Introduction Statins may reduce a cytokine storm, which has been hypothesized as a possible mechanism of severe COVID-19 pneumonia. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to report on adverse outcomes among COVID-19 patients by statin usage. Methods Literatures were searched from January 2019 to December 2020 to identify studies that reported the association between statin usage and adverse outcomes, including mortality, ICU admissions, and mechanical ventilation. Studies were meta-analyzed for mortality by the subgroups of ICU status and statin usage before and after COVID-19 hospitalization. Studies reporting an odds ratio (OR) and hazard ratio (HR) were analyzed separately. Results Thirteen cohorts, reporting on 110,078 patients, were included in this meta-analysis. Individuals who used statins before their COVID-19 hospitalization showed a similar risk of mortality, compared to those who did not use statins (HR 0.80, 95% CI: 0.50, 1.28; OR 0.62, 95% CI: 0.38, 1.03). Patients who were administered statins after their COVID-19 diagnosis were at a lower risk of mortality (HR 0.53, 95% CI: 0.46, 0.61; OR 0.57, 95% CI: 0.43, 0.75). The use of statins did not reduce the mortality of COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU (OR 0.65; 95% CI: 0.26, 1.64). Among non-ICU patients, statin users were at a lower risk of mortality relative to non-statin users (HR 0.53, 95% CI: 0.46, 0.62; OR 0.64, 95% CI: 0.46, 0.88). Conclusion Patients administered statins after COVID-19 diagnosis or non-ICU admitted patients were at lower risk of mortality relative to non-statin users.

Introduction The aim of this study is to rigorously review the efficacy and safety of olanzapine in defined hematology oncology settings including (1) the setting of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) settings (2) at 5 mg and 10 mg doses, and (3) for response rates for use in the acute, delayed, and overall settings post-MEC and HEC. Methods Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched through April 23, 2020. The primary efficacy endpoints were the rate of complete response, in the acute (0-24 h post-chemotherapy), delayed (24-120 h post-chemotherapy), and overall (0-120 h post-chemotherapy) phases. The secondary efficacy endpoints were the rates of no nausea and no emesis, for each phase. Safety endpoints were the rate of no serious adverse events (i.e., no grade 3 or 4 toxicities), as assessed by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) criteria. The Mantel-Haenszel, random-effects analysis model was used to compute risk ratios and accompanying 95% confidence intervals for each endpoint. For endpoints that statistically favored one arm, absolute risk differences were computed to assess whether there is a 10% or greater difference, used as the threshold for clinical significance by MASCC/ESMO. Fragility indices were also calculated for each statistically significant endpoint, to quantitatively assess the robustness of the summary estimate. A cumulative meta-analysis was conducted for each efficacy meta-analysis with more than 5 studies, also using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects analysis model. Results Three studies reported on olanzapine for the rescue of breakthrough chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV); 22 studies reported on olanzapine in the prophylactic setting. For studies reporting on HEC patients, olanzapinecontaining regimens were statistically and clinically superior in seven of nine efficacy endpoints in the prophylaxis setting. When olanzapine is administered at a 10-mg dose, it is statistically and clinically superior to control patients in eight of nine endpoints among adults. Olanzapine may be effective in the MEC setting and when administered at 5-mg doses, but the paucity of data leads to notable uncertainty. Conclusion Further RCTs are needed in the setting of MEC patients and administration of olanzapine at a lower 5-mg dose, which may be given to reduce the sedative effect of olanzapine at 10 mg.

Context.-Older adults with advanced lung cancer experience high symptom burden at end of life (EOL), yet hospice enrollment often happens late or not at all. Receipt of medications to manage symptoms in the outpatient setting, outside the Medicare hospice benefit, has not been described. Objectives.-We examined patterns of symptom management medication receipt at EOL for older adults who died of lung cancer. Methods.-This retrospective cohort used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database to identify decedents diagnosed with lung cancer at age 67 years and older between January 2008 and December 2013 who survived six months and greater after diagnosis. Using Medicare Part B and D claims, we identified monthly receipt of outpatient medications for symptomatic management of pain, emotional distress, fatigue, dyspnea, anorexia, and nausea/ vomiting. Multivariable logistic regression estimated associations between medication receipt and patient demographic characteristics, comorbidity, and concurrent therapy. Results.-Of the 16,246 included patients, large proportions received medications for dyspnea (70.7%), pain (62.5%), and emotional distress (49.4%), with lower prevalence for other symptoms. Medication receipt increased from six months to one month before death. Women and dual Medicaid enrolled were more likely to receive medications for pain, emotional distress, dyspnea, and nausea/vomiting. Receipt of symptom management medications decreased with increasing age and racial/ethnical minorities. Conclusion.-Symptom management medication receipt was common and increasing toward EOL. Lower use by males, older adults, and nonwhites may reflect poor access or poor patientprovider communication. Further research is needed to understand these patterns and assess adequacy of symptom management in the outpatient setting.

Introduction Colchicine may inhibit inflammasome signaling and reduce proinflammatory cytokines, a purported mechanism of COVID-19 pneumonia. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to report on the state of the current literature on the use of colchicine in COVID-19 and to investigate the reported clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients by colchicine usage. Methods The literature was searched from January 2019 through January 28, 2021. References were screened to identify studies that reported the effect of colchicine usage on COVID-19 outcomes including mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, or mechanical ventilation. Studies were meta-analyzed for mortality by the subgroup of trial design (RCT vs observational) and ICU status. Studies reporting an risk ratio (RR), odds ratio (OR) and hazard ratio (HR) were analyzed separately. Results Eight studies, reporting on 16,248 patients, were included in this review. The Recovery trial reported equivalent mortality between colchicine and non-colchicine users. Across the other studies, patients who received colchicine had a lower risk of mortality—HR of 0.25 (95% CI: 0.09, 0.66) and OR of 0.22 (95% CI: 0.09, 0.57). There was no statistical difference in risk of ICU admissions between patients with COVID-19 who received colchicine and those who did not–OR of 0.26 (95% CI: 0.06, 1.09). Conclusion Colchicine may reduce the risk of mortality in individuals with COVID-19. Further prospective investigation may further determine the efficacy of colchicine as treatment in COVID-19 patients in various care settings of the disease, including post-hospitalization and long-term care.

Live hospice discharges and burdensome transitions increased between 2000 and 2012. For-profit hospice programs demonstrated larger increases than nonprofit hospice programs.

Introduction: Colchicine may inhibit inflammasome signaling and reduce proinflammatory cytokines, a purported mechanism of COVID-19 pneumonia. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to report on the state of the current literature on the use of colchicine in COVID-19 and to investigate the reported clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients by colchicine usage. Methods: The literature was searched from January 2019 through January 28, 2021. References were screened to identify studies that reported the effect of colchicine usage on COVID-19 outcomes including mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, or mechanical ventilation. Studies were meta-analyzed for mortality by the subgroup of trial design (RCT vs observational) and ICU status. Studies reporting an odds ratio (OR) and hazard ratio (HR) were analyzed separately. Results: Six studies, reporting on 5,033 patients, were included in this review. Across the six studies, COVID-19 patients who had colchicine had a lower risk of mortality - HR of 0.25 (95% CI: 0.09, 0.66) and OR of 0.36 (95% CI: 0.17, 0.76). Among the three observational studies, COVID-19 patients who received colchicine had a lower risk of mortality - HR of 0.25 (95% CI: 0.09, 0.66) and OR of 0.21 (95% CI: 0.06, 0.71). Among three randomized controlled trials, the summary point estimate suggests a direction toward benefit in mortality that is not statistically significant among patients receiving colchicine versus placebo - OR of 0.49 (95% CI: 0.20, 1.24). Conclusion: Colchicine may reduce the risk of mortality in individuals with COVID-19. Further prospective investigation is warranted to determine the efficacy of colchicine as treatment in COVID-19 patients in various care settings of the disease.

This is the first reported case of an acquired FXIII inhibitor associated with mantle cell lymphoma in which the epitope specificity of the pathologic autoantibody was accurately defined. Antifibrinolytic therapy played a prominent role in the prevention of bleeding complications in the window period between initiation of immunosuppression and disappearance of the pathologic anti-FXIII autoantibody.

Background: A recent systematic review and meta-analysis reporting on thirteen published cohorts investigating 110,078 patients demonstrated that patients who were administered statins after their COVID-19 diagnosis and hospitalization were had a lower risk of mortality. While these findings are encouraging, given competing COVID-19 treatment approaches, it is unclear if statin use should be prioritized and if its use is a cost-effective treatment options for hospitalized COVID-19 patients. In this study, we report on a cost-effectiveness analysis of statin-containing treatment regimens for hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Methods: A Markov model was used to compare statin use and no statin use among hospitalized COVID-19 patients from a United States healthcare perspective. The cycle length was one week, with a time horizon of 4 weeks. A Monte Carlo microsimulation with 20,000 samples were used. All analyses were conducted using TreeAge Pro Healthcare Version 2021 R1.1.