Citations

ObjectiveTo develop a new evidence‐based, pharmacologic treatment guideline for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodsWe conducted systematic reviews to synthesize the evidence for the benefits and harms of various treatment options. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to rate the quality of evidence. We employed a group consensus process to grade the strength of recommendations (either strong or conditional). A strong recommendation indicates that clinicians are certain that the benefits of an intervention far outweigh the harms (or vice versa). A conditional recommendation denotes uncertainty over the balance of benefits and harms and/or more significant variability in patient values and preferences.ResultsThe guideline covers the use of traditional disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologic agents, tofacitinib, and glucocorticoids in early (<6 months) and established (≥6 months) RA. In addition, it provides recommendations on using a treat‐to‐target approach, tapering and discontinuing medications, and the use of biologic agents and DMARDs in patients with hepatitis, congestive heart failure, malignancy, and serious infections. The guideline addresses the use of vaccines in patients starting/receiving DMARDs or biologic agents, screening for tuberculosis in patients starting/receiving biologic agents or tofacitinib, and laboratory monitoring for traditional DMARDs. The guideline includes 74 recommendations: 23% are strong and 77% are conditional.ConclusionThis RA guideline should serve as a tool for clinicians and patients (our two target audiences) for pharmacologic treatment decisions in commonly encountered clinical situations. These recommendations are not prescriptive, and the treatment decisions should be made by physicians and patients through a shared decision‐making process taking into account patients’ values, preferences, and comorbidities. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies.

Objective To develop a new evidence‐based, pharmacologic treatment guideline for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods We conducted systematic reviews to synthesize the evidence for the benefits and harms of various treatment options. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to rate the quality of evidence. We employed a group consensus process to grade the strength of recommendations (either strong or conditional). A strong recommendation indicates that clinicians are certain that the benefits of an intervention far outweigh the harms (or vice versa). A conditional recommendation denotes uncertainty over the balance of benefits and harms and/or more significant variability in patient values and preferences. Results The guideline covers the use of traditional disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologic agents, tofacitinib, and glucocorticoids in early (<6 months) and established (≥6 months) RA. In addition, it provides recommendations on using a treat‐to‐target approach, tapering and discontinuing medications, and the use of biologic agents and DMARDs in patients with hepatitis, congestive heart failure, malignancy, and serious infections. The guideline addresses the use of vaccines in patients starting/receiving DMARDs or biologic agents, screening for tuberculosis in patients starting/receiving biologic agents or tofacitinib, and laboratory monitoring for traditional DMARDs. The guideline includes 74 recommendations: 23% are strong and 77% are conditional. Conclusion This RA guideline should serve as a tool for clinicians and patients (our two target audiences) for pharmacologic treatment decisions in commonly encountered clinical situations. These recommendations are not prescriptive, and the treatment decisions should be made by physicians and patients through a shared decision‐making process taking into account patients’ values, preferences, and comorbidities. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies.

OBJECT The authors sought to determine whether flow diversion with the Pipeline Embolization Device (PED) can approximate microsurgical decompression in restoring function after cranial neuropathy following carotid artery aneurysms. METHODS This multiinstitutional retrospective study involved 45 patients treated with PED across the United States. All patients included presented between November 2009 and October 2013 with cranial neuropathy (cranial nerves [CNs] II, III, IV, and VI) due to intracranial aneurysm. Outcome analysis included clinical and procedural variables at the time of treatment as well as at the latest clinical and radiographic follow-up. RESULTS Twenty-six aneurysms (57.8%) were located in the cavernous segment, while 6 (13.3%) were in the clinoid segment, and 13 (28.9%) were in the ophthalmic segment of the internal carotid artery. The average aneurysm size was 18.6 mm (range 4–35 mm), and the average number of flow diverters placed per patient was 1.2. Thirty-eight patients had available information regarding duration of cranial neuropathy prior to treatment. Eleven patients (28.9%) were treated within 1 month of symptom onset, while 27 (71.1%) were treated after 1 month of symptoms. The overall rate of cranial neuropathy improvement for all patients was 66.7%. The CN deficits resolved in 19 patients (42.2%), improved in 11 (24.4%), were unchanged in 14 (31.1%), and worsened in 1 (2.2%). Overtime, the rate of cranial neuropathy improvement was 33.3% (15/45), 68.8% (22/32), and 81.0% (17/21) at less than 6, 6, and 12 months, respectively. At last follow-up, 60% of patients in the isolated CN II group had improvement, while in the CN III, IV, or VI group, 85.7% had improved. Moreover, 100% (11/11) of patients experienced improvement if they were treated within 1 month of symptom onset, whereas 44.4% (12/27) experienced improvement if they treated after 1 month of symptom onset; 70.4% (19/27) of those with partial deficits improved compared with 30% (3/10) of those with complete deficits. CONCLUSIONS Cranial neuropathy caused by cerebral aneurysm responds similarly when the aneurysm is treated with the PED compared with open surgery and coil embolization. Lower morbidity and higher occlusion rates obtained with the PED may suggest it as treatment of choice for some of these lesions. Time to treatment is an important consideration regardless of treatment modality.

AbstractBackgroundThe SCN5A‐encoded voltage‐gated sodium channel NaV1.5 is expressed in human jejunum and colon. Mutations in NaV1.5 are associated with gastrointestinal motility disorders. The rat gastrointestinal tract expresses voltage‐gated sodium channels, but their molecular identity and role in rat gastrointestinal electrophysiology are unknown.MethodsThe presence and distribution of Scn5a‐encoded NaV1.5 was examined by PCR, Western blotting and immunohistochemistry in rat jejunum. Freshly dissociated smooth muscle cells were examined by whole cell electrophysiology. Zinc finger nuclease was used to target Scn5a in rats. Lentiviral‐mediated transduction with shRNA was used to target Scn5a in rat jejunum smooth muscle organotypic cultures. Organotypic cultures were examined by sharp electrode electrophysiology and RT‐PCR.Key ResultsWe found NaV1.5 in rat jejunum and colon smooth muscle by Western blot. Immunohistochemistry using two other antibodies of different portions of NaV1.5 revealed the presence of the ion channel in rat jejunum. Whole cell voltage‐clamp in dissociated smooth muscle cells from rat jejunum showed fast activating and inactivating voltage‐dependent inward current that was eliminated by Na+ replacement by NMDG+. Constitutive rat Scn5a knockout resulted in death in utero. NaV1.5 shRNA delivered by lentivirus into rat jejunum smooth muscle organotypic culture resulted in 57% loss of Scn5a mRNA and several significant changes in slow waves, namely 40% decrease in peak amplitude, 30% decrease in half‐width, and 7 mV hyperpolarization of the membrane potential at peak amplitude.Conclusions & InferencesScn5a‐encoded NaV1.5 is expressed in rat gastrointestinal smooth muscle and it contributes to smooth muscle electrophysiology.

Abstract Purpose: Prostate cancers incite tremendous morbidity upon metastatic growth. We previously identified Asporin (ASPN) as a potential mediator of metastatic progression found within the tumor microenvironment. ASPN contains an aspartic acid (D)-repeat domain and germline polymorphisms in D-repeat-length have been associated with degenerative diseases. Associations of germline ASPN D polymorphisms with risk of prostate cancer progression to metastatic disease have not been assessed. Experimental Design: Germline ASPN D-repeat-length was retrospectively analyzed in 1,600 men who underwent radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer and in 548 noncancer controls. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to test the associations of ASPN variations with risk of subsequent oncologic outcomes, including metastasis. Orthotopic xenografts were used to establish allele- and stroma-specific roles for ASPN D variants in metastatic prostate cancer. Results: Variation at the ASPN D locus was differentially associated with poorer oncologic outcomes. ASPN D14 [HR, 1.72; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.05–2.81, P = 0.032] and heterozygosity for ASPN D13/14 (HR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.03–3.35, P = 0.040) were significantly associated with metastatic recurrence, while homozygosity for the ASPN D13 variant was significantly associated with a reduced risk of metastatic recurrence (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.21–0.94, P = 0.035) in multivariable analyses. Orthotopic xenografts established biologic roles for ASPN D14 and ASPN D13 variants in metastatic prostate cancer progression that were consistent with patient-based data. Conclusions: We observed associations between ASPN D variants and oncologic outcomes, including metastasis. Our data suggest that ASPN expressed in the tumor microenvironment is a heritable modulator of metastatic progression. Clin Cancer Res; 22(2); 448–58. ©2015 AACR.