Objectives. The purpose of this trial was to evaluate the safety of long-term pterostilbene administration in humans. Methodology. The trial was a prospective, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled intervention trial enrolling patients with hypercholesterolemia (defined as a baseline total cholesterol ≥200 mg/dL and/or baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol ≥100 mg/dL). Eighty subjects were divided equally into one of four groups: (1) pterostilbene 125 mg twice daily, (2) pterostilbene 50 mg twice daily, (3) pterostilbene 50 mg + grape extract (GE) 100 mg twice daily, and (4) matching placebo twice daily for 6–8 weeks. Safety markers included biochemical and subjective measures. Linear mixed models were used to estimate primary safety measure treatment effects. Results. The majority of patients completed the trial (91.3%). The average age was 54 years. The majority of patients were females (71%) and Caucasians (70%). There were no adverse drug reactions (ADRs) on hepatic, renal, or glucose markers based on biochemical analysis. There were no statistically significant self-reported or major ADRs. Conclusion. Pterostilbene is generally safe for use in humans up to 250 mg/day.

Introduction. The purpose of this trial was to evaluate the effect of pterostilbene on metabolic parameters. Methods. A prospective, randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled study that enrolled 80 patients with a total cholesterol ≥200 mg/dL and/or LDL ≥ 100 mg/dL. Subjects were divided into four groups: (1) pterostilbene 125 mg twice daily; (2) pterostilbene 50 mg twice daily; (3) pterostilbene 50 mg + grape extract (GE) 100 mg twice daily; (4) matching placebo twice daily for 6–8 weeks. Endpoints included lipids, blood pressure, and weight. Linear mixed models were used to examine and compare changes in parameters over time. Models were adjusted for age, gender, and race. Results. LDL increased with pterostilbene monotherapy (17.1 mg/dL; P = 0.001) which was not seen with GE combination (P = 0.47). Presence of a baseline cholesterol medication appeared to attenuate LDL effects. Both systolic (−7.8 mmHg; P < 0.01) and diastolic blood pressure (−7.3 mmHg; P < 0.001) were reduced with high dose pterostilbene. Patients not on cholesterol medication (n = 51) exhibited minor weight loss with pterostilbene (−0.62 kg/m2; P = 0.012). Conclusion. Pterostilbene increases LDL and reduces blood pressure in adults. This trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01267227.

Background. As indications for immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy have increased in recent years, so has the proportion of patients eligible for this type of therapy. However, a lack of data exists about the risks and benefits of ICI therapy in hospitalized patients, who tend to be frailer and sicker than patients enrolled in clinical trials. Material and methods. We conducted a retrospective cohort study among hospitalized patients with metastatic solid tumors who received ICI therapy at a large academic cancer center over the course of 4 years. We analyzed the characteristics and outcomes of these patients and identified demographic and clinical factors that could be used to predict mortality. Results. During the 4-year study period, 106 patients were treated with ICI therapy while admitted to the hospital; seventy (66%) had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status ≥2, which would have prevented them from enrolling in most clinical trials of ICIs. Fifty-two patients (49%) died either during admission or within 30 days of discharge; median overall survival was 1.0 month from discharge, and 16 patients (15%) were alive 6 months after discharge. Independent predictors of death following receipt of inpatient ICI included a diagnosis of non-small cell lung cancer relative to melanoma and prior treatment with two or more lines of therapy. Conclusion. The poor overall outcomes observed in this study may give clinicians pause when considering ICI therapy for hospitalized patients, particularly those with characteristics that are associated with a greater risk of mortality. The Oncologist 2020;9999:• • Implications for Practice: Immunotherapy strategies for cancer patients are rapidly evolving and their use is expanding, but not all patients will develop a response, and secondary toxicity can be significant and challenging. This is especially evident on hospitalized patients, where the economic cost derived from inpatient ICI administration is important and the clinical benefit is sometimes unclear. The poor overall outcomes evidenced in the ICI inpatient population in our study show the need to better identify the patients that will respond to these therapies, which will also help to decrease the financial burden imposed by these highly priced therapies.

Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic has significantly impacted health care systems. However, to date, the trend of hospitalizations in the oncology patient population has not been studied, and the frequency of nosocomial spread to patients with cancer is not well understood. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the impact of COVID‐19 on inpatient oncology census and determine the nosocomial rate of COVID‐19 in patients with cancer admitted at a large academic center. Materials and Methods Medical records of patients with cancer diagnosed with COVID‐19 and admitted were reviewed to evaluate the temporal trends in inpatient oncology census during pre–COVID‐19 (January 2019 to February 2020), COVID‐19 (March to May 2020), and post–COVID‐19 surge (June to August 2020) in the region. In addition, nosocomial infection rates of SARS‐CoV‐2 were reviewed. Results Overall, the daily inpatient census was steady in 2019 (median, 103; range, 92–118) and until February 2020 (median, 112; range, 102–114). However, there was a major decline from March to May 2020 (median, 68; range, 57–104), with 45.4% lower admissions during April 2020. As the COVID‐19 surge eased, the daily inpatient census over time returned to the pre–COVID‐19 baseline (median, 103; range, 99–111). One patient (1/231, 0.004%) tested positive for SARS‐CoV‐2 13 days after hospitalization, and it is unclear if it was nosocomial or community spread. Conclusion In this study, inpatient oncology admissions decreased substantially during the COVID‐19 surge but over time returned to the pre–COVID‐19 baseline. With aggressive infection control measures, the rates of nosocomial transmission were exceedingly low and should provide reassurance to those seeking medical care, including inpatient admissions when medically necessary. Implications for Practice The COVID‐19 pandemic has had a major impact on the health care system, and cancer patients are a vulnerable population. This study observes a significant decline in the daily inpatient oncology census from March to May 2020 compared with the same time frame in the previous year and examines the potential reasons for this decline. In addition, nosocomial rates of COVID‐19 were investigated, and rates were found to be very low. These findings suggest that aggressive infection control measures can mitigate the nosocomial infection risk among cancer patients and the inpatient setting is a safe environment, providing reassurance.