Key clinical point: HIV-positive individuals are more likely to be hospitalized for or die from COVID-19 compared with non-HIV individuals.

Major finding: The HIV-positive vs non-HIV group had a higher risk for COVID-19-related hospitalization (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.20; 95% CI, 1.15-1.26) and mortality (aOR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.16-1.44). The risk was pronounced for older patients, male sex, and Black race.

Study details: The data come from a US population-based surveillance study involving 1,436,622 COVID-19 cases, of which 13,170 were HIV positive.

Disclosures: The study was funded by National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and National Institutes of Health, USA. The authors declared no competing interests.

Source: Yang X et al. Lancet HIV. 2021 Oct 13. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3018(21)00239-3.

Key clinical point: HIV-positive individuals are more likely to be hospitalized for or die from COVID-19 compared with non-HIV individuals.

Major finding: The HIV-positive vs non-HIV group had a higher risk for COVID-19-related hospitalization (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.20; 95% CI, 1.15-1.26) and mortality (aOR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.16-1.44). The risk was pronounced for older patients, male sex, and Black race.

Study details: The data come from a US population-based surveillance study involving 1,436,622 COVID-19 cases, of which 13,170 were HIV positive.

Disclosures: The study was funded by National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and National Institutes of Health, USA. The authors declared no competing interests.

Source: Yang X et al. Lancet HIV. 2021 Oct 13. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3018(21)00239-3.

Key clinical point: HIV-positive individuals are more likely to be hospitalized for or die from COVID-19 compared with non-HIV individuals.

Major finding: The HIV-positive vs non-HIV group had a higher risk for COVID-19-related hospitalization (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.20; 95% CI, 1.15-1.26) and mortality (aOR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.16-1.44). The risk was pronounced for older patients, male sex, and Black race.

Study details: The data come from a US population-based surveillance study involving 1,436,622 COVID-19 cases, of which 13,170 were HIV positive.

Disclosures: The study was funded by National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and National Institutes of Health, USA. The authors declared no competing interests.

Source: Yang X et al. Lancet HIV. 2021 Oct 13. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3018(21)00239-3.

Key clinical point: Heart rate variability (HRV) is a predictor of survival and intensive care unit (ICU) admission in older adults hospitalized with COVID-19.

Major finding: After adjusting for age and chronic heart disease, HRV was a significant predictor of survival (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] with low vs high HRV, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.27-0.97). This association was primarily driven by patients aged ≥70 years (aHR with low vs high HRV, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.12-0.66). HRV also predicted ICU admission within the first week of hospitalization (adjusted HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.29-0.90), independent of age and chronic heart disease.

Study details: The data come from a retrospective cohort study involving 271 consecutive adults hospitalized with COVID-19 between March 2020 and May 2020.

Disclosures: The study did not receive any specific funding. The authors declared no competing interests.

Source: Mol MBA et al. PLoS One. 2021 Oct 28. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258841.

Key clinical point: Heart rate variability (HRV) is a predictor of survival and intensive care unit (ICU) admission in older adults hospitalized with COVID-19.

Major finding: After adjusting for age and chronic heart disease, HRV was a significant predictor of survival (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] with low vs high HRV, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.27-0.97). This association was primarily driven by patients aged ≥70 years (aHR with low vs high HRV, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.12-0.66). HRV also predicted ICU admission within the first week of hospitalization (adjusted HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.29-0.90), independent of age and chronic heart disease.

Study details: The data come from a retrospective cohort study involving 271 consecutive adults hospitalized with COVID-19 between March 2020 and May 2020.

Disclosures: The study did not receive any specific funding. The authors declared no competing interests.

Source: Mol MBA et al. PLoS One. 2021 Oct 28. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258841.

Key clinical point: Heart rate variability (HRV) is a predictor of survival and intensive care unit (ICU) admission in older adults hospitalized with COVID-19.

Major finding: After adjusting for age and chronic heart disease, HRV was a significant predictor of survival (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] with low vs high HRV, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.27-0.97). This association was primarily driven by patients aged ≥70 years (aHR with low vs high HRV, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.12-0.66). HRV also predicted ICU admission within the first week of hospitalization (adjusted HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.29-0.90), independent of age and chronic heart disease.

Study details: The data come from a retrospective cohort study involving 271 consecutive adults hospitalized with COVID-19 between March 2020 and May 2020.

Disclosures: The study did not receive any specific funding. The authors declared no competing interests.

Source: Mol MBA et al. PLoS One. 2021 Oct 28. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258841.

Key clinical point: Sotrovimab significantly reduced the risk for complications, hospitalization, or mortality in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19.

Major finding: 1% of patients in the sotrovimab group vs 7% in the placebo group experienced disease progression leading to hospitalization (relative risk reduction, 85%; P = .002). Grade 3/4 adverse events were reported in 2% of patients in the sotrovimab group vs 6% of patients in the placebo group.

Study details: The data come from a prespecified, interim analysis of the ongoing, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 COMET-ICE trial assessing the efficacy and safety of sotrovimab in patients with high-risk, ambulatory, mild-to-moderate COVID-19.

Disclosures: The COMET-ICE trial was funded by Vir Biotechnology and GlaxoSmithKline. The COMET-ICE Investigators reported relationships with Vir Biotechnology and GlaxoSmithKline.

Source: Gupta A et al. N Engl J Med. 2021 Oct 27. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2107934.

Key clinical point: Sotrovimab significantly reduced the risk for complications, hospitalization, or mortality in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19.

Major finding: 1% of patients in the sotrovimab group vs 7% in the placebo group experienced disease progression leading to hospitalization (relative risk reduction, 85%; P = .002). Grade 3/4 adverse events were reported in 2% of patients in the sotrovimab group vs 6% of patients in the placebo group.

Study details: The data come from a prespecified, interim analysis of the ongoing, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 COMET-ICE trial assessing the efficacy and safety of sotrovimab in patients with high-risk, ambulatory, mild-to-moderate COVID-19.

Disclosures: The COMET-ICE trial was funded by Vir Biotechnology and GlaxoSmithKline. The COMET-ICE Investigators reported relationships with Vir Biotechnology and GlaxoSmithKline.

Source: Gupta A et al. N Engl J Med. 2021 Oct 27. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2107934.

Key clinical point: Sotrovimab significantly reduced the risk for complications, hospitalization, or mortality in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19.

Major finding: 1% of patients in the sotrovimab group vs 7% in the placebo group experienced disease progression leading to hospitalization (relative risk reduction, 85%; P = .002). Grade 3/4 adverse events were reported in 2% of patients in the sotrovimab group vs 6% of patients in the placebo group.

Study details: The data come from a prespecified, interim analysis of the ongoing, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 COMET-ICE trial assessing the efficacy and safety of sotrovimab in patients with high-risk, ambulatory, mild-to-moderate COVID-19.

Disclosures: The COMET-ICE trial was funded by Vir Biotechnology and GlaxoSmithKline. The COMET-ICE Investigators reported relationships with Vir Biotechnology and GlaxoSmithKline.

Source: Gupta A et al. N Engl J Med. 2021 Oct 27. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2107934.

Key clinical point: Individuals who had received diphtheria or tetanus vaccinations in the last 10 years were less likely to develop severe COVID-19 compared with those who had not received them.

Major finding: The study included 103,049 participants (mean age, 71.5 years; 54.2% women) with vaccination records for the past 10 years and data on COVID-19 testing.

Study details: Individuals who had been vaccinated against diphtheria (odds ratio [OR], 0.47; 95% CI, 0.33-0.68; P = .000053) and tetanus (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.37-0.72; P = .00012) in the last 10 years had a lower likelihood of developing severe COVID-19 symptoms compared with those who had not received them.

Disclosures: The study was funded by the Research Council of Norway, the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority, Stiftelsen Kristian Gerhard Jebsen, The European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, and National Institutes of Health. O Andreassen and J Pinzón-Espinosa reported relationships with various pharmaceutical companies. The remaining authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Monereo-Sánchez J et al. Front Immunol. 2021 Oct 7. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.749264.

Key clinical point: Individuals who had received diphtheria or tetanus vaccinations in the last 10 years were less likely to develop severe COVID-19 compared with those who had not received them.

Major finding: The study included 103,049 participants (mean age, 71.5 years; 54.2% women) with vaccination records for the past 10 years and data on COVID-19 testing.

Study details: Individuals who had been vaccinated against diphtheria (odds ratio [OR], 0.47; 95% CI, 0.33-0.68; P = .000053) and tetanus (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.37-0.72; P = .00012) in the last 10 years had a lower likelihood of developing severe COVID-19 symptoms compared with those who had not received them.

Disclosures: The study was funded by the Research Council of Norway, the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority, Stiftelsen Kristian Gerhard Jebsen, The European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, and National Institutes of Health. O Andreassen and J Pinzón-Espinosa reported relationships with various pharmaceutical companies. The remaining authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Monereo-Sánchez J et al. Front Immunol. 2021 Oct 7. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.749264.

Key clinical point: Individuals who had received diphtheria or tetanus vaccinations in the last 10 years were less likely to develop severe COVID-19 compared with those who had not received them.

Major finding: The study included 103,049 participants (mean age, 71.5 years; 54.2% women) with vaccination records for the past 10 years and data on COVID-19 testing.

Study details: Individuals who had been vaccinated against diphtheria (odds ratio [OR], 0.47; 95% CI, 0.33-0.68; P = .000053) and tetanus (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.37-0.72; P = .00012) in the last 10 years had a lower likelihood of developing severe COVID-19 symptoms compared with those who had not received them.

Disclosures: The study was funded by the Research Council of Norway, the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority, Stiftelsen Kristian Gerhard Jebsen, The European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, and National Institutes of Health. O Andreassen and J Pinzón-Espinosa reported relationships with various pharmaceutical companies. The remaining authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Monereo-Sánchez J et al. Front Immunol. 2021 Oct 7. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.749264.

Key clinical point: Addition of colchicine to standard of care (SOC) had no significant benefit in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Major finding: There were no significant differences between SOC alone and SOC plus colchicine groups in all-cause mortality (rate ratio [RR], 1.01; P = .77), probability of being discharged alive within 28 days (RR, 0.98; P = .44), and the risk of progressing to invasive mechanical ventilation or death (RR, 1.02; P = .47).

Study details: In the RECOVERY trial, 11,340 hospitalized COVID-19 patients were randomly assigned to receive SOC with (n=5,610) or without (n=5,730) colchicine.

Disclosures: The RECOVERY trial was funded by the UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), National Institute for Health Research, and Wellcome Trust. The authors declared no competing interests.

Source: RECOVERY Collaborative Group. Lancet Respir Med. 2021 Oct 18. doi: 10.1016/ S2213-2600(21)00435-5.

Key clinical point: Addition of colchicine to standard of care (SOC) had no significant benefit in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Major finding: There were no significant differences between SOC alone and SOC plus colchicine groups in all-cause mortality (rate ratio [RR], 1.01; P = .77), probability of being discharged alive within 28 days (RR, 0.98; P = .44), and the risk of progressing to invasive mechanical ventilation or death (RR, 1.02; P = .47).

Study details: In the RECOVERY trial, 11,340 hospitalized COVID-19 patients were randomly assigned to receive SOC with (n=5,610) or without (n=5,730) colchicine.

Disclosures: The RECOVERY trial was funded by the UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), National Institute for Health Research, and Wellcome Trust. The authors declared no competing interests.

Source: RECOVERY Collaborative Group. Lancet Respir Med. 2021 Oct 18. doi: 10.1016/ S2213-2600(21)00435-5.

Key clinical point: Addition of colchicine to standard of care (SOC) had no significant benefit in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Major finding: There were no significant differences between SOC alone and SOC plus colchicine groups in all-cause mortality (rate ratio [RR], 1.01; P = .77), probability of being discharged alive within 28 days (RR, 0.98; P = .44), and the risk of progressing to invasive mechanical ventilation or death (RR, 1.02; P = .47).

Study details: In the RECOVERY trial, 11,340 hospitalized COVID-19 patients were randomly assigned to receive SOC with (n=5,610) or without (n=5,730) colchicine.

Disclosures: The RECOVERY trial was funded by the UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), National Institute for Health Research, and Wellcome Trust. The authors declared no competing interests.

Source: RECOVERY Collaborative Group. Lancet Respir Med. 2021 Oct 18. doi: 10.1016/ S2213-2600(21)00435-5.

Key clinical point: In patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF), warfarin use was linked to a lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and adverse COVID-19 outcomes compared with the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs).

Major finding: Warfarin vs DOAC use was associated with a lower risk for testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]; 0.73; 95% CI, 0.68-0.79), COVID-19-related hospitalization (aHR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.68-0.83), and COVID-19-related mortality (aHR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.66-0.83).

Study details: The details come from a population-based cohort study involving 92,339 warfarin users and 280,407 DOAC users. The OpenSAFELY platform was used for data analysis.

Disclosures: The OpenSAFELY data science platform was funded by the Wellcome Trust. OpenSAFELY work was jointly funded by UKRI, NIHR, Asthma UK-BLF, and the Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing strand of the National Core Studies programme. Principal investigator B Goldacre reported relationships with various research organizations. The co-principal investigator IJ Douglas reported ties with GSK.

Source: OpenSAFELY Collaborative et al. J Hematol Oncol. 2021 Oct 19. doi: 10.1186/s13045-021-01185-0.

Key clinical point: In patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF), warfarin use was linked to a lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and adverse COVID-19 outcomes compared with the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs).

Major finding: Warfarin vs DOAC use was associated with a lower risk for testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]; 0.73; 95% CI, 0.68-0.79), COVID-19-related hospitalization (aHR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.68-0.83), and COVID-19-related mortality (aHR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.66-0.83).

Study details: The details come from a population-based cohort study involving 92,339 warfarin users and 280,407 DOAC users. The OpenSAFELY platform was used for data analysis.

Disclosures: The OpenSAFELY data science platform was funded by the Wellcome Trust. OpenSAFELY work was jointly funded by UKRI, NIHR, Asthma UK-BLF, and the Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing strand of the National Core Studies programme. Principal investigator B Goldacre reported relationships with various research organizations. The co-principal investigator IJ Douglas reported ties with GSK.

Source: OpenSAFELY Collaborative et al. J Hematol Oncol. 2021 Oct 19. doi: 10.1186/s13045-021-01185-0.

Key clinical point: In patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF), warfarin use was linked to a lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and adverse COVID-19 outcomes compared with the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs).

Major finding: Warfarin vs DOAC use was associated with a lower risk for testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]; 0.73; 95% CI, 0.68-0.79), COVID-19-related hospitalization (aHR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.68-0.83), and COVID-19-related mortality (aHR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.66-0.83).

Study details: The details come from a population-based cohort study involving 92,339 warfarin users and 280,407 DOAC users. The OpenSAFELY platform was used for data analysis.

Disclosures: The OpenSAFELY data science platform was funded by the Wellcome Trust. OpenSAFELY work was jointly funded by UKRI, NIHR, Asthma UK-BLF, and the Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing strand of the National Core Studies programme. Principal investigator B Goldacre reported relationships with various research organizations. The co-principal investigator IJ Douglas reported ties with GSK.

Source: OpenSAFELY Collaborative et al. J Hematol Oncol. 2021 Oct 19. doi: 10.1186/s13045-021-01185-0.

Key clinical point: There is an increased risk of neurological complications following COVID-19 vaccination; however, this risk is substantially higher following SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Major finding: There was an increased risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome and Bell’s palsy following vaccination with ChAdOx1nCoV-19 (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 2.90 [95% CI, 2.15-3.92] and 1.29 [95% CI, 1.08-1.56], respectively) and for hemorrhagic stroke following vaccination with BNT162b2 (IRR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.12-1.71). The risk for all neurological complications was significantly higher within 28 days of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, including Guillain-Barré syndrome (IRR, 5.25; 95% CI, 3.00-9.18).

Study details: The data come from an analysis of 20,417,752 individuals who received ChAdOx1nCoV-19 (AstraZeneca) COVID-19 vaccine, 12,134,782 who received BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) COVID-19 vaccine, and 2,005,280 who tested positive for COVID-19.

Disclosures: No specific funding information was available. A Sheikh, D Hunt, K Khunti, C Robertson, and J Hippisley-Cox reported ties with various research organizations and/or advisory groups. The remaining authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Patone M et al. Nat Med. 2021 Oct 25. doi: 10.1038/s41591-021-01556-7.

Key clinical point: There is an increased risk of neurological complications following COVID-19 vaccination; however, this risk is substantially higher following SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Major finding: There was an increased risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome and Bell’s palsy following vaccination with ChAdOx1nCoV-19 (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 2.90 [95% CI, 2.15-3.92] and 1.29 [95% CI, 1.08-1.56], respectively) and for hemorrhagic stroke following vaccination with BNT162b2 (IRR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.12-1.71). The risk for all neurological complications was significantly higher within 28 days of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, including Guillain-Barré syndrome (IRR, 5.25; 95% CI, 3.00-9.18).

Study details: The data come from an analysis of 20,417,752 individuals who received ChAdOx1nCoV-19 (AstraZeneca) COVID-19 vaccine, 12,134,782 who received BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) COVID-19 vaccine, and 2,005,280 who tested positive for COVID-19.

Disclosures: No specific funding information was available. A Sheikh, D Hunt, K Khunti, C Robertson, and J Hippisley-Cox reported ties with various research organizations and/or advisory groups. The remaining authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Patone M et al. Nat Med. 2021 Oct 25. doi: 10.1038/s41591-021-01556-7.

Key clinical point: There is an increased risk of neurological complications following COVID-19 vaccination; however, this risk is substantially higher following SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Major finding: There was an increased risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome and Bell’s palsy following vaccination with ChAdOx1nCoV-19 (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 2.90 [95% CI, 2.15-3.92] and 1.29 [95% CI, 1.08-1.56], respectively) and for hemorrhagic stroke following vaccination with BNT162b2 (IRR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.12-1.71). The risk for all neurological complications was significantly higher within 28 days of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, including Guillain-Barré syndrome (IRR, 5.25; 95% CI, 3.00-9.18).

Study details: The data come from an analysis of 20,417,752 individuals who received ChAdOx1nCoV-19 (AstraZeneca) COVID-19 vaccine, 12,134,782 who received BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) COVID-19 vaccine, and 2,005,280 who tested positive for COVID-19.

Disclosures: No specific funding information was available. A Sheikh, D Hunt, K Khunti, C Robertson, and J Hippisley-Cox reported ties with various research organizations and/or advisory groups. The remaining authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Patone M et al. Nat Med. 2021 Oct 25. doi: 10.1038/s41591-021-01556-7.

Key clinical point: HCC patients treated with lenvatinib showed longer progression-free survival compared to those treated with sorafenib (hazard ratio 0.40, P = 0.004).

Major finding:  In a propensity score matching analysis, progression-free survival was greater in HCC patients treated with lenvatinib compared to those treated with sorafenib (5.2 months vs 3.3 months, respectively); overall survival was similar between the (13.3 months vs 11.8 months, respectively).

Study details: The data come from a retrospective study of 210 adults with unresectable HCC who underwent lenvatinib or sorafenib treatment between January 2018 and August 2020.

Disclosures: The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Source: Kuo Y-H et al. Front Oncol. 2021 Oct 25. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.737767.

Key clinical point: HCC patients treated with lenvatinib showed longer progression-free survival compared to those treated with sorafenib (hazard ratio 0.40, P = 0.004).

Major finding:  In a propensity score matching analysis, progression-free survival was greater in HCC patients treated with lenvatinib compared to those treated with sorafenib (5.2 months vs 3.3 months, respectively); overall survival was similar between the (13.3 months vs 11.8 months, respectively).

Study details: The data come from a retrospective study of 210 adults with unresectable HCC who underwent lenvatinib or sorafenib treatment between January 2018 and August 2020.

Disclosures: The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Source: Kuo Y-H et al. Front Oncol. 2021 Oct 25. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.737767.

Key clinical point: HCC patients treated with lenvatinib showed longer progression-free survival compared to those treated with sorafenib (hazard ratio 0.40, P = 0.004).

Major finding:  In a propensity score matching analysis, progression-free survival was greater in HCC patients treated with lenvatinib compared to those treated with sorafenib (5.2 months vs 3.3 months, respectively); overall survival was similar between the (13.3 months vs 11.8 months, respectively).

Study details: The data come from a retrospective study of 210 adults with unresectable HCC who underwent lenvatinib or sorafenib treatment between January 2018 and August 2020.

Disclosures: The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Source: Kuo Y-H et al. Front Oncol. 2021 Oct 25. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.737767.

Key clinical point: Both overall survival and progression-free survival rates were significantly higher in patients with unresectable HCC who were treated with TACE-MWA compared to those treated with TACE alone.

Major finding:  After propensity score matching, the 1-, 2-, and 3-year overall survival rates for patients treated with TACE-MWA were 93.6%, 80.5%, and 61.6%, respectively, compared to 72.4%, 48.9%, and 41.9%, respectively, in patients treated with TACE alone group, respectively.

Study details: The data come from a propensity score matching study of 91 adults with unresectable HCC who underwent transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) plus percutaneous microwave ablation (MWA) and 140 who underwent TACE alone at four medical centers.

Disclosures: The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Source: Li H-Z et al. J Hepatocell Carcinoma. 2021 Nov 1. doi: 10.2147/JHC.S338456.

Key clinical point: Both overall survival and progression-free survival rates were significantly higher in patients with unresectable HCC who were treated with TACE-MWA compared to those treated with TACE alone.

Major finding:  After propensity score matching, the 1-, 2-, and 3-year overall survival rates for patients treated with TACE-MWA were 93.6%, 80.5%, and 61.6%, respectively, compared to 72.4%, 48.9%, and 41.9%, respectively, in patients treated with TACE alone group, respectively.

Study details: The data come from a propensity score matching study of 91 adults with unresectable HCC who underwent transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) plus percutaneous microwave ablation (MWA) and 140 who underwent TACE alone at four medical centers.

Disclosures: The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Source: Li H-Z et al. J Hepatocell Carcinoma. 2021 Nov 1. doi: 10.2147/JHC.S338456.

Key clinical point: Both overall survival and progression-free survival rates were significantly higher in patients with unresectable HCC who were treated with TACE-MWA compared to those treated with TACE alone.

Major finding:  After propensity score matching, the 1-, 2-, and 3-year overall survival rates for patients treated with TACE-MWA were 93.6%, 80.5%, and 61.6%, respectively, compared to 72.4%, 48.9%, and 41.9%, respectively, in patients treated with TACE alone group, respectively.

Study details: The data come from a propensity score matching study of 91 adults with unresectable HCC who underwent transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) plus percutaneous microwave ablation (MWA) and 140 who underwent TACE alone at four medical centers.

Disclosures: The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Source: Li H-Z et al. J Hepatocell Carcinoma. 2021 Nov 1. doi: 10.2147/JHC.S338456.

Key clinical point: Hepatocellular carcinoma patients who achieved complete remission with postoperative treatment after reduction hepatectomy fared better than those who achieved remission without postoperative treatment.

Major finding:  The 5-year overall survival rate and mean survival time after reduction hepatectomy were 15.7% and 28.40 months for the entire study population. The 5-year overall survival and mean survival times were 37.5% and 56.55 months, respectively, for patients who achieved complete remission with postoperative treatment, compared to 6.3% and 14.84 months, respectively, for those who achieved complete remission without postoperative treatment (P = 0.0041).

Study details: The data come from a review of 30 adults with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who underwent reduction hepatectomy at a single center between 2000 and 2018.

Disclosures: The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Source: Asahi Y et al. World J Gastrointest Surg. 2021 Oct 27. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v13.i10.1245.

Key clinical point: Hepatocellular carcinoma patients who achieved complete remission with postoperative treatment after reduction hepatectomy fared better than those who achieved remission without postoperative treatment.

Major finding:  The 5-year overall survival rate and mean survival time after reduction hepatectomy were 15.7% and 28.40 months for the entire study population. The 5-year overall survival and mean survival times were 37.5% and 56.55 months, respectively, for patients who achieved complete remission with postoperative treatment, compared to 6.3% and 14.84 months, respectively, for those who achieved complete remission without postoperative treatment (P = 0.0041).

Study details: The data come from a review of 30 adults with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who underwent reduction hepatectomy at a single center between 2000 and 2018.

Disclosures: The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Source: Asahi Y et al. World J Gastrointest Surg. 2021 Oct 27. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v13.i10.1245.

Key clinical point: Hepatocellular carcinoma patients who achieved complete remission with postoperative treatment after reduction hepatectomy fared better than those who achieved remission without postoperative treatment.

Major finding:  The 5-year overall survival rate and mean survival time after reduction hepatectomy were 15.7% and 28.40 months for the entire study population. The 5-year overall survival and mean survival times were 37.5% and 56.55 months, respectively, for patients who achieved complete remission with postoperative treatment, compared to 6.3% and 14.84 months, respectively, for those who achieved complete remission without postoperative treatment (P = 0.0041).

Study details: The data come from a review of 30 adults with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who underwent reduction hepatectomy at a single center between 2000 and 2018.

Disclosures: The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Source: Asahi Y et al. World J Gastrointest Surg. 2021 Oct 27. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v13.i10.1245.