Citations

Objective To describe the process and outcome of creating a patient cohort in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in order to better understand the process of and predict the outcomes of COVID-19. Patients and Methods A total of 1169 adults aged 18 years of age or older who tested positive in Mayo Clinic Rochester or the Mayo Clinic Midwest Health System between January 1 and May 23 of 2020. Results Patients were on average 43.9 years of age and 50.7% were female. Most patients were white (69.0%), and Blacks (23.4%) and Asians (5.8%) were also represented in larger numbers. Hispanics represented 16.3% of the sample. Just under half of patients were married (48.4%). Common comorbid conditions included: cardiovascular diseases (25.1%), dyslipidemia (16.0%), diabetes mellitus (11.2%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (6.6%), asthma (7.5%), and cancer (5.1%). All other comorbid conditions were less the 5% in prevalence. Data on 3 comorbidity indices are also available including the: DHHS multi-morbidity score, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and Mayo Clinic COVID-19 Risk Factor Score. Conclusion In addition to managing the ever raging pandemic and growing death rates, it is equally important that we develop adequate resources for the investigation and understanding of COVID-19-related predictors and outcomes.

Human immunodeficiency virus types 1 and 2 (HIV-1 and HIV-2) diagnostic testing algorithms recommended by the Centers for Disease Control involve up to three tests and rely mostly on detection of viral antigen and host antibody responses. HIV-1 p24 antigen/HIV-1/HIV-2 antibody-reactive specimens are confirmed with an immunochromatographic HIV-1/HIV-2 antibody differentiation assay, and negative or indeterminate results from the differentiation assay are resolved by an HIV-1-specific nucleic acid amplification test (NAT).

Introduction: Currently, there are multiple intracorporeal lithotripters available for use in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). This study aimed to evaluate the efficiency of two novel lithotripters: Trilogy and ShockPulse-SE. Materials and Methods: This is a prospective multi-institutional randomized trial comparing outcomes of PCNL using two novel lithotripters between February 2019 and June 2020. The study assessed objective measures of stone clearance time, stone clearance rate, device malfunction, stone-free rates, and complications. Device assessment was provided through immediate postoperative survey by primary surgeons. Results: There were 100 standard PCNLs completed using either a Trilogy or ShockPulse-SE lithotrite. Using quantitative Stone Analysis Software to estimate stone volume, the mean stone volume was calculated at 4.18 ± 4.79 and 3.86 ± 3.43 cm 3 for the Trilogy and ShockPulse-SE groups, respectively. Stone clearance rates were found to be 1.22 ± 1.67 and 0.77 ± 0.68 cm 3 /min for Trilogy vs ShockPulse-SE ( p = 0.0542). When comparing Trilogy to ShockPulse-SE in a multivariate analysis, total operative room time (104.4 ± 48.2 minutes vs 121.1 ± 59.2 minutes p = 0.126), rates of secondary procedures (17.65% vs 40.81%, p = 0.005), and device malfunctions (1.96% vs 34.69%, p < 0.001) were less, respectively. There was no difference in final stone-free rates between devices. Conclusion: Both the Trilogy and ShockPulse-SE lithotripters are highly efficient at removing large renal stones. In this study, we noted differences between the two devices including fewer device malfunctions when Trilogy device was utilized. Clinical Trial ID number: NCT03959683

Objective To estimate the health care workers (HCWs) self-reported stress, resilience, and coping during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to determine inter-professional differences. Participants and Methods An email survey was sent to 474 HCW at a Midwestern HealthCare facility between April 9, 2020 and April 30, 2020. A total of 311 (65.6%) responses were received by May 31, 2020. The survey utilized 3 validated instruments: Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), Brief Resilience Scale (BRS), Brief Resilience Coping Scale (BRCS). Results Of the 311 responses, 302 were evaluated: 97 from nonmedical staff with patient contact (NMPC); 86 from nonmedical staff with no patient contact (NMNPC); 62 from medical doctors (MD), physician assistants (PA) and nurse practitioners (NP); and 57 from nurses. Significant differences were noted across job categories for stress and resilience, with nurses reporting highest PSS scores (effect estimates: −2.72, P = .009 for NMNPC; −2.50, P = .015 for NMPC; −3.21, P = .006 for MD/NP/PA respectively), and MD/NP/PA group with highest BRS scores: nurses (−0.31, P = .02); NMPC (−0.3333, P = .01); and NMNPC (−0.2828, P = .02). Younger personnel had higher stress (−1.59 per decade of age, P < .01) and more resilience (0.11 per decade of age, P = .002). Conclusion These self-reported data indicate that MD/NP/PA had the highest resilience scores and the nurses had highest stress levels. Efforts are warranted to include all HCWs in systematic stress mitigating interventions with particular attention to understand specific factors contributing to stress for the nursing team.

Previous studies show that patient complaints can identify gaps in quality of care, but it is difficult to identify trends without categorization. We conducted a review of complaints relating to admissions on hospital internal medicine (HIM) services over a 26-month period. Data were collected on person characteristics and key features of the complaint. The complaints were also categorized into a previously published taxonomy. Seventy-six unsolicited complaints were identified, (3.5 per 1000 hospital admissions). Complaints were more likely on resident services. The mean duration between encounter and complaint was 18 days, and it took an average of 12 days to resolve the complaint. Most patients (59%) had a complaint in the Relationship domain. Thirty-nine percent of complaints mentioned a specific clinician. When a clinician was mentioned, complaints regarding communication and humaneness predominated (68%). The results indicate that the efforts to reduce patient complaints in HIM should focus on the Relationships domain.

Background and aim Mechanical thrombectomy (MT) for large vessel occlusion often requires multiple passes to retrieve the entire thrombus load. In this multi-institutional study we sought to examine the composition of thrombus fragments retrieved with each pass during MT. Methods Patients who required multiple passes during thrombectomy were included. Histopathological evaluation of thrombus fragments retrieved from each pass was performed using Martius Scarlet Blue staining and the composition of each thrombus component including RBC, fibrin and platelet was determined using image analysis software. Results 154 patients underwent MT and 868 passes was performed which resulted in 263 thrombus fragments retrieval. The analysis of thrombus components per pass showed higher RBC, lower fibrin and platelet composition in the pass 1 and 2 when compared to pass 3 and passes 4 or more combined (P values <0.05). There were no significant differences between thrombus fragments retrieved in pass 1 and pass 2 in terms of RBC, WBC, fibrin, and platelet composition (P values >0.05). Similarly, when each composition of thrombus fragments retrieved in pass 3 and passes 4 or more combined were compared with each other, no significant difference was noted (P values >0.05). Conclusion Our findings confirm that thrombus fragments retrieved with each pass differed significantly in histological content. Fragments in the first passes were associated with lower fibrin and platelet composition compared to fragments retrieved in passes three and four or higher. Also, thrombus fragments retrieved after failed pass were associated with higher fibrin and platelet components.

Abstract Background: Sapacitabine is a novel oral nucleoside analogue with a unique ability to induce single-strand DNA breaks after incorporation into DNA, leading to production of double-strand DNA breaks and/or G2 cell cycle arrest. In AML cell lines, the active metabolite of sapacitabine, CNDAC, is synergistic with hypomethylating agents (HMAs) particularly when treated with HMAs first. In a pilot study, there were 6 CRs and 2 PRs in 25 patients treated with sapacitabine in alternating cycles with decitabine. This global randomized phase 3 study evaluated the survival benefit of this treatment strategy vs. decitabine monotherapy. Methods: Decitabine 20 mg/m2 was administered intravenously daily x 5 days of a 4-week cycle (for the control arm and odd cycles of the study arm) alternating with sapacitabine 300 mg p.o. b.i.d. x 3 days/week x 2 weeks of a 4-week cycle (even cycles of the study arm). The safety of these doses was further evaluated in the lead-in phase of the phase 3 study to confirm the findings from the pilot study. Eligible patients were ≥70 years with untreated AML and unsuitable for or unwilling to receive standard induction chemotherapy. Patients who had received HMAs for prior MDS or MPD were excluded. Results: For 482 patients randomized to receive decitabine/sapacitabine (n=241) vs. decitabine only (n=241), randomization was stratified by the presence of antecedent MDS or MPN, peripheral white blood cell count (WBC &lt;10,000 vs. ≥10,000) and bone marrow blast percentage (≥50% vs. &lt; 50%). Median age was 77 years (range 70-90), and 317 patients had de novo AML (66%), 165 secondary AML (34%). WBC was ≥10,000 in 161 patients (33%) and &gt;40,000 in 59 patients (12%); 194 patients (40%) had unfavorable cytogenetic risk by SWOG criteria. Disease characteristics were well balanced in both arms. In total, 13.7% of patients achieved CR, more on the study arm vs. control (16.6% vs. 10.8%). A total of 37.3% treated patients received ≥5 cycles of treatment, similar on both arms, as were 30- and 60-day death rates. Median overall survival was 5.9 months on the study arm vs. 5.7 months on control arm, which did not reach a statistically significant difference. In the subgroup of patients with &lt;10,000 WBC (n=321), median overall survival was higher on the study arm vs. control arm (8.0 months vs. 5.8 months), as was CR rate (21.5% vs. 8.6%). Grade 3 or higher adverse events (regardless of causality) that occurred in &gt;10% patients were thrombocytopenia, anemia, neutropenia, pneumonia, febrile neutropenia, sepsis, and disease progression. Conclusion: The regimen of sapacitabine administered in alternating cycles with decitabine was active and well tolerated but it did not significantly improve overall survival as compared to decitabine monotherapy. Further analyses are being conducted to characterize the subgroups of patients who appeared to have benefited from this treatment regimen and the potential cost savings associated with the use of an oral drug. Disclosures Kantarjian: Amgen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Delta-Fly Pharma: Research Funding; ARIAD: Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Goldberg: Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; COTA: Employment, Equity Ownership; Pfizer: Honoraria; Ariad: Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Speakers Bureau. Sekeres: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Strickland: Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; CTI BioPharma: Consultancy; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharamaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Baxalta: Consultancy; Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Astellas Pharma: Honoraria. Rubenstein: Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau. Arellano: Cephalon Oncology: Research Funding. Schiller: bluebird bio: Research Funding; mateon therapeutics: Research Funding. Gaidano: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Montesinos: Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding. Rizzieri: Shire: Research Funding; Erytech: Research Funding. Subramanian: Boehringer-Ingelheim, Lilly, BMS, Astra-Zeneca, Pfizer, Biocept: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Buyse: IDDI: Employment, Equity Ownership. Chiao: Cyclacel LTD: Employment, Equity Ownership.

AbstractThe clinical outcomes for infants with malignant tumors are often worse than older children due to a combination of more biologically aggressive disease in some cases, and increased toxicity—or deintensification of therapies due to concern for toxicity—in others. Especially in infants and very young children, finding the appropriate balance between maximizing treatment efficacy while minimizing toxicity—in particular late side effects—is crucial. We review here the management of malignant tumors in infants and very young children, focusing on central nervous system (CNS) malignancies and rhabdomyosarcoma.