In Children With Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease, Cysteamine Bitartrate Delayed Release Improves Liver Enzymes but Does Not Reduce Disease Activity Scores

Background & aimsNo treatment for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) has been approved by regulatory agencies. We performed a randomized controlled trial to determine whether 52 weeks of cysteamine bitartrate delayed release (CBDR) reduces the severity of liver disease in children with NAFLD.MethodsWe performed a double-masked trial of 169 children with NAFLD activity scores of 4 or higher at 10 centers. From June 2012 to January 2014, the patients were assigned randomly to receive CBDR or placebo twice daily (300 mg for patients weighing ≤65 kg, 375 mg for patients weighing >65 to 80 kg, and 450 mg for patients weighing >80 kg) for 52 weeks. The primary outcome from the intention-to-treat analysis was improvement in liver histology over 52 weeks, defined as a decrease in the NAFLD activity score of 2 points or more without worsening fibrosis; patients without biopsy specimens from week 52 (17 in the CBDR group and 6 in the placebo group) were considered nonresponders. We calculated the relative risks (RR) of improvement using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel analysis.ResultsThere was no significant difference between groups in the primary outcome (28% of children in the CBDR group vs 22% in the placebo group; RR, 1.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8-2.1; P = .34). However, children receiving CBDR had significant changes in prespecified secondary outcomes: reduced mean levels of alanine aminotransferase (reduction, 53 ± 88 U/L vs 8 ± 77 U/L in the placebo group; P = .02) and aspartate aminotransferase (reduction, 31 ± 52 vs 4 ± 36 U/L in the placebo group; P = .008), and a larger proportion had reduced lobular inflammation (36% in the CBDR group vs 21% in the placebo group; RR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-2.9; P = .03). In a post hoc analysis of children weighing 65 kg or less, those taking CBDR had a 4-fold better chance of histologic improvement (observed in 50% of children in the CBDR group vs 13% in the placebo group; RR, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.3-12.3; P = .005).ConclusionsIn a randomized trial, we found that 1 year of CBDR did not reduce overall histologic markers of NAFLD compared with placebo in children. Children receiving CBDR, however, had significant reductions in serum aminotransferase levels and lobular inflammation. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT01529268

Reduction of cardiac imaging tests during the COVID-19 pandemic: The case of Italy. Findings from the IAEA Non-invasive Cardiology Protocol Survey on COVID-19 (INCAPS COVID)

Background: In early 2020, COVID-19 massively hit Italy, earlier and harder than any other European country. This caused a series of strict containment measures, aimed at blocking the spread of the pandemic. Healthcare delivery was also affected when resources were diverted towards care of COVID-19 patients, including intensive care wards. Aim of the study: The aim is assessing the impact of COVID-19 on cardiac imaging in Italy, compare to the Rest of Europe (RoE) and the World (RoW). Methods: A global survey was conducted in May–June 2020 worldwide, through a questionnaire distributed online. The survey covered three periods: March and April 2020, and March 2019. Data from 52 Italian centres, a subset of the 909 participating centres from 108 countries, were analyzed. Results: In Italy, volumes decreased by 67% in March 2020, compared to March 2019, as opposed to a significantly lower decrease (p < 0.001) in RoE and RoW (41% and 40%, respectively). A further decrease from March 2020 to April 2020 summed up to 76% for the North, 77% for the Centre and 86% for the South. When compared to the RoE and RoW, this further decrease from March 2020 to April 2020 in Italy was significantly less (p = 0.005), most likely reflecting the earlier effects of the containment measures in Italy, taken earlier than anywhere else in the West. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic massively hit Italy and caused a disruption of healthcare services, including cardiac imaging studies. This raises concern about the medium- and long-term consequences for the high number of patients who were denied timely diagnoses and the subsequent lifesaving therapies and procedures

Impact of COVID-19 on Diagnostic Cardiac Procedural Volume in Oceania: The IAEA Non-Invasive Cardiology Protocol Survey on COVID-19 (INCAPS COVID)

Objectives: The INCAPS COVID Oceania study aimed to assess the impact caused by the COVID-19 pandemic on cardiac procedure volume provided in the Oceania region. Methods: A retrospective survey was performed comparing procedure volumes within March 2019 (pre-COVID-19) with April 2020 (during first wave of COVID-19 pandemic). Sixty-three (63) health care facilities within Oceania that perform cardiac diagnostic procedures were surveyed, including a mixture of metropolitan and regional, hospital and outpatient, public and private sites, and 846 facilities outside of Oceania. The percentage change in procedure volume was measured between March 2019 and April 2020, compared by test type and by facility. Results: In Oceania, the total cardiac diagnostic procedure volume was reduced by 52.2% from March 2019 to April 2020, compared to a reduction of 75.9% seen in the rest of the world (p<0.001). Within Oceania sites, this reduction varied significantly between procedure types, but not between types of health care facility. All procedure types (other than stress cardiac magnetic resonance [CMR] and positron emission tomography [PET]) saw significant reductions in volume over this time period (p<0.001). In Oceania, transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) decreased by 51.6%, transoesophageal echocardiography (TOE) by 74.0%, and stress tests by 65% overall, which was more pronounced for stress electrocardiograph (ECG) (81.8%) and stress echocardiography (76.7%) compared to stress single-photon emission computerised tomography (SPECT) (44.3%). Invasive coronary angiography decreased by 36.7% in Oceania. Conclusion: A significant reduction in cardiac diagnostic procedure volume was seen across all facility types in Oceania and was likely a function of recommendations from cardiac societies and directives from government to minimise spread of COVID-19 amongst patients and staff. Longer term evaluation is important to assess for negative patient outcomes which may relate to deferral of usual models of care within cardiology