Citations

ImportanceThe prognosis of patients with adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction (AEG) is poor. From current evidence, it remains unclear to what extent preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) or preoperative and/or perioperative chemotherapy achieve better outcomes than surgery alone.ObjectiveTo assess the association of preoperative CRT and preoperative and/or perioperative chemotherapy in patients with AEG with overall survival and other outcomes.Data SourcesLiterature search in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ClinicalTrials.gov, and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform was performed from inception to April 21, 2023.Study SelectionTwo blinded reviewers screened for randomized clinical trials comparing preoperative CRT plus surgery with preoperative and/or perioperative chemotherapy plus surgery, 1 intervention with surgery alone, or all 3 treatments. Only data from participants with AEG were included from trials that encompassed mixed histology or gastric cancer. Among 2768 initially identified studies, 17 (0.6%) met the selection criteria.Data Extraction and SynthesisThe Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines were followed for extracting data and assessing data quality by 2 independent extractors. A bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted using the 2-stage approach.Main Outcomes and MeasuresOverall and disease-free survival, postoperative morbidity, and mortality.ResultsThe analyses included 2549 patients (2206 [86.5%] male; mean [SD] age, 61.0 [9.4] years) from 17 trials (conducted from 1989-2016). Both preoperative CRT plus surgery (hazard ratio [HR], 0.75 [95% credible interval (CrI), 0.62-0.90]; 3-year difference, 105 deaths per 1000 patients) and preoperative and/or perioperative chemotherapy plus surgery (HR, 0.78 [95% CrI, 0.64-0.91]; 3-year difference, 90 deaths per 1000 patients) showed longer overall survival than surgery alone. Comparing the 2 modalities yielded similar overall survival (HR, 1.04 [95% CrI], 0.83-1.28]; 3-year difference, 15 deaths per 1000 patients fewer for CRT). Similarly, disease-free survival was longer for both modalities compared with surgery alone. Postoperative morbidity was more frequent after CRT plus surgery (odds ratio [OR], 2.94 [95% CrI, 1.01-8.59]) than surgery alone. Postoperative mortality was not significantly more frequent after CRT plus surgery than surgery alone (OR, 2.50 [95% CrI, 0.66-10.56]) or after chemotherapy plus surgery than CRT plus surgery (OR, 0.44 [95% CrI, 0.08-2.00]).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this meta-analysis of patients with AEG, both preoperative CRT and preoperative and/or perioperative chemotherapy were associated with longer survival without relevant differences between the 2 modalities. Thus, either of the 2 treatments may be recommended to patients.

Background Atherosclerosis is highly prevalent in people with chronic kidney disease (CKD), including those receiving peritoneal dialysis (PD). Although it is lifesaving, PD induces profound systemic inflammation, which may aggravate atherosclerosis. Therefore, the hypothesis is that this PD‐induced inflammation aggravates atherosclerosis via immune cell activation. Methods and Results ApoE −/− mice were subjected to a 5/6 nephrectomy to induce CKD. Three weeks later, mice were fed a high‐cholesterol diet. Half of the nephrectomized mice then received daily peritoneal infusions of 3.86% Physioneal for 67 further days (CKD+PD) until the end of the experiment, and were compared with mice without CKD. Sham operated and PD‐only mice were additional controls. CKD+PD mice displayed more severe atherosclerotic disease than control mice. Plaque area increased, and plaques were more advanced with a vulnerable phenotype typified by decreased collagen content and decreased fibrous cap thickness. Increased CD3 + T‐cell numbers were present in plaques and perivascular adipose tissue of CKD and CKD+PD mice. Plaques of CKD+PD mice contained more iNOS + immune cells. Spleens of CKD+PD mice showed more CD4 + central memory, terminally differentiated type 1 T‐helper (Th1), Th17, and CX3C motif chemokine receptor 1 + (CX3CR1) CD4 + T‐cells with less regulatory and effector T‐cells. Conclusions PD‐fluid exposure in uremic mice potentiates systemic and vascular T‐cell‐driven inflammation and aggravates atherosclerosis. PD polarized CD4 + T‐cells toward an inflammatory Th1/Th17 phenotype, and increased CX3CR1 + CD4 + T‐cells, which are associated with vascular homing in CKD‐associated atherosclerosis. Targeting CD4 + T‐cell activation and CX3CR1 + polarization has the potential to attenuate atherosclerosis in PD patients.

Abstract Alpha-tubulin 4A encoding gene (TUBA4A) has been associated with familial amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and frontotemporal dementia, based on identification of likely pathogenic variants in patients from distinct amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and frontotemporal dementia cohorts. By screening a multicentric French cohort of 448 unrelated probands presenting with cerebellar ataxia, we identified ultra-rare TUBA4A missense variants, all being absent from public databases and predicted pathogenic by multiple in silico tools. In addition, gene burden analyses in the 100 000 Genomes project (100KGP) showed enrichment of TUBA4A rare variants in the inherited ataxia group compared to controls [odds ratio: 57.0847 (10.2−576.7); P = 4.02 ×10−7]. Taken together, we report 12 patients presenting with spasticity and/or cerebellar ataxia and harbouring a predicted pathogenic TUBA4A missense mutation, including five confirmed de novo cases and a mutation previously reported in a large family presenting with spastic ataxia. Cultured fibroblasts from three patients harbouring distinct TUBA4A missense showed significant alterations in microtubule organization and dynamics, providing insight of TUBA4A variants pathogenicity. Our data confirm the identification of a hereditary spastic ataxia disease gene with variable age of onset, expanding the clinical spectrum of TUBA4A associated phenotypes.

Background and Aims: We compared the safety and efficacy of bintrafusp alfa (BA) in combination with gemcitabine+cisplatin (GemCis), to those of GemCis alone, in patients with biliary tract cancer. Approach and Results: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, adaptive design phase 2/3 trial (NCT04066491) included adults who are treatment-naive with locally advanced/metastatic biliary tract cancer. Patients (N = 297) were randomized to receive an IV infusion of BA (2400 mg once/3 wk) plus GemCis (gemcitabine 1000 mg/m 2 +cisplatin 25 mg/m 2 on days 1 and 8/3 wk; 8 cycles) (BA group, n = 148) or placebo+GemCis (placebo group, n = 149). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). For adaptation analysis (phase 2-phase 3; data cutoff: May 20, 2021), efficacy was assessed in the first 150 patients who were antibiotic-naive when 80 progression-free survival events had occurred and ≥ 19 weeks of follow-up had been completed (BA, n = 73; placebo, n = 77). Median OS (95% CI) for the BA (11.5 mo [9.3–not estimable]) and placebo (11.5 mo [10.0–not estimable]) groups was comparable (hazard ration 1.23 [95% CI 0.66–2.28]; p = 0.7394); OS data maturity was 27.2% (41 events/151 patients). The most common grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse event was anemia (BA, 26.0%; placebo, 22.8%). Bleeding adverse events were reported more frequently in the BA group (28.8%) versus the placebo group (7.4%). Deaths within 60 days of the first dose were reported in 7.5% and 1.3% of patients in the BA and placebo groups, respectively. Conclusions: BA+GemCis did not provide a clinically meaningful benefit compared with GemCis alone as first-line treatment for biliary tract cancer, and the study was discontinued early (terminated: August 20, 2021).

e17061 Background: ThePhase 3 VISION trial demonstrated that [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 prolonged overall survival (OS) in metastatic-castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients who progressed on taxane-based chemotherapy and androgen receptor-signaling inhibitors (ARSi). The expanded access program (EAP) (NCT04825652) was opened to provide access to [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 for eligible patients until regulatory approval was obtained. The VISION trial required strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, which may not represent the patient population encountered in clinical practice. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety profile of [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 in a real-world setting within the EAP and compare the results with those from the VISION trial. Methods: Patients enrolled in the EAP between May 2021 and March 2022 at four institutions in the United States with available toxicity and outcome data were included. Outcome measures included overall survival (OS), ≥50% PSA decline rates (PSA-RR), and incidences of toxicity according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v5.0. Differences in baseline characteristics, toxicity, and PSA-RR between the EAP and VISION were evaluated using a t-test of proportions. Results: 117 patients with mCRPC were eligible and included. Patients enrolled in the EAP were similarly pretreated with taxane-based chemotherapy regimens (>1 taxane: 47% vs 40%; p=0.16) and more heavily pretreated with ARSi (>1 ARSi: 70% vs 46%; p<0.001). EAP patients had similar levels of ≥3 grade anemia (18% vs 13%; p=0.15), thrombocytopenia (13% vs 8%; p=0.13), and neutropenia (3% vs 3%; p=0.85) and higher levels of ≥3 grade lymphopenia (34% vs 8%; p<0.001). Patients treated within the EAP experienced numerically shorter OS (median OS: 13.7 vs 15.3 months) and similar PSA-RR (40% vs 46%; p=0.29). Median follow-up was numerically shorter in the EAP compared with VISION (14.7 mo vs 20.3 mo). Conclusions: mCRPC patients treated with [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 in a real-world setting were more heavily pretreated with ARSi, had a similar safety profile, and experienced numerically shorter OS and similar PSA-RR compared with VISION trial patients. A major limitation of this study is that we did not have access to individual patient data from the VISION trial, so we were not able to assess whether differences in OS between VISION and the EAP were statistically significant.

AbstractArtificial intelligence's (AI) accelerating progress demands rigorous evaluation standards to ensure safe, effective integration into healthcare's high‐stakes decisions. As AI increasingly enables prediction, analysis and judgement capabilities relevant to medicine, proper evaluation and interpretation are indispensable. Erroneous AI could endanger patients; thus, developing, validating and deploying medical AI demands adhering to strict, transparent standards centred on safety, ethics and responsible oversight. Core considerations include assessing performance on diverse real‐world data, collaborating with domain experts, confirming model reliability and limitations, and advancing interpretability. Thoughtful selection of evaluation metrics suited to the clinical context along with testing on diverse data sets representing different populations improves generalisability. Partnering software engineers, data scientists and medical practitioners ground assessment in real needs. Journals must uphold reporting standards matching AI's societal impacts. With rigorous, holistic evaluation frameworks, AI can progress towards expanding healthcare access and quality.Level of EvidenceLevel V.

AbstractBackgroundDespite the overall safety and efficacy of COVID‐19 vaccinations, rare cases of systemic autoimmune diseases (SAIDs) have been reported post‐vaccination. This study used a global survey to analyze SAIDs in susceptible individuals' post‐vaccination.MethodsA cross‐sectional study was conducted among participants with self‐reported new‐onset SAIDs using the COVID‐19 Vaccination in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) 2 study dataset—a validated, patient‐reported e‐survey—to analyze the long‐term safety of COVID‐19 vaccines. Baseline characteristics of patients with new‐onset SAIDs and vaccinated healthy controls (HCs) were compared after propensity score matching based on age and sex in a 1:4 ratio.ResultsOf 16 750 individuals, 74 (median age 52 years, 79.9% females, and 76.7% Caucasians) had new‐onset SAID post‐vaccination, mainly idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs) (n = 23, 31.51%), arthritis (n = 15; 20.53%), and polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) (n = 12, 16.40%). Higher odds of new‐onset SAIDs were noted among Caucasians (OR = 5.3; 95% CI = 2.9–9.7; p < .001) and Moderna vaccine recipients (OR = 2.7; 95% CI = 1.3–5.3; p = .004). New‐onset SAIDs were associated with AID multimorbidity (OR = 1.4; 95% CI = 1.1–1.7; p < .001), mental health disorders (OR = 1.6; 95% CI = 1.3–1.9; p < .001), and mixed race (OR = 2.2; 95% CI = 1.2–4.2; p = .010), where those aged >60 years (OR = 0.6; 95% CI = 0.4–0.8; p = .007) and from high/medium human development index (HDI) countries (compared to very high HDI) reported fewer events than HCs.ConclusionThis study reports a low occurrence of new‐onset SAIDs following COVID‐19 vaccination, primarily IIMs, PMR, and inflammatory arthritis. Identified risk factors included pre‐existing AID multimorbidity, mental health diseases, and mixed race. Revaccination was well tolerated by most patients; therefore, we recommend continuing COVID‐19 vaccination in the general population. However, long‐term studies are needed to understand the autoimmune phenomena arising post‐vaccination.

Abstract Background Patients with lichen planus (LP) refractory to available therapies often experience a high disease burden, representing a population with a clear unmet need for new treatments. Objectives To evaluate the efficacy and safety of secukinumab 300 mg over 32 weeks in adult patients with biopsy-proven cutaneous LP (CLP), mucosal LP (MLP) or lichen planopilaris (LPP) that is inadequately controlled by topical corticosteroids. Methods PRELUDE was a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled phase II proof-of-concept study that enrolled patients with CLP, MLP or LPP. Eligible patients were randomized to either secukinumab 300 mg every 4 weeks for 32 weeks (SECQ4W) or placebo for 16 weeks followed by secukinumab 300 mg every 2 weeks (SECQ2W) for 16 weeks. The primary endpoint was achievement of the newly designed Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score ≤ 2 at week 16. Results Overall, 111 patients were randomized (n = 37 each) to CLP, MLP and LPP cohorts. As the proof-of-concept criteria were not met for any of the three cohorts, the primary objective was not met. A numerically higher proportion of patients achieved IGA ≤ 2 response at week 16 with SECQ4W vs. placebo in the MLP {37.5% [95% credibility interval (Crl) 20.3–57.2] vs. 23.1% (95% Crl 6.5–49.2)} and LPP cohorts [37.5% (95% Crl 20.2–57.3) vs. 30.8% (95% Crl 10.8–57.6)]. In the LPP cohort, a sustained response for IGA ≤ 2 from week 16 to week 32 was achieved with SECQ4W (week 16, 37.5%; week 32, 45.8%), and a substantial improvement was observed in IGA ≤ 2 response in patients from this cohort who switched from placebo (week 16, 30.8%) to SECQ2W after week 16 (week 32, 63.6%). The safety profile was consistent with the known profile of secukinumab and showed no new or unexpected signals. Conclusions PRELUDE is the first randomized controlled basket trial evaluating interleukin (IL)-17A inhibition with secukinumab across three subtypes of LP. Secukinumab was well tolerated and safe, showing different response rates across the three subtypes, with numerical IGA improvements in MLP and LPP, and no response in CLP. The study raises the question of a differential role of IL-17A across LP subtypes. The novel IGA score showed significant correlation with both patient- and physician-reported outcome measurements.

AbstractBackgroundThe pandemic presented unique challenges for individuals with autoimmune and rheumatic diseases (AIRDs) due to their underlying condition, the effects of immunosuppressive treatments, and increased vaccine hesitancy.ObjectivesThe COVID‐19 vaccination in autoimmune diseases (COVAD) study, a series of ongoing, patient self‐reported surveys were conceived with the vision of being a unique tool to gather patient perspectives on AIRDs. It involved a multinational, multicenter collaborative effort amidst a global lockdown.MethodsLeveraging social media as a research tool, COVAD collected data using validated patient‐reported outcomes (PROs). The study, comprising a core team, steering committee, and global collaborators, facilitated data collection and analysis. A pilot‐tested, validated survey, featuring questions regarding COVID‐19 infection, vaccination and outcomes, patient demographics, and PROs was circulated to patients with AIRDs and healthy controls (HCs).DiscussionWe present the challenges encountered during this international collaborative project, including coordination, data management, funding constraints, language barriers, and authorship concerns, while highlighting the measures taken to address them.ConclusionCollaborative virtual models offer a dynamic new frontier in medical research and are vital to studying rare diseases. The COVAD study demonstrates the potential of online platforms for conducting large‐scale, patient‐focused research and underscores the importance of integrating patient perspective into clinical care. Care of patients is our central motivation, and it is essential to recognize their voices as equal stakeholders and valued partners in the study of the conditions that affect them.