Citations

Abstract Background Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia (HAP), defined as pneumonia that occurs 48 hours or more after hospital admission, is considered a part of the health care-associated infections (HAIs). HAIs are one of the top ten causes of death in the United States. Correct diagnosis of HAIs is key to reducing its impact, however, the diagnosis of HAP is challenging because clinical findings are nonspecific and there is no combination of signs, symptoms, and laboratory or imaging results that can predict this diagnosis with a good sensitivity or specificity. This study aims to clarify the prioritization of clinical elements considered in the diagnosis of HAP by physicians at our center. Methods This is a cross-sectional study at a large, tertiary care academic center in Miami, Florida. The target population included hospitalists, internal medicine residents, critical care and infectious disease fellows. REDCap was used to administer the survey and collect data. A rank individual analysis was conducted to assess for the most significant diagnostic criteria overall. Kruskal-Wallis analysis was conducted to assess for significance of the individual diagnostic criteria. Results At the end of the survey period, 130 people responded (45.8% of sent surveys). Overall Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test of the systemic factors showed significant differences between the diagnostic criteria chosen. The presence of a new or worsening infiltrate on imaging was selected as most important. After that, fever, a positive respiratory culture, worsening hypoxia and new cough and shortness of breath were in the second tier of important criteria (Figure 1). The median number of factors needed to have HAP in the differential diagnosis and start empiric treatment was 3, while the needed number to secure the diagnosis of HAP was 4. In an immunocompromised patient, the median number of factors needed was 2 (Figure 2). Color red, represents selection 1 - meaning, the larger the tab, it means that specific factor was highly considered as the first factor in the diagnosis of HAP. Color green represents second most selected factor Color blue represents third most selected factor Upper box: median number of factors needed to secure the diagnosis of HAP Mid box: median number of factors needed to include HAP as the differential diagnosis in an immunocompromised patient Lower box: media number of factors needed to have HAP in the differential and start empirical treatment Conclusion In this study, we observed that the most highly considered criteria for the diagnosis of HAP are new or worsening infiltrate on imaging, new or worsening hypoxia, and respiratory cultures with growth of a classical respiratory pathogen. Most of these criteria are part of the IDSA guidelines on the evaluation and treatment of HAP. Future directions include developing a decision support tool for diagnosing HAP. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures.

INTRODUCTION: The periprocedural management of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) using a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) undergoing elective gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedure remains uncertain. We investigated the safety of a standardized periprocedural DOAC management strategy. METHODS: The Periprocedural Anticoagulation Use for Surgery Evaluation cohort study enrolled adult patients receiving a DOAC (apixaban, rivaroxaban, or dabigatran) for AF scheduled for an elective procedure or surgery. This analysis addresses patients undergoing digestive endoscopy. Standardized periprocedural management consisted of DOAC interruption 1 day preendoscopy with resumption 1 day after procedure at low-moderate risk of bleeding or 2 days in case of a high bleeding risk. Thirty-day outcomes included GI bleeding, thromboembolic events, and mortality. RESULTS: Of 556 patients on a DOAC (mean [SD] age of 72.5 [8.6] years; 37.4% female; mean CHADS 2 score 1.7 [1.0]), 8.6% were also on American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) and 0.7% on clopidogrel. Most of the patients underwent colonoscopies (63.3%) or gastroscopies (14.0%), with 18.9% having both on the same procedural day. The mean total duration of DOAC interruption was 3.9 ± 1.6 days. Four patients experienced an arterial thromboembolic event (0.7%, 0.3%–1.8%) within 24.2 ± 5.9 days of DOAC interruption. GI bleeding events occurred in 2.5% (1.4%–4.2%) within 11.1 ± 8.1 days (range: 0.6; 25.5 days) of endoscopy, with major GI bleeding in 0.9% (0.4%–2.1%). Three patients died (0.5%; 0.2%–1.6%) 15.6–22.3 days after the endoscopy. DISCUSSION: After a contemporary standardized periprocedural management strategy, patients with AF undergoing DOAC therapy interruption for elective digestive endoscopy experienced low rates of arterial thromboembolism and major bleeding.

Abstract An antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) comprises a monoclonal antibody that is specific to a tumor cell protein, bound to a cytotoxic agent, known as the payload. The use of ADCs is already common practice in several cancers, thanks to their efficacy and potentially more manageable toxicity profile, resulting from the release of the cytostatic payload directly in the tumors. Currently, early-phase trials of ADCs in non–small cell lung cancer are rapidly gaining ground, with promising results targeting HER2 (human epidermal growth factor 2), HER3, TROP2 (trophoblast cell surface antigen 2), MET, CEACAM5 (carcinoembryonic antigen–related cell adhesion molecule 5), and PTK7 (tyrosine protein kinase–like 7). Unfortunately, in small cell lung cancer, trials targeting the ubiquitous DLL3 (delta-like ligand 3) protein have failed to show clinically relevant results, despite significant toxicity.

Abstract IDH mutant gliomas depend on glutaminase for glutamate/glutathione generation from glutamine because R-2-hydroxyglutarate inhibits branched chain amino acid transaminase mediated glutamate biosynthesis. Telaglenastat (CB-839 HCl) is a potent glutaminase-1 specific inhibitor which depletes tumor glutamate in orthotopic IDH mutant glioma PDX models and extends survival in these orthotopic models when added to radiation/temozolomide. NCI-10218 (NCT03528642) is a phase I clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of telaglenastat administered orally concurrently with standard doses of radiation (50.4 Gy, grade 2; 59.4 Gy, grade 3) and temozolomide (75 mg/m2 orally daily) in patients (age 16+) with previously untreated IDH mutant grade 2/3 astrocytoma. Telaglenastat dose was escalated in cohorts (400-800 mg twice daily) based on a standard 3 + 3 design to determine the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). Toxicities were graded per CTCAE v5.0. An expansion cohort additionally incorporated a seven-day run-in of telaglenastat monotherapy at RP2D prior to radiation to evaluate the pharmacodynamic impact of telaglenastat on plasma and tumor metabolites. 23 patients with IDH mutant astrocytoma (WHO grade 2, n = 5; WHO grade 3, n = 18) were accrued between December 2018 and January 2022 (Dose Escalation: 16; Dose Expansion: 7). Median age was 32 years (range 23-69 years). 61% were male and 70% were ECOG 0. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed. Grade 3/4 adverse events (independent of attribution) included: lymphopenia (3), neutropenia (2), leukocytosis (2), alanine transaminase elevation (2), thrombocytopenia (1), leukopenia (1), maculopapular rash (1), hyperglycemia (1), hyponatremia (1). The RP2D of concurrent telaglenastat was defined as 800 mg twice daily. Following peak absorption on Day 15 at RP2D, the mean (%CV) terminal elimination half-life in the plasma was 4.2 (53.5%) hours (range 2.1-7.1 hours). The Cmax, Tmax, oral clearance, and AUC were 1496 ng/mL, 4.0 hr, 93.6 L/hr/m2, and 7430 ng/mL*hr, respectively.

Summary Background MRx1234 is a live biotherapeutic product that contains a strain of Blautia hydrogenotrophica. It is in development for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Aims To assess the efficacy and safety of MRx1234 in patients with IBS with predominant constipation (IBS‐C) or diarrhoea (IBS‐D) Methods We conducted a multicentre, randomised, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, phase 2 trial. Patients aged 18–70 years in two parallel cohorts (IBS‐C; IBS‐D) were randomised (1:1) to MRx1234 or placebo for 8 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was overall responder rate—a composite of improved bowel habit (IBS‐C: stool frequency; IBS‐D: stool consistency) and abdominal pain intensity—for ≥50% of the treatment period in each cohort. Statistical testing was at a one‐sided 0.10 significance level. Results Of 366 randomised patients (164 IBS‐C; 202 IBS‐D), 365 received any study medication (177 MRx1234, 188 placebo). Numerically, although not statistically significantly different, more patients who received MRx1234 than placebo were overall responders in the IBS‐C (25.0% vs. 17.1%) and IBS‐D (23.4% vs. 17.8%) cohorts. Similar results were observed in the additional combined cohort analysis (24.1% vs. 17.5%; p = 0.063). For the components of the primary endpoint, significantly more patients on MRx1234 than placebo reported improvement in bowel habit in the IBS‐C, IBS‐D and combined cohorts, while improvements in abdominal pain were observed in each cohort. The safety profile of MRx1234 was similar to placebo. Conclusions MRx1234 has the potential to become a novel, safe treatment option for patients with IBS‐C or IBS‐D, and for those who have mixed symptoms or transition between subtypes. ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT03721107.

ImportanceCytokine storm due to COVID-19 can cause high morbidity and mortality and may be more common in patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy (IO) due to immune system activation.ObjectiveTo determine the association of baseline immunosuppression and/or IO-based therapies with COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included 12 046 patients reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from March 2020 to May 2022. The CCC19 registry is a centralized international multi-institutional registry of patients with COVID-19 with a current or past diagnosis of cancer. Records analyzed included patients with active or previous cancer who had a laboratory-confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction and/or serologic findings.ExposuresImmunosuppression due to therapy; systemic anticancer therapy (IO or non-IO).Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was a 5-level ordinal scale of COVID-19 severity: no complications; hospitalized without requiring oxygen; hospitalized and required oxygen; intensive care unit admission and/or mechanical ventilation; death. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of cytokine storm.ResultsThe median age of the entire cohort was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 54-74) years and 6359 patients were female (52.8%) and 6598 (54.8%) were non-Hispanic White. A total of 599 (5.0%) patients received IO, whereas 4327 (35.9%) received non-IO systemic anticancer therapies, and 7120 (59.1%) did not receive any antineoplastic regimen within 3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Although no difference in COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm was found in the IO group compared with the untreated group in the total cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56-1.13, and aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.41-1.93, respectively), patients with baseline immunosuppression treated with IO (vs untreated) had worse COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm (aOR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.38-8.01, and aOR, 4.41; 95% CI, 1.71-11.38, respectively). Patients with immunosuppression receiving non-IO therapies (vs untreated) also had worse COVID-19 severity (aOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.36-2.35) and cytokine storm (aOR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.42-3.79).Conclusions and RelevanceThis cohort study found that in patients with cancer and COVID-19, administration of systemic anticancer therapies, especially IO, in the context of baseline immunosuppression was associated with severe clinical outcomes and the development of cytokine storm.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04354701

Abstract: Direct data abstraction from a patient’s chart by experienced medical professional data abstractors has been the historical gold standard for quality and accuracy in clinical medical research. The limiting challenge to population-wide studies for quality and public health purposes is the high personnel costs associated with very large-scale efforts of this type. Two historically related programs that are at least partially able to successfully circumvent this problem and provide high-quality data relating to surgical procedures and the early postoperative period are reviewed in this article. Both utilize similar data abstraction efforts by specially trained and qualified medical abstractors of a sample subset of the total procedures performed at participating hospitals. The Veterans Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Program (VASQIP), detailed by Nicholas J. Giori, MD, PhD, in the first section of this article, makes use of trained abstractors and has undergone recent additions and updates, including the development of an associated total hip registry for the VA system. The data elements and data integrity provided by both of these programs establish important benchmarks for other “big data” efforts, which often attempt to use alternative less-expensive methods of data collection in order to achieve more widespread or even nationwide data collection. In the second section, Elizabeth B. Habermann, PhD, MPH, provides a detailed review of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP), the data elements collected, and examples of the range of quality improvement and outcomes studies in orthopaedic surgery that it has made possible, along with information on data that have not been collected and the resulting limitations. The ACS NSQIP was actually modeled after the very similar earlier effort started by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).