Trends in incidence, prevalence, and survival of breast cancer in the United Kingdom from 2000 to 2021.

Breast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer in females globally. However, we know relatively little about trends in males. This study describes United Kingdom (UK) secular trends in breast cancer from 2000 to 2021 for both sexes. We describe a population-based cohort study using UK primary care Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD and Aurum databases. There were 5,848,436 eligible females and 5,539,681 males aged 18+ years, with ≥ one year of prior data availability in the study period. We estimated crude breast cancer incidence rates (IR), prevalence and survival probability at one-, five- and 10-years after diagnosis using the Kaplan-Meier method. Analyses were further stratified by age. Crude IR of breast cancer from 2000 to 2021 was 194.4 per 100,000 person-years for females and 1.16 for males. Crude prevalence in 2021 was 2.1% for females and 0.009% for males. Both sexes have seen around a 2.5-fold increase in prevalence across time. Incidence increased with age for both sexes, peaking in females aged 60-69 years and males 90+ . There was a drop in incidence for females aged 70-79 years. From 2003-2019, incidence increased > twofold in younger females (aged 18-29: IR 2.12 in 2003 vs. 4.58 in 2018); decreased in females aged 50-69 years; and further declined from 2015 onwards in females aged 70-89 years. Survival probability for females after one-, five-, and ten-years after diagnosis was 95.1%, 80.2%, and 68.4%, and for males 92.9%, 69.0%, and 51.3%. Survival probability at one-year increased by 2.08% points, and survival at five years increased by 5.39% from 2000-2004 to 2015-2019 for females, particularly those aged 50-70 years. For males, there were no clear time-trends for short-term and long-term survival probability. Changes in incidence of breast cancer in females largely reflect the success of screening programmes, as rates rise and fall in synchronicity with ages of eligibility for such programmes. Overall survival from breast cancer for females has improved from 2000 to 2021, again reflecting the success of screening programmes, early diagnosis, and improvements in treatments. Male breast cancer patients have worse survival outcomes compared to females, highlighting the need to develop male-specific diagnosis and treatment strategies to improve long-term survival in line with females.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Incidence and Short-Term Survival for Common Solid Tumours in the United Kingdom: A Cohort Analysis.

Purpose: The COVID-19 pandemic profoundly affected healthcare systems and patients. There is a need to comprehend the collateral effects of the pandemic on non-communicable diseases. We examined the impact of the pandemic on short-term survival for common solid tumours, including breast, colorectal, head and neck, liver, lung, oesophageal, pancreatic, prostate, and stomach cancer in the UK. Methods: This was a population-based cohort study of electronic health records from the UK primary care Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD database. In sum, 12,259,744 eligible patients aged ≥18 years with ≥1 year's history identified from January 2000 to December 2022 were included. We estimated age-standardised incidence and short-term (one- and two-year) survival for several common cancers from 2000 to 2019 (in five-year strata) and compared these to 2020-2022 using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Incidence decreased for most cancers in 2020 and recovered to different extents in 2021-2022. Short-term survival improved for most cancers between 2000 and 2019, but then declined, albeit minimally, for those diagnosed in 2020-2022. This was most pronounced for colorectal cancer, with one-year survival falling from 78.8% (95% CI 78%-79.6%) in 2015-2019 to 77% (95% CI 75.6-78.3%) for those diagnosed in 2020-2022. Conclusion: Short-term survival for many cancers was impacted, albeit minimally, by the pandemic in the UK, with reductions in survivorship from colorectal cancer equivalent to returning to the mortality seen in the first decade of the 2000s. While data on longer-term survival are needed to fully comprehend the impact of COVID-19 on cancer care, our findings illustrate the need for an urgent and substantial commitment from the UK National Health Service to address the existing backlog in cancer screening and diagnostic procedures to improve cancer care and mortality.

Research protocol for an observational health data analysis to assess the applicability of randomized controlled trials focusing on newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer using real-world data: PIONEER IMI's "big data for better outcomes" program.

Background: Metastatic prostate cancer (PCa) constitutes ~5% of all new PCa diagnoses in Western countries. For most cases, primary consideration should be given to systemic therapies as the first-line approach based on evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Despite the importance of RCTs as the pinnacle of evidence in modern medicine, concerns have been raised about their applicability to real-life scenarios. These trials often feature participants who are younger with better performance statuses and prognoses compared to their real-world counterparts. The PIONEER project falls under the Innovative Medicine Initiative's (IMI) "Big Data for Better Outcomes" initiative, aimed at revolutionizing PCa care in Europe. The central focus lies in improving cancer-related outcomes, enhancing health system efficiency, and elevating the quality of health and social care. This study endeavours to evaluate the generalizability of RCT findings concerning newly diagnosed metastatic PCa. Methods: A systematic review of the literature will be conducted to compile patient characteristics from RCTs addressing this subject within the past decade. To create a real-world benchmark, patients with recently diagnosed metastatic PCa from a network of population-based databases will serve as a comparison group. The objective is to assess the applicability of RCT results in two ways. First, a comparison will be made between the characteristics of patients with newly diagnosed metastatic PCa enroled in RCTs and those with the same condition included in our databases which might represent the real-world setting. Second, an evaluation will be undertaken to determine the proportion of real-world patients with newly diagnosed metastatic PCa who meet the criteria for RCT enrolment. This study will rely on extensive observational data, primarily sourced from population-based registries, electronic health records, and insurance claims data. The study cohort is established upon routinely gathered healthcare data, meticulously mapped to the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model.

Predictive Models for Assessing Patients' Response to Treatment in Metastatic Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review.

Background and objective: The treatment landscape of metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) has evolved significantly over the past two decades. Despite this, the optimal therapy for patients with mPCa has not been determined. This systematic review identifies available predictive models that assess mPCa patients' response to treatment. Methods: We critically reviewed MEDLINE and CENTRAL in December 2022 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement. Only quantitative studies in English were included with no time restrictions. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the PROBAST tool. Data were extracted following the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews criteria. Key findings and limitations: The search identified 616 citations, of which 15 studies were included in our review. Nine of the included studies were validated internally or externally. Only one study had a low risk of bias and a low risk concerning applicability. Many studies failed to detail model performance adequately, resulting in a high risk of bias. Where reported, the models indicated good or excellent performance. Conclusions and clinical implications: Most of the identified predictive models require additional evaluation and validation in properly designed studies before these can be implemented in clinical practice to assist with treatment decision-making for men with mPCa. Patient summary: In this review, we evaluate studies that predict which treatments will work best for which metastatic prostate cancer patients. We found that existing studies need further improvement before these can be used by health care professionals.

Research Protocol for an Observational Health Data Analysis on the Adverse Events of Systemic Treatment in Patients with Metastatic Hormone-sensitive Prostate Cancer: Big Data Analytics Using the PIONEER Platform.

Combination therapies in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), which include the addition of an androgen receptor signaling inhibitor and/or docetaxel to androgen deprivation therapy, have been a game changer in the management of this disease stage. However, these therapies come with their fair share of toxicities and side effects. The goal of this observational study is to report drug-related adverse events (AEs), which are correlated with systemic combination therapies for mHSPC. Determining the optimal treatment option requires large cohorts to estimate the tolerability and AEs of these combination therapies in "real-life" patients with mHSPC, as provided in this study. We use a network of databases that includes population-based registries, electronic health records, and insurance claims, containing the overall target population and subgroups of patients defined by unique certain characteristics, demographics, and comorbidities, to compute the incidence of common AEs associated with systemic therapies in the setting of mHSPC. These data sources are standardised using the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model. We perform the descriptive statistics as well as calculate the AE incidence rate separately for each treatment group, stratified by age groups and index year. The time until the first event is estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method within each age group. In the case of episodic events, the anticipated mean cumulative counts of events are calculated. Our study will allow clinicians to tailor optimal therapies for mHSPC patients, and they will serve as a basis for comparative method studies.

Similar Risk of Kidney Failure among Patients with Blinding Diseases Who Receive Ranibizumab, Aflibercept, and Bevacizumab: An Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics Network Study.

PURPOSE: To characterize the incidence of kidney failure associated with intravitreal anti-VEGF exposure; and compare the risk of kidney failure in patients treated with ranibizumab, aflibercept, or bevacizumab. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study across 12 databases in the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI) network. SUBJECTS: Subjects aged ≥ 18 years with ≥ 3 monthly intravitreal anti-VEGF medications for a blinding disease (diabetic retinopathy, diabetic macular edema, exudative age-related macular degeneration, or retinal vein occlusion). METHODS: The standardized incidence proportions and rates of kidney failure while on treatment with anti-VEGF were calculated. For each comparison (e.g., aflibercept versus ranibizumab), patients from each group were matched 1:1 using propensity scores. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the risk of kidney failure while on treatment. A random effects meta-analysis was performed to combine each database's hazard ratio (HR) estimate into a single network-wide estimate. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incidence of kidney failure while on anti-VEGF treatment, and time from cohort entry to kidney failure. RESULTS: Of the 6.1 million patients with blinding diseases, 37 189 who received ranibizumab, 39 447 aflibercept, and 163 611 bevacizumab were included; the total treatment exposure time was 161 724 person-years. The average standardized incidence proportion of kidney failure was 678 per 100 000 persons (range, 0-2389), and incidence rate 742 per 100 000 person-years (range, 0-2661). The meta-analysis HR of kidney failure comparing aflibercept with ranibizumab was 1.01 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70-1.47; P = 0.45), ranibizumab with bevacizumab 0.95 (95% CI, 0.68-1.32; P = 0.62), and aflibercept with bevacizumab 0.95 (95% CI, 0.65-1.39; P = 0.60). CONCLUSIONS: There was no substantially different relative risk of kidney failure between those who received ranibizumab, bevacizumab, or aflibercept. Practicing ophthalmologists and nephrologists should be aware of the risk of kidney failure among patients receiving intravitreal anti-VEGF medications and that there is little empirical evidence to preferentially choose among the specific intravitreal anti-VEGF agents. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Clinical Characterization of Patients Diagnosed with Prostate Cancer and Undergoing Conservative Management: A PIONEER Analysis Based on Big Data.

BACKGROUND: Conservative management is an option for prostate cancer (PCa) patients either with the objective of delaying or even avoiding curative therapy, or to wait until palliative treatment is needed. PIONEER, funded by the European Commission Innovative Medicines Initiative, aims at improving PCa care across Europe through the application of big data analytics. OBJECTIVE: To describe the clinical characteristics and long-term outcomes of PCa patients on conservative management by using an international large network of real-world data. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: From an initial cohort of >100 000 000 adult individuals included in eight databases evaluated during a virtual study-a-thon hosted by PIONEER, we identified newly diagnosed PCa cases (n = 527 311). Among those, we selected patients who did not receive curative or palliative treatment within 6 mo from diagnosis (n = 123 146). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Patient and disease characteristics were reported. The number of patients who experienced the main study outcomes was quantified for each stratum and the overall cohort. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to estimate the distribution of time to event data. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The most common comorbidities were hypertension (35-73%), obesity (9.2-54%), and type 2 diabetes (11-28%). The rate of PCa-related symptomatic progression ranged between 2.6% and 6.2%. Hospitalization (12-25%) and emergency department visits (10-14%) were common events during the 1st year of follow-up. The probability of being free from both palliative and curative treatments decreased during follow-up. Limitations include a lack of information on patients and disease characteristics and on treatment intent. CONCLUSIONS: Our results allow us to better understand the current landscape of patients with PCa managed with conservative treatment. PIONEER offers a unique opportunity to characterize the baseline features and outcomes of PCa patients managed conservatively using real-world data. PATIENT SUMMARY: Up to 25% of men with prostate cancer (PCa) managed conservatively experienced hospitalization and emergency department visits within the 1st year after diagnosis; 6% experienced PCa-related symptoms. The probability of receiving therapies for PCa decreased according to time elapsed after the diagnosis.

Research protocol to identify progression and death amongst patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer treated with available treatments: PIONEER IMI's "big data for better outcomes" program.

Androgen deprivation therapy-based with or without first-generation anti-androgens, was the standard of care for patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) for decades. However, the development of docetaxel chemotherapy and new androgen receptor-targeted agents, abiraterone acetate and prednisolone, apalutamide , enzalutamide and darolutamide (in combination with docetaxel chemotherapy) has proven that combination of treatments is more effective. Recently, intensification therapy, so-called "triplets", have emerged in the armamentarium of mHSPC treatment. Metastatic disease is a clinical state that remains poorly understood. The optimal diagnostic and management of patients with mHSPC are changing thanks to the development of new imaging techniques and therapies. The primary objective of this study is to develop and validate a predictive model for the occurrence of symptomatic progression, initiation of new treatments and death amongst patients with mHSPC treated with one of the approved treatment plans, on characteristics present at admission.

Real-World Treatment Patterns and Outcomes Among Patients with Basal Cell Carcinoma Following First-Line Hedgehog Inhibitor Discontinuation.

INTRODUCTION: Until recently, patients discontinuing first-line (1L) hedgehog inhibitors (HHIs) for basal cell carcinoma (BCC) had few subsequent treatment options. The objective of this study was to describe the treatment journey and prognosis of patients discontinuing 1L HHI for BCC. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with BCC who discontinued 1L HHI treatment in The US Oncology Network between 1 January 2012 and 1 January 2019 (with follow-up until 1 May 2020). Two cohorts were identified: patients who initiated a second-line (2L) treatment (2L initiators), and patients with 1L progression or toxicity without pathology-confirmed complete response who did not initiate 2L treatment (2L non-initiators). Patient demographics, treatment characteristics, and outcomes are reported for each cohort. RESULTS: Among 115 patients with BCC who received 1L HHI treatment, 63.5% (n = 73/115) discontinued 1L HHIs. Of those, 50.7% (n = 37/73) discontinued because of documented toxicity or progression, without evidence of a complete response. We identified 4 patients who initiated 2L systemic treatment (median age 68.7 years, 100.0% female) and 15 patients who were eligible for the 2L non-initiator cohort (median age 80.2 years, 20.0% female). Median 1L HHI duration was 6.8 months (range 1.9-20.6 months) for the 2L non-initiator cohort and 8.6 months (range 6.8-42.2 months) for 2L initiators. At the end of follow-up, among 2L non-initiators (median follow-up duration 9.7 months), 40.0% were lost to follow-up, 33.3% had died, 20.0% continued observation, and 6.7% transitioned to an academic medical center or hospital; among 2L initiators (median follow-up duration 6.3 months), 50.0% were lost to follow-up, 25.0% had died, and 25.0% continued observation. CONCLUSIONS: Following 1L HHI discontinuation, lack of standardized care and suboptimal outcomes were observed, including limited receipt of 2L treatment. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the impact of newer BCC treatment options.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Over 300,000 Patients with COVID-19 and History of Cancer in the United States and Spain.

BACKGROUND: We described the demographics, cancer subtypes, comorbidities, and outcomes of patients with a history of cancer and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Second, we compared patients hospitalized with COVID-19 to patients diagnosed with COVID-19 and patients hospitalized with influenza. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study using eight routinely collected health care databases from Spain and the United States, standardized to the Observational Medical Outcome Partnership common data model. Three cohorts of patients with a history of cancer were included: (i) diagnosed with COVID-19, (ii) hospitalized with COVID-19, and (iii) hospitalized with influenza in 2017 to 2018. Patients were followed from index date to 30 days or death. We reported demographics, cancer subtypes, comorbidities, and 30-day outcomes. RESULTS: We included 366,050 and 119,597 patients diagnosed and hospitalized with COVID-19, respectively. Prostate and breast cancers were the most frequent cancers (range: 5%-18% and 1%-14% in the diagnosed cohort, respectively). Hematologic malignancies were also frequent, with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma being among the five most common cancer subtypes in the diagnosed cohort. Overall, patients were aged above 65 years and had multiple comorbidities. Occurrence of death ranged from 2% to 14% and from 6% to 26% in the diagnosed and hospitalized COVID-19 cohorts, respectively. Patients hospitalized with influenza (n = 67,743) had a similar distribution of cancer subtypes, sex, age, and comorbidities but lower occurrence of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a history of cancer and COVID-19 had multiple comorbidities and a high occurrence of COVID-19-related events. Hematologic malignancies were frequent. IMPACT: This study provides epidemiologic characteristics that can inform clinical care and etiologic studies.

Thirty-Day Outcomes of Children and Adolescents With COVID-19: An International Experience.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize the demographics, comorbidities, symptoms, in-hospital treatments, and health outcomes among children and adolescents diagnosed or hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and to compare them in secondary analyses with patients diagnosed with previous seasonal influenza in 2017-2018. METHODS: International network cohort using real-world data from European primary care records (France, Germany, and Spain), South Korean claims and US claims, and hospital databases. We included children and adolescents diagnosed and/or hospitalized with COVID-19 at age <18 between January and June 2020. We described baseline demographics, comorbidities, symptoms, 30-day in-hospital treatments, and outcomes including hospitalization, pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, and death. RESULTS: A total of 242 158 children and adolescents diagnosed and 9769 hospitalized with COVID-19 and 2 084 180 diagnosed with influenza were studied. Comorbidities including neurodevelopmental disorders, heart disease, and cancer were more common among those hospitalized with versus diagnosed with COVID-19. Dyspnea, bronchiolitis, anosmia, and gastrointestinal symptoms were more common in COVID-19 than influenza. In-hospital prevalent treatments for COVID-19 included repurposed medications (<10%) and adjunctive therapies: systemic corticosteroids (6.8%-7.6%), famotidine (9.0%-28.1%), and antithrombotics such as aspirin (2.0%-21.4%), heparin (2.2%-18.1%), and enoxaparin (2.8%-14.8%). Hospitalization was observed in 0.3% to 1.3% of the cohort diagnosed with COVID-19, with undetectable (n < 5 per database) 30-day fatality. Thirty-day outcomes including pneumonia and hypoxemia were more frequent in COVID-19 than influenza. CONCLUSIONS: Despite negligible fatality, complications including hospitalization, hypoxemia, and pneumonia were more frequent in children and adolescents with COVID-19 than with influenza. Dyspnea, anosmia, and gastrointestinal symptoms could help differentiate diagnoses. A wide range of medications was used for the inpatient management of pediatric COVID-19.

Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of cancer patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of global data.

There are minimal data regarding the prevalence of cancer in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), as well as the incidence of severe illness and rate of mortality in COVID-19 patients with cancer. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were systematically searched, from database inception to July 15, 2020, for studies of patients with COVID-19 that included information regarding comorbid cancer. In total, 109 eligible global studies were included in this systematic review. Ninety studies with 94,845 COVID-19 patients, among which 4106 exhibited comorbid cancer, were included in the meta-analysis regarding prevalence of comorbid cancer. Twenty-three studies with 71,969 COVID-19 patients, among which 4351 with comorbid cancer had severe illness or death, were included in the meta-analysis. The overall prevalence of cancer among COVID-19 patients was 0.07 (95% CI 0.05-0.09). The cancer prevalence in COVID-19 patients was higher in Europe (0.22, 95% CI 0.17-0.28) than in the Asia-Pacific region (0.04, 95% CI 0.03-0.06) or North America (0.05, 95% CI 0.04-0.06). The cancer prevalence in COVID-19 patients aged >60 years was 0.10 (95% CI 0.07-0.14), while the prevalence among patients aged ≤60 years was 0.05 (95% CI 0.03-0.06). The pooled prevalence of severe illness among COVID-19 patients with cancer was 0.34 (95% CI 0.26-0.42) and the pooled mortality rate of COVID-19 patients with cancer was 0.20 (95% CI 0.16-0.25). Pooled incidences of severe illness among COVID-19 patients with cancer from Asia Pacific, Europe, and North America were 0.38 (95% CI 0.24-0.52), 0.39 (95% CI 0.25-0.53), and 0.26 (95% CI 0.20-0.31), respectively; pooled mortality rates from the Asia-Pacific region, Europe, and North America were 0.17 (95% CI 0.10-0.24), 0.26 (95% CI 0.18-0.35), and 0.19 (95% CI 0.13-0.25), respectively.

Effect of Statin Use on Inflammation and Immune Activation Biomarkers in HIV-Infected Persons on Effective Antiretroviral Therapy.

Immune activation and inflammation are hallmarks of chronic HIV infection and are etiologically linked to major causes of morbidity and mortality among HIV-infected persons, including coronary artery disease and cancer. Systemic immune activation is dampened, but not resolved, with use of combination antiretroviral therapy (cART). Statins are cardioprotective drugs that also appear to have immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory properties. We sought to understand the association between statin use, cART, and levels of circulating immune markers in a longitudinal cohort study. From 2004 to 2009, statin use was ascertained in male participants of the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS) using interviewer-administered questionnaires. Twenty-four circulating markers of immune activation and inflammation were measured in archived serial samples from a subset of cohort members using multiplex assays. Propensity-adjusted generalized gamma models were used to compare biomarkers' distributions by statin use, and multivariable linear regression models were used to assess the effect of initiating statin on these biomarkers. Overall, 1,031 cART-exposed individuals with HIV infection were included in this study. Statin use was reported by 31.5% of cART-exposed participants. Compared to nonstatin users on cART, statin users on cART had lower levels of IP-10, IL-10, and IL-12p70, and the effect of statin use was decreased in participants using lipophilic statins (atorvastatin, simvastatin, fluvastatin, or lovastatin); these results were statistically significant (p < .05). Among cART users not on aspirin, starting statins decreased levels of high sensitivity c-reactive protein (hsCRP), IL-12p70, and IL-6. Statin therapy is associated with reduced levels of certain biomarkers of immune activation and inflammation in cART users, which may contribute to a lower burden of disease.

Baseline characteristics, management, and outcomes of 55,270 children and adolescents diagnosed with COVID-19 and 1,952,693 with influenza in France, Germany, Spain, South Korea and the United States: an international network cohort study.

Objectives To characterize the demographics, comorbidities, symptoms, in-hospital treatments, and health outcomes among children/adolescents diagnosed or hospitalized with COVID-19. Secondly, to describe health outcomes amongst children/adolescents diagnosed with previous seasonal influenza. Design International network cohort. Setting Real-world data from European primary care records (France/Germany/Spain), South Korean claims and US claims and hospital databases. Participants Diagnosed and/or hospitalized children/adolescents with COVID-19 at age <18 between January and June 2020; diagnosed with influenza in 2017-2018. Main outcome measures Baseline demographics and comorbidities, symptoms, 30-day in-hospital treatments and outcomes including hospitalization, pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), multi-system inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C), and death. Results A total of 55,270 children/adolescents diagnosed and 3,693 hospitalized with COVID-19 and 1,952,693 diagnosed with influenza were studied. Comorbidities including neurodevelopmental disorders, heart disease, and cancer were all more common among those hospitalized vs diagnosed with COVID-19. The most common COVID-19 symptom was fever. Dyspnea, bronchiolitis, anosmia and gastrointestinal symptoms were more common in COVID-19 than influenza. In-hospital treatments for COVID-19 included repurposed medications (<10%), and adjunctive therapies: systemic corticosteroids (6.8% to 37.6%), famotidine (9.0% to 28.1%), and antithrombotics such as aspirin (2.0% to 21.4%), heparin (2.2% to 18.1%), and enoxaparin (2.8% to 14.8%). Hospitalization was observed in 0.3% to 1.3% of the COVID-19 diagnosed cohort, with undetectable (N<5 per database) 30-day fatality. Thirty-day outcomes including pneumonia, ARDS, and MIS-C were more frequent in COVID-19 than influenza. Conclusions Despite negligible fatality, complications including pneumonia, ARDS and MIS-C were more frequent in children/adolescents with COVID-19 than with influenza. Dyspnea, anosmia and gastrointestinal symptoms could help differential diagnosis. A wide range of medications were used for the inpatient management of pediatric COVID-19.

STK11 (LKB1) mutations in metastatic NSCLC: Prognostic value in the real world.

BACKGROUND: Mutations in STK11 (STK11m) and frequently co-occurring KRAS mutations (KRASm/STK11m) are associated with poor survival in metastatic NSCLC (mNSCLC) immuno-oncology trials. There are limited data regarding the prognostic significance of these mutations in a real-world setting. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study analyzed de-identified electronic medical records from the Flatiron Clinico-Genomic database to identify patients with mNSCLC who had initiated first-line immunotherapy (IO; alone or in combination) or chemotherapy under routine care between January 1, 2013 and June 30, 2017. The primary objectives were to assess the prevalence of STK11m and KRASm/STK11m and to determine associations of these mutations with overall and progression-free survival (OS, PFS). RESULTS: Of 2407 patients with mNSCLC, STK11m and KRASm/STK11m were present in 13.6% and 6.5% of patients, respectively. Worse OS outcomes were observed in patients with STK11m versus STK11wt mNSCLC receiving IO (first-line, HR [95% CI], 1.4 [0.9-2.3; p = 0.1]; second-line [subset of first-line cohort], HR, 1.6 [1.3-2.0; p = 0.0002]) or chemotherapy (first-line, HR, 1.4 [1.2-1.6; p < 0.0001]); PFS outcomes showed similar trends. KRASm/STK11m double mutations were associated with worse OS and PFS outcomes versus KRASwt/STK11wt with IO and chemotherapy, similar to the single mutation (STK11m vs STK11wt) findings. CONCLUSIONS: This large observational genomic study among patients receiving routine care highlights the negative prognostic impact of STK11m in patients with mNSCLC treated with IO or chemotherapy. These results complement previous clinical trial data and provide further evidence in the real world of a patient population that would benefit from new treatment options.

RE: "An Estimation of the Risk of Pseudotumor Cerebri Among Users of the Levonorgestrel Intrauterine Device".

The current letter to the editor describes some of the limitations of Valenzuela et al.'s study on the association between levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system use and pseudotumor cerebri/idiopathic intracranial hypertension and further reinforces the authors' interpretations of the findings.

Identification and Description of Reliable Evidence for 2016 American Academy of Ophthalmology Preferred Practice Pattern Guidelines for Cataract in the Adult Eye.

Importance: Trustworthy clinical practice guidelines require reliable systematic reviews of the evidence to support recommendations. Since 2016, the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) has partnered with Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite to update their guidelines, the Preferred Practice Patterns (PPP). Objective: To describe experiences and findings related to identifying reliable systematic reviews that support topics likely to be addressed in the 2016 update of the 2011 AAO PPP guidelines on cataract in the adult eye. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional study. Systematic reviews on the management of cataract were searched for in an established database. Each relevant systematic review was mapped to 1 or more of the 24 management categories listed under the Management section of the table of contents of the 2011 AAO PPP guidelines. Data were extracted to determine the reliability of each systematic review using prespecified criteria, and the reliable systematic reviews were examined to find whether they were referenced in the 2016 AAO PPP guidelines. For comparison, we assessed whether the reliable systematic reviews published before February 2010 the last search date of the 2011 AAO PPP guidelines were referenced in the 2011 AAO PPP guidelines. Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite did not provide systematic reviews to the AAO during the development of the 2011 AAO PPP guidelines. Main Outcomes and Measures: Systematic review reliability was defined by reporting eligibility criteria, performing a comprehensive literature search, assessing methodologic quality of included studies, using appropriate methods for meta-analysis, and basing conclusions on review findings. Results: From 99 systematic reviews on management of cataract, 46 (46%) were classified as reliable. No evidence that a comprehensive search had been conducted was the most common reason a review was classified as unreliable. All 46 reliable systematic reviews were cited in the 2016 AAO PPP guidelines, and 8 of 15 available reliable reviews (53%) were cited in the 2011 PPP guidelines. Conclusions and Relevance: The partnership between Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite and the AAO provides the AAO access to an evidence base of relevant and reliable systematic reviews, thereby supporting robust and efficient clinical practice guidelines development to improve the quality of eye care.

Fatigability, Exercise Intolerance, and Abnormal Skeletal Muscle Energetics in Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Among central and peripheral factors contributing to exercise intolerance (EI) in heart failure (HF), the extent to which skeletal muscle (SM) energy metabolic abnormalities occur and contribute to EI and increased fatigability in HF patients with reduced or preserved ejection fraction (HFrEF and HFpEF, respectively) are not known. An energetic plantar flexion exercise fatigability test and magnetic resonance spectroscopy were used to probe the mechanistic in vivo relationships among SM high-energy phosphate concentrations, mitochondrial function, and EI in HFrEF and HFpEF patients and in healthy controls. METHODS AND RESULTS: Resting SM high-energy phosphate concentrations and ATP flux rates were normal in HFrEF and HFpEF patients. Fatigue occurred at similar SM energetic levels in all subjects, consistent with a common SM energetic limit. Importantly, HFrEF New York Heart Association class II-III patients with EI and high fatigability exhibited significantly faster rates of exercise-induced high-energy phosphate decline than did HFrEF patients with low fatigability (New York Heart Association class I), despite similar left ventricular ejection fractions. HFpEF patients exhibited severe EI, the most rapid rates of high-energy phosphate depletion during exercise, and impaired maximal oxidative capacity. CONCLUSIONS: Symptomatic fatigue during plantar flexion exercise occurs at a common energetic limit in all subjects. HFrEF and HFpEF patients with EI and increased fatigability manifest early, rapid exercise-induced declines in SM high-energy phosphates and reduced oxidative capacity compared with healthy and low-fatigability HF patients, suggesting that SM metabolism is a potentially important target for future HF treatment strategies.

Does Metformin Reduce Cancer Risks? Methodologic Considerations.

The substantial burden of cancer and diabetes and the association between the two conditions has been a motivation for researchers to look for targeted strategies that can simultaneously affect both diseases and reduce their overlapping burden. In the absence of randomized clinical trials, researchers have taken advantage of the availability and richness of administrative databases and electronic medical records to investigate the effects of drugs on cancer risk among diabetic individuals. The majority of these studies suggest that metformin could potentially reduce cancer risk. However, the validity of this purported reduction in cancer risk is limited by several methodological flaws either in the study design or in the analysis. Whether metformin use decreases cancer risk relies heavily on the availability of valid data sources with complete information on confounders, accurate assessment of drug use, appropriate study design, and robust analytical techniques. The majority of the observational studies assessing the association between metformin and cancer risk suffer from methodological shortcomings and efforts to address these issues have been incomplete. Future investigations on the association between metformin and cancer risk should clearly address the methodological issues due to confounding by indication, prevalent user bias, and time-related biases. Although the proposed strategies do not guarantee a bias-free estimate for the association between metformin and cancer, they will reduce synthesis of and reporting of erroneous results.