ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) Management in the Era of COVID-19: A Systematic and Critical Review of Published Guidance Reports.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) had a major impact on healthcare systems worldwide. During the early phase of the pandemic many elective procedures were postponed. At the same time, the safe and effective management of medical emergencies such as ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) has been a challenge. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted aiming to identify published guidance reports by national or international societies regarding the management of patients suffering STEMI in the era of COVID-19. Results: Among 1681 articles initially retrieved, six fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review. Two reports were international consensus documents, while four reports were national guidance statements from Asian countries (Taiwan, India, Iran, and China). Most documents were drafted during the early phase of the pandemic. According to the international consensus documents, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) should be regarded as the reperfusion method of choice. On the other hand, in three out of four national consensus statements (Taiwan, Iran and China) fibrinolysis was considered as the reperfusion method of choice for STEMI in suspected/confirmed patients with COVID-19, unless contraindicated or in the presence of high cardiovascular risk clinical features. Authors of all documents underlined the need for early COVID-19 testing in patients with STEMI to better determine the next therapeutical steps. Conclusions: National and international consensus statements for STEMI management in the era of COVID-19 have been published mainly during the early peak phase of the pandemic. Authors recognise that these recommendations are mainly based on expert opinions and observational data. As global immunization rates increase and methods for rapid COVID-19 detection are widely available, the implementation of traditional evidence-based practices used before the pandemic is becoming more feasible.

Cardiac Injury in COVID-19: A Systematic Review of Relevant Meta-Analyses.

Background: Cardiac injury (CI) is not a rare condition among hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Its prognostic value has been extensively reported through the literature, mainly in the context of observational studies. An impressive number of relevant meta-analyses has been conducted. These meta-analyses present similar and consistent results; yet interesting methodological issues emerge. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted aiming to identify all relevant meta-analyses on (i) the incidence, and (ii) the prognostic value of CI among hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Results: Among 118 articles initially retrieved, 73 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review. Various criteria were used for CI definition mainly based on elevated cardiac biomarkers levels. The most frequently used biomarker was troponin. 30 meta-analyses reported the pooled incidence of CI in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 that varies from 5% to 37%. 32 meta-analyses reported on the association of CI with COVID-19 infection severity, with only 6 of them failing to show a statistically significant association. Finally, 46 meta-analyses investigated the association of CI with mortality and showed that patients with COVID-19 with CI had increased risk for worse prognosis. Four meta-analyses reported pooled adjusted hazard ratios for death in patients with COVID-19 and CI vs those without CI ranging from 1.5 to 3. Conclusions: The impact of CI on the prognosis of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 has gained great interest during the pandemic. Methodological issues such as the inclusion of not peer-reviewed studies, the inclusion of potentially overlapping populations or the inclusion of studies with unadjusted analyses for confounders should be taken into consideration. Despite these limitations, the adverse prognosis of patients with COVID-19 and CI has been consistently demonstrated.

The Effectiveness of Atezolizumab in Metastatic Large Cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma of the Lungs: Insights from the LANCE Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) presents significant treatment challenges due to its rarity and limited therapeutic options. The LANCE study was designed to explore the survival benefits of incorporating atezolizumab in chemotherapy for metastatic LCNEC. METHODS: In this non-randomized study, patients with metastatic LCNEC were prospectively enrolled and assigned to receive either standard chemotherapy plus atezolizumab followed by maintenance with atezolizumab or standard chemotherapy alone. The primary outcomes measured were 12- and 24-month survival rates, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) between the two groups. RESULTS: Of the 22 patients screened, 17 met the inclusion criteria and received either atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (n = 10) or chemotherapy alone (n = 7). After a median follow-up of 23.3 months, the 12-month survival rate was 57.1% (95% CI: 32.6-100%) and 14.3% (95% CI: 2.33-87.7%) for the atezolizumab and the chemotherapy-only groups, respectively. The survival benefit for the atezolizumab group was sustained at 24 months (45.7% vs. 14.3%). Overall survival was significantly higher for the atezolizumab group, and PFS was non-significantly associated with the addition of atezolizumab (log-rank p = 0.04 and 0.05, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study suggests that the addition of atezolizumab to standard platinum-based chemotherapy may provide a substantial survival benefit compared with chemotherapy alone in the first-line treatment of metastatic LCNEC.

Bcl-2 pathway inhibition in solid tumors: a review of clinical trials

Due to their key role in the pathogenesis of cancer through the regulation of apoptosis, the B-cell leukemia/lymphoma-2 (BCL-2) family proteins have been an attractive target for cancer therapy for the past decades. Throughout the years, many Bcl-2 family inhibitors have been developed, with Venetoclax being now successfully used in treating hematological malignancies. Although their effectiveness in the treatment of solid tumors is yet to be established, some preclinical evidence indicates their possible clinical application. This review aims to summarize current data from completed clinical trials that used Bcl-2 protein family inhibitors as monotherapy or in combination with other agents for the treatment of solid malignancies. We managed to include clinical trials of various phases which analyze the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the drugs, as well as the effectiveness and adverse effects. Active and recruiting clinical trials are also briefly presented and future prospects and challenges are discussed (AU)

BRAF/MEK inhibition in NSCLC: mechanisms of resistance and how to overcome it

Targeted therapy for oncogenic genetic alterations has changed the treatment paradigm of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Mutations in the BRAF gene are detected in approximately 4% of patients and result in hyper-activation of the MAPK pathway, leading to uncontrolled cellular proliferation. Inhibition of BRAF and its downstream effector MEK constitutes a therapeutic strategy for a subset of patients with NSCLC and is associated with clinical benefit. Unfortunately, the majority of patients will develop disease progression within 1 year. Preclinical and clinical evidence suggests that resistance mechanisms involve the restoration of MAPK signaling which becomes inhibition-independent due to upstream or downstream alterations, and the activation of bypass pathways, such as the PI3/AKT/mTOR pathway. Future research should be directed to deciphering the mechanisms of cancer cells’ oncogenic dependence, understanding the tissue-specific mechanisms of BRAF-mutant tumors, and optimizing treatment strategies after progression on BRAF and MEK inhibition (AU)