Citations

Abstract Background: We have previously examined the link between diabetes mellitus (DM) and malignancy with respect to mortality, but little is known about how the cancer affects glycemic control. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate metabolic parameters in patients with cancer with and without DM. Methods: We selected 1404 patients with newly diagnosed prostate, breast, lung, colorectal, and pancreatic cancer from the institutional cancer registry from 2010–2015. Records were selected and matched 2:1 cancer without DM (n=936) and cancer and concurrent DM patients (n=468). Patients were matched by year of diagnosis, age, gender, and cancer type. Metabolic parameters during the year after cancer diagnosis were examined using linear mixed models with fixed effects for time, cancer type, DM status and individual-specific random effect allowing each patient to have a different intercept. Results: Prostate cancer accounted for the majority of cases (n=199), followed by lung cancer (n=91), breast cancer (n=71), colorectal cancer (n=54), and pancreas cancer (n=53). Mean overall hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was 6.9 (1.2)%. Pancreas cancer patients had higher HbA1c overall (p=0.02). There was no change in HbA1c one year post cancer diagnosis (p=0.28). Mean glucose in non-DM was 108(18) mg/dL and 146 (45) mg/dL in DM pts. Lung and pancreas cancer patients had higher glucose values overall (p<0.001). Time (p<0.001), DM (p<0.001) and time * DM (p=0.02) were significant in a mixed model. A decrease in glucose over the year was observed in DM patients across all cancer types. Conclusions: A diagnosis of malignancy does not worsen glycemic control within the first year of cancer diagnosis. This should be reassuring to endocrinologists and oncologists who treat patients with DM and cancer. Longer term studies, and analysis in larger and more diverse patients groups are needed.

Introduction: Brugada syndrome is associated with ventricular arrhythmia leading to sudden cardiac death. Risk stratification is challenging, as major arrhythmic events (MAE) are rare. We assessed the utility of drug challenge testing in Brugada syndrome by a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods and results: We comprehensively searched the databases of MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to May 2019. Included studies compared the incidence of MAE between spontaneous and drug challenge induced Type-1. Data were combined using the random-effects, generic inverse variance method, to calculate pooled incidence and odds ratio (OR). Mixed-effects Poisson regression was used to calculated incidence rate ratio (IRR). Eighteen studies from 2006 to 2018 were included (4,099 patients, mean follow-up 4.5 years). Pooled annual incidences of MAE in spontaneous, drug challenge induced (regardless of symptoms), asymptomatic drug challenge induced, and symptomatic drug challenge induced Type-1 were 23.8 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 19.8-27.8), 6.5 (95% CI: 3.9-9.1), 2.1 (95% CI: -0.3-4.4), and 19.6 (95% CI: 9.9-29.3) per 1,000 person-years respectively. The incidence of MAE between symptomatic drug challenge induced and asymptomatic spontaneous Type-1 was not statistically different (IRR=1.0, 95%CI: 0.6-1.7). The presence of ventricular tachyarrhythmia during drug challenge testing was a predictor of MAE (OR=3.73, 95% CI: 1.77-7.86, p=0.001). Conclusions: The incidence of MAE in drug challenge induced Type-1 in asymptomatic patients is low. The incidence of MAE between symptomatic drug challenge induced and asymptomatic spontaneous Type-1 was similar. Ventricular tachyarrhythmia during drug challenge testing could be a useful risk marker for MAE in Brugada syndrome.

Fourteen single-sided deaf listeners fit with an MED-EL cochlear implant (CI) judged the similarity of clean signals presented to their CI and modified signals presented to their normal-hearing ear. The signals to the normal-hearing ear were created by (a) filtering, (b) spectral smearing, (c) changing overall fundamental frequency (F0), (d) F0 contour flattening, (e) changing formant frequencies, (f) altering resonances and ring times to create a metallic sound quality, (g) using a noise vocoder, or (h) using a sine vocoder. The operations could be used singly or in any combination. On a scale of 1 to 10 where 10 was a complete match to the sound of the CI, the mean match score was 8.8. Over half of the matches were 9.0 or higher. The most common alterations to a clean signal were band-pass or low-pass filtering, spectral peak smearing, and F0 contour flattening. On average, 3.4 operations were used to create a match. Upshifts in formant frequencies were implemented most often for electrode insertion angles less than approximately 500°. A relatively small set of operations can produce signals that approximate the sound of the MED-EL CI. There are large individual differences in the combination of operations needed. The sound files in Supplemental Material approximate the sound of the MED-EL CI for patients fit with 28-mm electrode arrays.

Background Past research in population health trends has shown that injuries form a substantial burden of population health loss. Regular updates to injury burden assessments are critical. We report Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2017 Study estimates on morbidity and mortality for all injuries. Methods We reviewed results for injuries from the GBD 2017 study. GBD 2017 measured injury-specific mortality and years of life lost (YLLs) using the Cause of Death Ensemble model. To measure non-fatal injuries, GBD 2017 modelled injury-specific incidence and converted this to prevalence and years lived with disability (YLDs). YLLs and YLDs were summed to calculate disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). Findings In 1990, there were 4 260 493 (4 085 700 to 4 396 138) injury deaths, which increased to 4 484 722 (4 332 010 to 4 585 554) deaths in 2017, while age-standardised mortality decreased from 1079 (1073 to 1086) to 738 (730 to 745) per 100 000. In 1990, there were 354 064 302 (95% uncertainty interval: 338 174 876 to 371 610 802) new cases of injury globally, which increased to 520 710 288 (493 430 247 to 547 988 635) new cases in 2017. During this time, age-standardised incidence decreased non-significantly from 6824 (6534 to 7147) to 6763 (6412 to 7118) per 100 000. Between 1990 and 2017, age-standardised DALYs decreased from 4947 (4655 to 5233) per 100 000 to 3267 (3058 to 3505). Interpretation Injuries are an important cause of health loss globally, though mortality has declined between 1990 and 2017. Future research in injury burden should focus on prevention in high-burden populations, improving data collection and ensuring access to medical care.

Summary Chronic pain causes significant suffering, limitation of daily activities and reduced quality of life. Infection from COVID ‐19 is responsible for an ongoing pandemic that causes severe acute respiratory syndrome, leading to systemic complications and death. Led by the World Health Organization, healthcare systems across the world are engaged in limiting the spread of infection. As a result, all elective surgical procedures, outpatient procedures and patient visits, including pain management services, have been postponed or cancelled. This has affected the care of chronic pain patients. Most are elderly with multiple comorbidities, which puts them at risk of COVID ‐19 infection. Important considerations that need to be recognised during this pandemic for chronic pain patients include: ensuring continuity of care and pain medications, especially opioids; use of telemedicine; maintaining biopsychosocial management; use of anti‐inflammatory drugs; use of steroids; and prioritising necessary procedural visits. There are no guidelines to inform physicians and healthcare providers engaged in caring for patients with pain during this period of crisis. We assembled an expert panel of pain physicians, psychologists and researchers from North America and Europe to formulate recommendations to guide practice. As the COVID ‐19 situation continues to evolve rapidly, these recommendations are based on the best available evidence and expert opinion at this present time and may need adapting to local workplace policies.

Abstract Background Recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (rCDI) is associated with loss of microbial diversity and microbe-derived secondary bile acids, which inhibit C. difficile germination and growth. SER-109, an investigational microbiome drug of donor-derived, purified spores, reduced recurrence in a dose-ranging, phase (P) 1 study in subjects with multiple rCDIs. Methods In a P2 double-blind trial, subjects with clinical resolution on standard-of-care antibiotics were stratified by age (< or ≥65 years) and randomized 2:1 to single-dose SER-109 or placebo. Subjects were diagnosed at study entry by PCR or toxin testing. Safety, C. difficile–positive diarrhea through week 8, SER-109 engraftment, and bile acid changes were assessed. Results 89 subjects enrolled (67% female; 80.9% diagnosed by PCR). rCDI rates were lower in the SER-109 arm than placebo (44.1% vs 53.3%) but did not meet statistical significance. In a preplanned analysis, rates were reduced among subjects ≥65 years (45.2% vs 80%, respectively; RR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.11–2.81), while the <65 group showed no benefit. Early engraftment of SER-109 was associated with nonrecurrence (P < .05) and increased secondary bile acid concentrations (P < .0001). Whole-metagenomic sequencing from this study and the P1 study revealed previously unappreciated dose-dependent engraftment kinetics and confirmed an association between early engraftment and nonrecurrence. Engraftment kinetics suggest that P2 dosing was suboptimal. Adverse events were generally mild to moderate in severity. Conclusions Early SER-109 engraftment was associated with reduced CDI recurrence and favorable safety was observed. A higher dose of SER-109 and requirements for toxin testing were implemented in the current P3 trial. Clinical Trials Registration NCT02437487, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02437487?term=SER-109&draw= 2&rank=4.

10503 Background: Gender bias can be reinforced through the use of gender-subordinating language and differences in the forms of address. We examined how professional titles were used during speakers’ introductions at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting. Methods: A retrospective observational study of video-archived speaker introductions at the 2017 and 2018 ASCO annual meetings was conducted. Data were extracted by mixed-gender coders. Professional address was defined as professional title followed by full name or last name. Multivariable logistic regressions were used to identify factors associated with the form of address. Results: 2511 videos were reviewed and 812 met inclusion criteria. Regarding speakers’ characteristics, 530 (65%) were non-Hispanic white (NHW), 743 (92%) held a MD or MD-PhD degree, and 484 (60%) were an associate or full professor. Female speakers were less likely to receive a professional address compared to male speakers (61% vs. 81%, p < 0.001). Female speakers were more likely to be introduced by first name only (17% vs. 3%, p < 0.001). Males were less likely to use a professional address when introducing female speakers compared to male speakers (53% vs. 80%, p < 0.01). No gender differences in professional address were observed for female introducers (p = 0.13). Male introducers were more likely to address female speakers by first name only compared to female introducers (24% vs. 7%, p < 0.01). In a multivariable regression including gender, race, degree, and academic rank, male speakers were more likely to receive a professional address compared to female speakers (OR: 2.67, 95%CI: 1.81-3.94, p < 0.01). Black speakers of both genders were less likely to receive a professional address compared to NHW (OR: 0.10, 95%CI: 0.01-0.53, p < 0.01). Female gender was a predictor for a non-professional form of address (first name only) (OR: 9.50, 95%CI: 4.38-20.62, p < 0.01). Conclusions: When introduced by men, female speakers were less likely to receive a professional address and more likely to be introduced by first name only compared to male speakers. Selective use of forms of address may strengthen gender bias; more research is needed to explore the causes of this disparity and its influence.