Citations

AbstractBackgroundThe menstrual cycle in women is the main indicator of their reproductive health which is affected by the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic. This review aims to summarize the effects of the COVID‐19 infection and the global pandemic on the menstrual health of women.MethodsThe literature search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane library, and Google Scholar using keywords “COVID‐19,” “Menstrual Cycle,” “Menstrual Cycle Irregularities,” “Amenorrhea,” “Polymenorrhea,” and “Dysmenorrhea.” The articles were selected according to the following inclusion criteria: (i) cross‐sectional studies, (ii) cohort studies, (iii) surveys, and (iv) other observational studies observing the effects of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection or COVID‐19 pandemic on menstrual health of women. Exclusion criteria included: case reports, gray literature, and website articles regarding menstrual health.ResultsA total of 30,510 articles were shortlisted after a comprehensive search. Sixteen articles were included out of which 13 studies investigated the effects of the COVID‐19 pandemic on the menstrual cycle while 3 evaluated the possible effects of COVID‐19 infection on the menstrual health of women. Menstrual disorders or irregularities were a more common finding during the pandemic as compared to before (p = 0.008). Women affected by pandemic‐related stress were more prone to changes in the duration of their menses (p = 0.0008), reported heavier bleeding (p = 0.028), and increased incidence of painful periods (p < 0.0001). COVID‐19 infected women also reported changes in their menstrual cycle including irregular menstruation, increased symptoms of premenstrual syndrome, and infrequent menstruation.ConclusionsWomen suffering from COVID‐19 infection or pandemic‐associated stress and anxiety were more likely to experience irregular menstruation, dysmenorrhea, amenorrhea, and other menstrual abnormalities compared to those who were less exposed.

Abstract Purpose: Selective FGFR inhibitors are effective against cholangiocarcinomas that harbor gene alterations in FGFR2. Clinical trials suggest that expression of wild-type FGFR mRNA can predict sensitivity to FGFR inhibitors, but this biomarker has not been well characterized in cholangiocarcinoma. This study explores the prevalence of FGFR mRNA overexpression in cholangiocarcinoma, its role in predicting sensitivity to FGFR inhibitors, and its association with immune markers. Experimental Design: Tissue microarrays of intrahepatic (ICC) and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas (ECC) resected between 2004 and 2015 were used to evaluate FGFR1–4 mRNA expression levels by RNA in situ hybridization (ISH). Expression levels of FGFR2 mRNA were correlated with FGFR2 fusion status and with patient outcomes. Immune markers expression was assessed by IHC and CSF1 and CSF1 receptor expression were examined by RNA ISH. Results: Among 94 patients with resected cholangiocarcinoma, the majority had ICC (77%). FGFR2 fusions were identified in 23% of ICCs and 5% of ECCs. High levels of FGFR mRNA in FGFR2 fusion–negative ICC/ECC were seen for: FGFR1 (ICC/ECC: 15%/0%), FGFR2 (ICC/ECC: 57%/0%), FGFR3 (ICC/ECC: 53%/18%), and FGFR4 (ICC/ECC: 32%/0%). Overall, 62% of fusion-negative cholangiocarcinomas showed high levels of FGFR mRNA. In patients with advanced FGFR2 fusion–positive ICC, high levels of FGFR2 mRNA did not correlate with clinical benefit. FGFR2 fusion–positive tumors showed a paucity of PD-L1 on tumor cells. Conclusions: FGFR mRNA overexpression occurs frequently in cholangiocarcinoma in the absence of genetic alterations in FGFR. This study identifies a molecular subpopulation in cholangiocarcinoma for which further investigation of FGFR inhibitors is merited outside currently approved indications.

AbstractBackground and AimsThe COVID‐19 pandemic and the resultant change in sedentary behaviors have had immense health, economic, and social implications globally. As governments worldwide imposed lockdowns and curfews, the amount of time spent indoors greatly increased. This lead to a dramatic change in physical activity (PA) levels and profound consequences on daily routines. Our study aimed to investigate patterns of PA during the COVID‐19 pandemic among adults residing in Saudi Arabia.MethodsThis cross‐sectional survey‐based study aimed to investigate patterns of PA during the COVID‐19 pandemic among adults residing in Saudi Arabia. The International Physical Activity Questionnaire was utilized to measure participants' PA levels between April 2021 and May 2021. Participants were then classified into three groups according to their PA level, and their PA levels and sedentary behaviors were analyzed.ResultsWe surveyed 463 participants, 315 (68%) of which were female and 134 (32%) of which were male with a median age of 23 (interquartile range, 21–35) years. Moderate‐to‐high PA was reported by 257 (55.7%) of the participants. There was a significant decrease in PA during the COVID‐19 pandemic and resultant lockdowns among the participants (p = 0.04), with higher rates of sedentary behavior among males than females (p = 0.14).ConclusionsThe decline in PA is a profound challenge of the COVID‐19 pandemic that needs to be addressed by health practitioners and policymakers. Our study highlights the decline in PA levels seen during the COVID‐19 pandemic and the importance of promotional programs and interventions to increase PA among the Saudi Arabian population without compromising the essential health restrictions and social distancing.

e18790 Background: Patients with SARS-CoV-2 with a diagnosis of cancer have increased risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes compared to patients without cancer. However, little is known regarding outcomes of patients with COVID-19 and cancer in the setting of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Given the unique risks of this population, we sought to understand COVID-19 outcomes using registry data. Methods: This is a descriptive research study utilizing the CCC19 registry, an international multi-institutional registry with healthcare provider-reported cases of patients with cancer and COVID-19. Between March 2020-December 2021, 116 persons with HIV (PWH) and 10,642 persons without HIV (PWOH) with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were identified as eligible for the analysis. Results: Median follow-up time for both groups was 90 days, with interquartile range (IQR) 30-180 days. Most PWH were actively receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART) at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, with 71% (n = 82) having named drug information available; bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir was the most common ART (n = 25). PWH were of younger age (median 57.5 yrs [IQR 46.5-63.25] vs 65 yrs [IQR 55-74]), male (81% vs 47%), and either non-Hispanic Black or Hispanic (71% vs 34%) compared to PWOH. 12% of PWH (n = 14) were current smokers compared to 6% of PWOH (n = 638), and more than half in each group were never smokers (51% of PWH and 53% of PWOH). The following comorbidities were identified in PWH vs PWOH: cardiovascular (16% vs 20%), pulmonary (16% vs 20%), renal (15% vs 14%), and diabetes mellitus (18% vs 27%). A higher proportion of PWH had hematologic malignancy compared to PWOH (33% vs 19%). More PWH had active cancer which was progressing at the time of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to PWOH (24% vs 14%). 44% of PWH (n = 51) had received active systemic anticancer therapy within the 3 months preceding SARS-CoV-2 infection (including cytotoxic, targeted, endocrine therapies, and immunotherapy) compared to 51% of PWOH (n = 5,420). PWH had an increased rate of hospitalization (58% vs 55%) compared to PWOH. Although a lower proportion of PWH required supplemental oxygen during hospitalization compared to PWOH (34% vs 38%) and ICU admission rates were identical between the two groups (16% vs 16%), PWH had an increased rate of mechanical ventilation (14% vs 10%) and death (24% vs 18%) compared to PWOH. Conclusions: This is the first known study describing outcomes of patients with cancer and COVID-19 in the PWH population from a large multinational dataset. PWH have characteristics associated with adverse outcomes in prior analyses (male sex, non-Hispanic Black or Hispanic, hematologic malignancy, progressing cancer) but are notably younger and have fewer comorbidities. HIV infection may portend increased risk of severe COVID-19 and death; however, additional analyses, including multivariable regression, are warranted.

5083 Background: ARASENS and PEACE-1 trials suggests treatment intensification with novel hormonal therapy (NHT) in addition to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and docetaxel (DOC) provides survival benefit as compared to DOC+ADT in patients with metastatic castration sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). However, the performance of triplet therapy as compared to NHT+ADT remains unexplored. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE and recent conference proceedings were searched to include phase III trials evaluating triplet therapy in patients with mCSPC and reporting treatment effects in subgroup of patients with and without docetaxel. Outcomes included overall survival (OS) and radiographic progression free survival (rPFS). Precomputed hazard ratios (HRs) and confidence intervals (CIs) from non-randomized subgroup comparisons were pooled after logarithmic transformation using inverse-variance weighting approach. A DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analysis was then performed to assess subgroup differences. Interaction between subgroups was assessed using P-value of heterogeneity. Mixed treatment comparisons were computed using a fixed-effect model within the frequentist framework using subgroup effect estimates from eligible trials. Results: This meta-analysis included five clinical trials (ARASENS, PEACE-1, ENZAMET, ARCHES and TITAN) with a total of 5804 patients (docetaxel: 2836; no docetaxel: 2836). Subgroup analysis showed statistically significant difference between treatment effects in patients who received docetaxel (NHT + DOC + ADT; HR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.66-0.84; I2: 0%) and those who did not (NHT + ADT; HR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.53-0.70; I2: 0%) for OS (p-value of interaction: 0.04). However, no statistically significant interaction was observed in terms of rPFS (p-value: 0.46). Mixed treatment comparisons showed improved OS with NHT + DOC + ADT (HR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.66-0.84) as compared to DOC + ADT, but not when compared to NHT + ADT (HR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.78-1.20). NHT + ADT significantly improved OS compared to DOC + ADT (HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.64-0.92). Consistently, significant rPFS improvement was observed with NHT + DOC + ADT when compared DOC + ADT (HR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.42-0.57) but not when compared to NHT + ADT (HR: 0.82; 0.65-1.04). NHT + ADT was observed to improve rPFS compared to DOC + ADT (HR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.50-0.72). Conclusions: This exploratory and hypothesis generating analysis suggests that addition of docetaxel (triplet therapy) may not delay progression or prolong survival compared to NHT-based doublets. These findings provide direction for future clinical trials in this space and suggest an equipoise to the question of how triplet regimens compare with NHT-doublets. The results should be interpreted with caution as this analysis does not account for potential confounding relationships such as volume of disease.

4594 Background: Cisplatin based neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) followed by definitive therapy improves survival in patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). However, the clinical benefit of NAC might vary with the choice of definitive therapy. Therefore, we assessed the absolute benefit of NAC followed by radical cystectomy or radical radiotherapy separately using the totality of evidence. Methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE were systematically searched to identify randomized trials assessing cisplatin based neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by either radical cystectomy or definitive radiotherapy in patients with MIBC. Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Treatment effects were expressed as hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Incidence rate ratios were calculated to estimate time to event outcomes for trials not reporting HR. A random-effects DerSimonian-Laird meta-analysis was conducted. Absolute effects were then obtained using baseline risks from the control arm of RCTs. Results: Of 4887 studies identified, 13 trials with 2529 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Most trials included patients with T2-4 and N0 patients and only 3 trials included patients with node positive disease. Total of 180 (47%) DFS events were observed with NAC+RC compared to 213 (56%) events in RC alone (HR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.59-0.89) and 346 (58%) OS events were observed with NAC+ RC compared to 385 (52%) events in RC alone (HR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.69-0.92). Total of 186 (70%) DFS events were observed with NAC + radiotherapy compared to 205 (71%) events in radiotherapy alone (HR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.74-1.12) and 263 (58%) OS events were observed with NAC+ radiotherapy compared to 294 (61%) events in radiotherapy alone (HR:0.93; 95% CI: 0.79-1.08). Conclusions: The choice of definitive therapy after cisplatin-based NAC impacts survival in patients with MIBC. RC after NAC improved DFS (114 fewer events per 1000 events) and OS (76 fewer per 1000 events) whereas radiotherapy after NAC showed no survival benefit. [Table: see text]

ABSTRACT Despite advances in early revascularization, percutaneous hemodynamic support platforms, and systems of care, cardiogenic shock (CS) remains associated with a mortality rate higher than 50%. Several risk stratification models have been derived since the 1990 s to identify patients at high risk of adverse outcomes. Still, limited information is available on the differences between scoring systems and their relative applicability to both acute myocardial infarction and advanced decompensated heart failure CS. Thus, we reviewed the similarities, differences, and limitations of published CS risk prediction models and herein discuss their suitability to the contemporary management of CS care.

Introduction: There is paucity of data on the relationship between hospital procedural volume and outcomes of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedures in the past decade. Methods: We queried the National Inpatient Sample database (2010-2016) for hospitalizations undergoing primary PCI for STEMI. Hospitals were divided into 3 groups: low-volume (<36 primary PCI/ year), moderate-volume (36-72 primary PCI/year) and high-volume (>72 primary PCI/ year). The main outcome was in-hospital mortality. Results: The analysis included 694,505 hospitalizations for primary PCI. There were 329,878 (47.5%) primary PCI procedures performed at low-volume hospitals, 224,317 (32.3%) at moderate-volume, and 140,223 (20.2%) at high-volume hospitals. Compared with high-volume hospitals, low-volume hospitals were associated with higher in-hospital mortality in the unadjusted model (5.3% vs. 4.8%, odds ratio [OR] 1.10; 95% confidence interval-CI 1.02-1.18, p=0.01) and on multivariable analysis (adjusted-OR 1.15; 95%CI 1.04-1.27, p=0.01). There was no difference between moderate-volume and high-volume hospital in unadjusted analysis (5.1% vs. 4.8%, OR 1.07; 95%CI 0.99-1.15, p=0.11) and on multivariable analysis (adjusted-OR 1.08; 95%CI 0.97-1.20, p=0.17). Conclusions: This nationwide analysis showed that low-volume hospitals are associated with higher in-hospital mortality after primary PCI compared with high-volume hospitals even in recent years. The current threshold set by national guidelines for primary PCI hospitals remains valid in contemporary practice.

OBJECTIVES: The multifaceted long-term impairments resulting from critical illness and COVID-19 require interdisciplinary management approaches in the recovery phase of illness. Operational insights into the structure and process of recovery clinics (RCs) from heterogeneous health systems are needed. This study describes the structure and process characteristics of existing and newly implemented ICU-RCs and COVID-RCs in a subset of large health systems in the United States. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Thirty-nine RCs, representing a combined 156 hospitals within 29 health systems participated. PATIENTS: None. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: RC demographics, referral criteria, and operating characteristics were collected, including measures used to assess physical, psychologic, and cognitive recoveries. Thirty-nine RC surveys were completed (94% response rate). ICU-RC teams included physicians, pharmacists, social workers, physical therapists, and advanced practice providers. Funding sources for ICU-RCs included clinical billing (n = 20, 77%), volunteer staff support (n = 15, 58%), institutional staff/space support (n = 13, 46%), and grant or foundation funding (n = 3, 12%). Forty-six percent of RCs report patient visit durations of 1 hour or longer. ICU-RC teams reported use of validated scales to assess psychologic recovery (93%), physical recovery (89%), and cognitive recovery (86%) more often in standard visits compared with COVID-RC teams (psychologic, 54%; physical, 69%; and cognitive, 46%). CONCLUSIONS: Operating structures of RCs vary, though almost all describe modest capacity and reliance on volunteerism and discretionary institutional support. ICU- and COVID-RCs in the United States employ varied funding sources and endorse different assessment measures during visits to guide care coordination. Common features include integration of ICU clinicians, interdisciplinary approach, and focus on severe critical illness. The heterogeneity in RC structures and processes contributes to future research on the optimal structure and process to achieve the best postintensive care syndrome and postacute sequelae of COVID outcomes.