Citations

ObjectiveThe aim was to determine the utilization of Caprini guideline‐indicated venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis and impact on VTE and bleeding outcomes in otolaryngology (ORL) surgery patients.MethodsElective ORL surgeries performed between 2016 and 2021 were retrospectively identified. Logistic regression models were used to examine the association between patient characteristics and receiving appropriate prophylaxis, inpatient, 30‐ and 90‐day VTE and bleeding events.ResultsA total of 4955 elective ORL surgeries were analyzed. Thirty percent of the inpatient cohort and 2% of the discharged cohort received appropriate risk‐stratified VTE prophylaxis. In those who did not receive appropriate prophylaxis, overall inpatient VTE was 3.5‐fold higher (0.73% vs. 0.20%, p = 0.015), and all PE occurred in this cohort (0.47% vs. 0.00%, p = 0.005). All 30‐ and 90‐day discharged VTE events occurred in those not receiving appropriate prophylaxis. Inpatient, 30‐ and 90‐day discharged bleeding rates were 2.10%, 0.13%, and 0.33%, respectively. Although inpatient bleeding was significantly higher in those receiving appropriate prophylaxis, all 30‐ and 90‐day post‐discharge bleeding events occurred in patients not receiving appropriate prophylaxis. On regression analysis, Caprini score was significantly positively associated with likelihood of receiving appropriate inpatient prophylaxis (odds ratio [OR] 1.05, confidence interval [CI] 1.03–1.07) but was negatively associated in the discharge cohort (OR 0.43, CI 0.36–0.51). Receipt of appropriate prophylaxis was associated with reduced odds of inpatient VTE (OR 0.24, CI 0.06–0.69), but not with risk of bleeding.ConclusionAlthough Caprini VTE risk‐stratified prophylaxis has a positive impact in reducing inpatient and post‐discharge VTE, it must be balanced against the risk of inpatient postoperative bleeding.Level of Evidence3 Laryngoscope, 134:1169–1182, 2024

Abstract Objectives To compare clinical characteristics, including the frequency of cutaneous, extramuscular manifestations and malignancy, between adults with anti-synthetase syndrome (ASyS) and DM. Methods Using data regarding adults from the MYONET registry, a cohort of DM patients with anti-Mi2/-TIF1γ/-NXP2/-SAE/-MDA5 autoantibodies, and a cohort of ASyS patients with anti-tRNA synthetase autoantibodies (anti-Jo1/-PL7/-PL12/-OJ/-EJ/-Zo/-KS) were identified. Patients with DM sine dermatitis or with discordant dual autoantibody specificities were excluded. Sub-cohorts of patients with ASyS with or without skin involvement were defined based on presence of DM-type rashes (heliotrope rash, Gottron’s papules/sign, violaceous rash, shawl sign, V-sign, erythroderma, and/or periorbital rash). Results In total 1054 patients were included (DM, n = 405; ASyS, n = 649). In the ASyS cohort, 31% (n = 203) had DM-type skin involvement (ASyS-DMskin). A higher frequency of extramuscular manifestations, including Mechanic’s hands, Raynaud’s phenomenon, arthritis, interstitial lung disease and cardiac involvement differentiated ASyS-DMskin from DM (all P < 0.001), whereas higher frequency of any of four DM-type rashes—heliotrope rash (n = 248, 61% vs n = 90, 44%), violaceous rash (n = 166, 41% vs n = 57, 9%), V-sign (n = 124, 31% vs n = 28, 4%), and shawl sign (n = 133, 33% vs n = 18, 3%)—differentiated DM from ASyS-DMskin (all P < 0.005). Cancer-associated myositis (CAM) was more frequent in DM (n = 67, 17%) compared with ASyS (n = 21, 3%) and ASyS-DMskin (n = 7, 3%) cohorts (both P < 0.001). Conclusion DM-type rashes are frequent in patients with ASyS; however, distinct clinical manifestations differentiate these patients from classical DM. Skin involvement in ASyS does not necessitate increased malignancy surveillance. These findings will inform future ASyS classification criteria and patient management.

Abstract Objectives We investigated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine safety in pregnant and breastfeeding women with autoimmune diseases (AID) in the COVID-19 Vaccination in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) study. Methods Delayed-onset (>7 days) vaccine-related adverse events (AE), disease flares and AID-related treatment modifications were analysed upon diagnosis of AID vs healthy controls (HC) and the pregnancy/breastfeeding status at the time of at least one dose of vaccine. Results Among the 9201 participants to the self-administered online survey, 6787 (73.8%) were women. Forty pregnant and 52 breastfeeding patients with AID were identified, of whom the majority had received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine (100% and 96.2%, respectively). AE were reported significantly more frequently in pregnant than in non-pregnant patients (overall AE 45% vs 26%, P = 0.01; minor AE 40% vs 25.9%, P = 0.03; major AE 17.5% vs 4.6%, P < 0.01), but no difference was found in comparison with pregnant HC. No difference was observed between breastfeeding patients and HC with respect to AE. Post-vaccination disease flares were reported by 17.5% of pregnant and 20% of breastfeeding patients, and by 18.3% of age- and disease-matched non-pregnant and non-breastfeeding patients (n = 262). All pregnant/breastfeeding patients who experienced a disease flare were managed with glucocorticoids; 28.6% and 20% of them required initiation or change in immunosuppressants, respectively. Conclusion This study provides reassuring insights into the safety of COVID-19 vaccines administered to women with AID during the gestational and post-partum periods, helping overcome hesitant attitudes, as the benefits for the mother and for the fetus by passive immunization appear to outweigh potential risks.

AbstractBackgroundUltrasound risk stratification can improve the care of patients with thyroid nodules by providing a structured and systematic approach for the evaluation of thyroid nodule features and thyroid cancer risk. The optimal strategies to support implementation of high quality thyroid nodule risk stratification are unknown. This study seeks to summarise strategies used to support implementation of thyroid nodule ultrasound risk stratification in practice and their effects on implementation and service outcomes.MethodsThis is a systematic review of studies evaluating implementation strategies published between January 2000 and June 2022 that were identified on Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid Cochrane, Scopus, or Web of Science. Screening of eligible studies, data collection and assessment for risk of bias was completed independently and in duplicate. Implementation strategies and their effects on implementation and service outcomes were evaluated and summarised.ResultsWe identified 2666 potentially eligible studies of which 8 were included. Most implementation strategies were directed towards radiologists. Common strategies to support the implementation of thyroid nodule risk stratification included: tools to standardise thyroid ultrasound reports, education on thyroid nodule risk stratification and use of templates/forms for reporting, and reminders at the point of care. System based strategies, local consensus or audit were less commonly described. Overall, the use of these strategies supported the implementation process of thyroid nodule risk stratification with variable effects on service outcomes.ConclusionsImplementation of thyroid nodule risk stratification can be supported by development of standardised reporting templates, education of users on risk stratification and reminders of use at the point of care. Additional studies evaluating the value of implementation strategies in different contexts are urgently needed.

To evaluate the impact of adding medical scribes to 2 distinct outpatient pediatric subspecialty clinics on provider burnout, visit length, and patient satisfaction. A total of 2 pediatric endocrinologists and 2 developmental-behavioral pediatrics/pediatrician (DBP) were randomly assigned based on days of the week to see patients aged 0 to 21 years in their clinics with and without in-person medical scribes from February 2019 to February 2020. Parent satisfaction rates were examined through pre- and postappointment surveys. Provider burnout rates were assessed through the Maslach Burnout Inventory-Human Services Survey. A retrospective comparative analysis of average appointment duration was undertaken considering the scribe/no scribe random allocation in the examination room. Funding for this pilot provided by the department of pediatrics budgeted funds. Over 2923 appointments during the project dates, 829 appointments were seen with a scribe. The average appointment time for a new DBP appointment was 61 minutes with scribes and 71 minutes without ( P < .001). Return patient appointments in DBP averaged 31 minutes with scribes and 43 minutes without ( P < .001). There was no significant difference in appointment duration for endocrinology with and without scribes. The average time for chart completion was reduced with the presence of scribes in DBP but not in endocrinology. Out of the 209 families surveyed, patient satisfaction rates with and without a scribe did not differ in that between 96% and 97% of respondents rated the appointment overall as “excellent” for each measure of provider communication with scribes present. Finally, from the Maslach Burnout Inventory-Human Services Survey, the average score across all 4 providers for Emotional Exhaustion and Depersonalization decreased during the project period, whereas Personal Accomplishment scores increased over the project period. Scribes might be more advantageous for some subspecialties that utilize prolonged narratives in clinic notes, like DBP, and an important avenue to consider in reducing provider burnout in busy ambulatory settings.

Background: Hysterectomy, oophorectomy, and tubal ligation are common surgical procedures. The literature regarding cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk after these surgeries has focused on oophorectomy with limited research on hysterectomy or tubal ligation. Materials and Methods: Participants in the Nurses' Health Study II ( n = 116,429) were followed from 1989 to 2017. Self-reported gynecologic surgery was categorized as follows: no surgery, hysterectomy alone, hysterectomy with unilateral oophorectomy, and hysterectomy with bilateral oophorectomy. We separately investigated tubal ligation alone. The primary outcome was CVD based on medical-record confirmed fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarction, fatal coronary heart disease, or fatal and nonfatal stroke. Our secondary outcome expanded CVD to include coronary revascularization (coronary artery bypass graft surgery, angioplasty, stent placement). Cox proportional hazard models were used to calculate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and were adjusted a priori for confounding factors. We investigated differences by age at surgery (≤50, >50) and menopausal hormone therapy usage. Results: At baseline, participants were on average, 34 years old. During 2,899,787 person-years, we observed 1,864 cases of CVD. Hysterectomy in combination with any oophorectomy was associated with a greater risk of CVD in multivariable-adjusted models (HR hysterectomy with unilateral oophorectomy:1.40 [95% CI: 1.08–1.82]; HR hysterectomy with bilateral oophorectomy:1.27 [1.07–1.51]). Hysterectomy alone, hysterectomy with oophorectomy, and tubal ligation were also associated with an increased risk of combined CVD and coronary revascularization (HR hysterectomy alone: 1.19 [95% CI: 1.02–1.39]; HR hysterectomy with unilateral oophorectomy: 1.29 [1.01–1.64]; HR hysterectomy with bilateral oophorectomy: 1.22 [1.04–1.43]; HR tubal ligation: 1.16 [1.06–1.28]). The association between hysterectomy/oophorectomy and CVD and coronary revascularization risk varied by age at gynecologic surgery, with the strongest association among women who had surgery before age 50 years. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that hysterectomy, alone or in combination with oophorectomy, as well as tubal ligation, may be associated with an increased risk of CVD and coronary revascularization. These findings extend previous research finding that oophorectomy is associated with CVD.

Abstract Background/Aims Flares following COVID-19 vaccination are an emerging concern among patients with rare rheumatic disease like idiopathic inflammatory myositis (IIMs), whereas data and understanding of this is rather limited. We aimed to study the prevalence, characteristics and determinants of IIM flares following COVID-19 vaccination. Methods CoVAD (COVID-19 Vaccination In Autoimmune Diseases) surveys are global patient self-reported e-surveys from 109 countries conducted in 2021 and 2022. Flares of IIM were defined by 4 definitions; a. patient self-reported, b. physician and immunosuppression (IS) denoted, c. sign directed (new erythematous rash, or worsening myositis or arthritis), d. MCID worsening of PROMISPF10a score between the patients who had taken both surveys. Descriptive statistics and multivariate regression were used to describe the predictors of flare. Cox-regression analysis was used to differentiate flares by IIM subtypes. Results Among the 1,278 IIM patients, aged 63 (50-71) years, 276 (21.5%) were dermatomyositis, 237 (18.5%) IBM, 899 (70.3%) were female and most were Caucasian (80.8%). Flares of IIM were seen in 123/1278 (9.6%), 163/1278 (12.7%), 112/1278 (8.7%), and 16/96 (19.6%) by definitions a-d respectively with median time to flare being 71.5 (10.7-235) days. Muscle weakness (69.1%), and fatigue (56.9%) were the most common symptoms of flare. The predictors of self-reported flare were: inactive/disease in remission prior to first dose of vaccine (OR = 4.3, 95%CI=2.4-7.6), and anxiety disorder (OR = 2.2, 95%CI=1.1-4.7). Rituximab use (OR = 0.3, 95%CI=0.1-0.7) and IBM (OR = 0.3, 95%CI=0.1-0.7) were protective. Physician defined flares were seen more often in females, mixed ethnicity, and those with asthma, ILD, and anxiety disorder (OR ranging 1.6-7.0, all p &lt; 0.05). Notably, overlap myositis (OM) had higher HR for flare compared to polymyositis (HR = 2.3, 95%CI=1.2-4.4, p = 0.010). Conclusion Nearly one in ten individuals with IIM develop flares after vaccination, more so among women, those with overlap myositis, and inactive disease prior to vaccination. Formal definition of flares in IIM is needed. Disclosure L. Gupta: None. N. R: None. Z. Griger: None. V. Agarwal: None. P. Sen: None. M. Joshi: None. S. Saha: None. K. Jagtap: None. O. Distler: Honoraria; Abbvie, Acceleron, Alcimed, Amgen, AnaMar, Arxx, Baecon, Blade, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, ChemomAb, Corbus, CSL Behring, Galapagos, Glenmark, GSK, Horizon (Curzion), Inventiva, iQvia, Kymera, Lupin, Medac, Medscape, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Novartis, Roche, Roivant, Sanofi, Serodapharm, Topadur and UCB. E. Nikiphorou: Honoraria; Celltrion, Pfizer, Sanofi, Gilead, Galapagos, AbbVie, and Lilly. Grants/research support; Pfizer and Lilly. A. Tan: Honoraria; Abbvie, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. S. Shinjo: None. N. Ziade: Honoraria; Pfizer, Roche, Abbvie, Eli Lilly, NewBridge, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, and Pierre Fabre. M. Milchert: None. I. Parodis: Honoraria; Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Elli Lilly and Company, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG. M. Kuwana: None. A. Makol: None. J. Pauling: None. C. Wincup: None. J. Lilleker: Honoraria; Sanofi Genzyme, Roche, and Biogen. A. Nune: None. J. Day: Grants/research support; CSL Limited. H. Chinoy: Consultancies; Novartis, Eli Lilly, Orphazyme, Astra Zeneca. Honoraria; UCB, and Biogen. Grants/research support; Eli Lilly and UCB. V. Agarwal: None. R. Aggarwal: Consultancies; Bristol Myers-Squibb, Pfizer, Genentech, Octapharma, CSL Behring, Mallinckrodt, AstraZeneca, Corbus, Kezar, Abbvie, Janssen, Alexion, Argenx, Q32, EMD-Serono, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Roivant.

Abstract Background/Aims Post COVID-19 syndrome (PCS) is an emerging cause of morbidity and poor quality of life in COVID-19 survivors. We aimed to assess the prevalence, risk factors, outcomes, and association with disease flares of PCS in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs) and non-rheumatic autoimmune diseases (nrAIDs), both vulnerable groups understudied in the current literature using data from the 2nd COVID-19 Vaccination in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) global multicentre patient self-reported e-survey. Methods The survey was circulated from February to July 2022 by the international COVAD Study Group (157 collaborators from 106 countries), and demographics, comorbidities, AIRD/nrAID status, COVID-19 history, vaccination details, and PROMIS physical and mental function were recorded. PCS was defined as symptom resolution time &gt;90 days following acute COVID-19. Predictors of PCS were analysed using regression models for the different groups. Results 7666 total respondents completed the survey. Of these, 2650 respondents with complete responses had positive COVID-19 infection, and 1677 (45.0% AIRDs, 12.5% nrAIDs, 42.5% HCs) completed the survey &gt;90 days post acute COVID-19. Of these, 136 (8.1%) had PCS. Prevalence of PCS was higher in AIRDs (10.8%) than healthy controls HCs (5.3%) (OR: 2.1; 95%CI: 1.4-3.1, p = 0.002). Across the entire cohort, a higher risk of PCS was seen in women (OR: 2.9; 95%CI: 1.1-7.7, p = 0.037), patients with long duration of AIRDs/nrAIDs (OR 1.01; 95%CI: 1.0-1.02, p = 0.016), those with comorbidities (OR: 2.8; 95%CI: 1.4-5.7, p = 0.005), and patients requiring oxygen supplementation for severe acute COVID-19 (OR: 3.8; 95%CI: 1.1-13.6, p = 0.039). Among patients with AIRDs, comorbidities (OR 2.0; 95%CI: 1.08-3.6, p = 0.026), and advanced treatment (OR: 1.9; 95%CI: 1.08-3.3, p = 0.024), or intensive care (OR: 3.8; 95%CI: 1.01-14.4, p = 0.047) for severe COVID-19 were risk factors for PCS. Notably, patients who developed PCS had poorer PROMIS global physical [15 (12-17) vs 12 (9-15)] and mental health [14 (11-16) vs 11 (8-14)] scores than those without PCS. Conclusion Individuals with AIRDs have a greater risk of PCS than HCs. Associated comorbid conditions, and advanced treatment or intensive care unit admission for severe COVID-19 confer a higher risk of PCS. It is imperative to identify risk factors for PCS for immediate multidisciplinary management in anticipation of poor physical and mental health. Disclosure L. Gupta: None. P. Sen: None. N. R: None. M. Joshi: None. S. Saha: None. K. Jagtap: None. V. Agarwal: None. O. Distler: Consultancies; Abbvie, Acceleron, Alcimed, Amgen, AnaMar, Arxx, Baecon, Blade, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, ChemomAb, Corbus, CSL Behring, Galapagos, Glenmark, GSK, Horizon (Curzion), Inventiva, iQvia, Kymera, Lupin, Medac, Medscape, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Novartis, Roche, Roivant, Sanofi, Serodapharm, Topadur and UCB. E. Nikiphorou: Honoraria; Celltrion, Pfizer, Sanofi, Gilead, Galapagos, AbbVie, and Lilly. Grants/research support; Pfizer and Lilly. A. Tan: Honoraria; Abbvie, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. S. Shinjo: None. N. Ziade: Honoraria; Pfizer, Roche, Abbvie, Eli Lilly, NewBridge, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, and Pierre Fabre. M. Milchert: None. I. Parodis: Honoraria; Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Elli Lilly and Company, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG. M. Kuwana: None. A. Makol: None. J.D. Pauling: None. C. Wincup: None. J. Lilleker: Honoraria; Sanofi Genzyme, Roche, and Biogen. A. Nune: None. J. Day: Grants/research support; CSL Limited. H. Chinoy: Consultancies; Novartis, Eli Lilly, Orphazyme, Astra Zeneca. Honoraria; UCB, and Biogen. Grants/research support; Eli Lilly and UCB. V. Agarwal: None. R. Aggarwal: Consultancies; Bristol Myers-Squibb, Pfizer, Genentech, Octapharma, CSL Behring, Mallinckrodt, AstraZeneca, Corbus, Kezar, Abbvie, Janssen, Alexion, Argenx, Q32, EMD-Serono, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Roivant.