try). © 2020 Joule Inc. or its licensors.Atrial fibrillation and cancer are common comorbidities. Given the increase in arterial thrombosis caused by the former and the increased in bleeding risk in patients with the latter, management of anticoagulation in patients in whom they coexist is complex. On the basis of generally low-quality evidence, numerous documents have been published in the past three years providing practice points for physicians to offer the best treatment plan to their patients. The present review begins by summarizing these recommendations and then proceeds to outline nine practical challenges that fit into the larger questions of when and for whom anticoagulation is indicated and what is the best agent in patients with AF and active cancer. For each of these nine challenges, the evidence available is presented, the author’s personal practical advice is given and the most pressing need to move the field forward is stated. The author concludes by emphasizing the need for high-quality evidence and, more practically, by stressing 1) the importance of patient preference and values in the decision of whether and how to anticoagulate and 2) that periodic reassessment of the benefits of anticoagulation with changes in cancer status and treatment plan.Immunotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) was shown to improve survival of patients with solid tumors like melanoma, renal carcinoma, non-small cell lung cancer, cutaneous carcinomas or head and neck carcinoma. However, a special type of ICIs toxicity is observed, namely non-infectious inflammation of different organs connected with autoimmunity known as immune related adverse events (irAEs). This non-infectious inflammation may affect different organs and systems as endocrine organs, the gastrointestinal tract, heart, skin and the nervous system. The lungs are also often involved and this condition is referred to as checkpoint inhibitor pneumonitis (CIP). ICIs toxicity is graded from 1 to 5 depending on the clinical course, the 5 grade being a fatal complication. Corticosteroids are the treatment of choice, generally with good efficacy. In some difficult cases, escalation of immunosuppression is required. The knowledge on irAEs should be promoted among clinicians of all specialties, nurses, patients and their families. The aim of this review is to present the wide spectrum of irAEs clinical signs and symptoms, differential diagnosis, diagnostic procedures and treatment. The data are supported by our own clinical observations.INTRODUCTION Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has been spread worldwide. OBJECTIVES To identify the clinical characteristics and risk factors associated with the severe incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection. PATIENTS AND METHODS All adult patients (≥18 years old) consecutively admitted in Dabieshan Medical Center from January 30, 2020 to February 11, 2020 were collected and reviewed. Only patients diagnosed with COVID-19 according to WHO interim guidance were included in this retrospective cohort study. RESULTS A total of 108 patients with COVID-19 were retrospectively analyzed. Twenty-five patients (23.1%, 25/108) developed severe disease, and of those 12 (48%, 12/25) patients died. Advanced age, co-morbidities with hypertension, higher blood leukocyte count, neutrophil count, higher sensitive C-reactive protein level, D-dimer level, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation Ⅱ (APECHE Ⅱ) score and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score were associated with greater risk of development of severe COVID-19, and so were lower lymphocyte count and albumin level. Multivariable regression showed increasing odds of severe COVID-19 associated with higher SOFA score (OR 2.450, 1.302-4.608; p = 0.005), and lymphocyte count less than 0.8×109 per L (OR 9.017, 2.808-28.857; p less then 0.001) on admission. The higher SOFA score (OR 2.402, 1.313-4.395; p = 0.004) on admission was identified as risk factor for in-hospital death. CONCLUSIONS Lymphocytopenia and the higher SOFA score on admission could help clinicians to identify patients with high risk for developing severe COVID-19. More related studies are needed in the future.Jiménez-Reyes, P, Garcia-Ramos, A, Párraga-Montilla, JA, Morcillo-Losa, JA, Cuadrado-Peñafiel, V, Castaño-Zambudio, A, Samozino, P, and Morin, J-B. Seasonal changes in the sprint acceleration force-velocity profile of elite male soccer players. J Strength Cond Res XX(X) 000-000, 2020-This study aimed to describe the seasonal changes in the sprint force-velocity (Fv) profile of professional soccer players. The sprint Fv profile of 21 male soccer players competing in the first division of the Spanish soccer league was evaluated 6 times preseason 1 (September 2015), in-season 1 (November 2015), in-season 2 (January 2016), in-season 3 (March 2016), in-season 4 (May 2016), and preseason 2 (August 2016). No specific sprint capabilities stimuli other than those induced by soccer training were applied. The following variables were calculated from the velocity-time data recorded with a radar device during an unloaded sprint maximal force (F0), maximal velocity (v0), Fv slope, maximal power (Pmax), decrease in the ratio of horizontal-to-resultant force (DRF), and maximal ratio of horizontal-to-resultant force (RFpeak). F0 (effect size [ES] range = 0.83-0.93), Pmax (ES range = 0.97-1.05), and RFpeak (ES range = 0.56-1.13) were higher at the in-seasons 2 and 3 compared with both preseasons (p ≤ 0.006). No significant differences were observed for v0, Fv slope, and DRF (p ≥ 0.287). These results suggest that relevant Fv profile variables may be compromised (F0 more compromised than v0) toward the end of the competitive season when specific sprint stimuli are not systematically applied.BACKGROUND Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection can spread rapidly within skilled nursing facilities. After identification of a case of Covid-19 in a skilled nursing facility, we assessed transmission and evaluated the adequacy of symptom-based screening to identify infections in residents. learn more METHODS We conducted two serial point-prevalence surveys, 1 week apart, in which assenting residents of the facility underwent nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal testing for SARS-CoV-2, including real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR), viral culture, and sequencing. Symptoms that had been present during the preceding 14 days were recorded. Asymptomatic residents who tested positive were reassessed 7 days later. Residents with SARS-CoV-2 infection were categorized as symptomatic with typical symptoms (fever, cough, or shortness of breath), symptomatic with only atypical symptoms, presymptomatic, or asymptomatic. RESULTS Twenty-three days after the first positive test result in a resident at this skilled nursing facility, 57 of 89 residents (64%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.