Citations

AbstractBackground and ObjectivesWhen administered as prescribed, the naloxone component of buprenorphine‐naloxone combination medications is putatively considered inert due to reduced naloxone bioavailability via transmucosal. However, there is a growing body of evidence to the contrary. The aim of our study is to determine the extent of naloxone absorption in a large cohort of patients receiving sublingual buprenorphine‐naloxone.MethodsUsing the Mayo Clinic Unified Data Platform, 425 patients prescribed sublingual buprenorphine/naloxone who received a controlled substance monitoring panel (CSMP) between January 1, 2022, and January 1, 2023 were identified and included. The CSMP is an immunoassay panel that confirms positive results quantitatively with gas chromatography mass spectrometry or liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. This panel provides urinary detection for buprenorphine (cutoff: 5 ng/mL), naloxone (25 ng/mL), as well as their respective metabolites norbuprenorphine (5 ng/mL), norbuprenorphine‐glucuronide (20 ng/mL), and naloxone‐glucuronide (100 ng/mL).ResultsOf our 425 patients, 76% had norbuprenorphine (n = 323), and 77% had norbuprenorphine‐glucuronide (n = 327) in their toxicology tests, respectively. Naloxone‐glucuronide was detected in 91% (n = 294) of the specimens with norbuprenorphine and 88.7% (n = 290) of the specimens with norbuprenorphine‐glucuronide.Conclusion and Scientific SignificanceTo our knowledge, this is the largest study to date demonstrating the presence of naloxone metabolites in patients taking combined buprenorphine‐naloxone medications. The results of this study refute the notion that naloxone absorption is negligible when administered in sublingual preparations. Further research on how this absorption impacts medication usage, dosing, adherence, and side effects is necessary.

Introduction: Four randomized clinical trials have not demonstrated the superiority of anticoagulation over antiplatelet therapy in the prevention of recurrent embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS). In this multicenter observational cohort study, we evaluated long-term outcomes associated with various antithrombotic strategies according to potential embolic sources. Methods: A multicenter retrospective observational cohort of consecutive adult patients with ESUS was queried (n=27 sites). Comparisons were made between patients treated with single or combination antiplatelet therapy versus anticoagulation (direct oral anticoagulant, vitamin K antagonist, low molecular weight heparin) with or without antiplatelet therapy initiated within 7 days of stroke. The primary composite outcome of recurrent stroke, major bleeding, or death was assessed using unadjusted and adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression, with clustering by site. Causal inference was assessed using inverse probability of treatment weighted regression adjustment (IPTWRA), accounting for propensity for antiplatelet treatment, with effect estimates summarized as the average treatment effect (ATE) over time (in days). Adjusted models accounted for age, stroke severity, vascular risk factors, and major categories of potential embolic sources. Results: Of the 2201 included patients (n=218 treated with anticoagulation) followed over a median of 564 days (interquartile range [IQR] 154-1124), the median age was 65y (IQR 54-74) and 49.8% were female. Patients treated with anticoagulation were older with more frequent previous stroke, concomitant left ventricular dysfunction, and more severe deficits. Over 4541 person-years of follow-up, the annualized incidence rate of the primary outcome was 14.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.6%-15.8%). Compared to anticoagulation, antiplatelet(s) use was not associated with a lower risk of the primary outcome in the adjusted Cox model (HR 0.91, 95% CI, 0.64-1.29) or in the IPTWRA model (average treatment effect 0.14, 95% CI, -1376.6 to 1376.9). Major bleeding events trended toward significance in the adjusted Cox model (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.25-1.04) but were no different with IPTWRA (ATE 58.9, 95% CI, -125.4 to 243.2). Conclusions: These results validate the observations of randomized trials indicating a lack of benefit of anticoagulation over antiplatelet therapy in ESUS. A more detailed analysis of heterogeneity of treatment effect is under way.

Abstract The largest risk factor for dementia is age. Heterochronic blood exchange studies have uncovered age-related blood factors that demonstrate ‘pro-aging’ or ‘pro-youthful’ effects on the mouse brain. The clinical relevance and combined effects of these factors for humans is unclear. We examined five previously identified brain rejuvenation factors in cerebrospinal fluid of adults with autosomal dominant forms of frontotemporal dementia and sporadic Alzheimer’s disease. Our frontotemporal dementia cohort included 100 observationally followed adults carrying autosomal dominant frontotemporal dementia mutations (Mage = 49.6; 50% female; 43% C9orf72, 24% GRN, 33% MAPT) and 62 non-carriers (Mage = 52.6; 45% female) with cerebrospinal fluid analysed on Somascan, and longitudinal (Mvisits = 3 years, range 1–7 years) neuropsychological and functional assessments and plasma neurofilament light chain. Our Alzheimer’s disease cohort included 35 adults with sporadic Alzheimer’s disease (Mage = 69.4; 60% female) and 56 controls (Mage = 68.8, 50% female) who completed the same cerebrospinal fluid and clinical outcome measures cross-sectionally. Levels of C-C motif chemokine ligand 11, C-C motif chemokine ligand 2, beta-2-micorglobulin, bone gamma-carboxyglutamate protein (aka Osteocalcin) and colony stimulating factor 2 in cerebrospinal fluid were linearly combined into a composite score, with higher values reflecting ‘pro-youthful’ levels. In genetic frontotemporal dementia, higher baseline cerebrospinal fluid rejuvenation proteins predicted slower decline across cognitive, functional, and neurofilament light chain trajectories; estimates were similar across genotypes. In transdiagnostic analyses, higher cerebrospinal fluid rejuvenation proteins associated with better functional, cognitive, and neurofilament light chain outcomes in adults with sporadic Alzheimer’s disease. Proteins with pre-clinical evidence for brain rejuvenation show translational clinical relevance in adults with Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias and warrant further investigation.

Importance The emergency department (ED) offers an opportunity to initiate palliative care for older adults with serious, life-limiting illness. Objective To assess the effect of a multicomponent intervention to initiate palliative care in the ED on hospital admission, subsequent health care use, and survival in older adults with serious, life-limiting illness. Design, Setting, and Participants Cluster randomized, stepped-wedge, clinical trial including patients aged 66 years or older who visited 1 of 29 EDs across the US between May 1, 2018, and December 31, 2022, had 12 months of prior Medicare enrollment, and a Gagne comorbidity score greater than 6, representing a risk of short-term mortality greater than 30%. Nursing home patients were excluded. Intervention A multicomponent intervention (the Primary Palliative Care for Emergency Medicine intervention) included (1) evidence-based multidisciplinary education; (2) simulation-based workshops on serious illness communication; (3) clinical decision support; and (4) audit and feedback for ED clinical staff. Main Outcome and Measures The primary outcome was hospital admission. The secondary outcomes included subsequent health care use and survival at 6 months. Results There were 98 922 initial ED visits during the study period (median age, 77 years [IQR, 71-84 years]; 50% were female; 13% were Black and 78% were White; and the median Gagne comorbidity score was 8 [IQR, 7-10]). The rate of hospital admission was 64.4% during the preintervention period vs 61.3% during the postintervention period (absolute difference, −3.1% [95% CI, −3.7% to −2.5%]; adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.03 [95% CI, 0.93 to 1.14]). There was no difference in the secondary outcomes before vs after the intervention. The rate of admission to an intensive care unit was 7.8% during the preintervention period vs 6.7% during the postintervention period (adjusted OR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.83 to 1.15]). The rate of at least 1 revisit to the ED was 34.2% during the preintervention period vs 32.2% during the postintervention period (adjusted OR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.91 to 1.09]). The rate of hospice use was 17.7% during the preintervention period vs 17.2% during the postintervention period (adjusted OR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.93 to 1.16]). The rate of home health use was 42.0% during the preintervention period vs 38.1% during the postintervention period (adjusted OR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.92 to 1.10]). The rate of at least 1 hospital readmission was 41.0% during the preintervention period vs 36.6% during the postintervention period (adjusted OR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.92 to 1.10]). The rate of death was 28.1% during the preintervention period vs 28.7% during the postintervention period (adjusted OR, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.98 to 1.18]). Conclusions and Relevance This multicomponent intervention to initiate palliative care in the ED did not have an effect on hospital admission, subsequent health care use, or short-term mortality in older adults with serious, life-limiting illness. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03424109

Abstract Background Despite advances in our understanding of the molecular underpinnings of meningioma progression and innovations in systemic and local treatments, recurrent meningiomas remain a substantial therapeutic challenge. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to provide a historical baseline, contemporary analysis, and propose a “rate of probable interest” to inform future clinical trial design and development on behalf of the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology meningioma group. Methods PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ASCOpubs databases were screened for clinical trials evaluating the activity of systemic therapies for adults with recurrent meningiomas. The pooled progression-free survival at 6-months and 1-year (PFS-6 and PFS-1 year) values were calculated using the random effects technique with I2 indices. Results The pooled PFS-6 and PFS-1 year rates for recurrent WHO grade 1 meningiomas were 43.6% (95% CI: 22.7-67.0%, I2 = 80%) and 21.7% (95% CI: 6.2-53.9%, I2 = 76%), and for grades 2-3 meningiomas, the PFS-6 was 38.0% (95% CI: 28.3-48.8%, I2 = 68%). In the targeted therapy group, PFS-6 and PFS-1 year rates stood at 62.0% (I2 = 58%) and 49.0% (I2 = 63%) for grade 1, while for grades 2-3 tumors, the PFS-6 rates with targeted therapy and immunotherapy were 42.1% (I² = 60%) and 46.0% (I² = 0%), respectively. The benchmarks were set at 67% and 54% for PFS-6 and PFS-1 year for grade 1 tumors, and PFS-6 of 49% for grades 2-3 tumors. Conclusions Several studies have reported outcomes in patients with recurrent meningiomas testing a variety of agents with modest, but variable and progressively increasing activity. In this context, we recommend new benchmarks for future trials to define efficacy of future investigational therapies.

AbstractBackgroundAs new anti‐amyloid immunotherapies emerge for Alzheimer’s disease (AD), it is clear that early diagnosis of AD pathology is crucial for treatment success. This can be challenging in atypical presentations of AD and, together with our reliance on CSF or PET scans, can, at times, lead to delayed diagnosis. Here, we further explore the possible role of plasma tau phosphorylated at threonine 217 (P‐tau217) for the detection of primary AD or AD co‐pathology when frontotemporal dementia spectrum disorders are the main clinical presentation.MethodParticipants were recruited through ALLFTD, a North American multisite research consortium for the longitudinal assessment of frontotemporal lobar degeneration. After excluding cases with known FTD‐causing mutations, 573 participants with sporadic disease, mild cognitive/behavioral impairment, or healthy familial controls evaluated between 2014 and 2023 were included in this analysis (45.8% female, median age 66 years). 39 of those cases underwent neuropathological evaluation. Plasma P‐tau217 was measured with the Eli Lilly electrochemiluminescence‐based assay. P‐tau217 concentrations were compared by phenotype, disease severity, genotype, and, when available, neuropathological diagnosis with non‐parametric tests. Its diagnostic performance was tested with ROC curves. Associations between plasma P‐tau217 concentrations and clinical scales of global cognition, memory, executive function, motor function, and social cognition with linear regressions and non‐parametric tests.ResultPlasma P‐tau217 concentrations were higher in logopenic variant primary progressive aphasia (lvPPA) and amnestic dementia (AmDem), compared to participants with normal cognition or other FTD phenotypes. P‐tau217 concentrations were higher in APOE e4 carriers, compared to non‐carriers, regardless of phenotype, but were not affected by disease severity. P‐tau217 concentrations showed associations with clinical measures of global cognition, memory, and executive function, but had no associations with measures of motor function or social cognition. Plasma P‐tau217 concentrations were elevated in high and intermediate ADNC scoring, or more advanced Braak stages, even when AD was not the primary pathology.ConclusionEven when FTD is suspected, high plasma p‐tau 217 concentrations are strongly associated with underlying AD as primary pathology or contributing co‐pathology. Plasma P‐tau217 could be a tool to support the development of disease‐modifying therapies for atypical Alzheimer’s disease presentations or for FTD cases with Alzheimer’s disease co‐pathology.

AbstractBackgroundRecent advances in automatic face recognition have increased the risk that de‐identified research imaging data could be re‐identified from face imagery in brain scans.MethodAn ADNI committee of independent imaging experts evaluated 11 published techniques for face‐deidentification (“de‐facing”) and selected four algorithms (FSL‐UK Biobank, HCP/XNAT, mri_reface, and BIC) for formal testing using 183 longitudinal scans of 61 racially and ethnically diverse ADNI participants, evaluated by their facial feature removal on 3D rendered surfaces (confirming sufficient privacy protection) and by comparing measurements from ADNI routine image analyses on unmodified vs. de‐faced images (confirming negligible side effects on analyses).ResultEffects of the de‐facing methods on FreeSurfer at UCSF (Figure 1‐top), ASHS at University of Pennsylvania (Figure 1 bottom‐left), and longitudinal atrophy at Mayo Clinic (Figure 1 bottom‐right) were comparable with each other and sufficiently small vs. unmodified scans to recommend de‐facing in ADNI‐4. The FSL and mri_reface methods were more thorough in removing facial features, partly because these also removed ears (Figure 2‐top). mri_reface was recommended for ADNI‐4 primarily because fewer (zero) images had modified brain (Figure 2‐bottom), and ADNI leadership approved de‐facing with mri_reface. ADNI performed a second validation of its latest version on another diverse sample of 100 ADNI‐3 participants. These analyses included: boundary shift interval at University College London, where average differences in measurements were all <0.05%; cortical white matter hyperintensities at UC Davis, where they found “minimum impact” (R>0.97); and others.ConclusionADNI‐4 de‐faces all indicated image types (Table 1) before subsequent pre‐processing, analyses, and public release. Sites upload images to the central repository (LONI), where they are queued to the MRI Core at Mayo Clinic for de‐facing. Image types requiring de‐facing are de‐faced using mri_reface. Trained analysts inspect de‐faced images to confirm complete removal of the face and complete non‐modification of the brain, and any flagged images are re‐processed manually until issues are resolved. De‐faced images are converted back to DICOM and re‐uploaded for further distribution. Image types not requiring de‐facing are indicated to proceed directly to subsequent steps. In summary, ADNI‐4 has adopted mri_reface because it successfully de‐faces without substantially affecting brain measurements.

AbstractBackgroundRecent advances in automatic face recognition have increased the risk that de‐identified research imaging data could be re‐identified from face imagery in brain scans.MethodAn ADNI committee of independent imaging experts evaluated 11 published techniques for face‐deidentification (“de‐facing”) and selected four algorithms (FSL‐UK Biobank, HCP/XNAT, mri_reface, and BIC) for formal testing using 183 longitudinal scans of 61 racially and ethnically diverse ADNI participants, evaluated by their facial feature removal on 3D rendered surfaces (confirming sufficient privacy protection) and by comparing measurements from ADNI routine image analyses on unmodified vs. de‐faced images (confirming negligible side effects on analyses).ResultEffects of the de‐facing methods on FreeSurfer at UCSF (Figure 1‐top), ASHS at University of Pennsylvania (Figure 1 bottom‐left), and longitudinal atrophy at Mayo Clinic (Figure 1 bottom‐right) were comparable with each other and sufficiently small vs. unmodified scans to recommend de‐facing in ADNI‐4. The FSL and mri_reface methods were more thorough in removing facial features, partly because these also removed ears (Figure 2‐top). mri_reface was recommended for ADNI‐4 primarily because fewer (zero) images had modified brain (Figure 2‐bottom), and ADNI leadership approved de‐facing with mri_reface. ADNI performed a second validation of its latest version on another diverse sample of 100 ADNI‐3 participants. These analyses included: boundary shift interval at University College London, where average differences in measurements were all <0.05%; cortical white matter hyperintensities at UC Davis, where they found “minimum impact” (R>0.97); and others.ConclusionADNI‐4 de‐faces all indicated image types (Table 1) before subsequent pre‐processing, analyses, and public release. Sites upload images to the central repository (LONI), where they are queued to the MRI Core at Mayo Clinic for de‐facing. Image types requiring de‐facing are de‐faced using mri_reface. Trained analysts inspect de‐faced images to confirm complete removal of the face and complete non‐modification of the brain, and any flagged images are re‐processed manually until issues are resolved. De‐faced images are converted back to DICOM and re‐uploaded for further distribution. Image types not requiring de‐facing are indicated to proceed directly to subsequent steps. In summary, ADNI‐4 has adopted mri_reface because it successfully de‐faces without substantially affecting brain measurements.