Citations

ABSTRACT Objective We sought to characterize the sixth most common finding in our neuroimmunological laboratory practice (tissue assay‐observed unclassified neural antibodies [UNAs]), combining protein microarray and phage immunoprecipitation sequencing (PhIP‐Seq). Methods Patient specimens (258; 133 serums; 125 CSF) meeting UNA criteria were profiled; October 2022–September 2023. Top‐ranking candidate antigens were validated in silico, by dual‐staining confocal microscopy, and ≥ 1 protein‐specific assay. Clinical data were reviewed. Results Among 21 patients, 11 autoantibodies were characterized (serum, 19; CSF, all 9 available). Autoantigens were CACNA1I, 1; CAMK2B, 2; CLIP2, 1; FMN2, 2; MAP1A, 2; MAP2, 5; NECAB1, 1; SNAP91, 3; SRCIN1, 1; SYNJ1, 1; SYT3, 2. Analytical validation was by confocal TIIFA (all), western blot (10/10 available), and cell‐based assay (5/5 performed). Clinical accompaniments were: encephalitis, 6; brainstem encephalitis, 2; encephalomyelitis, 2; cerebellar ataxia, 2; longitudinally extensive transverse myelitis (LETM), 2; sensory neuronopathy, 1; peripheral neuropathy, 4, and movement disorders, 2. Inflammatory MRI abnormalities were identified in 5/16 patients (31%) with CNS disorders: T2 signal change (2), LETM (2), leptomeningeal enhancement (1). Seven of 8 (88%) had inflammatory CSF (pleocytosis, 5 [median 25.5 cells, range 7–294]; elevated IgG index/synthesis rate, 4; CSF‐exclusive oligoclonal bands, 4). Six had paraneoplastic causation (lung cancer, 2; other, 4); 3 were postinfectious (1 each of COVID‐19, HSV‐1, and post‐Group A streptococcal infection). Of 9 immunotherapy‐treated patients, 5 improved. Interpretation UNAs are partly accounted for by a repertoire of diverse mostly intracellular synaptic antigens. Their characterization is expedited by protein arrays and PhIPSeq. Further individual studies are needed to assess them as disease biomarkers.

Objective To provide evidence‐based and expert guidance for the treatment and management of non‐renal systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE); treatment and management of lupus nephritis are addressed in a separate guideline. Methods Clinical questions for treatment and management of SLE were developed in the PICO format (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome). Systematic literature reviews were developed for each PICO question, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess evidence quality and formulate recommendations. The Voting Panel achieved a consensus of ≥70% agreement on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of each recommendation. Results We present recommendations and ungraded, consensus‐based good practice statements for the treatment and management of SLE that are applicable to pediatric and adult patients. Recommendations emphasize uniform treatment with hydroxychloroquine, limiting duration of glucocorticoid use, and early introduction of conventional and/or biologic immunosuppressive therapies to achieve and maintain control of SLE inflammation (remission or a low level of disease activity), reduce SLE‐related morbidity and mortality, and minimize medication‐related toxicities. Conclusion This guideline presents direction regarding treatment and management of SLE and provides a foundation for well‐informed, shared clinician–patient decision‐making. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies, as treatment decisions may vary due to the unique clinical situation and personal preferences of each person with SLE.

Background and Aims: With rapid changes in the management landscape of chronic hepatitis B (CHB), this technical systematic review addresses 4 critical Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome (PICO) questions to provide guidance to the formulation of recommendations to the 2025 AASLD practice guideline for management of CHB. Approach: The review was reported in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Outcomes were evaluated across 4 key PICOs: (1) antiviral therapy for prevention of horizontal HBV transmission in high-risk groups, (2) antiviral therapy versus observation for persons in the immune-tolerant phase, (3) discontinuation versus continuation of nucleos(t)ide analogue therapy in HBeAg-negative individuals with undetectable HBV DNA, and (4) hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) surveillance in non-cirrhotic individuals with HBsAg clearance or co-infections with HCV, HDV, or HIV. Results: For PICO 1, limited evidence suggests antiviral therapy may reduce horizontal transmission risk, though with low certainty. PICO 2 analyses reveal uncertain benefits of treating persons in the immune-tolerant phase, with very low certainty due to heterogeneity and bias. PICO 3 analyses demonstrate that discontinuing antiviral therapy in persons who are HBeAg negative with undetectable HBV DNA increases HBsAg loss rates (OR: 12.65, 95% CI: 1.58–101.51) but carries moderate risks of virologic relapse (OR: 47.17, 95% CI: 2.79–797.35) and clinical flares. PICO 4 analyses on several cohort studies showed that in patients co-infected with HCV, HBV, or HIV, the annual incidence of HCC was higher than the level where screening becomes cost-effective, suggesting that regular liver cancer screening could be beneficial for these patients. Conclusions: Despite low certainty, the findings support shared decision-making in high-risk horizontal transmission scenarios or in treating individuals in the immune tolerance phase, caution in discontinuing antiviral therapy in virologically suppressed individuals without HBsAg loss, and tailored HCC surveillance for those with co-infection or cirrhosis.

Background and Aims: Accumulating data related to prevention, surveillance and treatment of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) provided the impetus for this updated guideline, using the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Methods: The guideline was developed in compliance with the National Academy of Medicine standards. The guideline panel developed structured questions following the Population, Intervention Comparison, Outcomes (PICO) framework. The panel addressed 6 PICO questions covering prevention (maternal to infant transmission and horizontal transmission), surveillance for liver cancer (among hepatitis B surface antigen positive (HBsAg) persons co-infected with hepatitis C virus, hepatitis D virus and/or human immunodeficiency viruses and after HBsAg loss) and treatment (HBsAg positive persons in immune-tolerant or indeterminate phases as well as withdrawal of antiviral therapy), providing evidence-based recommendations on these topics. Four systematic reviews of the literature were conducted, and two existing systematic reviews were utilized to support the recommendations in this practice guideline. Conclusions: This evidence-based guideline provides updated recommendations to optimize the care of persons with CHB.

Objective To provide evidence‐based and expert guidance for the treatment and management of non‐renal systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE); treatment and management of lupus nephritis are addressed in a separate guideline. Methods Clinical questions for treatment and management of SLE were developed in the PICO format (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome). Systematic literature reviews were developed for each PICO question, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess evidence quality and formulate recommendations. The Voting Panel achieved a consensus of ≥70% agreement on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of each recommendation. Results We present recommendations and ungraded, consensus‐based good practice statements for the treatment and management of SLE that are applicable to pediatric and adult patients. Recommendations emphasize uniform treatment with hydroxychloroquine, limiting duration of glucocorticoid use, and early introduction of conventional and/or biologic immunosuppressive therapies to achieve and maintain control of SLE inflammation (remission or a low level of disease activity), reduce SLE‐related morbidity and mortality, and minimize medication‐related toxicities. Conclusion This guideline presents direction regarding treatment and management of SLE and provides a foundation for well‐informed, shared clinician–patient decision‐making. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies, as treatment decisions may vary due to the unique clinical situation and personal preferences of each person with SLE.

Objective A patient‐centered approach for chronic disease management, including systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), aligns treatment with patients’ values and preferences, leading to improved outcomes. This paper summarizes how patient experiences, perspectives, and priorities informed the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2024 Lupus Nephritis (LN) and 2025 SLE screening, treatment guidelines. Methods We completed a cross‐sectional qualitative study using content analysis of two Patient Panel meetings for the ACR LN and SLE guidelines. Key themes were presented by Patient Panel representatives during Voting Panel Meetings along with evidence for each recommendation, to ensure comprehensive discussions and align treatment recommendations with patients’ priorities and values. Results Nineteen people (90% women) with diagnoses of SLE and/or LN participated in the Patient Panels and 17 consented to use their feedback for analysis. Thematic analysis of their discussions revealed nine patient‐reported key themes in three domains: (1) treatment and monitoring of LN and SLE: medication side effects, daily function, treatment goals, and monitoring and screening; (2) clinical communication: strategies to optimize communication and provider and structural impediments to effective communication; and (3) improving transparency and information sharing: clinical trial participation, and medical costs and insurance coverage. These themes were actively incorporated into discussions during the Voting Panels for the ACR LN and SLE guidelines. Conclusion This work supported the integration of patient experiences in the clinical practice guideline development process and aligned recommendations with real‐world patient experiences and priorities, thereby enhancing the clinical applicability of the ACR LN and SLE guidelines. image

Abstract Purpose: Relapse is a major cause of failure in human papillomavirus–independent head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Clinicopathologic criteria for adjuvant treatment remain imprecise and have not changed for decades. We investigated whether ctDNA in lymphatic exudate collected via surgical drains (“lymph”) 24 hours after surgery identified molecular residual disease (MRD) and compared its performance with time-matched plasma. Experimental Design: Using an ultra-sensitive tumor-informed sequencing approach, tumor variants were called in lymph and plasma to classify patients as ctDNA positive or ctDNA negative, trained in an initial cohort of 36 patients, and replicated in an independent cohort of 37 patients. Progression-free survival was compared in ctDNA(+) versus ctDNA(–) patients. Results: Lymph identified MRD in two independent multi-site cohorts (initial cohort sensitivity = 76% and specificity = 63%; log-rank P = 0.01; replication cohort sensitivity = 65% and specificity = 70%; log-rank P = 0.04). Lymph performance was enhanced in locoregional relapse (sensitivity = 78% and specificity = 67%; log-rank P = 0.0004) and generalized to early-stage patients. Analysis of matched plasma collected at this early timepoint was not predictive of recurrence (sensitivity = 35% and specificity = 72%; log-rank P = 0.7). In patients with intermediate-risk pathology, lymph ctDNA was associated with recurrence (sensitivity = 88% and specificity = 67%; log-rank P = 0.0008), suggesting an opportunity for improved stratification of patients who may benefit from additional adjuvant treatment. Conclusions: Postoperative lymph is a novel, proximal, and early source of MRD with the potential to introduce more precision into adjuvant therapy decision-making and improve outcomes, especially for patients with intermediate-risk human papillomavirus–independent head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.