Use of Tenofovir Alafenamide/Emtricitabine/Elvitegravir-Cobicistat in HIV-Naive Patients with Advanced Disease: GENIS Study.

Objective: The primary endpoint of the study was to determine the proportion of patients with HIV RN

Laboratory Cross-Comparison and Ring Test Trial for Tumor BRCA Testing in a Multicenter Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Series: The BORNEO GEICO 60-0 Study

Germline and tumor BRCA testing constitutes a valuable tool for clinical decision-making in the management of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) patients. Tissue testing is able to identify both germline (g) and somatic (s) BRCA variants, but tissue preservation methods and the widespread implementation of NGS represent pre-analytical and analytical challenges that need to be managed. This study was carried out on a multicenter prospective GEICO cohort of EOC patients with known gBRCA status in order to determine the inter-laboratory reproducibility of tissue sBRCA testing. The study consisted of two independent experimental approaches, a bilateral comparison between two reference laboratories (RLs) testing 82 formalin-paraffin-embedded (FFPE) EOC samples each, and a Ring Test Trial (RTT) with five participating clinical laboratories (CLs) evaluating the performance of tissue BRCA testing in a total of nine samples. Importantly, labs employed their own locally adopted next-generation sequencing (NGS) analytical approach. BRCA mutation frequency in the RL sub-study cohort was 23.17%: 12 (63.1%) germline and 6 (31.6%) somatic. Concordance between the two RLs with respect to BRCA status was 84.2% (gBRCA 100%). The RTT study distributed a total of nine samples (three commercial synthetic human FFPE references, three FFPE, and three OC DNA) among five CLs. The median concordance detection rate among them was 64.7% (range: 35.3-70.6%). Analytical discrepancies were mainly due to the minimum variant allele frequency thresholds, bioinformatic pipeline filters, and downstream variant interpretation, some of them with consequences of clinical relevance. Our study demonstrates a wide range of concordance in the identification and interpretation of BRCA sequencing data, highlighting the relevance of establishing standard criteria for detecting, interpreting, and reporting BRCA variants

Performance of Prognostic Risk Scores in Chronic Heart Failure Patients Enrolled in the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Long-Term Registry

Objectives: This study compared the performance of major heart failure (HF) risk models in predicting mortality and examined their utilization using data from a contemporary multinational registry. Background: Several prognostic risk scores have been developed for ambulatory HF patients, but their precision is still inadequate and their use limited. Methods: This registry enrolled patients with HF seen in participating European centers between May 2011 and April 2013. The following scores designed to estimate 1- to 2-year all-cause mortality were calculated in each participant: CHARM (Candesartan in Heart Failure-Assessment of Reduction in Mortality), GISSI-HF (Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Streptochinasi nell'Infarto Miocardico-Heart Failure), MAGGIC (Meta-analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure), and SHFM (Seattle Heart Failure Model). Patients with hospitalized HF (n = 6,920) and ambulatory HF patients missing any variable needed to estimate each score (n = 3,267) were excluded, leaving a final sample of 6,161 patients. Results: At 1-year follow-up, 5,653 of 6,161 patients (91.8%) were alive. The observed-to-predicted survival ratios (CHARM: 1.10, GISSI-HF: 1.08, MAGGIC: 1.03, and SHFM: 0.98) suggested some overestimation of mortality by all scores except the SHFM. Overprediction occurred steadily across levels of risk using both the CHARM and the GISSI-HF, whereas the SHFM underpredicted mortality in all risk groups except the highest. The MAGGIC showed the best overall accuracy (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.743), similar to the GISSI-HF (AUC = 0.739; p = 0.419) but better than the CHARM (AUC = 0.729; p = 0.068) and particularly better than the SHFM (AUC = 0.714; p = 0.018). Less than 1% of patients received a prognostic estimate from their enrolling physician. Conclusions: Performance of prognostic risk scores is still limited and physicians are reluctant to use them in daily practice. The need for contemporary, more precise prognostic tools should be considered

Hyponatraemia and changes in natraemia during hospitalization for acute heart failure and associations with in-hospital and long-term outcomes - from the ESC HFA EORP Heart Failure Long-Term Registry

Aims: To comprehensively assess hyponatraemia in acute heart failure (AHF) regarding prevalence, associations, hospital course, and post-discharge outcomes. Methods and results: Of 8,298 patients in the ESC-HF Long-Term Registry hospitalized for AHF with any ejection fraction, 20% presented with hyponatraemia (serum sodium <135 mmol/L). Independent predictors included lower systolic blood pressure, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and haemoglobin, along with diabetes, hepatic disease, use of thiazide diuretics, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, digoxin, higher doses of loop diuretics, and non-use of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers and beta-blockers. In-hospital death occurred in 3.3%. The prevalence of hyponatraemia and in-hospital mortality with different combinations were: 9% hyponatraemia both at admission and discharge (hyponatraemia Yes/Yes, in-hospital mortality 6.9%), 11% Yes/No (in-hospital mortality 4.9%), 8% No/Yes (in-hospital mortality 4.7%), and 72% No/No (in-hospital mortality 2.4%). Correction of hyponatraemia was associated with improvement in eGFR. In-hospital development of hyponatraemia was associated with greater diuretic use and worsening eGFR but also more effective decongestion. Among hospital survivors, 12-month mortality was 19% and adjusted hazard ratios were for hyponatraemia Yes/Yes 1.60 (1.35-1.89), Yes/No 1.35 (1.14-1.59), and No/Yes 1.18 (0.96-1.45). For death or HF hospitalization they were 1.38 (1.21-1.58), 1.17 (1.02-1.33), and 1.09 (0.93-1.27), respectively. Conclusion: Among patients with AHF, 20% had hyponatraemia at admission, which was associated with more advanced HF and normalized in half of patients during hospitalization. Admission hyponatraemia (possibly dilutional), especially if it did not resolve, was associated with worse in-hospital and post-discharge outcomes. Hyponatraemia developing during hospitalization (possibly depletional) was associated with lower risk. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved