Search

Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy represents an innovative approach to immunotherapy and currently stands out, particularly for oncohematological patients refractory to traditional treatments. Ongoing trials are further expanding its clinical use for new oncological and non-oncological indications, potentially leading to newer treatment options soon. This new approach, however, also presents challenges, including cardiovascular toxicity. Little is reported in pivotal studies, and some recent retrospective observations suggest a non-negligible incidence of side effects with presentation ranging from mild adverse cardiovascular events to fatal complications in which, in most cases, there is a direct or indirect association with cytokine release syndrome. In this literature review, the hypotheses of an important interface between cytokine release syndrome and cardiotoxicity by chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy will be addressed, as will current knowledge about risk factors for cardiotoxicity and recommendations for pre-therapy evaluation, post-infusion monitoring and clinical management of these complications., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Associação Brasileira de Hematologia, Hemoterapia e Terapia Celular. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Therapeutic anticoagulation showed inconsistent results in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and selection of the best patients to use this strategy still a challenge balancing the risk of thrombotic and hemorrhagic outcomes. The present post-hoc analysis of the ACTION trial evaluated the variables independently associated with both bleeding events (major bleeding or clinically relevant non-major bleeding) and the composite outcomes thrombotic events (venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, systemic embolism, or major adverse limb events). Variables were assessed one by one with independent logistic regressions and final models were chosen based on Akaike information criteria. The model for bleeding events showed an area under the curve of 0.63 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53 to 0.73), while the model for thrombotic events had an area under the curve of 0.72 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.79). Non-invasive respiratory support was associated with thrombotic but not bleeding events, while invasive ventilation was associated with both outcomes (Odds Ratio of 7.03 [95 CI% 1.95 to 25.18] for thrombotic and 3.14 [95% CI 1.11 to 8.84] for bleeding events). Beyond respiratory support, creatinine level (Odds Ratio [OR] 1.01 95% CI 1.00 to 1.02 for every 1.0 mg/dL) and history of coronary disease (OR 3.67; 95% CI 1.32 to 10.29) were also independently associated to the risk of thrombotic events. Non-invasive respiratory support, history of coronary disease, and creatinine level may help to identify hospitalized COVID-19 patients at higher risk of thrombotic complications.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04394377., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Transthyretin amyloidosis (ATTR) is a multisystem disease caused by the deposition of fibrillar protein in organs and tissues. ATTR genotypes and phenotypes are highly heterogeneous. We present data on physical signs and symptoms, cardiac and neurological assessments and genetic profile of patients enrolled in the Transthyretin Cardiac Amyloidosis Registry of the State of São Paulo, Brazil., Results: Six hundred-forty-four patients were enrolled, 505 with the variant form (ATTRv) and 139 with wild-type (ATTRwt). Eleven different mutations were detected, the most common being Val50Met (47.5%) and V142Ile (39.2%). Overall, more than half of the patients presented cardiac involvement, and the difference in this proportion between the ATTRv and ATTRwt groups was significant (43.9 vs. 89.9%; p < 0.001). The prevalence of the neurological phenotype also differed between ATTRv and ATTRwt (56.8 vs. 31.7%; p < 0.001). The mixed phenotype was found in 25.6% of the population, without a significant difference between ATTRv and ATTRwt groups. A group of patients remained asymptomatic (10.4%), with a lower proportion of asymptomatic ATTRwt patients., Conclusions: This study details the clinical and genetic spectrum of patients with ATTR in São Paulo, Brazil. This preliminary analysis highlights the considerable phenotypic heterogeneity of neurological and cardiac manifestations in patients with variant and wild-type ATTR., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: We explored the effect of discontinuing versus continuing angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) on clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19 according to baseline disease severity., Methods: We randomized 659 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and classified them as having mild or moderate COVID-19 disease severity at hospital presentation using blood oxygen saturation and lung imaging. The primary outcome was the mean ratio of number of days alive and out of the hospital at 30 days according to disease severity., Results: At presentation, 376 patients (57.1%) had mild and 283 (42.9%) had moderate COVID-19. In patients with mild disease, there was no significant difference in the number of days alive and out of the hospital between ACEI/ARB discontinuation (mean 23.5 [SD 6.3] days) and continuation (mean 23.8 [SD 6.5] days), with a mean ratio of 0.98 (95% CI 0.92-1.04). However, in patients with moderate disease, there were fewer days alive and out of the hospital with ACEI/ARB discontinuation (mean 19.6 [SD 9.5] days) than continuation (mean 21.6 [SD 7.6] days), with a mean ratio of 0.90 (95% CI 0.81-1.00; P-interaction = .01). The impact of discontinuing versus continuing ACEIs/ARBs on days alive and out of hospital through 30 days differed according to baseline COVID-19 disease severity., Conclusions: Unlike patients with mild disease, patients with moderate disease who continued ACEIs/ARBs had more days alive and out of hospital through 30 days than those who discontinued ACEIs/ARBs. This suggests that ACEIs/ARBs should be continued for patients with moderate COVID-19 disease severity., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04364893)., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Observational studies have suggested a higher risk of thrombotic events in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Moreover, elevated D-dimer levels have been identified as an important prognostic marker in COVID-19 directly associated with disease severity and progression. Prophylactic anticoagulation for hospitalized COVID-19 patients might not be enough to prevent thrombotic events; therefore, therapeutic anticoagulation regimens deserve clinical investigation., Design: ACTION is an academic-led, pragmatic, multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase IV clinical trial that aims to enroll around 600 patients at 40 sites participating in the Coalition COVID-19 Brazil initiative. Eligible patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 with symptoms up to 14 days and elevated D-dimer levels will be randomized to a strategy of full-dose anticoagulation for 30 days with rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily (or full-dose heparin if oral administration is not feasible) vs standard of care with any approved venous thromboembolism prophylaxis regimen during hospitalization. A confirmation of COVID-19 was mandatory for study entry, based on specific tests used in clinical practice (RT-PCR, antigen test, IgM test) collected before randomization, regardless of in the outpatient setting or not. Randomization will be stratified by clinical stability at presentation. The primary outcome is a hierarchical analysis of mortality, length of hospital stay, or duration of oxygen therapy at the end of 30 days. Secondary outcomes include the World Health Organization's 8-point ordinal scale at 30 days and the following efficacy outcomes: incidence of venous thromboembolism , acute myocardial infarction, stroke, systemic embolism, major adverse limb events, duration of oxygen therapy, disease progression, and biomarkers. The primary safety outcomes are major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding according to the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria., Summary: The ACTION trial will evaluate whether in-hospital therapeutic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban for stable patients, or enoxaparin for unstable patients, followed by rivaroxaban through 30 days compared with standard prophylactic anticoagulation improves clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer levels., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cardiovascular comorbidities such as hypertension and inflammatory response dysregulation are associated with worse COVID-19 prognoses. Different cytokines have been proposed to play vital pathophysiological roles in COVID-19 progression, but appropriate prognostic biomarkers remain lacking. We hypothesized that the combination of immunological and clinical variables at admission could predict the clinical progression of COVID-19 in hypertensive patients. Methods: The levels of biomarkers, including C-reactive protein, lymphocytes, monocytes, and a panel of 29 cytokines, were measured in blood samples from 167 hypertensive patients included in the BRACE-CORONA trial. The primary outcome was the highest score during hospitalization on the modified WHO Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement. The probability of progression to severe disease was estimated using a logistic regression model that included clinical variables and biomarkers associated significantly with the primary outcome. Results: During hospitalization, 13 (7.8%) patients showed progression to more severe forms of COVID-19, including three deaths. Obesity, diabetes, oxygen saturation, lung involvement on computed tomography examination, the C-reactive protein level, levels of 15 cytokines, and lymphopenia on admission were associated with progression to severe COVID-19. Elevated levels of interleukin-10 and interleukin-12 (p70) combined with two or three of the abovementioned clinical comorbidities were associated strongly with progression to severe COVID-19. The risk of progression to severe disease reached 97.5% in the presence of the five variables included in our model. Conclusions: This study demonstrated that interleukin-10 and interleukin-12 (p70) levels, in combination with clinical variables, at hospital admission are key biomarkers associated with an increased risk of disease progression in hypertensive patients with COVID-19., Competing Interests: RDL reports receiving grant support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Sanofi, and Pfizer, and consulting fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Portola. AM reports receiving consulting fees from Pfizer, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Daiichi-Sankyo, Zodiac, Roche, and Janssen. AF reports receiving consulting fees from Pfizer, Bayer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Boehringer, and Servier. GA reports receiving consulting fees from Bayer, Pfizer, Servier, AstraZeneca, and Daichii Sankyo. DA reports receiving consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Servier. OS reports receiving grant support from Boehringer Ingelheim and consulting fees from Pfizer, Bayer, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Boehringer Ingelheim. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Moll-Bernardes, de Sousa, Macedo, Lopes, Vera, Maia, Feldman, Arruda, Castro, Pimentel-Coelho, de Albuquerque, de Paula, Furquim, Loures, Giusti, de Oliveira, De Luca, Kotsugai, Domiciano, Santos, de Souza, Bozza, Luiz and Medei.)

Background: COVID-19 is associated with a prothrombotic state leading to adverse clinical outcomes. Whether therapeutic anticoagulation improves outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 is unknown. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation in this population., Methods: We did a pragmatic, open-label (with blinded adjudication), multicentre, randomised, controlled trial, at 31 sites in Brazil. Patients (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, and who had COVID-19 symptoms for up to 14 days before randomisation, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation. Therapeutic anticoagulation was in-hospital oral rivaroxaban (20 mg or 15 mg daily) for stable patients, or initial subcutaneous enoxaparin (1 mg/kg twice per day) or intravenous unfractionated heparin (to achieve a 0·3-0·7 IU/mL anti-Xa concentration) for clinically unstable patients, followed by rivaroxaban to day 30. Prophylactic anticoagulation was standard in-hospital enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin. The primary efficacy outcome was a hierarchical analysis of time to death, duration of hospitalisation, or duration of supplemental oxygen to day 30, analysed with the win ratio method (a ratio >1 reflects a better outcome in the therapeutic anticoagulation group) in the intention-to-treat population. The primary safety outcome was major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding through 30 days. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04394377) and is completed., Findings: From June 24, 2020, to Feb 26, 2021, 3331 patients were screened and 615 were randomly allocated (311 [50%] to the therapeutic anticoagulation group and 304 [50%] to the prophylactic anticoagulation group). 576 (94%) were clinically stable and 39 (6%) clinically unstable. One patient, in the therapeutic group, was lost to follow-up because of withdrawal of consent and was not included in the primary analysis. The primary efficacy outcome was not different between patients assigned therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation, with 28 899 (34·8%) wins in the therapeutic group and 34 288 (41·3%) in the prophylactic group (win ratio 0·86 [95% CI 0·59-1·22], p=0·40). Consistent results were seen in clinically stable and clinically unstable patients. The primary safety outcome of major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding occurred in 26 (8%) patients assigned therapeutic anticoagulation and seven (2%) assigned prophylactic anticoagulation (relative risk 3·64 [95% CI 1·61-8·27], p=0·0010). Allergic reaction to the study medication occurred in two (1%) patients in the therapeutic anticoagulation group and three (1%) in the prophylactic anticoagulation group., Interpretation: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, in-hospital therapeutic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban or enoxaparin followed by rivaroxaban to day 30 did not improve clinical outcomes and increased bleeding compared with prophylactic anticoagulation. Therefore, use of therapeutic-dose rivaroxaban, and other direct oral anticoagulants, should be avoided in these patients in the absence of an evidence-based indication for oral anticoagulation., Funding: Coalition COVID-19 Brazil, Bayer SA., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JHA reports grants and personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb and CSL Behring; grants from AstraZeneca, CryoLife, US Food & Drug Administration, US National Institutes of Health, Sanofi, VoluMetrix, and Boehringer Ingelheim; personal fees from Pfizer, AbbVie Pharmaceuticals, Portola Pharmaceuticals, Quantum Genetics, Teikoku Pharmaceuticals, VA Cooperative Studies Program, and Zafgen, outside of the submitted work. AA reports consultant and lecture fees from Bayer, NovoNordisk, and LillyBaxter; lecture fees from Daichii-Sankyo; and research grants from Bayer, EMS Pharma, and the Population Health Research Institute, outside of the submitted work. LCPA reports personal fees from Baxter, Pfizer, and Halex-Istar; and grants from Ache Laboratorios Farmaceuticos, outside of the submitted work. OB reports grants from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Servier, and Amgen, and advisory board and personal fees from Novartis, outside of the submitted work. ABC reports grants from Bayer outside of the submitted work. GEC-S reports grants from Novartis and Air Liquide, outside of the submitted work. PGMdBeS reports grants from Bayer, Roche, and Pfizer, outside of the submitted work. MDAD reports personal fees, non-financial support, and other (advisory board participation) from Pfizer; personal fees and non-financial support from Bayer; personal fees and other (advisory board participation) from Servier; and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, and AstraZeneca, outside of the submitted work. RHMF reports grants from Bayer during the conduct of the study; and grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca and Servier, personal fees and non-financial support from Bayer, grants and non-financial support from EMS Pharma, and grants from Aché, Health Canada, and the Brazilian Ministry of Health, outside of the submitted work. MBG reports personal fees from COALITION COVID-19 Brazil and Bayer during the conduct of the study. RDL reports grants and personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic PLC, and Sanofi; and personal fees from Amgen, Bayer, and Boehringer Ingelheim, outside of the submitted work. AVSM reports personal fees, non-financial support, and other (advisory board participation) from Bayer and Pfizer; personal fees and other (advisory board participation) from Novartis; personal fees and non-financial support from Zodiac; and personal fees from Ferring, Janssen, Sanofi, and AstraZeneca, outside of the submitted work. FCN reports grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim; and personal fees from Bayer and Pfizer, outside of the submitted work. ER reports grants and consulting fees from Bayer and Pfizer; grants from the Brazilian Ministry of Science and Technology; and personal fees from Aspen Pharma, Biomm Pharma, and Daiichi Sankyo, outside of the submitted work. ATR reports personal fees from Sanofi and Bayer, outside of the submitted work. VCV reports grants from Aspen Pharma, Pfizer, and Cristalia, outside of the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

This manuscript summarizes the results of the consensus meeting composed of hematologists and cardiologists to establish recommendations for the prevention and follow-up of cardiovascular (CV) risk in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) treated with BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) from the point of view of clinical practice and from the perspective of hematology consultation. In the first medical appointment, the CV risk factors should be identified to perform the baseline risk stratification, based on the Brazilian Guideline of Dyslipidemia and Atherosclerosis Prevention Update (risk levels: very high, high, intermediate and low). Once stratified, the treatment of the CV risk factors should be administered. If the patient presents risk factors, such as hypertension, diabetes, renal disease, smoking and hypercholesterolemia, the evaluation and initial treatment may be done by the hematologist, being an option the request for evaluation by a specialist. If the patient has a history of previous CV disease, we recommend referral to a specialist. As the CV risk score is dynamic and the control of risk factors can reduce the patient risk, this expert consensus recommends that the re-evaluation of the CV risk after the baseline should be performed at 3 months, 6 months and 12 months. After this period, it should be done annually and, for specific patients, at the clinician's discretion. The evaluation of the baseline CV risk and the safe administration of a TKI allow the patient to benefit from the maximum treatment, avoiding unwanted effects., (Copyright © 2020 Associação Brasileira de Hematologia, Hemoterapia e Terapia Celular. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This observational, cross-sectional study based aimed to test whether heart failure (HF)-disease management program (DMP) components are influencing care and clinical decision-making in Brazil., Methods: The survey respondents were cardiologists recommended by experts in the field and invited to participate in the survey via printed form or email. The survey consisted of 29 questions addressing site demographics, public versus private infrastructure, HF baseline data of patients, clinical management of HF, performance indicators, and perceptions about HF treatment., Results: Data were obtained from 98 centers (58% public and 42% private practice) distributed across Brazil. Public HF-DMPs compared to private HF-DMP were associated with a higher percentage of HF-DMP-dedicated services (79% vs 24%; OR: 12, 95% CI: 94-34), multidisciplinary HF (MHF)-DMP [84% vs 65%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 1-8), HF educational programs (49% vs 18%; OR: 4; 95% CI: 1-2), written instructions before hospital discharge (83% vs 76%; OR: 1; 95% CI: 0-5), rehabilitation (69% vs 39%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 1-9), monitoring (44% vs 29%; OR: 2; 95% CI: 1-5), guideline-directed medical therapy-HF use (94% vs 85%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 0-15), and less B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) dosage (73% vs 88%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 1-9), and key performance indicators (37% vs 60%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 1-7). In comparison to non- MHF-DMP, MHF-DMP was associated with more educational initiatives (42% vs 6%; OR: 12; 95% CI: 1-97), written instructions (83% vs 68%; OR: 2: 95% CI: 1-7), rehabilitation (69% vs 17%; OR: 11; 95% CI: 3-44), monitoring (47% vs 6%; OR: 14; 95% CI: 2-115), GDMT-HF (92% vs 83%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 0-15). In addition, there were less use of BNP as a biomarker (70% vs 84%; OR: 2; 95% CI: 1-8) and key performance indicators (35% vs 51%; OR: 2; 95% CI: 91,6) in the non-MHF group. Physicians considered changing or introducing new medications mostly when patients were hospitalized or when observing worsening disease and/or symptoms. Adherence to drug treatment and non-drug treatment factors were the greatest medical problems associated with HF treatment., Conclusion: HF-DMPs are highly heterogeneous. New strategies for HF care should consider the present study highlights and clinical decision-making processes to improve HF patient care.

Importance: It is unknown whether angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) have a positive, neutral, or negative effect on clinical outcomes in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)., Objective: To determine whether discontinuation compared with continuation of ACEIs or ARBs changed the number of days alive and out of the hospital through 30 days., Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized clinical trial of 659 patients hospitalized in Brazil with mild to moderate COVID-19 who were taking ACEIs or ARBs prior to hospitalization (enrolled: April 9-June 26, 2020; final follow-up: July 26, 2020)., Interventions: Discontinuation (n = 334) or continuation (n = 325) of ACEIs or ARBs., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of days alive and out of the hospital through 30 days. Secondary outcomes included death, cardiovascular death, and COVID-19 progression., Results: Among 659 patients, the median age was 55.1 years (interquartile range [IQR], 46.1-65.0 years), 14.7% were aged 70 years or older, 40.4% were women, and 100% completed the trial. The median time from symptom onset to hospital admission was 6 days (IQR, 4-9 days) and 27.2% of patients had an oxygen saturation of less than 94% of room air at baseline. In terms of clinical severity, 57.1% of patients were considered mild at hospital admission and 42.9% were considered moderate. There was no significant difference in the number of days alive and out of the hospital in patients in the discontinuation group (mean, 21.9 days [SD, 8 days]) vs patients in the continuation group (mean, 22.9 days [SD, 7.1 days]) and the mean ratio was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.90-1.01). There also was no statistically significant difference in death (2.7% for the discontinuation group vs 2.8% for the continuation group; odds ratio [OR], 0.97 [95% CI, 0.38-2.52]), cardiovascular death (0.6% vs 0.3%, respectively; OR, 1.95 [95% CI, 0.19-42.12]), or COVID-19 progression (38.3% vs 32.3%; OR, 1.30 [95% CI, 0.95-1.80]). The most common adverse events were respiratory failure requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (9.6% in the discontinuation group vs 7.7% in the continuation group), shock requiring vasopressors (8.4% vs 7.1%, respectively), acute myocardial infarction (7.5% vs 4.6%), new or worsening heart failure (4.2% vs 4.9%), and acute kidney failure requiring hemodialysis (3.3% vs 2.8%)., Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients hospitalized with mild to moderate COVID-19 and who were taking ACEIs or ARBs before hospital admission, there was no significant difference in the mean number of days alive and out of the hospital for those assigned to discontinue vs continue these medications. These findings do not support routinely discontinuing ACEIs or ARBs among patients hospitalized with mild to moderate COVID-19 if there is an indication for treatment., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04364893.

This position statement from the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology Cardio-Oncology Study Group in collaboration with the International Cardio-Oncology Society presents practical, easy-to-use and evidence-based risk stratification tools for oncologists, haemato-oncologists and cardiologists to use in their clinical practice to risk stratify oncology patients prior to receiving cancer therapies known to cause heart failure or other serious cardiovascular toxicities. Baseline risk stratification proformas are presented for oncology patients prior to receiving the following cancer therapies: anthracycline chemotherapy, HER2-targeted therapies such as trastuzumab, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors, second and third generation multi-targeted kinase inhibitors for chronic myeloid leukaemia targeting BCR-ABL, multiple myeloma therapies (proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs), RAF and MEK inhibitors or androgen deprivation therapies. Applying these risk stratification proformas will allow clinicians to stratify cancer patients into low, medium, high and very high risk of cardiovascular complications prior to starting treatment, with the aim of improving personalised approaches to minimise the risk of cardiovascular toxicity from cancer therapies., (© 2020 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Hemostatic abnormalities and thrombotic risk associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are among the most discussed topics in the management of this disease. The aim of this position paper is to provide the opinion of Brazilian experts on the thromboprophylaxis and management of thrombotic events in patients with suspected COVID-19, in the sphere of healthcare in Brazil. To do so, the Brazilian Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis (BSTH) and the Thrombosis and Hemostasis Committee of the Brazilian Association of Hematology, Hemotherapy and Cellular Therapy (ABHH) have constituted a panel of experts to carefully review and discuss the available evidence about this topic. The data discussed in this document was reviewed by May 9, 2020. Recommendations and suggestions reflect the opinion of the panel and should be reviewed periodically as new evidence emerges., (Copyright © 2020 Associação Brasileira de Hematologia, Hemoterapia e Terapia Celular. Published by Elsevier Editora Ltda. All rights reserved.)

Angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 (ACE2) expression may increase due to upregulation in patients using angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). Because renin-angiotensin system blockers increase levels of ACE2, a protein that facilitates coronavirus entry into cells, there is concern that these drugs could increase the risk of developing a severe and fatal form of COVID-19. The impact of discontinuing ACEI and ARBs in patients with COVID-19 remains uncertain. DESIGN: BRACE CORONA is a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized, phase IV, clinical trial that aims to enroll around 500 participants at 34 sites in Brazil. Participants will be identified from an ongoing national registry of suspected and confirmed cases of COVID-19. Eligible patients using renin-angiotensin system blockers (ACEI/ARBs) with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 will be randomized to a strategy of continued ACEI/ARB treatment versus temporary discontinuation for 30 days. The primary outcome is the median days alive and out of the hospital at 30 days. Secondary outcomes include progression of COVID-19 disease, all-cause mortality, death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, transient ischemic attack, new or worsening heart failure, myocarditis, pericarditis, arrhythmias, thromboembolic events, hypertensive crisis, respiratory failure, hemodynamic decompensation, sepsis, renal failure, and troponin, B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), N-terminal-proBNP, and D-dimer levels. SUMMARY: BRACE CORONA will evaluate whether the strategy of continued ACEI/ARB therapy compared with temporary discontinuation of these drugs impacts clinical outcomes among patients with COVID-19., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Opinion Statement: Cardiac amyloidosis is associated with a high mortality rate, a long delay between the first signs and the diagnosis but a short interval between diagnosis and death. This scenario has changed recently due to improved disease awareness among doctors and significant progress in diagnosis thanks to multimodal imaging and a multidisciplinary approach. Therefore, during the last few years, we have had access to specific therapies for those patients. Those therapies are quite different depending on the type of amyloidosis, but there has been real progress. Systemic light chain amyloidosis (AL) with cardiac involvement is the most common form of cardiac amyloidosis. The severity of heart disease dictates the prognosis in AL amyloidosis. Advances in chemotherapy and immunotherapy that suppress light chain production have improved the outcomes. These recent improvements in survival rates have enabled therapies such as implanted cardiac defibrillators and heart transplantation that were usually not indicated for patients with advanced light chain amyloid cardiomyopathy to now be applied in selected patients. For transthyretin amyloidosis (ATTR), the second most common form of amyloidosis with cardiac involvement, there is also significant progress in treatment. Until recently, we had no specific therapy for ATTR cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM), though now disease-modifying therapies are available. Therapies that stabilize transthyretin, such as tafamidis, have been shown to improve outcomes for patients with ATTR-CM. Modern treatments that stop the synthesis of TTR through gene silencing, such as patisiran and inotersen, have shown positive results for patients with TTR amyloidosis. Significant progress has been made in the treatment of amyloid cardiomyopathy, and hopefully, we will see even more progress with the spread of those treatments. We now can be optimistic about patients with this disease.

Data on drug-drug interactions (DDI) of antineoplastic drugs with anticoagulants is scarce. We aim to evaluate factors associated with DDI of antineoplastic and supportive care drugs with anticoagulants resulting in modification of pharmacokinetics of these last mentioned. A literature review on DDI databases and summaries of products characteristics (SmPC) was done. Drug-drug interactions of 257 antineoplastic and supportive care drugs with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), warfarin, enoxaparin, or fondaparinux were categorized as no clinically significant expected DDI, potentially weak DDI, potentially clinically significant DDI, and recommendation against coadministration. Logistic regression models were performed to analyze the association between the dependent variable potentially clinically significant interaction/recommendation against coadministration and the mechanisms of DDI. Of the 1799 associations, 84.4% were absence of DDI, 3.6% potentially weak DDI, 10.2% potentially clinically relevant DDI, and 2.0% recommendation against coadministration. Warfarin has higher DDI potential than other anticoagulants. Enoxaparin and fondaparinux have fewer DDI than others. There was no difference between DOACs. Drug-drug interactions with apixaban and rivaroxaban was independently associated with the absence of CYP3A4 competition, P-glycoprotein inhibition, CYP3A4 induction, and drug class of tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Drug-drug interactions with dabigatran and edoxaban was associated with inhibition of P-glycoprotein and tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Warfarin, induction of CYP3A4, and inhibition of CYP2C9. Enoxaparin and fondaparinux, only tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Direct oral anticoagulants did not differ regarding DDI with antineoplastic agents. Warfarin presented more DDI than other anticoagulants. P-glycoprotein inhibition and CYP3A4 induction were independently associated with DDI of antineoplastic agents with DOACs.

Objectives: The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and nonrandomized trials on the efficacy of dexrazoxane in patients with breast cancer who were treated with anthracyclines with or without trastuzumab., Background: Breast cancer treatment with anthracyclines and trastuzumab is associated with an increased risk of cardiotoxicity. Among the various strategies to reduce the risk of cardiotoxicity, dexrazoxane is an option for primary prevention, but it is seldom used in clinical practice., Methods: Online databases were searched from January 1990 up to March 1, 2019, for clinical trials on the use of dexrazoxane for the prevention of cardiotoxicity in patients with breast cancer receiving anthracyclines with or without trastuzumab. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model meta-analysis., Results: Seven randomized trials and 2 retrospective trials with a total of 2,177 patients were included. Dexrazoxane reduced the risk of clinical heart failure (RR: 0.19; 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.40; p < 0.001) and cardiac events (RR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.49; p < 0.001) irrespective of previous exposure to anthracyclines. The rate of a partial or complete oncological response, overall survival, and progression-free survival were not affected by dexrazoxane., Conclusions: Dexrazoxane reduced the risk of clinical heart failure and cardiac events in patients with breast cancer undergoing anthracycline chemotherapy with or without trastuzumab and did not significantly impact cancer outcomes. However, the quality of available evidence is low, and further randomized trials are warranted before the systematic implementation of this therapy in clinical practice., (© 2019 The Authors.)

Background: Chemotherapeutic agents of anthracyclines class and humanized monoclonal antibodies are effective treatments for breast cancer, however, they present a potential risk of cardiotoxicity. Several predictors have been recognized as predictors in the development of cardiac toxicity, and the evaluation of left ventricular segmental wall motion abnormalities (LVSWMA) has not been studied., Objective: To analyze prospectively the role of LVSWMA among echocardiographic parameters in the prediction of development of cardiotoxicity in breast cancer patients undergoing treatment with chemotherapy., Methods: Prospective cohort of patients diagnosed with breast cancer and in chemotherapy treatment with potential cardiotoxicity medications including doxorubicin and trastuzumab. Transthoracic echocardiograms including speckle tracking strain echocardiography were performed at standard times before, during and after the treatment to assess the presence (or lack thereof) of cardiotoxicity. Cardiotoxicity was defined by a 10% decrease in the left ventricular ejection fraction, on at least one echocardiogram. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to verify the predictors related to the occurrence of cardiotoxicity over time., Results: Of the 112 patients selected (mean age 51,3 ± 12,9 years), 18 participants (16.1%) had cardiotoxicity. In the multivariate analysis using the logistic regression model, those with LVWMA (OR = 6.25 [CI 95%: 1.03; 37.95], p < 0,05), LV systolic dimension (1.34 [CI 95%: 1.01; 1.79], p < 0,05) and global longitudinal strain by speckle tracking (1.48 [CI 95%: 1.02; 2.12], p < 0,05) were strongly associated with cardiotoxicity., Conclusion: In the present study, we showed that LVWMA, in addition to global longitudinal strains, were strong predictors of cardiotoxicity and could be useful in the risk stratification of these patients.

Breast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed tumor in women worldwide, with a significant impact on morbidity and mortality. Chemotherapy and hormone therapy have significantly reduced mortality; however, the adverse effects are significant. Aspirin has been incorporated into clinical practice for over 100 years at a low cost, making it particularly attractive as a potential agent in breast cancer prevention and as an adjunct treatment to endocrine therapy in the prophylaxis of cardiovascular complications. The objective of this study was to evaluate the role of aspirin in reducing the incidence of breast cancer and to evaluate the impact of its use on morbidity and mortality and reduction of cardiovascular events as adjuvant therapy during breast cancer treatment with selective estrogen receptor modulators. A systematic review was performed using the PRISMA methodology and PICO criteria, based on the MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS databases. The original articles of clinical trials, cohort, case-control studies and meta-analyses published from January 1998 to June 2017, were considered. Most studies showed an association between the use of selective estrogen receptor modulators and the increase in thromboembolic events. The studies suggest a protective effect of aspirin for cardiovascular events during its concomitant use with selective estrogen receptor modulators and in the prevention of breast cancer. This systematic review suggests that aspirin therapy combines the benefit of protection against cardiovascular events with the potential reduction in breast cancer risk, and that the evaluation of the benefits of the interaction of endocrine therapy with aspirin should be further investigated.