Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and neck of femur fractures: Standardising the perioperative management and time to surgery

Demographic projections for hip fragility fractures indicate a rising annual incidence by virtue of a multimorbid, ageing population with more noncommunicable diseases (NCDs). NCDs are characterised by slow progression and long duration ranging from ischaemic cardiovascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease to various cancers. Management of this disease burden often involves commencing patients on oral anticoagulants to reduce the risk of thromboembolic events. The use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in clinical practice has increased due to their rapid onset of action, short half-life and predictable anticoagulant effects, without the need for routine monitoring. Safe and timely surgical intervention relies on reversal of anticoagulants. However, the lack of specific evidence-based guidelines for the perioperative management of patients on DOACs with hip fractures has proved challenging; in particular, the accessibility of DOAC-specific assays, justification of the cost-benefit ratio of targeted reversal agents and indications for neuraxial anaesthesia. This has led to potentially avoidable delays in surgical intervention. Following a literature review of the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamics of commonly used DOACs in our region including the role of surrogate markers, we propose a systematic, evidence-based guideline to the perioperative management of hip fractures DOACs. We believe this standardised protocol can be easily replicated between hospitals. We recommend that if patients are deemed suitable for a general anaesthesia, with satisfactory renal function, optimal surgical time should be 24 h following the last ingested dose of DOAC.     

Checkpoint-blocker-induced autoimmunity is associated with favourable outcome in metastatic melanoma and distinct T-cell expression profiles

Background Immune checkpoint blockers (ICBs) activate CD8⁺ T cells, eliciting both anti-cancer activity and immune-related adverse events (irAEs). The relationship of irAEs with baseline parameters and clinical outcome is unclear.Methods Retrospective evaluation of irAEs on survival was performed across primary (N = 144) and secondary (N = 211) independent cohorts of patients with metastatic melanoma receiving single agent (pembrolizumab/nivolumab—sICB) or combination (nivolumab and ipilimumab—cICB) checkpoint blockade. RNA from pre-treatment and post-treatment CD8⁺ T cells was sequenced and differential gene expression according to irAE development assessed.Results 58.3% of patients developed early irAEs and this was associated with longer progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) across both cohorts (log-rank test, OS: P < 0.0001). Median survival for patients without irAEs was 16.6 months (95% CI: 10.9–33.4) versus not-reached (P = 2.8 × 10⁻⁶). Pre-treatment monocyte and neutrophil counts, but not BMI, were additional predictors of clinical outcome. Differential expression of numerous gene pathway members was observed in CD8⁺ T cells according to irAE development, and patients not developing irAEs demonstrating upregulated CXCR1 pre- and post-treatment.Conclusions Early irAE development post-ICB is associated with favourable survival in MM. Development of irAEs is coupled to expression of numerous gene pathways, suggesting irAE development in-part reflects baseline immune activation.Subject terms: Immunotherapy, Melanoma     

A Phase I Trial of Trametinib in Combination with Sorafenib in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Cancer

Lessons Learned

• The combination of trametinib and sorafenib has an acceptable safety profile, albeit at doses lower than approved for monotherapy.
• Maximum tolerated dose is trametinib 1.5 mg daily and sorafenib 200 mg twice daily.
• The limited anticancer activity observed in this unselected patient population does not support further exploration of trametinib plus sorafenib in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

BackgroundThe RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK signaling pathway is associated with proliferation and progression of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Preclinical data suggest that paradoxical activation of the MAPK pathway may be one of the resistance mechanisms of sorafenib; therefore, we evaluated trametinib plus sorafenib in HCC.MethodsThis was a phase I study with a 3+3 design in patients with treatment‐naïve advanced HCC. The primary objective was safety and tolerability. The secondary objective was clinical efficacy.ResultsA total of 17 patients were treated with three different doses of trametinib and sorafenib. Two patients experienced dose‐limiting toxicity, including grade 4 hypertension and grade 3 elevation of aspartate aminotransferase (AST)/alanine aminotransferase (ALT)/bilirubin over 7 days. Maximum tolerated dose was trametinib 1.5 mg daily and sorafenib 200 mg twice a day. The most common grade 3/4 treatment‐related adverse events were elevated AST (37%) and hypertension (24%). Among 11 evaluable patients, 7 (63.6%) had stable disease with no objective response. The median progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 3.7 and 7.8 months, respectively. Phosphorylated‐ERK was evaluated as a pharmacodynamic marker, and sorafenib plus trametinib inhibited phosphorylated‐ERK up to 98.1% (median: 81.2%) in peripheral blood mononuclear cells.ConclusionTrametinib and sorafenib can be safely administered up to trametinib 1.5 mg daily and sorafenib 200 mg twice a day with limited anticancer activity in advanced HCC.     

Factors associated with provision of depot medroxyprogesterone acetate to adolescents by US health care providers

ObjectiveIdentify factors associated with healthcare providers' frequency of depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) provision to adolescents.Study designWe analyzed data from surveys mailed to a nationally representative sample of public-sector providers and office-based physicians (n=1984). We estimated adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of factors associated with frequent DMPA provision to adolescents in the past year.ResultsAlthough most providers (>95%) considered DMPA safe for adolescents, fewer reported frequent provision (89% of public-sector providers; 64% of office-based physicians). Among public-sector providers, factors associated with lower odds of frequent provision included working in settings without Title X funding (aOR 0.44, 95% CI 0.30–0.64), reporting primary care as their primary clinical focus versus reproductive or adolescent health (aOR 0.42, 95% CI 0.28–0.61), and providing fewer patients with family planning services. Among office-based physicians, factors associated with lower odds of frequent provision included specializing in obstetrics/gynecology (aOR 0.50, 95% CI 0.27–0.91) and family medicine (aOR 0.21, 95% CI 0.09–0.47) versus adolescent medicine, completing training ≥15 versus <5 years ago (aOR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09–0.83), and reporting that 0–24% of patients pay with Medicaid or other government healthcare assistance versus ≥50% (aOR 0.23, 95% CI 0.09–0.61). The reason most commonly reported by providers for infrequent DMPA provision was patient preference for another method.ConclusionsWhile most providers reported frequently providing DMPA to adolescents, training on evidence-based recommendations for contraception, focused on subgroups of providers with lower odds of frequent DMPA provision, may increase adolescents' access to contraception.ImplicationsAlthough >95% of providers considered depot medroxyprogesterone (DMPA) a safe contraceptive for adolescents, only 89% of public-sector providers and 64% of office-based physicians reported frequently providing DMPA to adolescents. Provider training on evidence-based recommendations for contraception counseling and provision may increase adolescents' access to DMPA and all methods of contraception.     

Improving Prenatal Diagnosis of Coarctation of the Aorta

Background

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the association between fetal echocardiographic measurements and the need for intervention (primary coarctation repair, staged coarctation repair, or catheter intervention) in prenatally diagnosed coarctation of the aorta.

Cec and You Shall Find: Cecal Perforation in a Patient with COVID-19

Digestive Diseases and Sciences -