Citations

Background Up to one third of survivors of AKI that required dialysis (AKI-D) during hospitalization remain dialysis dependent at hospital discharge. Of these, 20%–60%, depending on the clinical setting, eventually recover enough kidney function to stop dialysis, and the remainder progress to ESKD. Methods To describe the challenges facing those still receiving dialysis on discharge, the AKINow Committee conducted a group discussion comprising 59 participants, including physicians, advanced practitioners, nurses, pharmacists, and patients. The discussion was framed by a patient who described gaps in care delivery at different transition points and miscommunication between care team members and the patient. Results Group discussions collected patient perspectives of ( 1 ) being often scared and uncertain about what is happening to and around them and ( 2 ) the importance of effective and timely communication, a comfortable physical setting, and attentive and caring health care providers for a quality health care experience. Provider perspectives included ( 1 ) the recognition of the lack of evidence-based practices and quality indicators, the significant variability in current care models, and the uncertain reimbursement incentives focused on kidney recovery and ( 2 ) the urgency to address communication barriers among hospital providers and outpatient facilities. Conclusions The workgroup identified key areas for future research and policy change to ( 1 ) improve communication among hospital providers, dialysis units, and patients/care partners; ( 2 ) develop tools for risk classification, subphenotyping, and augmented clinical decision support; ( 3 ) improve education to providers, staff, and patients/care partners; ( 4 ) identify best practices to improve relevant outcomes; ( 5 ) validate quality indicators; and ( 6 ) assess the effect of social determinants of health on outcomes. We urge all stakeholders involved in the process of AKI-D care to align goals and work together to fill knowledge gaps and optimize the care to this highly vulnerable patient population.

Slow, deep breathing (SDB) is thought to lead to reductions in blood pressure by decreasing vascular‐sympathetic coupling. Venous Occlusion Plethysmography (VOP) is used to assess forearm blood flow (FBF) (ml/min/100 dl tissue). We used this technique to determine the vasodilatory effect of device‐guided (DG) vs self‐paced (SP) slow, deep breathing. We hypothesized that SP would lead to a larger vasodilation response than DG due to a more profound reduction in vascular‐sympathetic coupling, and that this would be correlated with psychological evaluations. Young, healthy male subjects (Mean age: 20 yr; DG: n=10; SP: n=11) rested supine for 20 minutes (baseline), followed by 20 minutes of SP or DG slow, deep breathing, then completed 20 minutes of endogenous breathing (recovery). At baseline, there was no difference in breathing rate between SP and DG (14.36±1.03 vs 15.39±1.29 breaths per minute, p=0.27) and respiratory rate was reduced to 8.36±0.74 breaths per minute (BPM) in the SP group (p<0.01 compared to baseline) and to 6.37±0.10 BPM in the DG group (p<0.01 compared to baseline). Respiratory rates between the two groups differed significantly during SDB (p<0.01 between groups). There was a significant increase in SP FBF compared to baseline at the end of the 20 minute intervention (p<0.05),while the DG group saw no significant increases. In DG, there was a strong negative correlation with the cognitive interference scores to VOP responsiveness (−0.77; R2=0.591), as well as between the cognitive failure score and VOP responsiveness (−0.61; R2=0.3693). In contrast, the SP groups had positive correlations when comparing VOP responsiveness to cognitive interference (0.1; R2=0.093) or cognitive failure (0.30; R2=0.011). For subjects in either breathing group, those who had an increase in FBF in response to SDB also had reductions in STAI anxiety score after the intervention whereas those with a decrease in FBF to SDB had an increase in anxiety score during the slow breathing (p=0.04). Overall, male subjects have a variable vasodilator responses to two types of SDB practices related to underlying psychological metrics. Our data underscores the importance of psychological metrics in physiological outcomes related to SDB practices.

Background Inconsistent nomenclature and anatomical descriptions of regional anesthetic techniques hinder scientific communication and engender confusion; this in turn has implications for research, education and clinical implementation of regional anesthesia. Having produced standardized nomenclature for abdominal wall, paraspinal and chest wall regional anesthetic techniques, we aimed to similarly do so for upper and lower limb peripheral nerve blocks. Methods We performed a three-round Delphi international consensus study to generate standardized names and anatomical descriptions of upper and lower limb regional anesthetic techniques. A long list of names and anatomical description of blocks of upper and lower extremities was produced by the members of the steering committee. Subsequently, two rounds of anonymized voting and commenting were followed by a third virtual round table to secure consensus for items that remained outstanding after the first and second rounds. As with previous methodology, strong consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement and weak consensus as 50%–74% agreement. Results A total of 94, 91 and 65 collaborators participated in the first, second and third rounds, respectively. We achieved strong consensus for 38 names and 33 anatomical descriptions, and weak consensus for five anatomical descriptions. We agreed on a template for naming peripheral nerve blocks based on the name of the nerve and the anatomical location of the blockade and identified several areas for future research. Conclusions We achieved consensus on nomenclature and anatomical descriptions of regional anesthetic techniques for upper and lower limb nerve blocks, and recommend using this framework in clinical and academic practice. This should improve research, teaching and learning of regional anesthesia to eventually improve patient care.

ABSTRACT The rapid pace of name changes of medically important fungi is creating challenges for clinical laboratories and clinicians involved in patient care. We describe two sources of name change which have different drivers, at the species versus the genus level. Some suggestions are made here to reduce the number of name changes. We urge taxonomists to provide diagnostic markers of taxonomic novelties. Given the instability of phylogenetic trees due to variable taxon sampling, we advocate to maintain genera at the largest possible size. Reporting of identified species in complexes or series should where possible comprise both the name of the overarching species and that of the molecular sibling, often cryptic species. Because the use of different names for the same species will be unavoidable for many years to come, an open access online database of the names of all medically important fungi, with proper nomenclatural designation and synonymy, is essential. We further recommend that while taxonomic discovery continues, the adaptation of new name changes by clinical laboratories and clinicians be reviewed routinely by a standing committee for validation and stability over time, with reference to an open access database, wherein reasons for changes are listed in a transparent way.

ImportanceIncreased white matter hyperintensity (WMH) volume is a common magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) finding in both autosomal dominant Alzheimer disease (ADAD) and late-onset Alzheimer disease (LOAD), but it remains unclear whether increased WMH along the AD continuum is reflective of AD-intrinsic processes or secondary to elevated systemic vascular risk factors.ObjectiveTo estimate the associations of neurodegeneration and parenchymal and vessel amyloidosis with WMH accumulation and investigate whether systemic vascular risk is associated with WMH beyond these AD-intrinsic processes.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cohort study used data from 3 longitudinal cohort studies conducted in tertiary and community-based medical centers—the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network (DIAN; February 2010 to March 2020), the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI; July 2007 to September 2021), and the Harvard Aging Brain Study (HABS; September 2010 to December 2019).Main Outcome and MeasuresThe main outcomes were the independent associations of neurodegeneration (decreases in gray matter volume), parenchymal amyloidosis (assessed by amyloid positron emission tomography), and vessel amyloidosis (evidenced by cerebral microbleeds [CMBs]) with cross-sectional and longitudinal WMH.ResultsData from 3960 MRI sessions among 1141 participants were included: 252 pathogenic variant carriers from DIAN (mean [SD] age, 38.4 [11.2] years; 137 [54%] female), 571 older adults from ADNI (mean [SD] age, 72.8 [7.3] years; 274 [48%] female), and 318 older adults from HABS (mean [SD] age, 72.4 [7.6] years; 194 [61%] female). Longitudinal increases in WMH volume were greater in individuals with CMBs compared with those without (DIAN: t = 3.2 [P = .001]; ADNI: t = 2.7 [P = .008]), associated with longitudinal decreases in gray matter volume (DIAN: t = −3.1 [P = .002]; ADNI: t = −5.6 [P &amp;lt; .001]; HABS: t = −2.2 [P = .03]), greater in older individuals (DIAN: t = 6.8 [P &amp;lt; .001]; ADNI: t = 9.1 [P &amp;lt; .001]; HABS: t = 5.4 [P &amp;lt; .001]), and not associated with systemic vascular risk (DIAN: t = 0.7 [P = .40]; ADNI: t = 0.6 [P = .50]; HABS: t = 1.8 [P = .06]) in individuals with ADAD and LOAD after accounting for age, gray matter volume, CMB presence, and amyloid burden. In older adults without CMBs at baseline, greater WMH volume was associated with CMB development during longitudinal follow-up (Cox proportional hazards regression model hazard ratio, 2.63; 95% CI, 1.72-4.03; P &amp;lt; .001).Conclusions and RelevanceThe findings suggest that increased WMH volume in AD is associated with neurodegeneration and parenchymal and vessel amyloidosis but not with elevated systemic vascular risk. Additionally, increased WMH volume may represent an early sign of vessel amyloidosis preceding the emergence of CMBs.

AbstractPrimary care physicians (PCPs) are commonly approached with concerns involving patient genetics. This is a challenge because most PCPs lack expertise in genetic testing compared to their genetic counselor counterparts. Currently, the recommended best practice is to refer patients for genetic testing based on cancer‐related family history questionnaires with a genetic counseling referral to discuss their results and any implications. However, the extent to which PCPs are using these questionnaires for this purpose remains poorly understood. In this cross‐sectional study, PCPs were presented with the American Cancer Society's seven recommended family history questions to determine the percentage who consider each to be an indicator for referral to a genetics specialist. Questionnaires were completed by 88 of 260 attending PCPs at a national primary care review conference. The main outcome was the percentage of PCPs who identified each question as a trigger for genetic testing. Secondary outcomes included correlations with years of practice, genetics training, and methods used to obtain patient family history. Only two of the seven questions were considered triggers by most PCPs (range, 76–83%). The remaining five had lower percentages (range, 22–55%). Years of practice did not influence the number of triggers identified (Spearman correlation coefficient test: r = 0.05, p = 0.68). Few PCPs (3.4%) felt they had good to excellent genetics training during residency. Only 44.3% had genetics specialists available for referral. Overall, low percentages of PCPs consider the American Cancer Society questions to be triggers for genetic testing referrals. Furthermore, many do not have a genetics specialist or counselor available for referral. Addressing these concerns may help PCPs understand the basics of genetic testing and use standardized questionnaires to make appropriate referrals to genetic specialists, thereby reducing inappropriate referrals and improving appointment access to this precious resource for those who truly need it.

ImportanceSystematic data on the association between anticancer therapies and thromboembolic events (TEEs) in patients with COVID-19 are lacking.ObjectiveTo assess the association between anticancer therapy exposure within 3 months prior to COVID-19 and TEEs following COVID-19 diagnosis in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included patients who were hospitalized and had active cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data were accrued from March 2020 to December 2021 and analyzed from December 2021 to October 2022.ExposureTreatments of interest (TOIs) (endocrine therapy, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors/tyrosine kinase inhibitors [VEGFis/TKIs], immunomodulators [IMiDs], immune checkpoint inhibitors [ICIs], chemotherapy) vs reference (no systemic therapy) in 3 months prior to COVID-19.Main Outcomes and MeasuresMain outcomes were (1) venous thromboembolism (VTE) and (2) arterial thromboembolism (ATE). Secondary outcome was severity of COVID-19 (rates of intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, 30-day all-cause mortality following TEEs in TOI vs reference group) at 30-day follow-up.ResultsOf 4988 hospitalized patients with cancer (median [IQR] age, 69 [59-78] years; 2608 [52%] male), 1869 had received 1 or more TOIs. Incidence of VTE was higher in all TOI groups: endocrine therapy, 7%; VEGFis/TKIs, 10%; IMiDs, 8%; ICIs, 12%; and chemotherapy, 10%, compared with patients not receiving systemic therapies (6%). In multivariable log-binomial regression analyses, relative risk of VTE (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.69) but not ATE (aRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.56-1.16) was significantly higher in those exposed to all TOIs pooled together vs those with no exposure. Among individual drugs, ICIs were significantly associated with VTE (aRR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.01-2.07). Also noted were significant associations between VTE and active and progressing cancer (aRR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.01-2.03), history of VTE (aRR, 3.10; 95% CI, 2.38-4.04), and high-risk site of cancer (aRR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.14-1.75). Black patients had a higher risk of TEEs (aRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03-1.50) than White patients. Patients with TEEs had high intensive care unit admission (46%) and mechanical ventilation (31%) rates. Relative risk of death in patients with TEEs was higher in those exposed to TOIs vs not (aRR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.91-1.38) and was significantly associated with poor performance status (aRR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.30-2.40) and active/progressing cancer (aRR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.13-2.13).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, relative risk of developing VTE was high among patients receiving TOIs and varied by the type of therapy, underlying risk factors, and demographics, such as race and ethnicity. These findings highlight the need for close monitoring and perhaps personalized thromboprophylaxis to prevent morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19–related thromboembolism in patients with cancer.