Genitourinary cancer management during a severe pandemic: Utility of rapid communication tools and evidence-based guidelines

Objectives: To determine the usefulness of social media for rapid communication with experts to discuss strategies for prioritization and safety of deferred treatment for urologic malignancies during COVID‐19 pandemic, and to determine whether the discourse and recommendations made through discussions on social media (Twitter) were consistent with the current peer‐reviewed literature regarding the safety of delayed treatment. Methods: We reviewed and compiled the responses to our questions on Twitter regarding the management and safety of deferred treatment in the setting of COVID‐19 related constraints on non‐urgent care. We chronicled the guidance published on this subject by various health authorities and professional organizations. Further, we analyzed peerreviewed literature on the safety of deferred treatment (surgery or systemic therapy) to make made evidence‐based recommendations. Results: Due to the rapidly changing information about epidemiology and infectious characteristics of COVID‐19, the health authorities and professional societies guidance required frequent revisions which by design take days or weeks to produce. Several active discussions on Twitter provided real‐time updates on the changing landscape of the restrictions being placed on non‐urgent care. For separate discussion threads on prostate cancer and bladder cancer, dozens of specialists with expertise in treating urologic cancers could be engaged in providing their expert opinions as well as share evidence to support their recommendations. Our analysis of published studies addressing the safety and extent to which delayed cancer care does not compromise oncological outcome revealed that most prostate cancer care and certain aspects of the bladder and kidney cancer care can be safely deferred for 2‐6 months. Urothelial bladder cancer and advanced kidney cancer require a higher priority for timely surgical care. We did not find evidence to support the idea of using nonsurgical therapies, such as hormone therapy for prostate cancer or chemotherapy for bladder cancer for safer deferment of previously planned surgery. We noted that the comments and recommendations made by the participants in the Twitter discussions were generally consistent with our evidence‐based recommendations for safely postponing cancer care for certain types of urologic cancers. Conclusion: The use of social media platforms, such as Twitter, where the comments and recommendations are subject to review and critique by other specialists is not only feasible but quite useful in addressing the situations requiring urgent resolution, often supported by published evidence. In circumstances such as natural disasters, this may be a preferable approach than the traditional expert panels due to its ability to harness the collective intellect to available experts to provide responses and solutions in real‐time. These real‐time communications via Twitter provided sound guidance which was readily available to the public and participants, and was generally in concordance with the peerreviewed data on safety of deferred treatment.

Unravelling the utility of modern sulfonylureas from cardiovascular outcome trials and landmark trials: expert opinion from an international panel

AIM

The primary objective of this review is to develop practice-based expert group opinions on the cardiovascular (CV) safety and utility of modern sulfonylureas (SUs) in cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs).

BACKGROUND

The United States Food and Drug Administration issued new guidance to the pharmaceutical industry in 2008 regarding the development of new antihyperglycemic drugs. The guidance expanded the scope for the approval of novel antihyperglycemic drugs by mandating CVOTs for safety. A few long-term CVOTs on dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors have been completed, while others are ongoing. SUs, which constitute one of the key antihyperglycemic agents used for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), have been used as comparator agents in several CVOTs. However, the need for CVOTs on modern SUs remains debatable. In this context, a multinational group of endocrinologists convened for a meeting and discussed the need for CVOTs of modern SUs to evaluate their utility in the management of patients with T2DM. At the meeting, CVOTs of modern SUs conducted to date and the hypotheses derived from the results of these trials were discussed.

REVIEW RESULTS

The expert group analyzed the key trials emphasizing the CV safety of modern SUs and also reviewed the results of various CVOTs in which modern SUs were used as comparators. Based on literature evidence and individual clinical insights, the expert group opined that modern SUs are cardiosafe and that since they have been used as comparators in other CVOTs, CVOTs of SUs are not required.

CONCLUSION

Modern SUs can be considered a cardiosafe option for the management of patients with diabetes mellitus and CV disease; thus CVOTs among individuals with T2DM are not required.

Neonates with hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy treated with hypothermia: Observations in a large Canadian population and determinants of death and/or brain injury

BACKGROUND

Birth asphyxia in term neonates remains a serious condition that causes significant mortality and long-term neurodevelopmental sequelae despite hypothermia treatment. The objective of this study was to review therapeutic hypothermia practices in a large population of neonates with hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (HIE) across Canada and to identify determinants of adverse outcome.

METHODS

Our retrospective observational cohort study examined neonates≥36 weeks, admitted to the Canadian Neonatal Network NICUs between 2010 and 2014, diagnosed with HIE, and treated with hypothermia. Adverse outcome was defined as death and/or brain injury. Maternal, birth, and postnatal characteristics were compared between neonates with adverse outcome and those without. The association between the variables which were significantly different (p < 0.05) between the two groups and adverse outcome were further tested, while adjusting for gestational age, birth weight, gender, and initial severity of encephalopathy.

RESULTS

A total of 2187 neonates were admitted for HIE; 52% were treated with hypothermia and 40% developed adverse outcome. Initial severity of encephalopathy (moderate, p = 0.006; severe, p < 0.0001), hypotension treated with inotropes (p = 0.001), and renal failure (p = 0.007) were significantly associated with an increased risk of death and/or brain injury.

CONCLUSIONS

In asphyxiated neonates treated with hypothermia, not only their initial severity of encephalopathy on admission, but also their cardiac and renal complications during the first days after birth were significantly associated with risk of death and/or brain injury. Careful monitoring and cautious management of these complications is warranted.