Citations

Objective We provide evidence‐based recommendations regarding the treatment of interstitial lung disease (ILD) in adults with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). Methods We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions. A systematic literature review was then performed, and the available evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A panel of clinicians and patients reached consensus on the direction and strength of the recommendations. Results Thirty‐five recommendations were generated (including two strong recommendations) for first‐line SARD‐ILD treatment, treatment of SARD‐ILD progression despite first‐line ILD therapy, and treatment of rapidly progressive ILD. The strong recommendations were against using glucocorticoids in systemic sclerosis–ILD as a first‐line ILD therapy and after ILD progression. Otherwise, glucocorticoids are conditionally recommended for first‐line ILD treatment in all other SARDs. Conclusion This clinical practice guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and American College of Chest Physicians for the treatment of ILD in people with SARDs.

ObjectiveWe provide evidence‐based recommendations regarding screening for interstitial lung disease (ILD) and the monitoring for ILD progression in people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs), specifically rheumatoid arthritis, systemic sclerosis, idiopathic inflammatory myopathies, mixed connective tissue disease, and Sjögren disease.MethodsWe developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions related to screening and monitoring for ILD in patients with SARDs. A systematic literature review was performed, and the available evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A Voting Panel of interdisciplinary clinician experts and patients achieved consensus on the direction and strength of each recommendation.ResultsFifteen recommendations were developed. For screening people with these SARDs at risk for ILD, we conditionally recommend pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and high‐resolution computed tomography of the chest (HRCT chest); conditionally recommend against screening with 6‐minute walk test distance (6MWD), chest radiography, ambulatory desaturation testing, or bronchoscopy; and strongly recommend against screening with surgical lung biopsy. We conditionally recommend monitoring ILD with PFTs, HRCT chest, and ambulatory desaturation testing and conditionally recommend against monitoring with 6MWD, chest radiography, or bronchoscopy. We provide guidance on ILD risk factors and suggestions on frequency of testing to evaluate for the development of ILD in people with SARDs.ConclusionThis clinical practice guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and American College of Chest Physicians for the screening and monitoring of ILD in people with SARDs.

Objective We provide evidence‐based recommendations regarding screening for interstitial lung disease (ILD) and the monitoring for ILD progression in people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs), specifically rheumatoid arthritis, systemic sclerosis, idiopathic inflammatory myopathies, mixed connective tissue disease, and Sjögren disease. Methods We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions related to screening and monitoring for ILD in patients with SARDs. A systematic literature review was performed, and the available evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A Voting Panel of interdisciplinary clinician experts and patients achieved consensus on the direction and strength of each recommendation. Results Fifteen recommendations were developed. For screening people with these SARDs at risk for ILD, we conditionally recommend pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and high‐resolution computed tomography of the chest (HRCT chest); conditionally recommend against screening with 6‐minute walk test distance (6MWD), chest radiography, ambulatory desaturation testing, or bronchoscopy; and strongly recommend against screening with surgical lung biopsy. We conditionally recommend monitoring ILD with PFTs, HRCT chest, and ambulatory desaturation testing and conditionally recommend against monitoring with 6MWD, chest radiography, or bronchoscopy. We provide guidance on ILD risk factors and suggestions on frequency of testing to evaluate for the development of ILD in people with SARDs. Conclusion This clinical practice guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and American College of Chest Physicians for the screening and monitoring of ILD in people with SARDs.

ABSTRACTIntroductionHepatitis B virus reactivation (HBVr) can occur in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients with previously inactive hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. Previous studies have reported that HBVr is generally less than 10% in nonliver SOT recipients with past HBV infection.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective study from January 2018 to August 2023 at Mayo Clinic sites in Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota. We examined the antiviral prophylaxis strategy used and the characteristics of HBVr in hepatitis B core antibody‐positive (HBcAb +) nonliver SOT adult recipients. Past HBV infection was defined as HBcAb + / hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) –. Chronic HBV infection was defined as HBcAb + / HBsAg +.ResultsA total of 180 nonliver SOT recipients were identified during the study period. Indefinite antiviral prophylaxis was utilized in 77 recipients, and none developed HBVr after transplantation. In 103 recipients without antiviral prophylaxis, the incidence of HBVr was 12% (12/97) and 33% (2/6) in those with past HBV infection and chronic HBV infection. The incidence of HBVr in patients with past HBV infection is 16% (8/50), 15% (3/20), and 5% (1/22) in kidney, heart, and lungs, respectively. HBVr was more frequent in those who received alemtuzumab. Among 14 recipients with HBVr, none had HBV‐associated liver failure or death.ConclusionsOur study observed a higher rate of HBVr (12%) in nonliver SOT recipients with past HBV infection compared to the previous studies. Further studies are needed to identify predictors of HBVr in nonliver SOT recipients and optimize antiviral prophylaxis guidance.

Abstract Introduction: Historically, children undergoing cardiac catheterization have been managed with general endotracheal anesthesia (GETA). However, recent practice has favored general anesthesia with total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA). This study compares procedural outcomes in the pediatric cardiac catheterization laboratory (PCCL) for children undergoing low-risk cardiac catheterization with GETA vs. TIVA. Methods: We reviewed all patients aged 1–12 years, who underwent outpatient diagnostic or simple interventional catheterization from January 2016 – September 2023. Patients were divided into cohorts by type of anesthesia (GETA vs. TIVA). The primary outcome measure was total patient time in the PCCL (“door-to-door” time). Secondary outcomes were procedure duration (“sheath time”), length of hospital stay, and the major adverse event (MAE) rate. Results: A total of 401 patients were included. Of these patients, 226 underwent GETA and 175 underwent TIVA. There were 148 interventional procedures and 72 patients had single-ventricle physiology. There was no significant difference between the two cohorts in terms of demographic factors such as age, weight, procedure indication and physiological complexity as well as outcomes such as sheath time, hospital stay and MAE. However, the average door-to-door time of the TIVA cohort was 25 minutes shorter than the GETA cohort (p < 0.001). Conclusions: In this single center, retrospective study of anesthesia management for children undergoing low-risk cardiac catheterization, TIVA is associated with significantly shorter door-to-door time in the PCCL without an increase in procedure duration, hospital stay, or rate of complications. These findings have potential clinical significance supporting increased use of TIVA during pediatric cardiac catheterization.

Pediatric high-grade gliomas are a devastating subset of brain tumors, characterized by their aggressive pathophysiology and limited treatment options. Among them, H3 K27-altered diffuse midline gliomas (DMG) of the brainstem stand out due to their distinct molecular features and dismal prognosis. Recent advances in molecular profiling techniques have unveiled the critical role of H3 K27 alterations, particularly a lysine-to-methionine mutation on position 27 (K27M) of the histone H3 tail, in the pathogenesis of DMG. These mutations result in epigenetic dysregulation, which leads to altered chromatin structure and gene expression patterns in DMG tumor cells, ultimately contributing to the aggressive phenotype of DMG. The exploration of targeted therapeutic avenues for DMG has gained momentum in recent years. Therapies, including epigenetic modifiers, kinase inhibitors, and immunotherapies, are under active investigation; these approaches aim to disrupt aberrant signaling cascades and overcome the various mechanisms of therapeutic resistance in DMG. Challenges, including blood–brain barrier penetration and DMG tumor heterogeneity, require innovative approaches to improve drug delivery and personalized treatment strategies. This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the evolving understanding of DMG, focusing on the intricate molecular mechanisms driving tumorigenesis/tumor progression and the current landscape of emerging targeted interventions.

Purpose of review This review provides an update on current management strategies for giant cell arteritis (GCA), emphasizing the need for alternative therapies to reduce disease relapses and mitigate glucocorticoid (GC)-related morbidity. Recent findings The standard of care for GCA has traditionally involved prolonged use of GC, and recent studies are exploring faster GC tapering regimens in an effort to reduce adverse effects while maintaining disease control. Randomized clinical trials have highlighted the efficacy of tocilizumab (TCZ), an interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor, in reducing disease flares and sparing GCs. However, the optimal treatment duration with TCZ is unknown and patients remain at risk of relapse after treatment discontinuation. An unmet therapeutic need persists for patients who are not candidates for TCZ, and for those who have inadequate response to this biologic. Therefore, investigations into alternative therapies such as targeting interleukin-17A, blocking T-cell activation or inhibiting the Janus kinase–signal transducer and activator of transcription pathway, showcase potential avenues for tailored treatments. Summary While GCs remain the cornerstone of therapy, TCZ emerges as a promising GC-sparing agent. Ongoing research targeting different pathways implicated in GCA pathogenesis have led to encouraging results. However, the preliminary nature of these findings necessitates larger randomized controlled trials to establish their efficacy conclusively.

Abstract Background Few antiviral therapies have been studied in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and kidney impairment. Herein, the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of remdesivir, its metabolites, and sulfobutylether-β-cyclodextrin excipient were evaluated in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and severe kidney impairment. Methods In REDPINE, a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, participants aged ≥12 years hospitalized for COVID-19 pneumonia with acute kidney injury, chronic kidney disease, or kidney failure were randomized 2:1 to receive intravenous remdesivir (200 mg on day 1; 100 mg daily up to day 5) or placebo (enrollment from March 2021 to March 2022). The primary efficacy end point was the composite of the all-cause mortality rate or invasive mechanical ventilation rate through day 29. Safety was evaluated through day 60. Results Although enrollment concluded early, 243 participants were enrolled and treated (remdesivir, n = 163; placebo, n = 80). At baseline, 90 participants (37.0%) had acute kidney injury (remdesivir, n = 60; placebo, n = 30), 64 (26.3%) had chronic kidney disease (remdesivir, n = 44; placebo, n = 20), and 89 (36.6%) had kidney failure (remdesivir, n = 59; placebo, n = 30); and 31 (12.8%) were vaccinated against COVID-19. Composite all-cause mortality or invasive mechanical ventilation rates through day 29 were 29.4% and 32.5% in the remdesivir and placebo group, respectively (P = .61). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 80.4% for remdesivir versus 77.5% for placebo, and serious adverse events in 50.3% versus 50.0%, respectively. Pharmacokinetic plasma exposure to remdesivir was not affected by kidney function. Conclusions Although the study was underpowered, no significant difference in efficacy was observed between treatment groups. REDPINE demonstrated that remdesivir is safe in patients with COVID-19 and severe kidney impairment. Clinical Trials Registration EudraCT 2020-005416-22; Clinical Trials.gov NCT04745351.

Background. Solid organ transplant (SOT) candidates should be screened and treated for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) to prevent tuberculosis (TB) reactivation after transplantation. We aimed to assess the steps from positive QuantiFERON (QFT) through LTBI treatment (cascade of care) in the SOT population. Methods. We conducted a retrospective study of SOT recipients older than 18 y with a positive QFT during pretransplant evaluation at the Mayo Clinic from January 2010 to June 2023. We analyzed each cascade step to determine associated drop-out factors for LTBI management. Results. Of 629 patients who had positive QFT results, 587 (93%) were evaluated by an infectious disease (ID) specialist, 478 (76%) were recommended to start LTBI treatment, 473 (75%) initiated LTBI treatment, and 457 (73%) completed LTBI treatment. LTBI treatment was not recommended in 109 patients evaluated by infectious disease, most of whom had previously received either LTBI (n = 72) or TB (n = 14) treatment. LTBI treatment was initiated before or after transplantation for 45% and 55% of patients, respectively. Isoniazid monotherapy was the most common regimen (92%), and adverse events were rare (7%). Seven patients developed active TB infection posttransplantation under various circumstances (3 without LTBI treatment, 1 during LTBI treatment, and 3 after completing LTBI treatment). Conclusions. Our findings demonstrate the variability of LTBI management in SOT recipients with positive QFT. When recommended, most patients completed LTBI treatment successfully. Nonetheless, active TB was noted regardless of whether patients received LTBI treatment. This study highlights the importance of optimizing LTBI management in this population.