Citations

PURPOSE: The benefit of routine pre-emptive screening for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infections in patients with cancer before cancer-directed therapies is unclear. Herein, we characterize the outcomes of a cohort of patients with cancer who were diagnosed with COVID-19 by routine screening (RS) in comparison with those diagnosed on the basis of clinical suspicion or exposure history (nonroutine screening [NRS]). METHODS: A multisite prospective observational study was conducted at three major and five satellite campuses of the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center between March 18 and July 31, 2020. The primary outcome was COVID-19–related hospital admission. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit admissions and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Five thousand four hundred fifty-two patients underwent RS in the outpatient setting only, and 44 (0.81%) were diagnosed with COVID-19. RS detected 19 additional patients from the scheduled inpatient admissions for surgical or interventional procedures or inpatient chemotherapy. One hundred sixty-one patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 on the basis of NRS. COVID-19–related hospitalization rate (17.5% v 26.7%; P = .14), intensive care unit admission (1.6% v 5.6%; P = .19), and mortality (4.8% v 3.7%; P = .72) were not significantly different between the RS and NRS groups. In the multivariable analysis, age ≥ 60 years (odds ratio, 4.4; P = .023) and an absolute lymphocyte count ≤ 1.4 × 109/L (odds ratio, 9.2; P = .002) were independent predictors of COVID-19–related hospital admission. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 positivity rate was low on the basis of RS. Comparing the hospital admission and mortality outcomes with the NRS cohort, there were no significant differences. The value of routine pre-emptive screening of asymptomatic patients with cancer for COVID-19 remains low.

Abstract Immunoassays designed to detect SARS-CoV-2 protein antigens are now commercially available. The most widely used tests are rapid lateral flow assays that generate results in ~15 minutes for diagnosis at the point-of-care. Higher throughput, laboratory-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen (Ag) assays have also been developed. The overall accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests, however, is not well defined. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) convened an expert panel to perform a systematic review of the literature and develop best-practice guidance related to SARS-CoV-2 Ag testing. This guideline is the third in a series of rapid, frequently updated COVID-19 diagnostic guidelines developed by IDSA. IDSA’s goal was to develop evidence-based recommendations or suggestions that assist clinicians, clinical laboratories, patients, public health authorities, administrators, and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests in both medical and nonmedical settings. A multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists, and experts in systematic literature review identified and prioritized clinical questions related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. The panel agreed on 5 diagnostic recommendations. These recommendations address Ag testing in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals as well as assess single versus repeat testing strategies. Data on the clinical performance of US Food and Drug Administration SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests with Emergency Use Authorization are mostly limited to single, one-time testing versus standard nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) as the reference standard. Rapid Ag tests have high specificity and low to modest sensitivity compared with reference NAAT methods. Antigen test sensitivity is heavily dependent on viral load, with differences observed between symptomatic compared with asymptomatic individuals and the time of testing post-onset of symptoms. Based on these observations, rapid reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) or laboratory-based NAAT remain the diagnostic methods of choice for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, when molecular testing is not readily available or is logistically infeasible, Ag testing can help identify some individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection. The overall quality of available evidence supporting use of Ag testing was graded as very low to moderate.

Objectives: Rheumatoid arthritis is a chronic inflammatory autoimmune disease. This study aimed to determine the association of interleukin-17A-197G/A polymorphism with rheumatoid arthritis in Sudanese patients. Methods: A case–control study was conducted between March and December 2018. Clinical and demographic data of the study participants were collected and analyzed. Polymerase chain reaction restriction fragment length polymorphism molecular technique was done to investigate interleukin-17A-197G/A polymorphisms. All statistical tests were considered statistically significant when p < 0.05. Results: The study population included 266 participants aged between 1 and 85 years, with an average of 40 years, classified into 85 (31.2%) cases (mean age 48.5 ± 11.3 years), and 181 (68.8%) controls (mean age 35.3 ± 15.9 years). The interleukin-17A homozygote AA genotype was more frequent among the control group compared to the case group; 95 (52.5%) and 7 (8.2%), respectively. The homozygote GG and the heterozygote AG genotypes were proportionally not different among the cases and control groups; 13 (54.2%) and 11 (45.8%), and 65 (46.4%) and 75 (53.6%), respectively. According to the distribution of interleukin-17A genotypes, a statistically significant difference was observed among cases with the interleukin-17A AA and AG genotypes, p values 0.001 and 0.004, respectively. For the association interleukin-17A genotypes and family history a negatively significant association was reported (95% confidence interval, –0.219, p value = 0.001). There was also a negatively significant association of interleukin-17A genotypes and anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (95% confidence interval, −0.141, p value = 0.002). Conclusion: This study is the first study in Sudan established the association between interleukin-17A-197G/A (rs2275913) polymorphisms and susceptibly to rheumatoid arthritis. These findings appeal for further research in Sudan to investigate the exact role of IL-17A in immunopathology and disease severity among Sudanese rheumatoid arthritis

Introduction: Periodontal disease (PD) is an acquired disorder characterized by inflammation of the gums, resulting eventually in loss of teeth. Epidemiological studies have shown a link between PD and cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). The aim of this study is to evaluate differences in the prevalence of CVD amongst US patients with PD of different age, race and sex. Method: Using the US national in-patient sample database (NIS) from 2005-2014, patients with PD and CVD were identified. Results: 155,732 hospitalizations with PD were included in the study, of which 36.5% had at least one CVD. Ischemic heart disease was the most prevalent CVD (17.6%), followed by heart failure (10.9%), atrial fibrillation/flutter (10.1%) and cerebrovascular disease (CRVD) (9.7%). The overall in-hospital mortality was higher in PD patients with CVD (2.6% vs 1.2%, p<0.0001). Figure 1C highlights the prevalence of various subtypes of CVD among different gender. When stratifying hospitalized patients with PD and CVD based on race and age, there was higher prevalence of CVD among Asians and Pacific Islanders (42.4%) (Figure 1A-B) and with increasing age (≥70, 56-69, and 18-55; 67.4% vs 50.1% vs 20.3%, p<0.001, respectively). Significant increase trends in the prevalence of AF, HF, and CRVD in the young, middle, and older age group was noted (P-trend<0.001) (Figure1A). Conclusion: CVD is prevalent in patients with PD and is more common in males and among Asians and Pacific Islanders. Higher mortality was reported among hospitalized PD patients with CVD. An increase in trend in the prevalence of AF, HF, and CRVD was noted across all age groups. This may require age, race, and gender specific strategies in PD patients for primary prevention of different CVD.

Background. The study aims is to use the fragility index (FI) to examine the strength of evidence of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in the last decade on kidney transplantation. Methods. We searched MEDLINE for studies on kidney transplantation. We included the RCTs that compared 2 groups with 1:1 randomization and reported significant P values (<0.05) for a dichotomous outcome and were published in the top 10 transplant journals. We calculated the FI; a calculation used to determine the minimum number of subjects needed to change from a nonevent to an event to make the study results nonsignificant (P ≥ 0.05). Results. Fifty-seven RCTs met our inclusion criteria. The median sample size was 100 participants in each arm, the median number of events was 16 (interquartile range, 8–30) in the intervention group. Among the included trials, 79% were industry-funded, 93% involved medications, and the majority were open label. The median FI was 3 (interquartile range, 1–11). In 43% of the trials, the number of patients reported lost to follow-up was higher than or equal to the FI. Only 4% of the RCTs imputed a value for the missing dichotomous outcome. Furthermore, the median number of subjects who discontinued the trial because of adverse effects was 21, which was greater than the FI in 60% of the RCTs. Conclusions. The arbitrary classification of results into “significant” and “nonsignificant” based on P value <0.05 should perhaps be interpreted with the help of other statistical parameters and FI is one of them.

AbstractSurrogate endpoints are being used more frequently in randomized controlled trials, even though they do not consistently corelate with patient outcomes. We systemically evaluated the use of surrogate endpoints in multiple myeloma randomized controlled trials over the past 15 years. We searched three databases (Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane) for multiple myeloma randomized controlled trials from January 1, 2005 to December 30, 2019. The primary outcome of our study was the proportion of randomized controlled trials that used overall survival as their primary endpoint. Secondary outcomes included the use of surrogate endpoints, and trends over time, and whether they differed based on study sponsorship. We included 151 randomized controlled trials in our analysis. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) in 17 (11.3%) of studies, progression free survival (PFS) or event‐defined endpoints in 91 studies (60.3%) and response‐based endpoints in 44 studies (29.1%). Quality of life was a primary endpoint in only three studies (2%). The use of OS as a primary endpoint decreased from 28.5% of trials from 2005 to 2009 to 5.5% from 2015 to 2019. There has been a decrease in the clinically meaningful endpoint of OS over the past 15 years in multiple myeloma randomized controlled trials. Use of quality of life as a primary endpoint remains exceedingly low. It remains paramount to recognize that the use of surrogate endpoints is imperfect, and care based upon them requires constant physician and patient re‐analysis.

Abstract Abstract Importance: The benefit of routine screening for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections in patients with cancer before cancer-directed therapies is unclear. Herein, we characterize the outcomes of a cohort of cancer patients diagnosed with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) by routine screening in comparison with those diagnosed based on clinical suspicion or exposure history (non-routine screening). Objective: To describe and compare the outcomes of cancer patients diagnosed with COVID-19 on routine screening vs. non-routine screening at a multi-site tertiary cancer center. To identify risk factors for COVID-19-related hospital admission. Design: A multi-site prospective observational study was conducted between March 18 and July 31, 2020. Setting: Three major and 5 satellite campuses of the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center. Participants: Adult patients diagnosed with active cancer within the past five years and confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were included. Primary Outcomes and Measures: Clinical and laboratory data were assessed as independent variables. The primary outcome was COVID-19-related hospital admission. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) admissions and all-cause mortality. Results: Between March 18 and July 31, 2020, 5452 patients underwent routine screening in the outpatient setting, 44 (0.81%) were diagnosed with COVID-19. Routine screening detected additional 19 patients from inpatient and pre-procedural settings; 161 patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 based on non-routine screening. The median age of the entire cohort at diagnosis was 54 years, and 95 patients (42.2%) were female. COVID-19 related-hospitalization rate (17.5% vs. 26.7%, p=0.14), ICU admission (1.6% vs. 5.6%, p=0.19), and mortality (4.8% vs. 3.7%, p=0.72) were not significantly different between routine screening and non-routine screening groups. In the multivariable analysis, age ≥ 60 years (odds ratio: 4.4, p=0.023) and an absolute lymphocyte count ≤1.4 × 109/L (odds ratio: 9.2, p=0.002) were independent predictors of COVID-19-related hospital admission. Conclusions and Relevance: The COVID-19 positivity rate was low based on routine screening. Comparing the outcome with the non-routine screening cohort, there was no significant difference. These results led to an important practice change at our cancer center. We currently follow a testing strategy based on symptoms, exposure, risk factors, and clinical judgment. Citation Format: Zhuoer Xie, Antoine N. Saliba, Jithma Abeykoon, Umair Majeed, Daniel Almquist, Julia Wiedmeier-Nutor, Evandro Bezerra, Xavier Andrade-Gonzalez, Ashley Hickman, Karl Sorenson, Sagar Rakshit, Christopher Wee, Sri Tella, Anuhya Kommalapati, Nadine Abdallah, Joshua Pritchett, Mariza De Andrade, Dipesh Uprety, Andrew Badley, Joleen Hubbard, Naseema Gangat, Carrie A. Thompson, Thomas Witzig, Robert R. McWilliams, Konstantinos Leventakos, Thorvardur R. Halfdanarson. Outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with cancer: Results of a prospective observational comparison of routine screening strategy versus testing based on clinical suspicion [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer; 2021 Feb 3-5. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2021;27(6_Suppl):Abstract nr S06-03.

Background: Patients with cerebral cavernous angiomas with symptomatic hemorrhage (CASH) have high risk of disability from recurrent bleeding. Candidate medications to prevent rebleeding in CASH lesions will require multisite clinical trials with standardized data collection. Objective: To report the prevalence and baseline cohort features in CASH patients and establish a research network infrastructure for trials. Methods: This prospective observational cohort study includes adults with radiologically verified CASH lesion within 1-year of consent. Exclusions include prior or planned surgical intervention, spinal location, or prior brain irradiation. Six sites enrolled patients into the screening and clinical assessment portion of the study starting July 2018. Patients also had the option to participate in the follow up biomarker validation at 4 sites. Baseline demographics, clinical and imaging information, and outcomes (mRS, PROMIS-29, NIHSS, and EuroQol-5D) were collected. Biomarker imaging included dynamic contrast enhanced quantitative perfusion (DCEQP) and quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) that correlated with symptomatic bleeding. Descriptive statistics were performed and one-sample t-test was used to compare whether mean T-scores for PROMIS-29 domains differed significantly from a reference population. Results: As of May 2020, 849 CASH patients were screened of whom 110 (13%) were eligible and enrolled; 73 also enrolled into the biomarker validation study. Average age at enrollment was 46±16 years at a mean of 4.4 months after symptom onset; 53% were female, 41% were familial, and 43% of CASH lesions were brainstem location. At enrollment, 90% of the cohort had independent functional outcome (mRS ≤ 2 and NIHSS <5). Perceived health problems affecting QoL were reported in >30% (EuroQol-5D). CASH cases had significantly worse anxiety but better depression and social satisfaction scores compared to a general population (all P<0.01). Baseline DCEQP and QSM measures did not differ significantly across sites. Conclusion: We demonstrate feasibility of multisite recruitment of CASH patients and report prevalence of baseline features that will aid in design of clinical trials and inclusion of appropriate outcome measures.

Abstract The utility of systemic light chain (AL) amyloidosis staging systems has been validated for newly diagnosed patients, but their role in restaging after treatment has not been explored. We designed this study to evaluate whether the currently used systems are of prognostic value at 3 and 6 months of starting first-line treatment, and whether stage migration from diagnosis impacts survival. This is a retrospective study including Mayo Clinic patients with AL amyloidosis diagnosed between 1 January 2006 and 30 June 2019; 536 and 204 patients had restaging data for at least 1 system at 3 and 6 months, respectively. Using modified Mayo 2004 staging at 3 months, median overall survival (OSs) were 11.8, 10.8, 4.6, and 1.1 years for stage I, II, IIIa, and IIIb, respectively. Using Mayo 2012, median OSs were 11.8, 9.0, 5.2, and 0.8 years for stage I, II, III, and IV, respectively. Using modified Mayo 2004 staging at 6 months, median OSs were not reached (NR), NR, 5.4, and 0.9 years for stage I, II, IIIa, and IIIb, respectively. Using Mayo 2012, OSs were NR, NR, 4.6, and 0.9 years for stage I, II, III, and IV, respectively. Worsening stage at 3 or 6 months was associated with worse survival than retaining baseline stage. In conclusion, the current staging systems can be used for restaging at 3 and 6 months from treatment initiation. Migration to higher stage predicts poor prognosis.