Langworthy, Benjamin

Abstract Clinical flow cytometry laboratories are facing rising test volumes, greater assay complexity, and increasing requirements for quality control and assay validation. In response, the International Clinical Cytometry Society (ICCS) conducted a workload survey in early 2023 to gather updated information on assay volumes, complexity, staffing, and technology. Data analysis focused on identifying correlations between length of time to introduce new assays and other factors as a means to gain insight about laboratories that seem to be either adapting or struggling. Flow cytometry assays were categorized into 3 levels of technical/interpretative complexity: high (e.g., measurable/minimal residual disease (MRD assays)), moderate (e.g., leukemia/lymphoma assays (Assays L&L ), excluding MRD assays), and low (e.g., CD4 count). Annual assays per staff member were calculated according to staff involved in case sign‐out (Staff Signout ) or other laboratory operations (Staff LabOps ). Respondents were from 101 laboratories in the United States (69.3%), Canada (4.0%), and other countries (26.7%). Low, moderate, and high technical/interpretative complexity assays were performed in 85.1%, 97.0%, and 47.5% of all laboratories, respectively. Median annual total assays (Assays Total ) per laboratory were 3515 and, based on complexity, were 1518.5 (low), 1808.8 (moderate), and 350 (high). Among all laboratories, the median time (interquartile range) to introduce new Assays L&L was 6 mos. (4–12 mos.), to introduce MRD assays was 11 mos. (5–12 mos.), and to validate/go‐live with new cytometers was 8 mos. (4–12 mos.); these times positively correlated with each other. This study confirmed significantly increased workload since the prior ICCS 2013 workload survey with a concurrent decrease in Staff LabOps . Faster introduction of new assays correlated with other successes, including quicker validation of and going live with new cytometers. Among all laboratories, those that performed myeloid MRD assays versus those that did not were also found to be faster to introduce new assays. The need for sufficient staffing has been emphasized because laboratories with both higher annual volumes of myeloma MRD assays and higher ratios of Assays Total per Staff LabOps were slower to introduce new assays. “Lack of staff and/or time dedicated or protected for assay development” and, more generally, “staff number” were the most commonly identified major barriers for new assay development, with the former specifically linked to slower introduction of new assays among all laboratories.

Introduction: Life-support limits (i.e., code status), the first step in the continuum of palliation and end-of-life (EoL) care, stem from decisions made by patients and their providers to align care near the EoL with patients’ wishes. The pandemic created health care strain that may have influenced life-support limitation practices among patients with serious COVID-19. In this study, we examine variations in life-support limitations (do-not-resuscitate, DNR; do-not-intubate, DNI) depending on the hospital and period of hospitalization. Methods: We included all adults admitted to a hospital in the United States with COVID-19 from January 2020 to December 2021 using the VIRUS registry. Our outcome was any life-support limitation on admission (DNR, DNI, or both) using regression modeling. Main exposures were hospital and period of hospitalization (early vs. late pandemic). Covariates included age, sex, race/ethnicity, comorbidities, and hospitalization diagnoses. Results: There were 42,383 patients from 75 hospitals in the US. The median age was 63 (interquartile range: 50–75), 46.5% were female, and 37.5% were non-Hispanic White. The life-support limitation rate was 7.9%, and the palliative care consultation rate was 2.3%. The odds of life-support limitation were 1.86 (95% CI: 1.6–2.1) depending on the hospital, but the period of hospitalization was not associated with odds of life-support limitation. Older age was associated with the greatest increased odds (4.1 per standard deviation ∼ 17.9 years, 95% CI: 3.9–4.4), followed by comorbidities including paralysis (2.4, 95% CI: 1.8–3.0) and dementia (2.3, 95% CI: 2.0–2.6). Conclusions: After adjusting for patient-level factors, we report significant inter-hospital but no temporal variation in life-support limitation upon admission with COVID-19. Future studies should investigate specific practices that led to health care resilience to temporal practice variations in life-support limitation during the pandemic.

Abstract Background The first-line management strategy for acute periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) is debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR). Suppressive antibiotic therapy (SAT) after DAIR is proposed to improve outcomes, yet its efficacy remains under scrutiny. Methods We conducted a multicenter retrospective study in patients with acute PJI of the hip or knee who were treated with DAIR in centers from Europe and the United States. We analyzed the effect of SAT using a Cox model landmarked at 12 weeks. The primary covariate of interest was SAT, which was analyzed as a time-varying covariate. Patients who experienced treatment failure or were lost to follow-up within 12 weeks were excluded from the analysis. Results The study included 510 patients with 66 treatment failures with a median follow-up of 801 days. We did not find a statistically significant association between SAT and treatment failure (hazard ratio, 1.37; 95% CI, .79–2.39; P = .27). Subgroup analyses for joint, country cohort, and type of infection (early or late acute) did not show benefit for SAT. Secondary analysis of country cohorts showed a trend toward benefit for the US cohort (hazard ratio, 0.36; 95% CI, .11–1.15; P = .09), which also had the highest risk of treatment failure. Conclusions The utility of routine SAT as a strategy for enhancing DAIR's success in acute PJI remains uncertain. Our results suggest that SAT's benefits might be restricted to specific groups of patients, underscoring the need for randomized controlled trials. Identifying patients most likely to benefit from SAT should be a priority in future studies.

AimDebridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) is a viable treatment option for acute periprosthetic joint infections (PJI). The landmark DATIPO trial of Bernard et al. concluded that six weeks is not non-inferior to 12-week antibiotic therapy for DAIR. However, it is unknown if suppressive antibiotic treatment (SAT) would improve patient outcomes. Therefore, our study aims to evaluate the utility of SAT after 12 weeks of therapy.MethodWe performed a retrospective study of patients with acute hip or knee PJI managed with DAIR at five institutions; in the U.S. (n=1), Netherlands (n=3), and Spain (n=1) from 2005–2020. We analyzed the effect of SAT using a Cox model among patients after 12 weeks of antibiotic treatment. The primary covariate of interest was whether the patient was on antibiotics after week 12, which was coded as a time-varying covariate. We decided a-priori to control for the clinically important risk factors such as age, sex, type of infection, modular exchange, joint, and presence of bacteremia and Staphylococcus aureus. We excluded patients who died, had treatment failure, or were lost to follow-up before 12 weeks. We defined treatment failure as infection recurrence (same or different organism), unexpected reoperation, or death due to infection.ResultsThere were 504 patients included in the study. The majority were female (58%, n=292), with a mean age of 70 years ago (SD 11). Hips and knees were equally proportioned. Primary arthroplasties represented 69% of the total cohort (n=349). Treatment failure was 11.9% in the total cohort (n=60). There was no statistically significant association between SAT after 12 weeks and treatment failure (HR 1.25, p=0.45, 95% CI 0.70–2.24). This finding was consistent across different subgroups, including hip or knee joints, early or late acute infections, cohort, and a subgroup of knee joints after 180 days.ConclusionsSAT after 12 weeks of antibiotic treatment for acute PJI managed with DAIR does not appear to improve patient outcomes.