Citations

ABSTRACTBackgroundPatients with ulcerative colitis (UC) who are hospitalised for acute severe flares represent a high‐risk orphan population.AimTo provide guidance for clinical trial design methodology in these patients.MethodsWe created a multi‐centre consortium to design and conduct a clinical trial for a novel therapeutic intervention (hyperbaric oxygen therapy) in patients with UC hospitalised for moderate–severe flares. During planning, we identified and addressed specific gaps for inclusion/exclusion criteria; disease activity measures; pragmatic trial design considerations within care pathways for hospitalised patients; standardisation of care delivery; primary and secondary outcomes; and sample size and statistical analysis approaches.ResultsThe Truelove‐Witt criteria should not be used in isolation. Endoscopy is critical for defining eligible populations. Patient‐reported outcomes should include rectal bleeding and stool frequency, with secondary measurement of urgency and nocturnal bowel movements. Trial design needs to be tailored to care pathways, with early intervention focused on replacing and/or optimising responsiveness to steroids and later interventions focused on testing novel rescue agents or strategies. The PRECIS‐2 framework offers a means of tailoring to local populations. We provide standardisation of baseline testing, venous thromboprophylaxis, steroid dosing, discharge criteria and post‐discharge follow‐up to avoid confounding by usual care variability. Statistical considerations are provided given the small clinical trial nature of this population.ConclusionWe provide an outline for framework decisions made for the hyperbaric oxygen trial in patients hospitalised for UC flares. Future research should focus on the remaining gaps identified.

BACKGROUND: Global collaboration in cardio-oncology is needed to understand the prevalence of cancer therapy-related cardiovascular toxicity in different risk groups, practice settings, and geographic locations. There are limited data on the socioeconomic and racial/ethnic disparities that may impact access to care and outcomes. To address these gaps, we established the Global Cardio-Oncology Registry, a multinational, multicenter prospective registry. METHODS: We assembled cardiologists and oncologists from academic and community settings to collaborate in the first Global Cardio-Oncology Registry. Subsequently, a survey for site resources, demographics, and intention to participate was conducted. We designed an online data platform to facilitate this global initiative. RESULTS: A total of 119 sites responded to an online questionnaire on their practices and main goals of the registry: 49 US sites from 23 states and 70 international sites from 5 continents indicated a willingness to participate in the Global Cardio-Oncology Registry. Sites were more commonly led by cardiologists (85/119; 72%) and were more often university/teaching (81/119; 68%) than community based (38/119; 32%). The average number of cardio-oncology patients treated per month was 80 per site. The top 3 Global Cardio-Oncology Registry priorities in cardio-oncology care were breast cancer, hematologic malignancies, and patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Executive and scientific committees and specific committees were established. A pilot phase for breast cancer using Research Electronic Data Capture Cloud platform recently started patient enrollment. CONCLUSIONS: We present the structure for a global collaboration. Information derived from the Global Cardio-Oncology Registry will help understand the risk factors impacting cancer therapy-related cardiovascular toxicity in different geographic locations and therefore contribute to reduce access gaps in cardio-oncology care. Risk calculators will be prospectively derived and validated.

Introduction: Global collaboration in cardio-oncology (CO) is needed to understand the prevalence of cancer treatment related cardiovascular disease (CTRCD) in different risk groups, practice settings and geographic locations. Furthermore, socio-economic and ethnic disparities may impact access to care. Methods: We assembled cardiologists (CA) and oncologists from academic and community settings to collaborate in the first global cardio-oncology registry (G-COR). US and international CO physicians participated in the first global virtual meeting to assess feasibility and structure for G-COR. Subsequently, a survey for sites resources, demographics and intention to participate was conducted. Results: Responses with sites demographics from 104/140 sites invited: 43 US sites from 23 states and 61 international sites from 5 continents indicated decision to participate in G-COR. Sites were more commonly led by CA (74/99) than CA and oncologists (25/99) and were more often University/teaching (68/101) than community based (33/101). Significant minorities/disadvantaged CO patient population were reported by 32/43 US sites versus 16/60 international sites. Average number CO patients treated per month was 83, range (5-1,000). Breast cancer was the first or second G-COR priority for 84 centers, hematological malignancies (HEM) for 66 centers, and immune check point inhibitors (ICI) for 36 centers. Echocardiography with strain imaging is available in 92/95 participating sites and cardiac MRI in 80/86 sites. Biomarkers are used only in suspected or confirmed CTRCD in 56/96 sites and for risk stratification in high risk patients in 40/96 sites. Subsequently, scientific committee and topic committees for breast cancer, HEM, ICI, and disparities in CO were established. A pilot phase utilizing a RedCap Cloud platform will start enrolling patients in the last quarter of 2021 and the registry for all main pillars will launch in early 2022. Conclusions: We present a global initiative for conducting collaborative research. Information learned G-COR will help understanding risk factors impacting CTRCD in different geographic locations and therefore help reducing access gaps in CO care. Additionally, mitigating strategies can be devised for the future.

Abstract BackgroundRe-allocation of resources during the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in delays in care delivery to patients with cardiovascular disease and cancer. The ability of health care providers to provide optimal care in this setting has not been formally evaluated.ObjectivesTo assess the impact of COVID-19 resource re-allocation on scheduling, testing, elective procedures, telemedicine access, use of new COVID-19 therapies, and providers’ opinions on healthcare policies among oncology and cardiology practitioners.MethodsAn electronic survey was conducted by a cardio-oncology collaborative network through regional and state chapters of the American College of Cardiology , American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the International Cardio-Oncology Society. Descriptive statistics were reported by frequency and proportion for analyses, and stratified categorically by geographic region and specialty.Results1,415 providers (43 countries) participated: 986 cardiologists, 306 oncologists, and 118 trainees/internal medicine. 63% (195/306) of oncologists vs 92% (896/976) of cardiologists reported cancellations of treatments/elective procedures (p=0.01). 46% (442/970) of cardiologists and 25% (76/303) of oncologists modified the scope of their practice (p=<0.001). Academic physicians (74.5%) felt better supplied with personal protective equipment (PPE) vs non-academic (74.5% vs 67.2%; p=0.018). Telemedicine was less common in Europe 81% (74/91), and Latin America 64% (101/158), than the United States, 88% (950/1,097) (p=<0.001). 95% of all groups supported more active leadership from medical professional societies.ConclusionsThese results support initiatives to promote expanded coverage for telemedicine, increased access to PPE, better testing availability and involvement of medical professional societies to help with preparedness for future health care crisis.Appendix: Link to the Survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/C8ZDYNW

SummaryBackgroundHyperbaric oxygen has been reported to improve disease activity in hospitalised ulcerative colitis (UC) patients.AimTo evaluate dosing strategies with hyperbaric oxygen for hospitalised UC patients.MethodsWe enrolled UC patients hospitalised for acute flares (Mayo score 6‐12). Initially, all patients received 3 days of hyperbaric oxygen at 2.4 atmospheres (90 minutes with two air breaks) in addition to intravenous steroids. Day 3 responders (reduction of partial Mayo score ≥ 2 points and rectal bleeding score ≥ 1 point) were randomised to receive a total of 5 days vs 3 days of hyperbaric oxygen.ResultsWe treated 20 patients with hyperbaric oxygen (75% prior biologic failure). Day 3 response was achieved in 55% (n = 11/20), with significant reductions in stool frequency, rectal bleeding and CRP (P < 0.01). A more significant reduction in disease activity was observed with 5 days vs 3 days of hyperbaric oxygen (P = 0.03). Infliximab or colectomy was required in only three patients (15%) despite a predicted probability of 80% for second‐line therapy. Day 3 hyperbaric oxygen responders were less likely to require re‐hospitalisation or colectomy by 3 months vs non‐responders (0% vs 66%, P = 0.002). No treatment‐related adverse events were observed.ConclusionHyperbaric oxygen appears to be effective for optimising response to intravenous steroids in UC patients hospitalised for acute flares, with low rates of re‐hospitalisation or colectomy at 3 months. An optimal clinical response is achieved with 5 days of hyperbaric oxygen. Larger phase 3 trials are needed to confirm efficacy and obtain labelled approval.