Citations

Abstract Background Small vessel vasculitides (SVV) comprise a heterogeneous group of cutaneous SVV (CSVV) that can be skin‐limited or systemic. Given their diverse forms and symptoms and the lack of a standardized diagnostic approach, it is crucial to establish clear and consensus‐driven recommendations for diagnosis. Objectives To standardize diagnosis for the detection of the type, extent, potential causes or underlying conditions of CSVV. Methods International experts comprised the panel. The Delphi panel data was collected through two rounds of questionnaires. Agreement was measured using an 11‐point Likert scale (0 = strongly disagree, 10 = strongly agree). A 7‐vote minimum was required for agreement on each statement. Delphi panel statements scoring 3–7 were discussed during the meeting. Results 20 experts participated in the first round of the Delphi panel, while 17 experts took part in the second. They agreed that the diagnosis of CSVV relies on a combination of clinical manifestations, laboratory findings and histopathology. Palpable purpura on the lower extremities is recognized as the most reliable hallmark for most SVV and a sign of immune complex vasculitis. When the latter is suspected, a skin biopsy for direct immunofluorescence (DIF) should be obtained from an early, partially blanchable macule because the type of perivascular immunoglobulin is important for further diagnosis. The proper selection of biopsy sites for routine HE biopsy depends on the morphology of lesions. A comprehensive medical history and selected laboratory testing should be conducted to investigate organ involvement, potential causes and associated conditions. The extent of diagnostic procedures should be based on the severity, duration, systemic symptoms and recurrence of SVV. Conclusions Experts reached a strong consensus on the management of CSVV patients, culminating in the first International Consensus Statement for adult CSVV. This statement proposes a practical management algorithm and underscores the importance of collaboration in rare diseases management.

Deep learning offers significant advancements in the accuracy of prostate identification and classification, underscoring its potential for clinical integration. However, the opacity of deep learning models presents interpretability challenges, critical for their acceptance and utility in medical diagnosis and detection. While explanation methods have been proposed to demystify these models, enhancing their clinical viability, the efficacy and acceptance of these methods in medical tasks are not well documented. This pilot study investigates the effectiveness of deep learning explanation methods in clinical settings and identifies the attributes that radiologists consider crucial for explainability, aiming to direct future enhancements. This study reveals that while explanation methods can improve clinical task performance by up to 20%, their perceived usefulness varies, with some methods being rated poorly. Radiologists prefer explanation methods that are robust against noise, precise, and consistent. These preferences underscore the need for refining explanation methods to align with clinical expectations, emphasizing clarity, accuracy, and reliability. The findings highlight the importance of developing explanation methods that not only improve performance but also are tailored to meet the stringent requirements of clinical practice, thereby facilitating deeper trust and a broader acceptance of deep learning in medical diagnostics.

Importance Radiologically isolated syndrome (RIS) represents the earliest detectable preclinical phase of multiple sclerosis (MS) punctuated by incidental magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) white matter anomalies within the central nervous system. Objective To determine the time to onset of symptoms consistent with MS. Design, Setting, and Participants From September 2017 to October 2022, this multicenter, double-blind, phase 3, randomized clinical trial investigated the efficacy of teriflunomide in delaying MS in individuals with RIS, with a 3-year follow-up. The setting included referral centers in France, Switzerland, and Turkey. Participants older than 18 years meeting 2009 RIS criteria were randomly assigned (1:1) to oral teriflunomide, 14 mg daily, or placebo up to week 96 or, optionally, to week 144. Interventions Clinical, MRI, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were collected at baseline and yearly until week 96, with an optional third year in the allocated arm if no symptoms have occurred. Main outcomes Primary analysis was performed in the intention-to-treat population, and safety was assessed accordingly. Secondary end points included MRI outcomes and PROs. Results Among 124 individuals assessed for eligibility, 35 were excluded for declining to participate, not meeting inclusion criteria, or loss of follow-up. Eighty-nine participants (mean [SD] age, 37.8 [12.1] years; 63 female [70.8%]) were enrolled (placebo, 45 [50.6%]; teriflunomide, 44 [49.4%]). Eighteen participants (placebo, 9 [50.0%]; teriflunomide, 9 [50.0%]) discontinued the study, resulting in a dropout rate of 20% for adverse events (3 [16.7%]), consent withdrawal (4 [22.2%]), loss to follow-up (5 [27.8%]), voluntary withdrawal (4 [22.2%]), pregnancy (1 [5.6%]), and study termination (1 [5.6%]). The time to the first clinical event was significantly extended in the teriflunomide arm compared with placebo, in both the unadjusted (hazard ratio [HR], 0.37; 95% CI, 0.16-0.84; P = .02) and adjusted (HR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.11-0.71; P = .007) analysis. Secondary imaging end point outcomes including the comparison of the cumulative number of new or newly enlarging T2 lesions (rate ratio [RR], 0.57; 95% CI, 0.27-1.20; P = .14), new gadolinium-enhancing lesions (RR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.09-1.17; P = .09), and the proportion of participants with new lesions (odds ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.25-2.06; P = .54) were not significant. Conclusion and Relevance Treatment with teriflunomide resulted in an unadjusted risk reduction of 63% and an adjusted risk reduction of 72%, relative to placebo, in preventing a first clinical demyelinating event. These data suggest a benefit to early treatment in the MS disease spectrum. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03122652

Background: Vaccination in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) treated with immunosuppressive drugs is highly recommended. Regarding COVID-19 vaccination, no specific concern has been raised. Objectives: We aimed to evaluate if COVID-19 vaccination or infection increased the risk of disease activity, either radiological or clinical, with conversion to MS in a cohort of people with a radiologically isolated syndrome (RIS). Methods: This multicentric observational study analyzed patients in the RIS Consortium cohort during the pandemic between January 2020 and December 2022. We compared the occurrence of disease activity in patients according to their vaccination status. The same analysis was conducted by comparing patients’ history of COVID-19 infection. Results: No difference was found concerning clinical conversion to MS in the vaccinated versus unvaccinated group (6.7% vs 8.5%, p > 0.9). The rate of disease activity was not statistically different (13.6% and 7.4%, respectively, p = 0.54). The clinical conversion rate to MS was not significantly different in patients with a documented COVID-19 infection versus non-infected patients. Conclusion: Our study suggests that COVID-19 infection or immunization in RIS individuals does not increase the risk of disease activity. Our results support that COVID-19 vaccination can be safely proposed and repeated for these subjects.