Citations

Abstract Background Mortality prediction data may aid in identifying seriously ill transferred patients at high risk of dying and facilitate early goals-of-care discussions (GOCD); however, this is rarely evaluated. We recently developed a model for predicting 30-day inpatient mortality, which may be useful for promoting early GOCD. Objectives Our objectives were to examine the effects of sharing model-generated mortality risk with hospitalists by assessing (1) if hospitalists agreed with the mortality risk prediction, (2) if they planned to conduct GOCD or consult palliative care within 72 hours of transfer, and (3) if the communication alert affected GOCD timing and other clinical outcomes. We also aimed to measure the association between both the model-generated and hospitalists' stratified risk assessments with patient mortality. Methods This was a nonrandomized quasi-experimental pilot study with a historical control group. On the second day of hospitalization, the model-generated risk was communicated to the hospitalists. Hospitalists were asked to answer questions via a HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act)-compliant mobile communication system, and clinical outcomes were extracted via chart review. Results Eighty-four patients (42 in the control and 42 in the intervention group) were included in this study. Hospitalists agreed that all patients in the intervention group were at risk for inpatient mortality. Hospitalists were more likely to indicate a plan to conduct GOCD in the intervention group (n = 9) compared with the control group (n = 4, p < 0.001). In this subset of patients, GOCD was completed within 72 hours in 78% of intervention patients (n = 7) as compared with 50% in the control group (n = 2). The greater absolute value of the model-generated mortality risk was significantly associated with deaths (p = 0.01), similar to the hospitalists' prediction of the mortality risk (p = 0.02). Conclusion Communicating model-generated mortality risk to hospitalists is a promising approach to promote timely GOCD.

Oral health is an essential component of overall health for all individuals. The oral health of children and youth with developmental disabilities (CYDD) involves unique characteristics and needs of which pediatricians and pediatric clinicians can be aware. Risk for oral disease in CYDD is multifactorial and includes underlying medical conditions, medications, and ability to participate in preventive oral health care and treatment, and lack of access to providers is common for this population despite being eligible for Medicaid. Pediatric clinicians are uniquely positioned to support the oral health needs of CYDD and their families through the medical home. This clinical report aims to inform pediatric clinicians about the unique oral health needs of CYDD. It provides guidance on assessing caries risk and periodontal status using structured screening instruments; understanding dental trauma, the role of diet and caries risk, trauma prevention, and malocclusion; and providing anticipatory guidance on oral hygiene that includes tooth brushing, use of fluoridated toothpaste, assessing community water fluoridation, advocating for a dental home by 1 year of age, and transition to adult dental care as part of adolescent health care. It also highlights special considerations for dental treatment rendered under sedation or general anesthesia that CYDD may need. Pediatric clinicians can help reduce risk of CYDD developing dental disease by understanding the unique needs of their patients and their barriers to accessing oral health care in their community, communicating with the child’s dental home, and advocating for safe and accessible dental procedures.

TPS2675 Background: Checkpoint inhibitor therapy is the standard first-line treatment for advanced/recurrent HCC, but there is a significant unmet therapeutic need for patients (pts) who progress after first-line treatment. Adoptive cellular immunotherapy may provide a novel treatment option. Glypican-3 (GPC3), a heparan sulfate proteoglycan, is overexpressed by tumor cells in HCC and virtually absent in healthy tissues, making it an ideal target for CAR-T therapy. AZD5851 is an autologous CAR-T product that expresses a CAR specific for GPC3 and a dominant negative (dn)TGFβRII as an armoring strategy. Expression of dnTGFβRII can block TGFβ signaling, protecting CAR T-cells from the immunosuppressive effects of this cytokine. Early clinical data with C-CAR031, a CAR-T product with the same GPC3-specific CAR and dnTGFβRII-armoring transgene as AZD5851, showed promising tolerability and antitumor activity in pts with HCC [1]. ATHENA (NCT06084884) is a first-in-human, single-arm, open-label, multicenter phase 1/2 study to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and antitumor activity of AZD5851 in pts with GPC3+ advanced/recurrent HCC, for whom ≥1 prior line of standard therapy failed or was not tolerable. Methods: Eligible pts are aged ≥18 years with histologically confirmed advanced/recurrent or metastatic and/or unresectable HCC, GPC3+ tumor sample as determined by immunohistochemistry, ≥1 prior line of standard systemic therapy, ≥1 measurable lesion per RECIST 1.1, Child-Pugh A, ECOG PS 0/1, and adequate organ and bone marrow function. Approximately 24 pts will be enrolled in Part A (Phase I, dose escalation) and 50 in Part B (Phase II dose expansion). Pts will undergo apheresis to collect peripheral blood mononuclear cells for AZD5851 production, after which they may receive approved bridging therapy for disease control. Upon successful generation of AZD5851 product, pts will undergo lymphodepletion before receiving a single dose of IV AZD5851. Subsequent follow-up is divided into 3 stages: Stage 1, active follow-up of all pts through 6 months post AZD5851 infusion; Stage 2, further evaluation of pts who have not progressed or started a new anticancer regimen during Stage 1; Stage 3, long-term follow-up for all pts who have received AZD5851. The primary endpoints are to assess the safety/tolerability of AZD5851 (both study parts), and to determine the recommended dose(s) of AZD5851 for expansion and phase 2 trials (Part A). Secondary endpoints include efficacy (objective response rate, best overall response, duration of response, disease control rate, durable response rate, time to response, progression-free survival, and overall survival) and pharmacokinetics. Exploratory endpoints include pharmacodynamic biomarkers and immunogenicity. Enrollment began Nov 2023. 1. Zhang et al. AACR 2023. Abstract CT097. Clinical trial information: NCT06084884 .

ImportancePersistent symptoms and disability following SARS-CoV-2 infection, known as post–COVID-19 condition or “long COVID,” are frequently reported and pose a substantial personal and societal burden.ObjectiveTo determine time to recovery following SARS-CoV-2 infection and identify factors associated with recovery by 90 days.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsFor this prospective cohort study, standardized ascertainment of SARS-CoV-2 infection was conducted starting in April 1, 2020, across 14 ongoing National Institutes of Health–funded cohorts that have enrolled and followed participants since 1971. This report includes data collected through February 28, 2023, on adults aged 18 years or older with self-reported SARS-CoV-2 infection.ExposurePreinfection health conditions and lifestyle factors assessed before and during the pandemic via prepandemic examinations and pandemic-era questionnaires.Main Outcomes and MeasuresProbability of nonrecovery by 90 days and restricted mean recovery times were estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves, and Cox proportional hazards regression was performed to assess multivariable-adjusted associations with recovery by 90 days.ResultsOf 4708 participants with self-reported SARS-CoV-2 infection (mean [SD] age, 61.3 [13.8] years; 2952 women [62.7%]), an estimated 22.5% (95% CI, 21.2%-23.7%) did not recover by 90 days post infection. Median (IQR) time to recovery was 20 (8-75) days. By 90 days post infection, there were significant differences in restricted mean recovery time according to sociodemographic, clinical, and lifestyle characteristics, particularly by acute infection severity (outpatient vs critical hospitalization, 32.9 days [95% CI, 31.9-33.9 days] vs 57.6 days [95% CI, 51.9-63.3 days]; log-rank P &amp;lt; .001). Recovery by 90 days post infection was associated with vaccination prior to infection (hazard ratio [HR], 1.30; 95% CI, 1.11-1.51) and infection during the sixth (Omicron variant) vs first wave (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.06-1.49). These associations were mediated by reduced severity of acute infection (33.4% and 17.6%, respectively). Recovery was unfavorably associated with female sex (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.79-0.92) and prepandemic clinical cardiovascular disease (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.71-0.99). No significant multivariable-adjusted associations were observed for age, educational attainment, smoking history, obesity, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or elevated depressive symptoms. Results were similar for reinfections.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, more than 1 in 5 adults did not recover within 3 months of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Recovery within 3 months was less likely in women and those with preexisting cardiovascular disease and more likely in those with COVID-19 vaccination or infection during the Omicron variant wave.

Importance Neurological manifestations during acute SARS-CoV-2–related multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) are common in hospitalized patients younger than 18 years and may increase risk of new neurocognitive or functional morbidity. Objective To assess the association of severe neurological manifestations during a SARS-CoV-2–related hospital admission with new neurocognitive or functional morbidities at discharge. Design, Setting, and Participants This prospective cohort study from 46 centers in 10 countries included patients younger than 18 years who were hospitalized for acute SARS-CoV-2 or MIS-C between January 2, 2020, and July 31, 2021. Exposure Severe neurological manifestations, which included acute encephalopathy, seizures or status epilepticus, meningitis or encephalitis, sympathetic storming or dysautonomia, cardiac arrest, coma, delirium, and stroke. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was new neurocognitive (based on the Pediatric Cerebral Performance Category scale) and/or functional (based on the Functional Status Scale) morbidity at hospital discharge. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to examine the association of severe neurological manifestations with new morbidity in each SARS-CoV-2–related condition. Results Overall, 3568 patients younger than 18 years (median age, 8 years [IQR, 1-14 years]; 54.3% male) were included in this study. Most (2980 [83.5%]) had acute SARS-CoV-2; the remainder (588 [16.5%]) had MIS-C. Among the patients with acute SARS-CoV-2, 536 (18.0%) had a severe neurological manifestation during hospitalization, as did 146 patients with MIS-C (24.8%). Among survivors with acute SARS-CoV-2, those with severe neurological manifestations were more likely to have new neurocognitive or functional morbidity at hospital discharge compared with those without severe neurological manifestations (27.7% [n = 142] vs 14.6% [n = 356]; P &amp;lt; .001). For survivors with MIS-C, 28.0% (n = 39) with severe neurological manifestations had new neurocognitive and/or functional morbidity at hospital discharge compared with 15.5% (n = 68) of those without severe neurological manifestations ( P = .002). When adjusting for risk factors in those with severe neurological manifestations, both patients with acute SARS-CoV-2 (odds ratio, 1.85 [95% CI, 1.27-2.70]; P = .001) and those with MIS-C (odds ratio, 2.18 [95% CI, 1.22-3.89]; P = .009) had higher odds of having new neurocognitive and/or functional morbidity at hospital discharge. Conclusions and Relevance The results of this study suggest that children and adolescents with acute SARS-CoV-2 or MIS-C and severe neurological manifestations may be at high risk for long-term impairment and may benefit from screening and early intervention to assist recovery.

Abstract Background Physiatry is a specialty with high rates of burnout. Although organizational strategies to combat burnout are key, it is also important to understand strategies that individual physiatrists can use to address burnout. Objective To identify changes that resulted in improvement of occupational well‐being of physiatrists over a 6‐ to 9‐month period. Design We employed two quantitative surveys spaced 6 to 9 months apart to identify physiatrists who experienced meaningful improvement in occupational burnout and/or professional fulfillment between the two survey timepoints. These physiatrists were subsequently recruited to participate in a qualitative study using semi‐structured interviews to identify changes that respondents felt contributed to improvements in burnout and professional fulfillment. Setting Online surveys and interviews. Participants Physiatrists in the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (AAPM&R) Membership Masterfile. Main Outcome Measure Burnout and professional fulfillment were assessed using the Stanford Professional Fulfillment Index. Results One hundred twelve physiatrists responded to the baseline and follow‐up surveys. Of these, 35 were eligible for interviews based on improvements in the Stanford Professional Fulfillment Index, and 23 (64%) agreed to participate. Themes from the qualitative interviews highlighted the importance of personal lifestyle choices, approaches to improve professional satisfaction, and strategies to foster work‐life harmony. Personal lifestyle strategies included investing in wellness and mental health. Efforts to improve professional satisfaction included decreasing work intensity, prioritizing meaningful aspects of work, and building relationships with colleagues. Fostering work‐life harmony also included making trade‐offs in both domains, setting boundaries at work, setting expectations at home, and overcoming personal challenges. Conclusion Our findings illustrate that, in addition to organizational strategies demonstrated to be effective, there are actions that individual physiatrists can take to recover from burnout and foster professional fulfillment.

ObjectiveOur objective was to evaluate the effect of glucocorticoid regimens on renal response, infections, and mortality among patients with lupus nephritis (LN).MethodsWe performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis of the control arms of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). We included RCTs of biopsy‐proven LN that used a protocolized regimen of glucocorticoids in combination with mycophenolic acid analogs or cyclophosphamide and reported the outcomes of complete response (CR), serious infections, and death. The starting dosage of glucocorticoids, tapering method, and administration of glucocorticoid pulses were abstracted. Meta‐analysis of proportions, meta‐regression, and subgroup meta‐analysis were performed at 6 and 12 months for all outcomes.ResultsFifty RCT arms (3,231 patients with LN) were included. The predicted rates of CR, serious infections, and death when starting on oral prednisone at 25 mg/day without pulses were 19.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 7.3–31.5), 3.2% (95% CI 2.4–4.0), and 0.2% (95% CI 0.0–0.4), respectively. Starting on prednisone at 60 mg/day (without pulses) increased the rates to 34.6% (95% CI 16.9–52.3), 12.1% (95% CI 9.3–14.9), and 2.7% (95% CI 0.0–5.3), respectively. Adding glucocorticoid pulses increased the rates of CR and death but not serious infections. We observed a dose–response gradient between the initial glucocorticoid dosage and all the outcomes at six months after accounting for the administration of glucocorticoid pulses, underlying immunosuppressant, and baseline proteinuria.ConclusionA higher exposure to glucocorticoids during the initial therapy of LN was associated with better renal outcomes at the cost of increased infections and death.

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.

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.