Background Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) results in increased inflammatory markers previously associated with atrial arrhythmias. However, little is known about their incidence or specificity in COVID-19, or their association with outcomes. We determined the incidence, predictors and outcomes of atrial fibrillation or flutter (AF/AFL) in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, or hospitalized with Influenza. Methods This is a retrospective analysis of 3,970 patients admitted with PCR-positive COVID-19 between 2/4/2020-4/22/2020 with manual review performed of 1,110. The comparator arm included 1,420 patients with influenza hospitalized between 1/1/2017-1/1/2020. Results Among 3970 inpatients with COVID-19, the incidence of AF/AFL was 10% (N=375) and in patients without a history of atrial arrhythmias, 4% (N=146). Patients with new-onset AF/AFL were older with increased inflammatory markers including Interleukin-6 (93 vs 68 pg/ml, P<0.01), and more myocardial injury (Troponin-I: 0.2 vs 0.06ng/ml, P<0.01). AF/AFL were associated with increased mortality (46% vs 26%, P<0.01). Manual review captured a somewhat higher incidence of AF/AFL (13%, N=140). Compared to inpatients with COVID-19, patients with Influenza (N=1420) had similar rates of AF/AFL (12%, n=163) but lower mortality. The presence of AF/AFL correlated with similarly increased mortality in both COVID-19 (RR 1.77) and Influenza (RR 1.78). Conclusions AF/AFL occurs in a subset of patients hospitalized with either COVID-19 or Influenza, and is associated with inflammation and disease severity in both infections. The incidence and associated increase in mortality in both cohorts suggests that AF/AFL in not specific to COVID-19, but is rather a generalized response to the systemic inflammation of severe viral illnesses.

White matter microstructural deterioration occurs in patients with RRMS over short-term follow-up in patients with NEDA, providing further evidence of the limitations of conventional measures and arguing for DTI in monitoring of the disease process.

Background & Aims: Exposure to hormone contraception has been associated with an increased risk of relapse of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). Little is known about the effects of cancer therapies, specifically hormone therapies, on the course of IBD. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study, collecting data from 5 medical centers on patients with IBD who received a subsequent diagnosis of breast or prostate cancer from 1997 through 2018. For patients with quiescent IBD at their cancer diagnosis, the primary outcome was relapse of IBD. For patients with active IBD at their cancer diagnosis, the primary outcome was IBD remission. Results: Our analysis included 447 patients with IBD (44% with Crohn’s disease, 53% with ulcerative colitis, and 3% with IBD-unclassified) who had either breast (78%) or prostate (22%) cancer. At their cancer diagnosis, 400 patients (90%) had inactive IBD, and 47 (10%) had active IBD. Among patients with inactive IBD, 112 (28%) developed active IBD. Previous exposure to steroids, immunomodulators, or biologics was associated with IBD relapse following a cancer diagnosis (hazard ratio [HR] for steroids, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.18–2.71; HR for immunomodulators, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.38–3.55; HR for biologics, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.01–5.36). Hormone monotherapy (HR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.21–3.29) and combination cytotoxic and hormone therapy (HR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.01–3.43) was associated with IBD relapse. Among 34 patients who received only cytotoxic chemotherapy, 75% remained in remission from IBD at 250 months compared with 42% of those who received hormone monotherapy (log rank=0.02). Among patients with active IBD at their cancer diagnosis, 14 (30%) entered remission from IBD, but there were no significant factors of achieving IBD remission. Conclusions: In a multicenter retrospective study, we found that patients with IBD and breast or prostate cancer who receive hormone therapy have an increased risk for relapse of IBD and related adverse outcomes.

No abstract