Citations

Background: Data are limited on the need for and benefits of pump setting optimization with automated insulin delivery. We examined clinical management of a closed-loop control (CLC) system and its relationship to glycemic outcomes. Materials and Methods: We analyzed personal parameter adjustments in 168 participants in a 6-month multicenter trial of CLC with Control-IQ versus sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy. Preset parameters (BR = basal rates, CF = correction factors, CR = carbohydrate ratios) were optimized at randomization, 2 and 13 weeks, for safety issues, participant concerns, or initiation by participants' usual diabetes care team. Time in range (TIR 70–180 mg/dL) was compared in the week before and after parameter changes. Results: In 607 encounters for parameter changes, there were fewer adjustments for CLC than SAP (3.4 vs. 4.1/participant). Adjustments involved BR (CLC 69%, SAP 80%), CR (CLC 68%, SAP 50%), CF (CLC 44%, SAP 41%), and overnight parameters (CLC 62%, SAP 75%). TIR before and after adjustments was 71.2% and 71.3% for CLC and 61.0% and 62.9% for SAP. The highest baseline HbA 1c CLC subgroup had the largest TIR improvement (51.2% vs. 57.7%). When a CR was made more aggressive in the CLC group, postprandial time >180 mg/dL was 43.1% before the change and 36.0% after the change. The median postprandial time <70 mg/dL before making CR less aggressive was 1.8%, and after the change was 0.7%. Conclusions: No difference in TIR was detected with parameter changes overall, but they may have an effect in higher HbA 1c subgroups or following user-directed boluses, suggesting that changes may matter more in suboptimal control or during discrete periods of the day. Clinical Trials Registration number: NCT03563313.

Introduction: Among the most challenging complications of hemophilia A is inhibitor formation. A T-cell dependent B-cell response to exogenous factor VIII (FVIII), inhibitors result in a high burden of disease, with poorly controlled bleeding, twice the hospitalizations, 10-fold the cost, and 3.5-fold the mortality of non-inhibitor patients. Thus, a major goal of hemophilia management is to prevent and eradicate inhibitors. With the availability of novel therapies, including eloctate, a recombinant Fc-fusion protein (rFVIII-Fc) which induces regulatory T cells to promote FVIII tolerance, and emicizumab, a bispecific monoclonal FVIII mimetic, we designed the INHIBIT Clinical Trials Platform (X01HL143024), Fig.1. The platform is composed of two linked randomized phase III trials, the Inhibitor Prevention Trial (NCT04303559), comparing rFVIII-Fc vs emicizumab prophylaxis to prevent inhibitors, and the Inhibitor Eradication Trial (NCT04303572), comparing rFVIII-Fc immune tolerance induction (ITI) plus emicizumab vs rFVIII-Fc ITI alone to eradicate inhibitors. The platform uses adaptive design to incorporate historical data (Bayesian priors) on inhibitor formation to increase power and promote efficient use of rare data. Yet, there is equipoise regarding the optimal approach to inhibitor prevention and eradication, and, as clinical practice is changing, we aimed to test the feasibility of the INHIBIT trial design. Methods: To establish design feasibility, we conducted interviews with 30 hemophilia treatment center (HTC) physicians participating in the INHIBIT trials, to determine prophylaxis and tolerance regimens they prescribe and perceived barriers to the INHIBIT trials design. A 4-question survey was subsequently emailed to these physicians to ascertain the initial prophylaxis regimens they prescribe in previously untreated patients (PUPs) with severe hemophilia A, and the initial immune tolerance induction (ITI) they prescribe in high-responding inhibitor patients with severe hemophilia A; if new inhibitors had been observed during emicizumab prophylaxis, and willingness to participate in post-trial surveillance. Results: In interviews, HTC physicians indicated the issues that influenced choice of prophylaxis/ ITI regimen were patient preference, family history of inhibitors, infusion frequency, IV access, port requirement, and family fatigue. In the absence of clinical trials data in PUPs, there was general agreement that emicizumab prophylaxis, with it simpler subcutaneous (SQ) administration, might delay or potentially prevent inhibitors. Survey findings in Table 1 indicated 75% of physicians prescribe extended half-life (EHL) FVIII in a once-weekly prophylaxis regimen, as planned in the Prevention Trial, despite the persistent 27% inhibitor rate (ALong PUPs Trial, Königs et al, ISTH 2020) and potential risks with port use. There was support for the 1:3 preferential randomization to emicizumab in the Prevention Trial due to the simpler SQ route, despite concern it might delay rather than prevent inhibitor formation, although no inhibitors were reported by physician survey with emicizumab use alone. There was also concern that breakthrough bleeds requiring FVIII during emicizumab prophylaxis, might lead to immune activation and inhibitor formation. There was strong agreement, however, in 29 (97%) of physicians to participate in post-trial surveillance for long-term inhibitor outcomes. FVIII ITI was considered essential to eradicate inhibitors, despite the intensity of the infusion regimen. Notably, 60% prescribe emicizumab with FVIII ITI, as planned in the Eradicate Trial, although the every-other-day infusion was considered a potential barrier to participation. Omitting FVIII ITI was not favored due to the risk of inhibitor anamnesis if FVIII treatment was subsequently required for surgery or acute hemorrhages. Despite these concerns, there was agreement to participate in the trials. Discussion: Physician interviews and surveys confirm there is heterogeneity in current hemophilia clinical practice, specifically in initial prophylaxis regimens and in initial immune tolerance regimens, including agent choice and duration. However, there is physician consensus with the INHIBIT trial aims and with the proposed INHIBIT trial regimens to prevent and eradicate inhibitors. Disclosures Ragni: Bioverativ: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Alnylam/Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BioMarin: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; ATHN: Research Funding; Sangamo: Research Funding. Seaman:Bayer: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Spark Therapeutics: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Acharya:Novonordisk: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BPL: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer Pharma Inc.: Research Funding. Wheeler:Novo Nordisk: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Biomarin: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; UniQure: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Tarango:Takeda/Shire: Honoraria, Other; Bayer: Consultancy, Other; Sanofi: Honoraria, Other. Dunn:ATHN: Research Funding; Spire: Honoraria; Medscape: Honoraria; World Federation of Hemophilia USA: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; BioMarin: Research Funding; uniQure: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy; Nationwide Children's Hospital: Current Employment. Kulkarni:Sanofi/ Bioverativ, Bayer, Biomarin, Shire/Takeda, Novo Nordisk, Freeline: Other: clinical trial research grants ; Bioverativ/Sanofi, BPL, Genentech, Kedrion, Novo Nordisk, Octapharma, Pfizer, Takeda, Catalyst Bioscience Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ahuja:Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi Genzyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; XaTek, Inc.: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. Chitlur:Takeda: Honoraria; Biovertiv: Honoraria; Agios Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Novo Nordisk: Consultancy, Honoraria. Pipe:Apcintex, Bayer, BioMarin, Catalyst Biosciences, CSL Behring, HEMA Biologics, Freeline, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech, Inc., Sangamo Therapeutics, Sanofi, Takeda, Spark Therapeutics, uniQure: Consultancy; Siemens: Research Funding; Medical and Scientific Advisory Council to the National Hemophilia Foundation; Medical Advisory Board to World Federation of Hemophilia: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Malec:Sanofi Genzyme: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; CSL: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; SOBI: Consultancy. Leissinger:Bayer: Consultancy; Kedrion: Consultancy; CSL Behring: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Consultancy; HEMA Biologics: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Uniqure: Consultancy; Spark: Consultancy. Carpenter:Hemostasis & Thrombosis Research Society: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; American Academy of Pediatrics: Other: PREP Heme/Onc editorial board; Kedrion: Honoraria; Novo Nordisk: Honoraria; Genentech, Inc.: Honoraria; American Thrombosis and Hemostasis Network: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CSL Behring: Research Funding; Shire: Research Funding. Knoll:NovoNordisk: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wang:Bioverativ Inc: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria; CSL Behring: Honoraria; Biomarin: Honoraria; Genentech: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Young:Genentech/Roche, Grifols, and Takeda: Research Funding; Bayer, CSL Behring, Freeline, UniQure: Consultancy; BioMarin, Freeline, Genentech/Roche, Grifols, Kedrion, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi Genzyme, Spark, Takeda, and UniQure: Honoraria. Thornburg:Genentech: Speakers Bureau; Spark Therapeutics: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Ironwood Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board; American Thrombosis and Hemostasis Network: Research Funding; Sanofi Genzyme: Consultancy, Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board, Research Funding; NovoNordisk: Research Funding; Biomarin: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Bayer Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; National Hemophilia Foundation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Lucas:CRISPR Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hwang:Shire: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria.

Abstract Context Current evidence on determinants of adverse health outcomes in patients with adrenal insufficiency (AI) is scarce, especially in regards to AI subtypes. Objective To determine predictors of adverse outcomes in different subtypes of AI. Design and Setting Cross-sectional survey study at 2 tertiary centers. Participants A total of 696 patients with AI: primary AI (PAI, 42%), secondary AI (SAI, 32%), and glucocorticoid-induced AI (GIAI, 26%). Intervention Patient-centered questionnaire. Main Outcome Measures Patients’ knowledge, self-management of AI, self-perceived health, and adverse outcomes. Results The incidence rate of adrenal crisis was 24/100 patient-years with 44% experiencing at least 1 adrenal crisis since diagnosis (59% in PAI vs 31% in SAI vs 37% in GIAI, P &lt; .0001). All patients described high degrees of discomfort with self-management and receiving prompt treatment. Patients with PAI were most likely to develop adrenal crises (adjusted OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.9-4.0) despite reporting better self-perceived health (adjusted OR 3.3, 95% CI 2.1-5.3), understanding of their diagnosis (89% vs 74-81% in other subtypes, P = .002), higher comfort with self-management (62% vs 52-61% in other sub types, P = .005), and higher likelihood to receive prompt treatment for adrenal crises in the emergency department (42% vs 19-30% in other subtypes, P &lt; .0001). Conclusions Patients with AI reported high degrees of discomfort with self-management and treatment delays when presenting with adrenal crises. Despite better self-perceived health and understanding of diagnosis, patients with PAI experienced the highest frequency of adrenal crises. A multidimensional educational effort is needed for patients and providers to improve the outcomes of all subtypes of AI.

AbstractBackgroundThe gut is the only organ system with intrinsic neural reflexes. Intrinsic primary afferent neurons (IPANs) of the enteric nervous system initiate intrinsic reflexes, form gut‐brain connections, and undergo considerable neuroplasticity to cause digestive diseases. They remain inaccessible to study in mice in the absence of a selective marker. Advillin is used as a marker for primary afferent neurons in dorsal root ganglia. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that advillin is expressed in IPANs of the mouse jejunum.MethodsAdvillin expression was assessed with immunohistochemistry and using transgenic mice expressing an inducible Cre recombinase under the advillin promoter were used to drive tdTomato and the genetically encoded calcium indicator GCaMP5. These mice were used to characterize the morphology and physiology of advillin‐expressing enteric neurons using confocal microscopy, calcium imaging, and whole‐cell patch‐clamp electrophysiology.Key ResultsAdvillin is expressed in about 25% of myenteric neurons of the mouse jejunum, and these neurons demonstrate the requisite properties of IPANs. Functionally, they demonstrate calcium responses following mechanical stimuli of the mucosa and during antidromic action potentials. They have Dogiel type II morphology with neural processes that mostly remain within the myenteric plexus, but also project to the mucosa and express NeuN and calcitonin gene‐related peptide (CGRP), but not nNOS.Conclusions and InferencesAdvillin marks jejunal IPANs providing accessibility to this important neuronal population to study and model digestive disease.

AbstractIntroductionThe need for transparency in financial relationships in the healthcare system, has culminated in Open Payments database, managed by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Since its inception in 2013, the trend in such payments to physicians practicing cardiac electrophysiology was not examined.Methods and ResultsPayment information reported to CMS from January 2013 to December 2018 was obtained from the publicly available Open Payments data set using the online query tool. The data were analyzed by an individual provider and by state. An in‐depth analysis of payments in the year 2018 payments was performed. From 2014 to 2018, there was an 18% increase in the total number of payments reported from 88 877 payments in 2014 to 105 000 in 2018. Despite the increase in the total number of payments reported, the average payment steadily decreased over time, resulting in an overall reduction in the total amount of payments from 2014 to 2018 ($34.9 million to $28.2 million). Payments to the top 5% of individual recipients have also decreased over this time. In 2018, 2888 unique providers received reportable payments, a total of 105 000 payments, with a median payment amount of $1378 (interquartile range: $165–$5781). The majority of these payments were for food and beverage (82%) and travel/lodging (10%). The top five payers include Boston Scientific, Medtronic Vascular, Abbott Laboratories, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Biotronik.ConclusionAmong cardiac electrophysiologists, there is increased reporting of payments in the Open Payments program over time, with a notable decrease in the payment amount.

Abstract Context Hyperthyroidism is associated with low levels of cholesterol and triglycerides, and hypothyroidism is associated with hypercholesterolemia and hypertriglyceridemia. Objective The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the impact of therapy for overt and subclinical hyper- and hypothyroidism on serum lipids. Data Sources We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus from 1970 through April 5, 2018. Study Selection Pairs of independent reviewers selected randomized and observational studies evaluating lipid parameters in patients undergoing treatment for hyper- or hypothyroidism. Data Extraction Pairs of independent reviewers extracted data and appraised studies. Data Synthesis Treatment of overt hyperthyroidism showed a significant increase in total cholesterol (TC) by 44.50 mg/dL (95% confidence interval [CI]: 37.99, 51.02), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) by 31.13 mg/dL (95% CI: 24.33, 37.93), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) by 5.52 mg/dL (95% CI: 1.48, 9.56), apolipoprotein A (Apo A) by 15.6 mg/dL (95% CI: 10.38, 20.81), apolipoprotein B (apo B) by 26.12 mg/dL (95% CI: 22.67, 29.57), and lipoprotein (Lp[a]) by 4.18 mg/dL (95% CI: 1.65, 6.71). There was no significant change in triglyceride (TG) levels. Treatment of subclinical hyperthyroidism did not change any lipid parameters significantly. Levothyroxine therapy in overt hypothyroidism showed a statistically significant decrease in TC by -58.4 mg/dL (95% CI: -64.70, -52.09), LDL-C by -41.11 mg/dL (95% CI: -46.53, -35.69), HDL-C by -4.14 mg/dL (95% CI: -5.67, -2.61), TGs by -7.25 mg/dL (95% CI: -36.63, 17.87), apo A by -12.59 mg/dL (95% CI: -17.98, -7.19), apo B by -33.96 mg/dL (95% CI: 41.14, -26.77), and Lp(a) by -5.6 mg/dL (95% CI: -9.06, -2.14). Levothyroxine therapy in subclinical hypothyroidism showed similar changes but with a smaller magnitude. The studies contained varied population characteristics, severity of thyroid dysfunction, and follow-up duration. Conclusions Treatment of overt but not subclinical hyperthyroidism is associated with worsening of the lipid profile. Levothyroxine therapy in both overt and subclinical hypothyroidism leads to improvement in the lipid profile, with a smaller magnitude of improvement in subclinical hypothyroidism.

Background While there is a long history of measuring death and disability from injuries, modern research methods must account for the wide spectrum of disability that can occur in an injury, and must provide estimates with sufficient demographic, geographical and temporal detail to be useful for policy makers. The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2017 study used methods to provide highly detailed estimates of global injury burden that meet these criteria. Methods In this study, we report and discuss the methods used in GBD 2017 for injury morbidity and mortality burden estimation. In summary, these methods included estimating cause-specific mortality for every cause of injury, and then estimating incidence for every cause of injury. Non-fatal disability for each cause is then calculated based on the probabilities of suffering from different types of bodily injury experienced. Results GBD 2017 produced morbidity and mortality estimates for 38 causes of injury. Estimates were produced in terms of incidence, prevalence, years lived with disability, cause-specific mortality, years of life lost and disability-adjusted life-years for a 28-year period for 22 age groups, 195 countries and both sexes. Conclusions GBD 2017 demonstrated a complex and sophisticated series of analytical steps using the largest known database of morbidity and mortality data on injuries. GBD 2017 results should be used to help inform injury prevention policy making and resource allocation. We also identify important avenues for improving injury burden estimation in the future.