Citations

Abstract Background : Patients (pts) with COVID-19 are reported to have increased risk of venous thromboembolism yet bleeding has been an under recognized complication. Rates of bleeding remain unexamined in all patients especially in pts with cancer and COVID-19. Aim: To estimate the incidence of bleeding complication in patients with cancer and COVID 19 Methods: The CCC19 international registry (NCT04354701) aims to investigate complications of COVID-19 in pts with cancer. Our aim was to investigate the frequency of bleeding in hospitalized adult pts with cancer andCOVID-19, enrolled between March 16, 2020 and Feb 8, 2021. The incidence of bleeding complications was captured as defined by CCC19 and included both major and non major bleeding . Associated baseline clinic-pathologic prognostic factors and outcomes such as need for mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and mortality rates were assessed Results :3849 pts met analysis inclusion criteria. Bleeding was reported in 276 (7%) pts with median age of 70years; incidence was 6.6 % in females and 7.6 % in males, 6.5% in non-Hispanic white pts, 8.2 % in non-Hispanic Black pts, and 7.8 % in Hispanic pts. 74% had solid cancer and 29% had hematologic malignancies, 33% had received anti-cancer therapy in preceding 30 days, and 8% had surgery within 4weeks. In pts taking antiplatelet or anticoagulant medications at baseline, 7.2% developed bleeding. Need for mechanical ventilation, ICU admission, 30-day mortality, and total mortality were significantly higher in those with bleeding complications compared to those without, p<0.05 Conclusion : We describe the incidence of bleeding in a large cohort of pts with cancer and COVID-19. Bleeding events were observed in those with adverse outcomes including mechanical ventilation, ICU admission, and high mortality; the overall mortality of 43% in patients with bleeding complications is especially notable. This important complication may reflect underlying COVID-19 pathophysiology as well as iatrogenic causes. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kumar: Diagnostica Stago: Honoraria. Zon: AMAGMA AND RLZ: Consultancy, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Byeff: Pfizer, BMS, Takeda,Teva, Merck, United health: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Nagaraj: Novartis: Research Funding. Hwang: astrazaneca,Merck,bayer, Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding. McKay: Myovant: Consultancy; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Exelixis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Calithera: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Tempus: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Tempus: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dendreon: Consultancy; Caris: Other: Serves as a molecular tumor board ; Vividion: Consultancy; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Bayer: Research Funding. Warner: Westat, Hemonc.org: Consultancy, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Connors: Pfizer: Honoraria; CSL Behring: Research Funding; Alnylam: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; takeda: Honoraria; Abbott: Consultancy. Rosovsky: Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Inari: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dova: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

ObjectiveImproved biomarkers of current disease activity and prediction of relapse are needed in antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis (AAV). For clinical relevance, biomarkers must perform well longitudinally in patients on treatment and in patients with nonsevere flares.MethodsTwenty‐two proteins were measured in 347 serum samples from 74 patients with AAV enrolled in a clinical trial. Samples were collected at Month 6 after remission induction, then every 3 months until Month 18, or at the time of flare. Associations of protein concentrations with concurrent disease activity and with future flare were analyzed using mixed‐effects models, Cox proportional hazards models, and conditional logistic regression.ResultsForty‐two patients had flares during the 12‐month follow‐up period, and 32 remained in remission. Twenty‐two patients had severe flares. Six experimental markers (CXCL13, IL‐6, IL‐8, IL‐15, IL‐18BP, and matrix metalloproteinase‐3 [MMP‐3]) and ESR were associated with disease activity using all three methods (P < 0.05, with P < 0.01 in at least one method). A rise in IL‐8, IL‐15, or IL‐18BP was associated temporally with flare. Combining C‐reactive protein (CRP), IL‐18BP, neutrophil gelatinase‐associated lipocalin (NGAL), and sIL‐2Rα improved association with active AAV. CXCL13 and MMP‐3 were increased during treatment with prednisone, independent of disease activity. Marker concentrations during remission were not predictive of future flare.ConclusionSerum biomarkers of inflammation and tissue damage and repair have been previously shown to be strongly associated with severe active AAV were less strongly associated with active AAV in a longitudinal study that included mild flares and varying treatment. Markers rising contemporaneously with flare or with an improved association in combination merit further study.

In 2020, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic interrupted the administration of the APPLIED Examination, the final part of the American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) staged examination system for initial certification. In response, the ABA developed, piloted, and implemented an Internet-based “virtual” form of the examination to allow administration of both components of the APPLIED Exam (Standardized Oral Examination and Objective Structured Clinical Examination) when it was impractical and unsafe for candidates and examiners to travel and have in-person interactions. This article describes the development of the ABA virtual APPLIED Examination, including its rationale, examination format, technology infrastructure, candidate communication, and examiner training. Although the logistics are formidable, we report a methodology for successfully introducing a large-scale, high-stakes, 2-element, remote examination that replicates previously validated assessments.

Ellison C. Pierce, Jr., M.D., and a small number of specialty leaders and scientists formed a remarkable, diverse team in the mid-1980s to address a dual crisis: a safety crisis for anesthetized patients and a medical malpractice insurance crisis for anesthesiologists. This cohesive team’s efforts led to the formation of the Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation, the American Society of Anesthesiologists’s Committees on Standards of Care and on Patient Safety and Risk Management, and the society’s Closed Claims Project. The commonality of leaders and members of the Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation and American Society of Anesthesiologists initiatives provided the strong coordination needed for their efforts to effect change, introduce standards of care and practice parameters, obtain financial support needed to grow patient safety–oriented new knowledge, integrate industry and other relevant leaders outside of anesthesiology, and involve all anesthesia professions. By implementing successful patient safety initiatives, they promoted the recognition that anesthesiology and patient safety are inextricably linked.

The NCCN Guidelines for Uterine Neoplasms provide recommendations for diagnostic workup, clinical staging, and treatment options for patients with endometrial cancer or uterine sarcoma. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on the recent addition of molecular profiling information to aid in accurate diagnosis, classification, and treatment of uterine sarcomas.