Collins, Sean P.

Abstract Aims In this protocol-predefined substudy of the RHAPSODY trial, the primary aim was to assess whether pericardial late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) was associated with time to pericarditis recurrence. Methods and results RHAPSODY was a Phase 3 double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized-withdrawal trial that demonstrated the efficacy of rilonacept in recurrent pericarditis (RP). Patients with a history of multiple RP and an active recurrence were enrolled and had the option to participate in a cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging substudy. CMRs were interpreted by a blinded independent core laboratory with prespecified criteria to define pericardial LGE. Compared to patients with trace or mild pericardial LGE (n = 9), patients with moderate or severe pericardial LGE (n = 16) generally had a higher number of recurrent episodes per year (5.3 vs. 3.9) and a higher mean CRP level (3.6 vs. 1.1 mg/dL). Overall, 10/14 (71.4%) who received a placebo had a recurrence compared to 0/11 (0%) who received rilonacept. In patients randomized to placebo who had moderate or severe pericardial LGE, the median time to recurrence was 4.2 weeks compared to 10.7 weeks in patients who had trace or mild pericardial LGE. At the conclusion of the event-driven randomized-withdrawal period, among patients receiving a placebo, 5/7 (71.4%) with trace or mild pericardial LGE and 5/7 (71.4%) with moderate or severe pericardial LGE had a recurrence. Conclusions Among patients with multiple RP, these preliminary findings support the concept of pericardial LGE as an imaging biomarker that may inform the duration of treatment and risk of recurrence with cessation of therapy and larger studies should be considered. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03737110

Background Recurrent pericarditis is characterized by painful flares and inflammation, which negatively impact health‐related quality of life. RHAPSODY (rilonacept inhibition of interleukin‐1 alpha and beta for recurrent pericarditis: a pivotal symptomatology and outcomes study) evaluated the efficacy and safety of rilonacept (IL‐1α and ‐β cytokine trap) in recurrent pericarditis. A secondary analysis of these data evaluated the patient‐reported outcome questionnaire score change during the trial. Methods and Results Participants completed 5 patient‐reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires assessing pericarditis pain, health‐related quality of life, general health status, sleep impact, and overall symptom severity. PRO score changes during the treatment run‐in period (12 weeks) and the blinded randomized withdrawal period (up to 24 weeks) were evaluated using descriptive statistics and mixed model repeated measures analyses. Participants with PRO data from the run‐in period (n=84) and the randomized withdrawal period (n=61; 30 rilonacept, 31 placebo) were included in analyses. Run‐in baseline PRO scores indicated that pericarditis symptoms during pericarditis recurrence impacted health‐related quality of life. All PRO scores significantly improved ( P <0.001) on rilonacept treatment during the run‐in period. For the randomized withdrawal period, PRO scores were maintained for participants receiving rilonacept. For those receiving placebo and who experienced a recurrence, PRO scores deteriorated at the time of recurrence and then improved following rilonacept bailout. At randomized withdrawal Week 24/End of Study, scores of participants who received bailout rilonacept were similar to those of participants who had continued rilonacept. Conclusions These results demonstrate the burden of pericarditis recurrences and the improved physical and emotional health of patients with recurrent pericarditis while on rilonacept treatment. These findings extend prior rilonacept efficacy results, demonstrating improvements in patient‐reported health‐related quality of life, sleep, pain, and global symptom severity while on treatment. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03737110.

Abstract Background The AACC Academy revised the reproductive testing section of the Laboratory Medicine Practice Guidelines: Evidence-Based Practice for Point-of-Care Testing (POCT) published in 2007. Methods A panel of Academy members with expertise in POCT and laboratory medicine was formed to develop guidance for the use of POCT in reproductive health, specifically ovulation, pregnancy, premature rupture of membranes (PROM), and high-risk deliveries. The committee was supplemented with clinicians having Emergency Medicine and Obstetrics/Gynecology training. Results Key recommendations include the following. First, urine luteinizing hormone (LH) tests are accurate and reliable predictors of ovulation. Studies have shown that the use of ovulation predicting kits may improve the likelihood of conception among healthy fertile women seeking pregnancy. Urinary LH point-of-care testing demonstrates a comparable performance among other ovulation monitoring methods for timing intrauterine insemination and confirming sufficient ovulation induction before oocyte retrieval during in vitro fertilization. Second, pregnancy POCT should be considered in clinical situations where rapid diagnosis of pregnancy is needed for treatment decisions, and laboratory analysis cannot meet the required turnaround time. Third, PROM testing using commercial kits alone is not recommended without clinical signs of rupture of membranes, such as leakage of amniotic fluid from the cervical opening. Finally, fetal scalp lactate is used more than fetal scalp pH for fetal acidosis due to higher success rate and low volume of sample required. Conclusions This revision of the AACC Academy POCT guidelines provides recommendations for best practice use of POCT in fertility and reproduction.

AbstractDecision aids are evidenced‐based tools designed to increase patient understanding of medical options and possible outcomes, facilitate conversation between patients and clinicians, and improve patient engagement. Decision aids have been used for shared decision making (SDM) interventions outside of the ED setting for more than a decade. Their use in the ED has only recently begun to be studied. This article provides background on this topic and the conclusions of the 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference SDM in practice work group regarding “Shared Decision Making in the Emergency Department: Development of a Policy‐Relevant, Patient‐Centered Research Agenda.” The goal was to determine a prioritized research agenda for the development and testing of SDM interventions for use in emergency care that was most important to patients, clinicians, caregivers, and other key stakeholders. Using the nominal group technique, the consensus working group proposed prioritized research questions in six key domains: 1) content (i.e., clinical scenario or decision area), 2) level of evidence available, 3) tool design strategies, 4) risk communication, 5) stakeholders, and 6) outcomes.