Citations

Toxins from ingested water can significantly affect overall physical health in children and adults. In the United States, domestic water wells are not commonly tested for any heavy metal contaminants. It is well-known that chronic arsenic ingestion from water is linked to serious health effects. We surveyed patients at our academic institution via emailed questionnaires in 2023 to determine whether those with children living at home reported different patterns of behavior around well water testing as compared to those without. Survey data were collected from 8994 respondents in the U.S. Midwest who reported using residential well water. Results were used to evaluate the influence of children in the home on testing behaviors, and secondarily, whether parental demographics affected testing frequency. Respondents with children at home did not report increased testing frequency compared to those without. In parents who did report testing, having more children, being younger, and living in Wisconsin were associated with an increased frequency. Parental gender, race, and ethnicity did not correlate with testing behaviors. A total of 70% of respondents did not feel concerned about their water safety and 85% were not concerned about arsenic specifically in their water. Increased risk of toxicity to children from arsenic does not appear to influence reported well water testing behavior among parents.

ABSTRACTForensic anthropology must embrace standards and credentialing that align with other medicolegal disciplines, such as forensic pathology and forensic odontology. This involves establishing itself more firmly as an essential specialty in the medicolegal system and limiting practice to qualified professionals. Without educational or professional requirements to practice forensic anthropology, the competencies of those involved in medicolegal cases vary, despite the potentially serious legal impact of errors. Negligent work can impede decedent identification or wrongly convict or free a suspect. Erroneous and unprofessional work also misrepresents the field and may deter agencies from utilizing forensic anthropologists. This commentary aims to convey the need to further professionalize forensic anthropology through the standardization of education, qualifications, and practice. Differences between certification and licensure and their implications are discussed. Recent and upcoming developments in the field highlight progress, including the development of a multi‐level certification system and list of core competencies by the American Board of Forensic Anthropology (ABFA). Additionally, the Anthropology subcommittee of the Organization of Scientific Area Committees for forensic science (OSAC) is developing a standard for qualifications in forensic anthropology. These developments emphasize the importance of certification and standardization in education and training for the advancement of forensic anthropology. Standardization efforts such as these will foster a cohesive, respected practice to serve the evolving needs of the medicolegal system.

Abstract The paradigm in the field of oncolytic virotherapy proposes that tumor cell killing by an oncolytic virus (OV) culminates in the priming of antitumor CD8 T cells. However, this ignores the impact a highly immunodominant antiviral response against the OV has on the antitumor response which has been weakened by mechanisms of central tolerance. Here, we show that inflammatory Vesicular Stomatitis Virus (VSV) failed to prime an adoptively transferred, or pre-existing, population of tumor-reactive T cells.Combination with αPD1 immune checkpoint blockade therapy improved survival only when VSV expressed tumor associated antigens (TAA). These data show that, in this model, the highly inflammatory OV VSV alone actively outcompetes antitumor immunity. However, we also show that viral expression of a mutant near-self TAA can break central tolerance expanding heteroclitic self-reactive and near-self-reactive T cells, thus overcoming viral immunodominance by promoting tumor-specific T cell proliferation in parallel with expanding antiviral T cells.

Background More than 1 in 5 US adults live with mental illness. Novel therapies as complements to standard therapies are needed to improve patient well-being. Reiki is a biofield therapy that may improve well-being in mental health. Objective The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of providing Reiki at a behavioral health clinic serving a low-income population. The secondary aim was to evaluate outcomes in terms of patients’ symptoms, emotions, and feelings before and after Reiki. Methods This was a mixed-methods, feasibility pilot study with a pre-post experimental design. Reiki was offered to adult outpatients at a community behavioral health center in Rochester, Minnesota. Patients with a stable mental health diagnosis seen between July 22, 2021, and May 18, 2023, completed surveys before and after the Reiki intervention and provided qualitative feedback. Patients were asked to report their ratings of pain, anxiety, fatigue, and feelings (eg, happy, calm) on 0- to 10-point numeric rating scales. Data were analyzed with Wilcoxon signed rank tests. Results Among 91 patients who completed a Reiki session during the study period, 74 (81%) were women. Major depressive disorder (71%), posttraumatic stress disorder (47%), and generalized anxiety disorder (43%) were the most common diagnoses. The study was feasible in terms of recruitment, retention, data quality, acceptability, and fidelity of the intervention. Patient ratings of pain, fatigue, anxiety, stress, sadness, and agitation were significantly lower, and ratings of happiness, energy levels, relaxation, and calmness were significantly higher after a single Reiki session. Conclusion The results of this study suggest that Reiki is feasible and could be fit into the flow of clinical care in an outpatient behavioral health clinic. It improved positive emotions and feelings and decreased negative measures. Implementing Reiki in clinical practice should be further explored to improve mental health and well-being.

Background/Objectives: Chronic pain remains a pervasive and challenging public health issue, often resistant to conventional treatments such as opioids, which carry substantial risks of dependency and adverse effects. Cannabinoids, bioactive compounds derived from the Cannabis sativa plant and their synthetic analogs, have emerged as a potential alternative for pain management, leveraging their interaction with the endocannabinoid system to modulate pain and inflammation. Methods: The current, evolving literature regarding the history, efficacy, applications, and safety of cannabinoids in the treatment of chronic pain was reviewed and summarized to provide the most current review of cannabinoids. Results: Evidence suggests that cannabinoids provide moderate efficacy in managing neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia, cancer-related pain, and multiple sclerosis-related spasticity. Patient-reported outcomes further indicate widespread perceptions of cannabinoids as a safer alternative to opioids, with potential opioid-sparing effects. However, the quality of existing evidence is limited by small sample sizes and methodological inconsistencies. Regulatory barriers, including the classification of cannabis as a Schedule I substance in the United States, continue to hinder robust research and clinical integration. Moreover, the risks associated with cannabinoids, such as psychiatric effects, addiction potential, and drug interactions, necessitate cautious application. Conclusions: Cannabinoids represent a promising, albeit complex, alternative for chronic pain management, particularly given the limitations and risks of traditional therapies such as opioids. However, significant deficiencies remain in the research. While smaller trials and systematic reviews indicate therapeutic potential, the quality of evidence is often low due to limited sample sizes, short study durations, and methodological inconsistencies. Large-scale, randomized controlled trials with long-term follow-up are urgently needed to confirm efficacy and safety across diverse patient populations and pain etiologies.

TPS294 Background: Approval of [ 177 Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 ( 177 Lu-PSMA-617) for the treatment of adult patients with prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-positive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, previously treated with androgen receptor pathway inhibitors and taxane-based chemotherapy, was based on the results of the Phase 3 VISION study (NCT03511664). It is important to further characterize long-term safety outcomes in 177 Lu-PSMA-617–treated patients, with particular regard to potential treatment-related risks. To this end, the long-term follow-up (LTFU) safety study (NCT05803941) has been established. Findings from the LTFU study will be crucial for assessing delayed toxicities for patients with PSMA-positive metastatic prostate cancer treated with 177 Lu-PSMA-617 globally. Methods: The LTFU study is a prospective, multi-center, non-EU post-authorization safety study. Patients who received ≥1 dose of 177 Lu-PSMA-617 within one of the prospective parent studies (Table 1) are eligible. Patients may enroll in the LTFU study after fulfilling the requirements of their corresponding parent study. The primary endpoint is the number and proportion of selected adverse events (AEs), including myelosuppression, xerostomia, renal failure, xerophthalmia, and second primary malignancies (eg, myelodysplastic syndrome or acute myeloid leukemia), other serious AEs, and changes in laboratory values. The secondary endpoint is the number and proportion of deaths. Following enrollment, patients will undergo assessments at baseline, and then every 6–8 months for up to 10 years after their first dose of 177 Lu-PSMA-617 or until death. At each visit, a review of selected treatment-related AEs (xerostomia, xerophthalmia, myelosuppression), any-cause AEs (renal toxicity, new diagnoses of second primary malignancies), and treatment-related serious AEs will be conducted. Physical and laboratory assessments, as well as details on concomitant medications and interventions, including anti-cancer therapies, will be collected. Patients may receive treatment with any medical intervention. Interim analyses are planned at 2 and 5 years post-study activation. Enrollment is ongoing (n=13). Clinical trial information: NCT05803941 . Parent studies of the long-term follow-up safety study. Trial Indication Phase N (all groups) ClinicalTrials.gov ID VISION (+sub-study) Post-taxane mCRPC 3 831 (+30) NCT03511664 PSMAfore Pre-taxane mCRPC 3 469 NCT04689828 PSMAddition mHSPC 3 1144 NCT04720157 177 Lu-PSMA-617 in patients with moderately or severely impaired, or normal renal function Post-taxane mCRPC 2 20 a NCT06004661 a Planned. mCRPC, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer; mHSPC, metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.

ImportanceMyeloperoxidase is one of the most abundant peroxidase enzymes in activated myeloid cells. Myeloperoxidase inhibitors may have a clinical benefit in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) by slowing neurodegeneration via reduced neuroinflammation and oxidative stress.ObjectiveTo determine the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of verdiperstat, a selective myeloperoxidase inhibitor, in ALS.Design, Settings, and ParticipantsVerdiperstat was tested as a regimen of the HEALEY ALS Platform Trial, a multicenter, double-blind, perpetual platform design, randomized clinical trial, with sharing of trial infrastructure and placebo data across multiple regimens. The study was conducted at 54 ALS referral centers across the US from July 2020 to April 2022. Adult participants with a diagnosis of clinically possible, probable, laboratory-supported probable, or definite ALS defined by the revised El Escorial criteria were randomized to verdiperstat or regimen-specific placebo. An additional group of participants concurrently randomized to placebo from other regimens was included in the analyses.InterventionsEligible participants were randomized in a 3:1 ratio to receive oral verdiperstat, 600 mg, twice daily or matching placebo for a planned placebo-controlled duration of 24 weeks.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary efficacy outcome was change from baseline through week 24 in disease severity, as measured by a joint model of ALS Functional Rating Scale–Revised and survival, with the treatment effect quantified by the disease rate ratio (DRR), with DRR less than 1 indicating a slowing in disease progression of verdiperstat relative to placebo.ResultsA total of 167 participants (mean [SD] age, 58.5 [11.4] years; 59 [35.3%] female; 108 [64.6%] male) were randomized to either verdiperstat (126 [75.4%]) or to placebo (41 [25.6%]). Among the participants randomized to the verdiperstat regimen, 130 (78%) completed the trial. The estimated DRR was 0.98 (95% credible interval, 0.77-1.24; posterior probability = 0.57 for slowing of disease progression [DRR <1]). Verdiperstat was estimated to slow progression by 2% vs placebo (95% credible interval, −23% to 24%; posterior probability 0.57). Verdiperstat was overall safe and well tolerated. Common adverse events in the verdiperstat group were nausea, insomnia, and elevated thyrotropin levels.Conclusions and RelevanceResults demonstrate that treatment with verdiperstat was unlikely to alter disease progression in ALS.Trial RegistrationClinical Trial Identifiers: NCT04297683 and NCT04436510

ImportanceAmyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a fatal disease. The sigma-1 (σ1) receptor emerged as a target for intervention.ObjectiveTo determine the effects of pridopidine, a σ1-receptor agonist, in ALS.Design, Settings, and ParticipantsPridopidine was tested as a regimen of the HEALEY ALS Platform Trial, a phase 2/3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, platform trial. The study was conducted at 54 sites in the US from January 2021 to July 2022 (final follow-up, July 14, 2022). A total of 163 participants with ALS were randomized to receive pridopidine or placebo. An additional 122 concurrently randomized participants were assigned to receive placebo in other regimens and included in the analyses.InterventionsEligible participants were randomized 3:1 to receive oral pridopidine 45 mg twice daily (n = 121) or matching oral placebo (n = 42) for a planned duration of 24 weeks.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary efficacy outcome was change from baseline through week 24 in ALS disease severity, analyzed using a bayesian shared parameter model, which has components for function (Revised Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale [ALSFRS-R]) and survival that were linked through an integrated estimate of treatment-dependent disease slowing across these 2 components. This was denoted as the disease rate ratio (DRR), with DRR less than 1 indicating a slowing in disease progression on pridopidine relative to placebo. There were 5 key secondary end points: time to 2-point or greater reduction in ALSFRS-R total score among participants with bulbar dysfunction at baseline, rate of decline in slow vital capacity among participants with bulbar dysfunction at baseline, percentage of participants with no worsening in the ALSFRS-R bulbar domain score, time to 1-point or greater change in the ALSFRS-R bulbar domain score, and time to death or permanent assisted ventilation.ResultsAmong 162 patients (mean age, 57.5 years; 35% female) who were randomized to receive the pridopidine regimen and included in the primary efficacy analysis, 136 (84%) completed the trial. In the primary analysis comparing pridopidine vs the combined placebo groups, there was no significant difference between pridopidine and placebo in the primary end point (DRR, 0.99 [95% credible interval, 0.80-1.21]; probability of DRR <1, 0.55) and no differences were seen in the components of ALSFRS-R or survival. There was no benefit of pridopidine on the secondary end points. In the safety dataset (pridopidine, n = 121; placebo, n = 163), the most common adverse events were falls (28.1% vs 29.3%, respectively) and muscular weakness (24.0% vs 31.7%, respectively).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this 24-week study, pridopidine did not impact the progression of ALS.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT04297683, NCT04615923