Citations

Purpose: To identify reasons for variable intraocular pressure (IOP) responses to latanoprost and timolol in healthy volunteers and to generate the control group as part of Eye Dynamics and Engineering Network. Methods: In this multicenter, randomized, crossover study (NCT01677507), both eyes of 106 healthy subjects (212 eyes) were treated with latanoprost or timolol for 7 days, with a 6-week washout between treatments. Ocular biometrics, tonometry, and aqueous humor dynamics (AHD) were assessed at baseline and day 8 of each treatment. Subjects were divided into responders and nonresponders using cutoffs of >15% or >10% IOP reduction. Treatment effects and correlations were analyzed with paired t-tests. Results: More subjects responded to latanoprost (54%) than timolol (27%) at >15% cutoff ( p < 0.01). Responders had higher mean baseline IOP than nonresponders for both drugs at both cutoffs ( p < 0.01). Among timolol nonresponders ( n = 56), 39% responded to latanoprost in both eyes, 20% in one eye, and 41% in neither. Among latanoprost nonresponders ( n = 31), 13% responded to timolol in both eyes, 13% in one eye, and 74% in neither. Latanoprost increased uveoscleral outflow, while timolol reduced aqueous flow and outflow facility. Low baseline uveoscleral outflow was associated with latanoprost response. Conclusions: Higher baseline IOP predicted better responses to both drugs. Higher baseline uveoscleral outflow predicted nonresponse to latanoprost. No AHD differences were linked to the timolol response. Timolol nonresponders were often responsive to latanoprost, but not vice versa.

Abstract Objective The objective of this study was to examine the clinical outcomes during the implementation of a self-administered patient decision-aid (PtDA) for lupus. Methods We provided an effective computerized lupus PtDA in 15 rheumatology outpatient clinics 2019–2024 (including the COVID pandemic). We undertook Organizational Readiness to Implement Change Surveys (ORICs) and Team Learning and Psychological Safety Surveys (TLPSSs) at baseline. The primary study outcome objective measure, percent penetration/reach, was defined as the number of patients who viewed the lupus PtDA at the end of the study, divided by the total number of eligible patients (times 100). We used validated clinical personnel surveys to examine the perceived lupus PtDA appropriateness, acceptability, feasibility, success, and permanence, at 4 months, 12 months and 24 months post-PtDA implementation. Results Among the sites, the clinical personnels’ (n = 184) baseline ORIC commitment and efficacy scores (a 0–5 scale, higher = better) ranged from 3.5 to 4.2, and 3.4 to 4.4, respectively; the TLPSS scores (a 0–7 scale, higher = better) were 3.9–5.5 for internal learning, 3.7–5.6 for external learning, and 4.3–5.5 for psychological safety. The penetration (primary outcome) among 15 geographically diverse US rheumatology clinics ranged from 3% to 44%. We found that the total number of providers in the clinic was positively associated with higher penetration. Clinical personnel–perceived lupus PtDA outcomes were optimal at 4 months (all scale scores ranged from 1 to 5, higher = better): (i) appropriateness, 3.43 (s.d. 0.86); (ii) acceptability, 3.53 (s.d. 0.83); (iii) feasibility, 3.44 (s.d. 0.71); (iv) success, 3.41 (s.d. 0.73); and (v) permanence, 3.22 (s.d. 0.74). Conclusion We implemented a lupus PtDA with varied success rates during the COVID pandemic; more providers were associated with higher clinic penetration. Clinical personnel perceived high lupus PtDA appropriateness, acceptability, feasibility, success, and permanence that persisted up to 24 months. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov, http://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03735238.

The NCCN Guidelines for Testicular Cancer provide recommendations for the multidisciplinary approach to the diagnostic workup, treatment, and follow-up for testicular germ cell tumors, including both seminoma and nonseminoma. These NCCN Guidelines Insights discuss the current treatment recommendations and supporting clinical data for seminomas as presented in Version 2.2025 of the NCCN Guidelines for Testicular Cancer.

Ewing sarcoma and osteosarcoma constitute 36% of all primary bone cancers. However, these 2 subtypes represent the most commonly diagnosed bone cancer types in the pediatric and adolescent population. Although still largely unknown, certain genetic mutations, rearrangements, and/or predisposition syndromes likely play a role in the pathogenesis of bone cancer. Osteosarcoma may also develop as a direct result of the long-term side effects of radiation therapy. With the implementation of a multimodality approach to treatment, including multiagent neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy regimens, targeted therapy options, surgery, and radiation, individuals with Ewing sarcoma and osteosarcoma are showing higher cure rates and improved overall survival. The NCCN Guidelines for Bone Cancer provide a consensus and evidence-based framework for the workup, management, and surveillance of local and recurrent/metastatic disease.

ImportanceSpecialized ophthalmology terminology limits comprehension for nonophthalmology clinicians and professionals, hindering interdisciplinary communication and patient care. The clinical implementation of large language models (LLMs) into practice has to date been relatively unexplored.ObjectiveTo evaluate LLM–generated plain language summaries (PLSs) integrated into standard ophthalmology notes (SONs) in improving diagnostic understanding, satisfaction, and clarity.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsRandomized quality improvement study conducted from February 1, 2024, to May 31, 2024, including data from inpatient and outpatient encounters in a single tertiary academic center. Participants were nonophthalmology clinicians and professionals and ophthalmologists. The single inclusion criterion was any encounter note generated by an ophthalmologist during the study dates. Exclusion criteria were (1) lack of established nonophthalmology clinicians and professionals for outpatient encounters and (2) procedure-only patient encounters.InterventionAddition of LLM-generated plain language summaries to ophthalmology notes.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was survey responses from nonophthalmology clinicians and professionals assessing understanding, satisfaction, and clarity of ophthalmology notes. Secondary outcomes were survey responses from ophthalmologists evaluating PLS in terms of clinical workflow and accuracy, objective measures of semantic quality, and safety analysis.ResultsA total of 362 (85%) nonophthalmology clinicians and professionals (33.0% response rate) preferred the PLS to SON. Demographic data on age, race and ethnicity, and sex were not collected. Nonophthalmology clinicians and professionals reported enhanced diagnostic understanding (percentage point increase, 9.0; 95% CI, 0.3-18.2; P = .01), increased note detail satisfaction (percentage point increase, 21.5; 95% CI, 11.4-31.5; P &amp;lt; .001), and improved explanation clarity (percentage point increase, 23.0; 95% CI, 12.0-33.1; P &amp;lt; .001) for notes containing a PLS. The addition of a PLS was associated with reduced comprehension gaps between clinicians who were comfortable and uncomfortable with ophthalmology terminology (from 26.1% [95% CI, 13.7%-38.6%; P &amp;lt; .001] to 14.4% [95% CI, 4.3%-24.6%; P &amp;gt; .06]). PLS semantic analysis found high meaning preservation (bidirectional encoder representations from transformers score mean F1 score: 0.85) with greater readability than SONs (Flesch Reading Ease: 51.8 vs 43.6; Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 10.7 vs 11.9). Ophthalmologists (n = 489; 84% response rate) reported high PLS accuracy (90% [320 of 355] a great deal) with minimal review time burden (94.9% [464 of 489] ≤1 minute). PLS error rate on ophthalmologist review was 26% (126 of 489). A total of 83.9% (104 of 126) of errors were deemed low risk for harm and none had a risk of severe harm or death.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this study, use of LLM-generated PLSs was associated with enhanced comprehension and satisfaction among nonophthalmology clinicians and professionals, which might aid interdisciplinary communication. Careful implementation and safety monitoring are recommended for clinical integration given the persistence of errors despite physician review.

Purpose The time to complete oncology pharmacist tasks is needed to determine workload and productivity. The Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Association (HOPA) and the Hematology/Oncology Practice and Research Network (PRN) of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy (ACCP) partnered with the aim of establishing consensus on the time required to complete oncology pharmacy tasks. Methods Fifteen patient care tasks and 9 non-patient care tasks, commonly completed by oncology pharmacists were each assigned an average amount of time to be completed. This list was then converted into 24 statements and the Delphi survey method was utilized with an expert panel to arrive at consensus between December 2023 and February 2024. Consensus was defined as at least 75% agreement. The complete manuscript was endorsed by HOPA and ACCP Hematology/Oncology PRN. Results Thirty-three pharmacist-experts agreed to participate in this survey with all participating in round 1, and 29 (87.9%) participating in round 2. In round 1, 9 tasks achieved consensus, with 7 of these being classified as patient care associated. Seven statements reaching 65% but less than 75% agreement were deemed to reach borderline consensus. Eight statements failed to achieve at least 65% agreement and were modified based on respondent feedback. In round 2, 15 statements were included with all achieving consensus. At the completion of round 2, all 24 statements reached consensus, and the survey was deemed complete. Conclusion This project produced the first comprehensive consensus statements for the average time for a US-based oncology pharmacist to complete common patient and non-patient care-related tasks.

Abstract The pharmacological provocation test is a pivotal tool in cardiac electrophysiology for the diagnosis of potential causes of sudden cardiac death, sudden cardiac arrest (SCA), arrhythmias, symptoms, or ECG abnormalities. The 2022 European Society of Cardiology Guidelines for the Treatment of Ventricular Arrhythmias and Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death offered guidance on provocation testing but did not describe the indications and requirements in depth. This clinical consensus statement, led by the European Heart Rhythm Association and approved by major international stakeholders, aims to advise the general cardiologist and the arrhythmia expert who to test and when, where, and how to do it. The statement focuses on current practice for the diagnosis of subclinical arrhythmia syndromes and the causes of SCA, building upon the recommendations of the Guidelines. We address the sodium channel blocker provocation test for patients suspected of Brugada syndrome as well as the use of epinephrine, isoproterenol, adenosine, ergonovine, and acetylcholine.