Citations

Importance Molecular analyses of biospecimens collected from study participants are essential for identifying biomarkers that can tailor treatments to specific subsets of patients who are most likely to benefit. Sharing of data and biospecimens from clinical trials enables personalized, patient-centric use of cancer therapies and accelerates the development of new treatments. Objective To describe obstacles to sharing data and biospecimens and to propose strategies to enhance access and collaboration. Evidence Review This is a Special Communication authored by 53 academic investigators and patient representatives from the breast cancer community with extensive experience in conducting clinical and translational research. The article also evaluates the impact of biomarker research on specifying responsive subpopulations in the 29 registrational clinical trials that have led to approval of a new drug for treatment of breast cancer between 2017 and 2024. Findings Clinical trial participants are increasingly asked to provide tissue and/or body fluid biospecimens for biomarker research that is typically controlled by the sponsoring pharmaceutical company, but published biomarker studies are rare. Among 29 breast cancer registrational studies reported in the past 8 years, none resulted in biomarker research that restricted a drug’s approved indication. Herein, strategies to maximize the value of clinical data and biospecimens contributed by participants are proposed, thereby supporting the shared goals of the pharmaceutical industry and academia to improve patient care. These strategies include (1) establishing coleadership structures involving academia and patients in clinical trial design and conduct, (2) ensuring that informed consent forms state that data and biospecimens will be shared with academia for future research, (3) requiring the sharing of clinical data as a condition for regulatory approval, and (4) enabling access to biospecimens and translational research data for independent studies on biomarkers that may indicate drug efficacy and toxicity. Conclusions and Relevance Data and biospecimen sharing from registrational trials has been suboptimal. Improving clinical data, biospecimens, and biospecimens’ related data sharing requires concrete actions and a multidimensional stakeholder approach to accelerate the impact of clinical cancer research on the quality of patient care.

Abstract The cortical asymmetry index evaluates the cortical thickness asymmetry between hemispheres. We investigated cortical asymmetry index in asymptomatic and symptomatic mutation carriers of autosomal dominant Alzheimer’s disease to explore the brain asymmetry within the Alzheimer’s disease continuum. Sixty baseline T1-weighted MRI scans were obtained from the Clinic Barcelona cohort. Baseline and longitudinal MRI data from 564 participants within the dominantly inherited Alzheimer network observational study were used as an independent, confirmatory cohort. Cerebrospinal fluid and plasma neurofilament light chain levels were included when available. Cortical thickness was calculated using Freesurfer and cortical asymmetry index was calculated via an open-source pipeline. Cross-sectional analyses examined cortical asymmetry index differences based on clinical classification and APOE ε4 status, adjusting for age, sex and estimated years from onset, while correlations were assessed with age, estimated years from onset, mini-mental state examination scores, and neurofilament light. Longitudinal cortical asymmetry index evolution was modelled using generalized additive models in the dominantly inherited Alzheimer network observational study cohort, incorporating age, sex, and the interaction between group and estimated years from onset. The cortical asymmetry index successfully distinguished asymptomatic mutation carrier and symptomatic mutation carriers from healthy controls in the Clinic Barcelona cohort and symptomatic mutation carriers from controls in dominantly inherited Alzheimer network observational study. Higher cortical asymmetry index in mutation carriers (asymptomatic mutation carrier and symptomatic mutation carriers combined) and in symptomatic mutation carriers were associated with higher plasma neurofilament light levels, a closer proximity to symptom onset, and lower mini-mental state examination in the Clinic Barcelona cohort. In the dominantly inherited Alzheimer network observational study cohort, mutation carriers exhibited increased cortical asymmetry index compared to controls and correlated with elevated neurofilament light (plasma and Cerebrospinal fluid), lower mini-mental state examination, and a closer proximity to symptom onset. APOE3/3 carriers showed greater asymmetry than other APOE genotypes and significant cortical asymmetry index differences between asymptomatic mutation carrier and symptomatic mutation carriers. Longitudinally, cortical asymmetry index increased over time significantly in symptomatic mutation carriers. These findings underscore brain asymmetry as a potential biomarker for early Alzheimer’s disease progression in autosomal dominant Alzheimer’s disease, with implications for detection and monitoring tracking disease-related neuroanatomical changes.

PURPOSE To compare patient-reported and clinical outcomes between radical cystectomy (RC) and bladder-sparing therapy (BST) in patients with recurrent high-grade non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS This pragmatic, prospective observational cohort study was designed with patients, who selected and prioritized outcomes. Eligible adults were candidates for both RC or BST, had previous induction Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG), and received their last treatment within 12 months. The primary outcome was the EORTC-QLQ-C30 physical function scale at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included other EORTC-QLQ-C30 scales, depression, anxiety, bladder cancer–specific quality of life (QOL), financial burden, and cancer-specific outcomes. Targeted maximum likelihood estimation (TMLE) was used to calculate average treatment effect (ATE) estimates between arms. Inverse probability weighted risk ratios (wRR) were calculated using quasi-Poisson regression. RESULTS Of 570 participants (mean age 71.4 years; 21% female), 371 selected BST and 199 selected RC. Physical function was significantly worse in the RC arm at 3 months; by 9 months, there was no difference between arms, and at 12 months, physical function did not differ (ATE, 0.9; 95% CI, –0.6 to 2.4; P = .22). RC was associated with better emotional function, generic health-related QOL, and financial burden, and lower depression and anxiety, while BST was associated with better bowel and sexual health. Cancer-specific survival was 99% for BST versus 96% for RC (wRR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.01). RC was associated with a higher risk of adverse events and serious adverse events, including a 90-day mortality rate of 2.5%. CONCLUSION Most patient-prioritized outcomes were similar or better among participants who chose RC compared with BST. These findings support the continued role of RC in managing recurrent high-grade NMIBC.

Importance The choice of induction agent during rapid sequence intubation (RSI) of critically ill adults may affect clinical outcomes. Although ketamine and etomidate are frequently used for RSI, their comparative effectiveness remains controversial. Objective To compare the safety of etomidate vs ketamine for emergency RSI in critically ill adults. Design, Setting, and Participants This cohort study used a target trial emulation with observational data collected between March 1, 2022, and April 30, 2024, from 18 emergency departments across Brazil, with data from the Brazilian Airway Registry Cooperation. Adults who underwent RSI and received either etomidate or ketamine as a sole hypnotic agent were included; those with preintubation cardiac arrest or immediate postintubation transfer were excluded. Exposure Administration of etomidate or ketamine as the induction agent for RSI. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was 28-day in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included 7-day in-hospital mortality, first-attempt intubation success, and major adverse events (new hemodynamic instability, severe hypoxemia, and cardiac arrest) within 30 minutes after intubation. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to adjust for confounding. Risk ratios (RRs) and risk differences (RDs) with 95% CIs were used to compare outcomes between groups. Results Among 1810 patients (median age, 64 years [IQR, 50-74 years]; 1048 men [57.9%]), 514 received ketamine and 1296 received etomidate. The median shock index was higher in the ketamine group than the etomidate group (0.81 [IQR, 0.65-1.01] vs 0.76 [IQR, 0.59-0.99]), and preintubation vasopressor use was more common in the ketamine group than the etomidate group (191 of 514 [37.2%] vs 391 of 1296 [30.2%]). Weighted 28-day mortality was higher with etomidate than ketamine (60.5% [95% CI, 57.2%-63.8%] vs 54.4% [95% CI, 45.0%-63.9%]; RR, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.03-1.27]; RD, 7.6% [95% CI, 2.0%-13.3%]). Seven-day mortality was also higher with etomidate than ketamine (35.2% [95% CI, 32.0%-38.3%] vs 30.1% [95% CI, 23.5%-36.7%]; RR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.04-1.35]). New hemodynamic instability within 30 minutes after intubation was more frequent with ketamine (24.2% [95% CI, 20.4%-28.0%] vs 18.9% [95% CI, 16.7%-21.0%]; RR, 0.78 [0.64-0.95]). There were no statistically significant differences in the other secondary outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance In this cohort study of critically ill adults undergoing RSI, etomidate use was associated with higher in-hospital mortality at 7 and 28 days compared with ketamine. These findings highlight the need for definitive randomized clinical trials to compare both agents.

Abstract Background These recommendations provide guidance on the optimal timing for transitioning from intravenous to oral antibiotics in patients with complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI), especially in presence of associated Gram-negative bacteremia. Methods The panel's recommendations are based upon evidence derived from systematic literature reviews which focused on comparative benefits and harms of transitioning to oral therapy versus continuing parenteral therapy of the total duration of treatment, including publications since 2000. These recommendations adhere to a standardized methodology for rating the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendation according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Results The guidelines panel suggests transitioning to oral antibiotics in patients with cUTI who are clinically improving, able to take medication, and for whom an effective oral option is available, rather than continuing parenteral therapy for the remaining treatment duration, regardless of the presence of associated Gram-negative bacteremia. An effective oral option needs to be active against the causative pathogen and achieve therapeutic levels in the urine and relevant tissue. Conclusions Parenteral and oral antibiotics used to complete treatment courses for cUTI provide similar efficacy and adverse events, especially in the context of shorter duration of therapy. This recommendation places a high value on reducing avoidable intravenous catheter-related adverse events, costs, and resources, as well as taking into account practical aspects of antibiotic administration.

Abstract Background These recommendations provide guidance on the optimal duration of antibiotics in patients with complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI), especially in presence of associated Gram-negative bacteremia. Methods The panel's recommendations are based upon evidence derived from systematic literature reviews which focused on comparative benefits and harms of shorter (5–7 days) vs prolonged (10–14 days) duration of antibiotics, including publications since 2000. These recommendations adhere to a standardized methodology for rating the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendation according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Results The guidelines panel suggests that patients with cUTI who are improving on effective therapy can be treated with shorter duration of antimicrobials (either 5–7 days of a fluoroquinolone or 7 days of a non-fluoroquinolone) rather than longer courses of antibiotics, regardless of the presence of associated Gram-negative bacteremia. An effective antimicrobial agent achieves therapeutic levels in the urine and relevant tissue and is active against the causative pathogen. However, men with febrile UTI in whom acute bacterial prostatitis is suspected may benefit from a longer treatment duration (10–14 days), and a short courses of oral beta lactams may require higher doses for efficacy. Conclusions Shorter durations of antibiotics for cUTI provide similar efficacy as longer courses, except in men with febrile UTI in whom acute bacterial prostatitis is suspected. This recommendation places a high value on antibiotic stewardship considerations as well as reducing the burden of antimicrobial administration from a healthcare perspective and reducing the burden of taking antibiotics from a patient perspective.

Abstract Background These recommendations address the empiric choice of antibiotics in suspected complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI). Issues to balance include the need for appropriate initial empiric antimicrobial therapy, the patient's severity of illness, and antimicrobial stewardship concerns. Methods The panel's recommendations are based upon evidence derived from systematic literature reviews that focused on comparative benefits and harms of classes of antibiotics approved for cUTI, starting with publications from 2008 onwards, and our review of predictors of resistance in uropathogens included references identified since 2000. These recommendations adhere to a standardized methodology for rating the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendation according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Results The guidelines panel suggests initially selecting among preferred empiric antibiotic choices rather than alternative options, stratified for the patient's severity of illness and antimicrobial stewardship considerations. When choosing among these antibiotics for a specific patient, the guideline panel suggests a 4-step process to account for changing resistance patterns and individualized patient needs. The steps are: (1) assess the severity of illness (for initial prioritization of antibiotics), (2) consider patient-specific risk factors for resistant uropathogens (for optimization of coverage), (3) evaluate other patient-specific considerations (to reduce the risk of adverse events), and (4) for patients with sepsis, consult a relevant local antibiogram if available (to further improve the likelihood of giving appropriate empiric therapy). Lastly, the guideline panel suggests selecting definitive effective therapy with a targeted spectrum based on the result of the urine culture. Conclusions Many of the classes of antibiotics approved to treat cUTI demonstrate similar efficacy as other classes of antibiotics in randomized controlled trials. Bacterial resistance prevalence is always changing, and new antibiotics will be developed. In this context, the guidelines panel provides recommendations for choosing empiric antibiotic therapy for cUTI that will help clinicians decide among available antibiotic options at the point of care.

Objectives: In the United States, training for physicians who manage critically ill adult patients (intensivists) evolved through parallel subspecialty critical care medicine (CCM) pathways with significant commonality. The Society of Critical Care Medicine Adult Critical Care Physician Core Knowledge and Skills Task Force aimed to delineate the common core knowledge and skills required of all intensivists. Design: A master list of content areas and procedural skills was compiled from all CCM subspecialty program requirements and blueprints of the certification examinations. Using a modified Delphi approach, participants were asked to categorize the knowledge items as “advanced knowledge is essential,” “general, but not advanced, knowledge is essential,” or “knowledge is not essential.” Procedures were categorized as “intensivist performs routinely,” “intensivist only performs in an emergency,” or “intensivist knows” about the procedure. Setting: Representatives from CCM stakeholder organizations, including accreditation and certification organizations, critical care societies, and program directors’ societies, were invited to participate. SUBJECTS: Members of the Adult Critical Care Physician Core Knowledge and Skills Task Force of the Society of Critical Care Medicine. Interventions: For the first two rounds of the modified Delphi process, Research Electronic Data Capture was used. For the third and fourth rounds, the process was completed through online meetings with Zoom (Zoom Video Corporations, San Jose, CA) utilizing Zoom’s polling feature. Measurements and Main Results: A total of 541 items were determined to be essential, with 145 requiring advanced knowledge and 323 requiring general knowledge. For 73 items, consensus regarding advanced vs. general could not be achieved, but they remained essential. Only eight items were felt to be nonessential. Of the 16 procedures, most were categorized as “intensivist performs.” Conclusions: The large number of items included in the list of essential knowledge and skills demonstrates the complexity of modern CCM. Utilization of a common framework across the subspecialties of CCM could lead to greater harmonization among the fellowship program requirements and certification examinations.