database of patients with MM was used, provided by hematologists of the centers affiliated for the study. RESULTS: The study included 1,294 patients (cohort 1 806, cohort 2 488). In both cohorts, patients aged 6069 years were in the majority. 3 lines of therapy (L1, L2, L3) were used for cohort 1; in cohort 2, the 4th line of therapy was also used in 2 patients. The therapy regimens were analyzed for 290 (22.41%) of all patients in the study. Responses to therapy were analyzed for 214 patients of cohort 1 and 109 patients of cohort 2. Autologous and allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantations were carried out for a limited proportion of patients in both cohorts. At the end of the study and upon presentation of its results, the status of patients was the following: 96% of patients in cohort 1 and 89% in cohort 2 were alive. The therapy regimens in both cohorts were characterized by variability. The most commonly used regimens in each of the lines of therapy have been identified. The most used therapy regimen in patients with MM of both cohorts was the VCD-regime. Rd-regime in cohort 1 and RD-regime in cohort 2 were the second most frequent used regimens. In patients of both cohorts, the therapy regimens including Bortezomib were most often used. CONCLUSION: The variety of therapy regimens used to treat MM in actual clinical practice may be due to the factors of availability of new medicines and updated recommendations for the treatment of the disease. Further, in the context of this study, a more detailed analysis of the efficacy of certain therapy regimens in the 1st and later lines on progression free survival and overall survival of MM patients should be carried out.

Survival and late effects of hematopoietic cell transplantation in patients with thalassemia major.

In this retrospective study, we evaluated long-term survival and late effects in 137 patients affected by thalassemia major (TM) who received an allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). Median age at HCT was 10.1 years. After a median follow-up of 30 years, 114 (83.2%) patients are living and 108 (78.8%) are cured. The cumulative incidence of nonrelapse mortality and thalassemia recurrence was 9.5% at 1 year and 10.2% at 39 years respectively. The 39-years cumulative incidence of overall survival and disease-free survival were 81.4% and 74.5%. One hundred twenty-three patients who survived more than 2 years after HCT were evaluated for late effects concerning hematological disorders, iron burden, growth, obesity, diabetes mellitus, thyroid and gonadal function, eye, heart, liver, lung, kidney, gastrointestinal, neurologic and psychiatric system, osteoarticular system, secondary solid cancer (SSC), performance status, and Covid-19 infection. Fertility was preserved in 21 males whose partners delivered 34 neonates and 25 females who delivered 26 neonates. Fifteen cases of SSC were diagnosed for a 39-year cumulative incidence of 16.4%. HCT represents a definitive cure for the majority of TM patients at the price, however, of a non-negligible early and late mortality which in the long run affects survival and disease-free survival.

Is There a Crucial Link Between Vitamin D Status and Inflammatory Response in Patients With COVID-19?

Background: Hypovitaminosis D has been suggested to play a possible role in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. Methods: The aim of this study is to analyze the relationship between vitamin D status and a biochemical panel of inflammatory markers in a cohort of patients with COVID-19. A secondary endpoint was to evaluate the correlation between 25OHD levels and the severity of the disease. Ninety-three consecutive patients with COVID-19-related pneumonia were evaluated from March to May 2020 in two hospital units in Pisa, in whom biochemical inflammatory markers, 25OHD levels, P/F ratio at nadir during hospitalization, and complete clinical data were available. Results: Sixty-five percent of patients presented hypovitaminosis D (25OHD ≤ 20 ng/ml) and showed significantly higher IL-6 [20.8 (10.9-45.6) vs. 12.9 (8.7-21.1) pg/ml, p = 0.02], CRP [10.7 (4.2-19.2) vs. 5.9 (1.6-8.1) mg/dl, p = 0.003], TNF-α [8.9 (6.0-14.8) vs. 4.4 (1.5-10.6) pg/ml, p = 0.01], D-dimer [0.53 (0.25-0.72) vs. 0.22 (0.17-0.35) mg/l, p = 0.002], and IL-10 [3.7 (1.8-6.9) vs. 2.3 (0.5-5.8) pg/ml, p = 0.03]. A significant inverse correlation was found between 25OHD and all these markers, even adjusted for age and sex. Hypovitaminosis D was prevalent in patients with severe ARDS, compared with the other groups (75% vs. 68% vs. 55%, p < 0.001), and 25OHD levels were lower in non-survivor patients. Conclusions: The relationship between 25OHD levels and inflammatory markers suggests that vitamin D status needs to be taken into account in the management of these patients. If vitamin D is a marker of poor prognosis or a possible risk factor with beneficial effects from supplementation, this still needs to be elucidated.

Integrating HIV services and other health services: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Integration of HIV services with other health services has been proposed as an important strategy to boost the sustainability of the global HIV response. We conducted a systematic and comprehensive synthesis of the existing scientific evidence on the impact of service integration on the HIV care cascade, health outcomes, and cost-effectiveness. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We reviewed the global quantitative empirical evidence on integration published between 1 January 2010 and 10 September 2021. We included experimental and observational studies that featured both an integration intervention and a comparator in our review. Of the 7,118 unique peer-reviewed English-language studies that our search algorithm identified, 114 met all of our selection criteria for data extraction. Most of the studies (90) were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa, primarily in East Africa (55) and Southern Africa (24). The most common forms of integration were (i) HIV testing and counselling added to non-HIV services and (ii) non-HIV services added to antiretroviral therapy (ART). The most commonly integrated non-HIV services were maternal and child healthcare, tuberculosis testing and treatment, primary healthcare, family planning, and sexual and reproductive health services. Values for HIV care cascade outcomes tended to be better in integrated services: uptake of HIV testing and counselling (pooled risk ratio [RR] across 37 studies: 1.67 [95% CI 1.41-1.99], p < 0.001), ART initiation coverage (pooled RR across 19 studies: 1.42 [95% CI 1.16-1.75], p = 0.002), time until ART initiation (pooled RR across 5 studies: 0.45 [95% CI 0.20-1.00], p = 0.050), retention in HIV care (pooled RR across 19 studies: 1.68 [95% CI 1.05-2.69], p = 0.031), and viral suppression (pooled RR across 9 studies: 1.19 [95% CI 1.03-1.37], p = 0.025). Also, treatment success for non-HIV-related diseases and conditions and the uptake of non-HIV services were commonly higher in integrated services. We did not find any significant differences for the following outcomes in our meta-analyses: HIV testing yield, ART adherence, HIV-free survival among infants, and HIV and non-HIV mortality. We could not conduct meta-analyses for several outcomes (HIV infections averted, costs, and cost-effectiveness), because our systematic review did not identify sufficient poolable studies. Study limitations included possible publication bias of studies with significant or favourable findings and comparatively weak evidence from some world regions and on integration of services for key populations in the HIV response. CONCLUSIONS: Integration of HIV services and other health services tends to improve health and health systems outcomes. Despite some scientific limitations, the global evidence shows that service integration can be a valuable strategy to boost the sustainability of the HIV response and contribute to the goal of 'ending AIDS by 2030', while simultaneously supporting progress towards universal health coverage.

High-Dose Intravenous Immunoglobulin in Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Multicenter Retrospective Study in China.

BACKGROUND: The effective treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains unclear. We reported successful use of high-dose intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) in cases of severe COVID-19, but evidence from larger case series is still lacking. METHODS: A multi-center retrospective study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of IVIg administered within two weeks of disease onset at a total dose of 2 g/kg body weight, in addition to standard care. The primary endpoint was 28-day mortality. Efficacy of high-dose IVIg was assessed by using the Cox proportional hazards regression model and the Kaplan-Meier curve adjusted by inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis, and IPTW after multiple imputation (MI) analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 26 patients who received high-dose IVIg with standard therapy and 89 patients who received standard therapy only were enrolled in this study. The IVIg group was associated with a lower 28-day mortality rate and less time to normalization of inflammatory markers including IL-6, IL-10, and ferritin compared with the control. The adjusted HR of 28-day mortality in high-dose IVIg group was 0.24 (95% CI 0.06-0.99, p<0.001) in IPTW model, and 0.27 (95% CI 0.10-0.57, p=0.031) in IPTW-MI model. In subgroup analysis, patients with no comorbidities or treated in the first week of disease were associated with more benefit from high-dose IVIg. CONCLUSIONS: High-dose IVIg administered in severe COVID-19 patients within 14 days of onset was linked to reduced 28-day mortality, more prominent with those having no comorbidities or treated at earlier stage.

Randomized, double-blind, controlled trial of human anti-LIGHT monoclonal antibody in COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome.

BACKGROUNDSevere coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with a dysregulated immune response, which can result in cytokine-release syndrome and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS have elevated free serum levels of the cytokine lymphotoxin-like inducible protein that competes with glycoprotein D for herpesvirus entry on T cells (LIGHT; also known as TNFSF14). Such patients may benefit from LIGHT-neutralization therapy.METHODSThis randomized, double-blind, multicenter, proof-of-concept trial enrolled adults hospitalized with COVID-19-associated pneumonia and mild to moderate ARDS. Patients received standard of care plus a single dose of a human LIGHT-neutralizing antibody (CERC-002) or placebo. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients receiving CERC-002 who remained alive and free of respiratory failure through day 28. Safety was assessed via adverse event monitoring.RESULTSFor most of the 83 enrolled patients, standard of care included systemic corticosteroids (88.0%) or remdesivir (57.8%). A higher proportion of patients remained alive and free of respiratory failure through day 28 after receiving CERC-002 (83.9%) versus placebo (64.5%; P = 0.044), including in patients 60 years of age or older (76.5% vs. 47.1%, respectively; P = 0.042). Mortality rates were 7.7% (CERC-002) and 14.3% (placebo) on day 28 and 10.8% and 22.5%, respectively, on day 60. Treatment-emergent adverse events were less frequent with CERC-002 than placebo.CONCLUSIONFor patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS, adding CERC-002 to standard-of-care treatment reduces LIGHT levels and might reduce the risk of respiratory failure and death.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicalTrials.gov NCT04412057.FUNDINGAvalo Therapeutics.

Role of plasma angiotensin II and angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 levels on prognosis and mortality in hypertensive patients with COVID-19.

Introduction: SARS-CoV-2 requires angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) to enter the cell. In our study, we aimed to investigate the role of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 and angiotensin II plasma levels on prognosis and mortality in patients with isolated hypertension, patients with chronic diseases in addition to hypertension and patients with COVID-19 without comorbidities, in accordance with the use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitor. Materials & methods: In the study, patients diagnosed with COVID-19 were divided into three groups. Angiotensin II and ACE2 levels were compared by comorbidities, antihypertensive drugs used, intensive care hospitalization and termination of patients. The relationship between angiotensin II and ACE2 levels and service and intensive care times was investigated. Findings: A total of 218 patients were enrolled in our study, including 68 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 without comorbidities, 33 patients diagnosed with isolated hypertension and 117 patients with other chronic diseases in addition to hypertension. There was no statistically significant difference between the comorbid disease groups between angiotensin II and ACE2 levels of the patients enrolled in the study. The rate of patients admitted to the intensive care unit was 17.9%, and the mortality rate was 11.5%. Results: In our study, we did not obtain significant findings regarding angiotensin II and ACE2 levels on presentation that can be used in prognosis and mortality of COVID-19 patients and development of future treatment methods.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Inpatient Mortality Associated With Nosocomial and Community COVID-19 Exposes the Vulnerability of Immunosuppressed Adults.

Background: Little is known about the mortality of hospital-acquired (nosocomial) COVID-19 infection globally. We investigated the risk of mortality and critical care admission in hospitalised adults with nosocomial COVID-19, relative to adults requiring hospitalisation due to community-acquired infection. Methods: We systematically reviewed the peer-reviewed and pre-print literature from 1/1/2020 to 9/2/2021 without language restriction for studies reporting outcomes of nosocomial and community-acquired COVID-19. We performed a random effects meta-analysis (MA) to estimate the 1) relative risk of death and 2) critical care admission, stratifying studies by patient cohort characteristics and nosocomial case definition. Results: 21 studies were included in the primary MA, describing 8,251 admissions across 8 countries during the first wave, comprising 1513 probable or definite nosocomial COVID-19, and 6738 community-acquired cases. Across all studies, the risk of mortality was 1.3 times greater in patients with nosocomial infection, compared to community-acquired (95% CI: 1.005 to 1.683). Rates of critical care admission were similar between groups (Relative Risk, RR=0.74, 95% CI: 0.50 to 1.08). Immunosuppressed patients diagnosed with nosocomial COVID-19 were twice as likely to die in hospital as those admitted with community-acquired infection (RR=2.14, 95% CI: 1.76 to 2.61). Conclusions: Adults who acquire SARS-CoV-2 whilst already hospitalised are at greater risk of mortality compared to patients admitted following community-acquired infection; this finding is largely driven by a substantially increased risk of death in individuals with malignancy or who had undergone transplantation. These findings inform public health and infection control policy and argue for individualised clinical interventions to combat the threat of nosocomial COVID-19, particularly for immunosuppressed groups. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42021249023.

Angiotensin II receptor blocker intake associates with reduced markers of inflammatory activation and decreased mortality in patients with cardiovascular comorbidities and COVID-19 disease.

AIMS: Patients with cardiovascular comorbidities have a significantly increased risk for a critical course of COVID-19. As the SARS-CoV2 virus enters cells via the angiotensin-converting enzyme receptor II (ACE2), drugs which interact with the renin angiotensin aldosterone system (RAAS) were suspected to influence disease severity. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analyzed 1946 consecutive patients with cardiovascular comorbidities or hypertension enrolled in one of the largest European COVID-19 registries, the Lean European Open Survey on SARS-CoV-2 (LEOSS) registry. Here, we show that angiotensin II receptor blocker intake is associated with decreased mortality in patients with COVID-19 [OR 0.75 (95% CI 0,59-0.96; p = 0.013)]. This effect was mainly driven by patients, who presented in an early phase of COVID-19 at baseline [OR 0,64 (95% CI 0,43-0,96; p = 0.029)]. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed a significantly lower incidence of death in patients on an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) (n = 33/318;10,4%) compared to patients using an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) (n = 60/348;17,2%) or patients who received neither an ACE-inhibitor nor an ARB at baseline in the uncomplicated phase (n = 90/466; 19,3%; p<0.034). Patients taking an ARB were significantly less frequently reaching the mortality predicting threshold for leukocytes (p<0.001), neutrophils (p = 0.002) and the inflammatory markers CRP (p = 0.021), procalcitonin (p = 0.001) and IL-6 (p = 0.049). ACE2 expression levels in human lung samples were not altered in patients taking RAAS modulators. CONCLUSION: These data suggest a beneficial effect of ARBs on disease severity in patients with cardiovascular comorbidities and COVID-19, which is linked to dampened systemic inflammatory activity.

Plasma endostatin correlates with hypoxia and mortality in COVID-19-associated acute respiratory failure.

Background: The contribution of endothelial injury in the pathogenesis of COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and resulting respiratory failure remains unclear. Plasma endostatin, an endogenous inhibitor of angiogenesis and endothelial dysfunction is upregulated during hypoxia, inflammation and progress of pulmonary disease. Aim: To investigate if plasma endostatin is associated to hypoxia, inflammation and 30-day mortality in patients with severe COVID-19 infection. Method: Samples for blood analysis and plasma endostatin quantification were collected from adult patients with ongoing COVID-19 (n = 109) on admission to intensive care unit (day 1). Demographic characteristics and 30-day mortality data were extracted from medical records. The ability of endostatin to predict mortality was analyzed using receiving operating characteristics and Kaplan-Meier analysis with a cutoff at 46.2 ng/ml was used to analyze the association to survival. Results: Plasma endostatin levels correlated with; PaO2/FiO2 (r = -0.3, p < 0.001), arterial oxygen tension (r = -0.2, p = 0.01), lactate (r = 0.2, p = 0.04), C-reactive protein (r = 0.2, p = 0.04), ferritin (r = 0.2, p = 0.09), D-dimer (r = 0.2, p = 0.08) and IL-6 (r = 0.4, p < 0.001). Nonsurvivors at 30 days had higher plasma endostatin levels than survivors (72 ± 26 vs 56 ± 16 ng/ml, p = 0.01). Receiving operating characteristic curve (area under the curve 0.7) showed that plasma endostatin >46.2 ng/ml predicts mortality with a sensitivity of 92% and specificity of 71%. In patients with plasma endostatin >46.2 ng/ml probability of survival was lower (p = 0.02) in comparison to those with endostatin <46.2 ng/ml. Conclusion: Our results suggest that plasma endostatin is an early biomarker for disease severity in COVID-19.

Risk of COVID-19 and its complications in patients with atopic dermatitis undergoing dupilumab treatment-a population-based cohort study.

The risk of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) infection and its complications among patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) treated by dupilumab is yet to be determined. We aimed to assess the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19-associated hospitalization, and mortality among patients with AD treated by dupilumab. A population-based cohort study was conducted to compare AD patients treated by dupilumab (n = 238) with those treated by prolonged systemic corticosteroids (≥ 3 months; n = 1,023), phototherapy (n = 461), and azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil (MMF; n = 194) regarding the incidence of COVID-19 and its complications. The incidence rate of COVID-19, COVID-19-associated hospitalization, and mortality among patients treated by dupilumab was 70.1 (95% CI, 40.5-116.4), 5.0 (95% CI, 0.3-24.7), and 0.0 per 1,000 person-year, respectively. The use of dupilumab was not associated with an increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection [adjusted HR for dupilumab vs. prolonged systemic corticosteroids: 1.13 (95% CI, 0.61-2.09); dupilumab vs. phototherapy: 0.80 (95% CI, 0.42-1.53); dupilumab vs. azathioprine/MMF: 1.10 (95% CI, 0.45-2.65)]. Dupilumab was associated with a comparable risk of COVID-19-associated hospitalization [adjusted HR for dupilumab vs. prolonged systemic corticosteroids: 0.35 (95% CI, 0.05-2.71); dupilumab vs. phototherapy: 0.43 (95% CI, 0.05-3.98); dupilumab vs. azathioprine/MMF: 0.25 (95% CI, 0.02-2.74)]. When applicable, the risk of mortality was not elevated in patients with AD treated by dupilumab [HR for dupilumab vs. prolonged systemic corticosteroids: 0.04 (95% CI, 0.00-225.20)]. To conclude, dupilumab does not impose an increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 complications in patients with AD. Dupilumab should be continued and considered as a safe drug for moderate-to-severe AD during the pandemic.

COVID-19 infection in chronic myeloid leukaemia after one year of the pandemic in Italy. A Campus CML report.

Limited information is available on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the management of chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML). The Campus CML network collected retrospective information on 8 665 CML patients followed at 46 centres throughout Italy during the pandemic between February 2020 and January 2021. Within this cohort, we recorded 217 SARS-CoV-2-positive patients (2·5%). Most patients (57%) were diagnosed as having SARS-CoV-2 infection during the second peak of the pandemic (September 2020 to January 2021). The majority (35%) was aged between 50 and 65 years with a male prevalence (73%). Fifty-six percent of patients presented concomitant comorbidities. The median time from CML diagnosis to SARS-CoV-2 infection was six years (three months to 18 years). Twenty-one patients (9·6%) required hospitalization without the need of respiratory assistance, 18 (8·2%) were hospitalized for respiratory assistance, 8 (3·6%) were admitted to an intensive care unit, while 170 (78%) were only quarantined. Twenty-three percent of patients discontinued tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy during the infection. Twelve patients died due to COVID-19 with a mortality rate of 5·5% in the positive cohort and of 0·13% in the whole cohort. We could also document sequelae caused by the SARS-CoV-2 infection and an impact of the pandemic on the overall management of CML patients.

Impact of major bleeding and thrombosis on 180-day survival in patients with severe COVID-19 supported with veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in the United Kingdom: a multicentre observational study.

Bleeding and thrombosis are major complications in patients supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). In this multicentre observational study of 152 consecutive patients (≥18 years) with severe COVID-19 supported by veno-venous (VV) ECMO in four UK commissioned centres during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (1 March to 31 May 2020), we assessed the incidence of major bleeding and thrombosis and their association with 180-day mortality. Median age (range) was 47 years (23-65) and 75% were male. Overall, the 180-day survival was 70·4% (107/152). The rate of major bleeding was 30·9% (47/152), of which intracranial bleeding (ICH) was 34% (16/47). There were 96 thrombotic events (63·1%) consisting of venous 44·7% [68/152 of which 66·2% were pulmonary embolism (PE)], arterial 18·6% (13/152) and ECMO circuit thrombosis 9·9% (15/152). In multivariate analysis, only raised lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) at the initiation of VV ECMO was associated with an increased risk of thrombosis [hazard ratio (HR) 1·92, 95% CI 1·21-3·03]. Major bleeding and ICH were associated with 3·87-fold (95% CI 2·10-7·23) and 5·97-fold [95% confidence interval (CI) 2·36-15·04] increased risk of mortality and PE with a 2·00-fold (95% CI1·09-3·56) risk of mortality. This highlights the difficult balancing act often encountered when managing coagulopathy in COVID-19 patients supported with ECMO.

Androgen deprivation therapy and excess mortality in men with prostate cancer during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Men have a higher risk of death from COVID-19 than women and androgens facilitate entrance of the SARS-CoV-2 virus into respiratory epithelial cells. Thus, androgen deprivation therapy may reduce infection rates and improve outcomes for COVID-19. In the spring of 2020, Sweden was highly affected by COVID-19. The aim was to estimate the impact of androgen deprivation therapy on mortality from COVID-19 in men with prevalent prostate cancer by comparing all-cause mortality in the spring of 2020 to that in previous years. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using the Prostate Cancer data Base Sweden all men with prostate cancer on March 1 each year in 2015-2020 were followed until June 30 the same year. Exposure to androgen deprivation therapy was ascertained from filled prescriptions for bicalutamide monotherapy, gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRH), or bilateral orchidectomy. RESULTS: A total of 9,822 men died in March-June in the years 2015-2020, of whom 5,034 men were on androgen deprivation therapy. There was an excess mortality in 2020 vs previous years in all men. The crude relative mortality rate ratio for 2020 vs 2015-2019 was 0.93 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 1.04) in men on GnRH, and 0.90 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.05) in men on bicalutamide monotherapy. After multivariable adjustment these ratios were attenuated to 1.00 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.12) and 0.97 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.12), respectively. When restricting the analysis to the regions with the highest incidence of COVID-19 or to the time period between 2 April to 10 June when mortality in 2020 was increased >30% compared to previous years, the results were similar to the main analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In this large national population-based cohort of men with prevalent prostate cancer, there was no clear evidence in support for an effect of androgen deprivation therapy on COVID-19 mortality.

Impact of Body Mass Index on Perioperative Complications and Oncologic Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Thermal Ablation for Renal Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: To determine effect of body mass index (BMI) on safety and cancer-related outcomes of thermal ablation for renal cell carcinoma (RRC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study evaluated 427 patients (287 men and 140 women; mean [SD] age, 72 [12] y) who were treated with thermal ablation for RCC between October 2006 and December 2017. Patients were stratified by BMI into 3 categories: normal weight (18.5-24.9 kg/m2), overweight (25-29.9 kg/m2), and obese (≥ 30 kg/m2). Of 427 patients, 71 (16%) were normal weight, 157 (37%) were overweight, and 199 (47%) were obese. Complication rates, local recurrence, and residual disease were compared in the 3 cohorts. RESULTS: No differences in technical success between normal-weight, overweight, and obese patients were identified (P = .72). Primary technique efficacy rates for normal-weight, overweight, and obese patients were 91%, 94%, and 93% (P = .71). There was no significant difference in RCC specific-free survival, disease-free survival, and metastasis-free survival between obese, overweight, and normal-weight groups (P = .72, P = .43, P = .99). Complication rates between the 3 cohorts were similar (normal weight 4%, overweight 2%, obese 3%; P = .71). CONCLUSIONS: CT-guided renal ablation is safe, feasible, and effective regardless of BMI.

Intravenous bamlanivimab use associates with reduced hospitalization in high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19.

BACKGROUNDClinical data to support the use of bamlanivimab for the treatment of outpatients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) are needed.METHODS2335 Patients who received single-dose bamlanivimab infusion between November 12, 2020, and February 17, 2021, were compared with a propensity-matched control of 2335 untreated patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 at Mayo Clinic facilities across 4 states. The primary outcome was the rate of hospitalization at days 14, 21, and 28.RESULTSThe median age of the population was 63 years; 47.3% of the bamlanivimab-treated cohort were 65 years or more; 49.3% were female and 50.7% were male. High-risk characteristics included hypertension (54.2%), BMI greater than or equal to 35 (32.4%), diabetes mellitus (26.5%), chronic lung disease (25.1%), malignancy (16.6%), and renal disease (14.5%). Patients who received bamlanivimab had lower all-cause hospitalization rates at days 14 (1.5% vs. 3.5%; risk ratio [RR], 0.41), 21 (1.9% vs. 3.9%; RR, 0.49), and 28 (2.5% vs. 3.9%; RR, 0.63). Secondary exploratory outcomes included lower intensive care unit (ICU) admission rates at days 14 (0.14% vs. 1%; RR, 0.14), 21 (0.25% vs.1%; RR, 0.25), and 28 (0.56% vs.1.1%; RR. 0.51) and lower all-cause mortality at days 14 (0% vs. 0.33%), 21 (0.05% vs. 0.4%; RR,0.13), and 28 (0.11% vs. 0.44%; RR, 0.26). Adverse events were uncommon with bamlanivimab, occurring in 19 of 2355 patients, and were most commonly fever (n = 6), nausea (n = 5), and lightheadedness (n = 3).CONCLUSIONSAmong high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with bamlanivimab was associated with a statistically significant lower rate of hospitalization, ICU admission, and mortality compared with usual care.FUNDINGMayo Clinic.

In-hospital use of ACE inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers associates with COVID-19 outcomes in African American patients.

BACKGROUNDThe angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) D allele is more prevalent among African Americans compared with other races and ethnicities and has previously been associated with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pathogenesis through excessive ACE1 activity. ACE inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (ACE-I/ARB) may counteract this mechanism, but their association with COVID-19 outcomes has not been specifically tested in the African American population.METHODSWe identified 6218 patients who were admitted into Mount Sinai hospitals with COVID-19 between February 24 and May 31, 2020, in New York City. We evaluated whether the outpatient and in-hospital use of ACE-I/ARB is associated with COVID-19 in-hospital mortality in an African American compared with non-African American population.RESULTSOf the 6218 patients with COVID-19, 1138 (18.3%) were ACE-I/ARB users. In a multivariate logistic regression model, ACE-I/ARB use was independently associated with a reduced risk of in-hospital mortality in the entire population (OR, 0.655; 95% CI, 0.505-0.850; P = 0.001), African American population (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.249-0.779; P = 0.005), and non-African American population (OR, 0.748, 95% CI, 0.553-1.012, P = 0.06). In the African American population, in-hospital use of ACE-I/ARB was associated with improved mortality (OR, 0.378; 95% CI, 0.188-0.766; P = 0.006), whereas outpatient use was not (OR, 0.889; 95% CI, 0.375-2.158; P = 0.812). When analyzing each medication class separately, ARB in-hospital use was significantly associated with reduced in-hospital mortality in the African American population (OR, 0.196; 95% CI, 0.074-0.516; P = 0.001), whereas ACE-I use was not associated with impact on mortality in any population.CONCLUSIONIn-hospital use of ARB was associated with a significant reduction in in-hospital mortality among COVID-19-positive African American patients.FUNDINGNone.

Convalescent plasma therapy in B-cell-depleted and B-cell sufficient patients with life-threatening COVID-19 - A case series.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of convalescent plasma therapy (CPT) on clinical courses of B-cell-sufficient and B-cell-depleted patients with life-threatening COVID-19. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this case series, we retrospectively analysed clinical, laboratory and cardiopulmonary parameters of six patients with life-threatening COVID-19 receiving convalescent plasma (CP) as rescue therapy between April 11, 2020 to October 10, 2020. Clinical and laboratory parameters before and after transfusion were compared in two B-cell-depleted patients and four B-cell sufficient patients (control group). RESULTS: Both B-cell-depleted patients cleared SARS-CoV-2 virus and survived, while all other patients died within 14 days from intervention despite maximal therapeutic efforts. D-dimer levels increased in both cohorts subsequent to CPT. In control patients, mean Interleukin-6 increased and platelet levels decreased as opposed to decreasing and stable levels in B-cell-depleted patients, respectively. Control patients required increased doses of vasopressor compared to decreasing doses in B-cell depleted patients subsequent to CPT. PO2/FiO2 decrease was more pronounced and respiratory deterioration required postinterventional extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in two control patients. Transpulmonary thermodilution revealed a further increase of the Extravascular Lung Water Index upon CPT in control patients. CONCLUSION: Use of CP in late stages of life-threatening COVID-19 should be used with caution but may be beneficial in B-cell-depleted patients. Further studies are necessary to assess factors predicting potential therapeutic benefits as well as possible hazards.