Citations

AbstractBackgroundChange in left atrial pressure (LAP) has been shown to be associated with symptom improvement post‐MitraClip; however, the association between acute procedural changes in transmitral diastolic mean gradient (MG) compared to LAP and symptom improvement is not well established.Methods164 consecutive patients undergoing MitraClip at Mayo Clinic between June 2014 and May 2018 were included. Preclip and postclip MG and LAP were recorded. Baseline demographics, clinical, and echocardiographic outcomes, including 30‐day New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional status were obtained from patient charts.ResultsMedian age was 81.5 years (IQR: 76.3, 87), 34% were female and 94.5% had NYHA class III and IV functional status at baseline. At baseline, median MG was 4 mmHg (IQR: 3, 5) and LAP was 19 mmHg (IQR: 16, 23.5). Following MitraClip deployment, the median MG was 4 mmHg (IQR: 3, 6) and the median LAP was 17 mmHg (IQR: 14, 21), 69.5% of patients had less than moderate MR. There was no statistically significant association between change in MG and NYHA functional class at 30 days (OR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.76–1.20). However, a reduction in LAP following MitraClip deployment was significantly associated with improvement in NYHA functional status at 30 days following adjustments for age and sex (aOR 3.36, 95% CI: 1.34–8.65). There was no significant correlation between change in mean LAP and change in MG (p = .98).ConclusionUnlike change in left atrial pressure, change in MG post‐MitraClip was not associated with patient reported outcomes at 30 days and did not correlate with change in left atrial pressure. Long‐term follow up is needed to evaluate the impact of LA pressure on symptoms.

Abstract Background Accurate molecular diagnostic tests are necessary for confirming a diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Direct detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleic acids in respiratory tract specimens informs patient, healthcare institution and public health level decision-making. The numbers of available SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection tests are rapidly increasing, as is the COVID-19 diagnostic literature. Thus, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) recognized a significant need for frequently updated systematic reviews of the literature to inform evidence-based best practice guidance. Objective The IDSA’s goal was to develop an evidence-based diagnostic guideline to assist clinicians, clinical laboratorians, patients and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification tests. In addition, we provide a conceptual framework for understanding molecular diagnostic test performance, discuss the nuance of test result interpretation in a variety of practice settings and highlight important unmet research needs in the COVID-19 diagnostic testing space. Methods IDSA convened a multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists, and experts in systematic literature review to identify and prioritize clinical questions and outcomes related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostics. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. Results The panel agreed on 17 diagnostic recommendations. Conclusions Universal access to accurate SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid testing is critical for patient care, hospital infection prevention and the public response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Information on the clinical performance of available tests is rapidly emerging, but the quality of evidence of the current literature is considered moderate to very low. Recognizing these limitations, the IDSA panel weighed available diagnostic evidence and recommends nucleic acid testing for all symptomatic individuals suspected of having COVID-19. In addition, testing is recommended for asymptomatic individuals with known or suspected contact with a COVID-19 case. Testing asymptomatic individuals without known exposure is suggested when the results will impact isolation/quarantine/personal protective equipment (PPE) usage decisions, dictate eligibility for surgery, or inform solid organ or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation timing. Ultimately, prioritization of testing will depend on institutional-specific resources and the needs of different patient populations.

AbstractBackgroundTranscatheter aortic valve‐in‐valve replacement (ViV) has been widely accepted as a less invasive alternative to treat failed aortic surgical or transcatheter bioprosthetic valves. Angulated aortas present an additional challenge, particularly when using self‐expanding transcatheter heart valves (SE‐THV).MethodsTwo patients with failed surgical bioprosthetic aortic valves and one patient with a failed transcatheter bioprosthetic aortic valve underwent transcatheter aortic ViV using SE‐THV. All were deemed high‐risk for surgical aortic valve replacement by a heart team. All three patients had initial failed SE‐THV delivery using a conventional approach with subsequent successful delivery using the endovascular snare technique.ResultsIn Cases 1 and 2, the SE‐THV was biased towards the greater curve of the angulated aorta and behind the outer frame of the bioprosthetic valve frame. An endovascular snare was deployed through a secondary left femoral artery access, and the valve delivery system was advanced through the snare in the ascending aorta. The snare was tightened around the SE‐THV capsule proximal to the hat‐marker, allowing deflection of the SE‐THV and successful delivery. In Case 3, the SE‐THV interacted with the tall frame of a failed SE‐THV. A snare via the left femoral artery was deployed in the descending artery. The SE‐THV was advanced through the snare, and both the snare and SE‐THV were advanced together to the ascending aorta where the SE‐THV was deflected and successfully delivered.ConclusionsThe endovascular snare technique is a feasible option for successful delivery of SE‐THV during transcatheter aortic ViV in failed transcatheter or surgical bioprosthetic valves in angulated aortas.

Abstract Background Older adults with severe aortic stenosis (AS) are at high risk of mortality unless surgical or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (AVR) is performed. Risk stratification often becomes complicated in frail elders with multi-morbidity, and time constraints limit thorough evaluation of geriatric comorbidities in the outpatient clinic setting. Purpose Utilization of an automated administratively-derived electronic health record (EHR) tool may aid in risk stratification of AS patients undergoing AVR. Methods We reviewed patients with severe AS undergoing AVR at our hospital program and cross-referenced with the Elder Risk Assessment (ERA) score. The ERA score is an administratively abstracted score derived on adults >60 years old followed by general medicine clinic. It contains the following variables: marital status, age, hospitalized days in preceding 2 years, diabetes, coronary disease, heart failure, stroke, pulmonary disease, cancer, and dementia; higher scores indicate greater risk for adverse outcomes. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival by ERA score tertile. Cox regression was used to test the association of ERA with survival. Results There were 97 patients with severe AS undergoing AVR with ERA scores. Mean age was 80.6 (±6.6) years, 37% were female, average Society of Thoracic Surgery (STS) score was 3.6% (± 2.6), and 7% had transcatheter AVR. Co-morbidities were prevalent and included atrial fibrillation (41%), chronic renal failure (16%), stroke (14%), and diabetes (35%). Over a mean follow-up of 68 months (± 37.9 months), there were 62 deaths. Elevated ERA score was associated with worse long term survival (p=0.016 by log-rank) (Figure 1), with only 49% surviving at 5 years in the highest ERA tertile vs 68% in the lowest ERA tertile. Cox regression demonstrated that the relative risk of death per 6 unit increase in ERA score was 1.54 (95% CI 1.21–1.96, P<0.001) in single variable analysis and 1.43 (95% CI 1.11–1.84, P=0.006) after adjusting for STS score. Conclusions Patients undergoing AVR for severe AS are often co-morbid older adults. An automated EHR derived ERA score was independently associated with survival after accounting for STS score and may streamline and improve risk assessment in these patients. Figure 1 Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Foundation. Main funding source(s): Mayo Clinic

Background: Smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) represents an intermediate stage between monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance and active myeloma with a high risk of progression to active MM, especially during the initial years after diagnosis. Available clinical risk factors have enabled development of risk stratification systems that allow for identification of patients at the highest risk of progression, opening opportunities for early intervention. Two phase 3 trials using lenalidomide with dexamethasone or lenalidomide alone have both shown benefit for early intervention by decreasing the risk of progression and improving the overall survival in the former. It remains unknown if an approach using a single active drug to delay progression, or one that uses therapies like active myeloma, represent a better approach; both are being studied in phase 3 trials. We designed this phase 2 trial to examine if an intense but limited duration therapy can possibly provide a significant elimination of the tumour burden that can potentially lead to long term responses. Patients and Methods: Patients with SMM (per updated IMWG definition of SMM) with high risk disease (defined by the IMWG updated risk stratification criteria- presence of any two of the following: Serum M spike > 2 gm/dL OR an involved to uninvolved FLC ratio > 20 OR bone marrow PC% > 20%) or a score of ≥9 using the risk scoring system using FLC ratio, serum M spike, marrow plasma cell% and presence of high risk FISH were enrolled provided they had adequate marrow and organ function. Patients with significant comorbidities such as heart disease were excluded from the trial. Treatment consisted of three phases: induction, consolidation and maintenance. Patients received carfilzomib (36 mg/m2 twice weekly or as per updated protocol 56mg/m2 weekly for 2 weeks), lenalidomide (25 mg daily for three weeks), daratumumab (weekly for 8 doses, every other week for 16 weeks) and dexamethasone 40 mg weekly, in 4 week cycles for 6 cycles as part of induction, the same regimen was administered with daratumumab every 4 weeks and dexamethasone 20 mg weekly for another 6 cycles for consolidation. This was followed by 12 cycles of maintenance therapy with lenalidomide (10 mg daily for three weeks), daratumumab (day 1 every other cycle) of a 4-week cycle. Appropriate antiviral, and thrombosis prophylaxis were mandated. The primary endpoint of this trial is the rate of confirmed sCR as best response across all cycles of treatment. We plan to accrue 83 patients to this trial with one-stage binomial trial design to test the null hypothesis that the true success (sCR) proportion is at most 65% and the alternate hypothesis of 80%. Results: Forty-six patients have been accrued to the trial as of July 14, 2020. The median age of the study population is 63 years (range 47 - 76); 70% are male. Overall, 2% have completed the maintenance, 50% have completed the consolidation, 80% have completed the induction and 15% are in the induction phase; only two patients have gone off treatment. The reasons for going off treatment were patient preference. At least one patient needed a dose modification for each drug; 17%, 2%, 13% and 7% required dose reductions for carfilzomib, daratumumab, lenalidomide and dexamethasone respectively. The relative median dose intensity for the drugs were 85%, 92%, 80% and 98% for carfilzomib, daratumumab, lenalidomide and dexamethasone respectively across the delivered cycles. The adverse events seen in at least 5% of the patients are as shown in the figure. A grade 3 or higher AE was seen in 52% of patients. There were no treatment related deaths observed. Response rate and depth have been as expected for this regimen in myeloma and analysis is pending completed accrual. Figure 1 Disclosures Kumar: Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Sanofi: Research Funding; Cellectar: Other; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; MedImmune: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding. Badros:Amgen: Consultancy; University of Maryland: Current Employment. Dhakal:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: AdvIsory Board, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Other: Advisory Board; GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Research Funding. Abonour:Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding. Rosenbaum:Celgene: Honoraria; Akcea: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Bensinger:GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Regeneron: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Bhutani:Prothena: Other: Clinical Trial Funding to Institute; Sanofi Genzyme: Consultancy; Janssen: Other: Clinical Trial Funding to Institute; BMS: Other: Clinical trial funding to institute, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; MedImmune: Other: Clinical Trial Funding to Institute; Takeda: Other: Clinical trial funding to institute, Speakers Bureau. Jakubowiak:AbbVie, Amgen, BMS/Celgene, GSK, Janssen, Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive, Juno: Consultancy, Honoraria. Durie:Amgen, Celgene, Johnson & Johnson, and Takeda: Consultancy.

Background: Multiple myeloma (MM) is an incurable plasma cell malignancy and genetic abnormalities contribute to disease heterogeneity and outcome. Primary abnormalities, namely recurrent immunoglobulin (Ig) heavy chain translocations and hyperdiploidy, occur early in disease course. Secondary events, such as MYC abnormalities occur upon progression. Earlier studies showed MYC abnormalities detected by FISH or by capture sequencing were independently associated with poor outcome (Walker, et al., BCJ, 2014), while recent studies using WGS did not support this finding (excluding MYC/IGL) (Mikulasova, et al. Haematologica, 2020; Misund, et al. Leukemia, 2020). We hypothesize these discrepancies are due to differences in methods and sensitivities of detection of MYC abnormalities by FISH vs. WGS. Given that MYC abnormalities often display remarkable genomic heterogeneity with numerous gene partners, reduced detection of MYC abnormalities by FISH is not unexpected. This hypothesis is supported by lower frequencies of MYC abnormalities found by FISH (15%) vs. NGS (30-35%) consistent with ~50% false-negative rate of the MYC FISH probe (Smadbeck, et al. BCJ, 2019). To better understand the role of MYC in myeloma disease outcome, we compared the MYC abnormality subtype identified by FISH or NGS vs. MYC gene expression levels and overall survival. Methods: We performed a retrospective study of newly diagnosed MM patients seen at Mayo Clinic or enrolled in the MMRF CoMMpass trial. For Mayo cases, MYC FISH results (breakapart probe, Abbott) were obtained from the Mayo Clinic Genomics database (N=1342) and mate pair sequencing (MPseq) was performed on 140 cases. For CoMMpass cases, we obtained tumor long-insert whole genome sequencing (WGS), RNA sequencing (RNAseq) for gene expression and clinical outcome data. Overall survival (OS) was defined as time from diagnosis to death from any cause or to last follow up. Survival curves were estimated using Kaplan Meier and compared using the Log-Rank test. Statistical analyses performed using SPSS and JMP with significance determined when P <0.05. Results: We first evaluated the impact of MYC abnormalities on OS when detected by FISH or NGS. In Mayo cases, OS was significantly shorter in patients with MYC abnormalities compared to patients without MYC abnormalities using FISH (5.3 vs. 8.0 years, P<0.001, N=1342). In contrast, there was no significant difference in OS between patients with or without MYC or abnormalities using MPseq or WGS in both the Mayo and CoMMpass cohorts (Mayo: 6.4 vs. and 6.9 years P=0.78, N=140; CoMMpass: 4.9 vs. and 5.1 years P=0.74, N=546). Since FISH-detected MYC abnormalities were associated with poor outcome, we evaluated differences in the types of MYC abnormalities identified FISH and genome sequencing; 270 of 658 CoMMpass cases had a MYC abnormality and 12 abnormality subgroups were identified. In the Mayo cases, FISH preferentially detected translocations and complex abnormalities and missed insertions with flanking duplicating sequences or terminal tandem duplications (TTD) that occur telomeric to MYC. Since the level of MYC expression should be a consequence of the various genomic abnormalities altering the MYC gene region, we compared MYC expression levels in relation to MYC abnormality subgroups. Highest expression was seen with MYC amplification, followed by Ig abnormalities, non-Ig abnormalities, complex deletion/duplications, proximal deletions, non-Ig insertions, terminal deletions, TTD, trisomy 8, no MYC structural variation, monosomy 8 and cases with MAX mutations had the lowest expression. Abnormalities identified by FISH had higher MYC expression (83.5 TPM) compared to cases predicted to be missed by FISH (63.2 TPM). We tested if high MYC expression, irrespective of MYC structural abnormality, was associated with differences in OS. Boxplot analysis was used to categorize MYC expression in 631 CoMMpass patients as top quartile/high MYC expression (Q4≥ 75 TPM, n=159) and bottom quartile/low MYC expression (Q1≤ 16.5 TPM, n= 158) (see Figure). OS was significantly shorter in patients with high MYC expression compared to patients with low MYC expression (4.6 vs. 5.3 years, P <0.038). Conclusion: We show that FISH detects only a subset of the MYC abnormalities detected by genome sequencing, and that FISH-detected MYC abnormalities are associated with higher MYC gene expression and decreased survival. Figure 1 Disclosures Kumar: Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Cellectar: Other; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Novartis: Research Funding; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genecentrix: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Sanofi: Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy.

Introduction: The utility of amyloidosis staging systems has been validated for newly diagnosed patients, but their role in restaging after starting treatment has not been explored. Given the high early mortality in this disease, restaging remote from the diagnosis may have clinical value. We designed this study to evaluate whether the currently used staging systems are prognostic when applied at 3 and 6 months from starting first-line treatment, and whether stage migration impacts survival. Methods: This is a retrospective study including patients with systemic light chain amyloidosis diagnosed between January, 1st 2006 and June, 30th 2019 and were seen in Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN within 90 days of diagnosis; the analysis included 535 and 301 patients who had restaging data available for at least one of the staging systems at 3 and 6 months, respectively. Patients were grouped into 4 stages using the 2015 European modification of the Mayo 2004 staging system based on values of cardiac biomarkers (cardiac troponin T and NTproBNP), and using the Mayo 2012 staging system based on cardiac biomarkers and the difference in serum free light chain concentration (dFLC). Overall survival (OS) was calculated from the time of re-staging until death or last follow up. Results: Using the modified Mayo 2004 staging system at 3 months from starting first-line treatment, median OS was 11.8 [95%CI: 11.4-not reached (NR)], 10.8 (95%CI: 9.4-NR), 4.6 (95%CI: 2.8-6.7), and 1.1 (95%CI: 0.7-2.6) years in patients with stage I, II, IIIa, and IIIb, respectively. Using Mayo 2012 staging at 3 months, OS was 11.8 (95%CI: 10.9-NR), 9.0 (95%CI: 6.2-NR), 5.2 (95%CI: 3.3-6.1), and 0.8 (95%CI: 0.7-1.1) years in patients with stage I, II, III, and IV, respectively (Figure 1a &b). Using the modified Mayo 2004 staging system at 6 months from starting first-line treatment, median OS was NR (95%CI: NR-NR), 9.8 (95%CI: 6.2-NR), 5.4 (95%CI: 3.2-9.0) and 0.9 (95%CI: 0.6-3.7) years in patients with stage I, II, IIIa, and IIIb, respectively. Using Mayo 2012 staging at 6 months, OS was NR (95%CI: 8.4-NR), NR (95%CI: 7.9-NR), 4.6 (95%CI: 3.0-6.5), and 0.9 (95%CI: 0.2-1.8) years in patients with stage I, II, III, and IV, respectively (Figure 1c &d). On multivariate analysis, advanced (stage > 2) modified Mayo 2004 stage (HR: 1.6, P=0.004) and advanced (stage > 2) Mayo 2012 stage (HR: 2.4, P<0.001) at 3 months were associated with decreased survival independent of cardiac response, hematologic response, and transplantation status. Although advanced Mayo 2004 stage at 6 months was associated with decreased survival, it was not statistically significant (HR: 1.5, P=0.09). In contrast, advanced Mayo 2012 stage at 6 months was independently associated with decreased survival (HR: 2.1, P=0.02). For both systems, worsening stage at 3 months or at 6 months was associated with a worse survival than retaining the original stage. In contrast, improving stage as compared to remaining in same stage was not associated with better survival at 3 or 6 months (Table 1). When the analysis was restricted to patients who had an advanced stage at diagnosis, improving stage at 3 months was associated with longer survival compared to retaining the original stage, with both modified Mayo 2004 (10.8 vs. 3.3 years, P<0.001) and Mayo 2012 (8.1 vs. 2.6 years, P<0.001) staging systems. At 6 months, stage improvement was associated with longer survival than retaining the original stage when the modified Mayo 2004 staging system was used (NR vs. 5.0 years, P=0.02), but it was not statistically significant when the Mayo 2012 staging system was used (5.9 vs. 3.7 years, P=0.12). Conclusion: The modified Mayo 2004 and the Mayo 2012 staging systems have independent prognostic value when used for restaging after 3 and 6 months from initiation of first-line treatment. Migration to a higher stage from diagnosis predicts decreased survival, compared to retaining the same stage. Stage improvement is associated with a better OS in patients with advanced stage at diagnosis. Disclosures Dispenzieri: Alnylam, Intellia, Janssen, Takeda, Pfizer, Prothena, Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Kapoor:GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy. Dingli:Rigel: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy. Lin:Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sorrento: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gamida Cells: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Legend BioTech: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Vineti: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding. Gertz:Alnylam: Consultancy; NCI SPORE MM: Research Funding; Ionis/Akcea: Consultancy; Amyloidosis Foundation: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Advisory Board for Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Advisory Board for Proclara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; i3Health: Consultancy; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Prothena: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Annexon: Consultancy; Appellis: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy; Data Safety Monitoring board from Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; International Waldenstrom Foundation: Research Funding. Kumar:Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Cellectar: Other; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Karyopharm: Consultancy; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Sanofi: Research Funding.

Background. Participant withdrawal from clinical trials occurs for various reasons, predominantly adverse effects or intervention inefficacy. Because these missing participant data can have implications for the validity, reproducibility, and generalizability of study results, when conducting a systematic review, it is important to collect and appropriately analyze missing data information to assess its effects on the robustness of the study results. Methods. In this methodologic survey of missing participant data reporting and handling in systematic reviews, we included meta-analyses that provided pooled estimates of at least 1 dichotomous intervention outcome of a randomized controlled trial performed in adult kidney transplant subjects. Results. Eighty-three systematic reviews (17 Cochrane and 66 non-Cochrane reviews) met the inclusion criteria. The most common intervention was drugs (80%), with the majority involving immunosuppressant drugs 55% (n = 46), followed by surgery in 14% (n = 12). The median follow-up duration was 12 months (maximum, 240 mo). Intention-to-treat or modified intention-to-treat analysis was reported in 24% (n = 20) of the reviews (76% of Cochrane and 10% of non-Cochrane). Overall, the majority of systematic reviews did not quantify (90% [n = 60] non-Cochrane and 29% [n = 5] Cochrane) or include the reasons for missing participant data (88% [n = 58] non-Cochrane and 24% [n = 4] Cochrane). Eleven percent (n = 9) handled missing participant data, 5% (n = 4) justified the analytical method(s) used to handle it, and 2% (n = 2) performed a sensitivity analysis for it. Conclusions. Systematic reviews of kidney transplantation provide inadequate information on missing participant data and usually do not handle or discuss the associated risk of bias with it.

ABSTRACTObjectivesTo determine how self-reported level of exposure to patients with novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) affected the perceived safety, training and well-being of residents and fellows.MethodsWe administered an anonymous, voluntary, web-based survey to a convenience sample of trainees worldwide. The survey was distributed by email and social media posts from April 20th to May 11th, 2020. Respondents were asked to estimate the number of patients with COVID-19 they cared for in March and April 2020 (0, 1–30, 31–60, >60). Survey questions addressed (1) safety and access to personal protective equipment (PPE), (2) training and professional development and (3) well-being and burnout.ResultsSurveys were completed by 1420 trainees (73% residents, 27% fellows), most commonly from the USA (n=670), China (n=150), Saudi Arabia (n=76) and Taiwan (n=75). Trainees who cared for a greater number of patients with COVID-19 were more likely to report limited access to PPE and COVID-19 testing and more likely to test positive for COVID-19. Compared with trainees who did not take care of patients with COVID-19 , those who took care of 1–30 patients (adjusted OR [AOR] 1.80, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.51), 31–60 patients (AOR 3.30, 95% CI 1.86 to 5.88) and >60 patients (AOR 4.03, 95% CI 2.12 to 7.63) were increasingly more likely to report burnout. Trainees were very concerned about the negative effects on training opportunities and professional development irrespective of the number of patients with COVID-19 they cared for.ConclusionExposure to patients with COVID-19 is significantly associated with higher burnout rates in physician trainees.