Citations

Abstract Purpose To report historical patterns of pharmaceutical expenditures, to identify factors that may influence future spending, and to predict growth in drug spending in 2026 in the United States, with a focus on the nonfederal hospital and clinic sectors. Methods Historical patterns were assessed by examining data on drug purchases from manufacturers using the IQVIA National Sales Perspectives database. Factors that may influence drug spending in hospitals and clinics in 2026 were reviewed—including new drug approvals, patent expirations, and potential new policies or legislation. Focused analyses were conducted for biosimilars, cancer drugs, endocrine drugs, generics, specialty drugs, and vaccines. For nonfederal hospitals, clinics, and overall (all sectors), estimates for growth of pharmaceutical expenditures in 2026 were made based on a combination of quantitative analyses and expert opinion. Results In 2025, overall pharmaceutical expenditures in the US grew 12.7% compared to 2024, for a total of $915.2 billion. Utilization (a 9.3% increase) drove this increase, while growth due to new drugs (0.9%) and price increases (1.2%) had a modest impact. Tirzepatide was the new top drug in 2025, followed by semaglutide and apixiban. Drug expenditures were $42.9 billion (a 9.6% increase) and $190.5 billion (a 19.0% increase) in nonfederal hospitals and in clinics, respectively. In clinics, volume drove drug expense growth, contributing with a 13.6% increase, while price and new drugs each contributed with a 2.7% increase. In nonfederal hospitals, expenditure growth was driven by increases in volume (4.6%), new products (3.7%), and prices (1.5%). Several new drugs that will influence spending are expected to be approved in 2026. Specialty, endocrine, and cancer drugs will continue to drive expenditures. Conclusion For 2026, we expect overall prescription drug spending to rise by 10.0% to 12.0%, whereas in clinics and hospitals we anticipate increases of 14.0%-16.0% and 4.0%-6.0%, respectively, compared to 2025. These national estimates of future pharmaceutical expenditure growth may not be representative of any health system because of the myriad of local factors that influence actual spending

Background: Stable osteochondritis dissecans (OCD) lesions are primarily treated nonoperatively. Nonoperative treatment includes several recommendations, including the use of an unloader brace. However, little is known about the clinical effectiveness of unloader bracing and its influence on OCD healing, return to sports, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the impact of unloader bracing on patients with stable medial femoral condyle (MFC) OCD lesions treated nonoperatively. Purpose: To investigate the influence of valgus unloader bracing on the success of treating stable MFC OCD with nonoperative treatment strategies. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: The authors used a prospective cohort of patients receiving nonoperative care for stable MFC knee OCD lesions. The primary variable of interest was the efficacy of bracing. The primary outcomes were transition from nonoperative care to surgical intervention, return-to-play (RTP) clearance, and PROs. Bivariate testing was used to determine if there were differences between groups. Chi-square testing was used to determine if there were differences in rates of transition to surgery by group. The timing of the transition by each group was assessed using a Wilcoxon rank-sum test, given the nonparametric nature of the data. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to calculate time at risk, incidence rate, and survival times for each group. Results: A total of 185 knees (bracing group: 123 [66.5%] knees; no-bracing group: 62 [33.5%] knees) were analyzed. Overall, 142 (76.8%) knees were successfully treated nonoperatively. Transition to surgery occurred in 43 (23.2%) knees. There were no differences in transition to surgery by groups, with no differences seen by group. Of the knees that did not transition to surgical care, 65 (71.4%) in the bracing group and 38 (74.5%) in the no-bracing group received RTP clearance ( P = .693). PRO scores were similar between the 2 groups at the time of RTP clearance. Conclusion: The inclusion of an unloader brace in the nonoperative treatment for stable MFC OCD lesions did not decrease the likelihood of patients undergoing surgical intervention or improve their PRO scores at the time of RTP clearance. Registration: NCT02771496 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

PURPOSE GBM AGILE (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03970447 ) is a phase II/III Bayesian adaptive platform registration trial testing multiple arms against a common control; the primary end point is overall survival (OS). Regorafenib, a multikinase inhibitor, showed OS benefit in recurrent (RD) glioblastoma in the phase II REGOMA trial and entered GBM AGILE as the first investigational arm. METHODS Patient subtypes included in the regorafenib arm of GBM AGILE were newly diagnosed unmethylated (NDU) and RD glioblastoma. Prospective defined sets of subtypes, or arm signatures, were NDU, RD, and all (NDU + RD). As the first investigational arm in GBM AGILE, regorafenib was equally randomized to the control arm. Treatment in the control arm is temozolomide + radiotherapy (in newly diagnosed) or lomustine (in RD). Efficacy was assessed by OS hazard ratio (HR), arm/control, and demonstrated when the Bayesian probability of benefit (HR <1.00) was ≥98%. Analysis was performed monthly for limited efficacy, which occurs when the Bayesian predictive power is <25% for all signatures, and determines stopping enrollment. Follow-up continued for 12 months after accrual stopped. RESULTS When the predictive power was <25% in all predefined signatures for regorafenib, accrual stopped for limited efficacy. The final analysis did not demonstrate OS improvement in the regorafenib arm in RD nor NDU glioblastoma. Median HRs were 1.05 (NDU), 1.07 (RD), and 1.07 (all) with final probabilities of benefit (HR <1.00) of 0.421 (NDU), 0.312 (RD), and 0.296 (all). Regorafenib was associated with increased toxicity relative to control. CONCLUSION GBM AGILE did not show superiority of regorafenib over control in RD (lomustine) or NDU (temozolomide + radiotherapy) glioblastoma, yet caused increased toxicities. Regorafenib has been removed from National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines as a treatment option for RD.

Abstract A short diagnosis-to-treatment interval independently predicts inferior outcomes in follicular lymphoma. Using international discovery and validation cohorts, we demonstrate its prognostic value beyond established prognostic indices, with implications for risk stratification, clinical trial design, and interpretation.

Abstract Hairy cell leukemia (HCL) and HCL variant (HCLv) are distinct, rare, and chronic splenic B-cell lymphomas/leukemias that partially overlap in clinicopathologic presentation but differ in genetic basis, prognosis, and management. HCL is caused by the BRAF-V600E kinase–activating mutation in &gt;95% of the patients, usually has excellent responses to chemotherapy with purine analogues, and is also amenable to BRAF inhibitor–based targeted treatments. In contrast, HCLv lacks BRAFV600E mutation, requires combined therapy with purine analogues in addition to rituximab, and generally shows less durable responses. Here, an international team of hematologists, experts on these rare diseases, was convened by the Hairy Cell Leukemia Foundation to update the previous guidelines (published in 2017) by providing a summary of current methods to diagnose and manage patients with HCL and HCLv as well as a prospective on newer targeted therapies to further improve outcomes.

Abstract In this systematic review, we aimed to assess the sensitivity of serum immunofixation (SIFE), urine immunofixation (UIFE), and serum free light chain (sFLC) in detecting plasma cell dyscrasia associated with light chain (AL) amyloidosis. We searched the literature using PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL databases since inception through March 2024. We included studies reporting the diagnostic accuracy of immunofixation and/or sFLC in patients with AL amyloidosis. We used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach to assess the certainty of the evidence and QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2) to assess the risk of bias. After deduplication, 29 237 records were screened, and 44 studies (n = 18 071) were included. For the meta-analysis, 28 studies reported sensitivity for SIFE (n = 3390), 24 studies for UIFE (n = 2830), 19 studies for SIFE and UIFE (n = 2819), 21 studies for sFLC ratio (n = 3678), 6 studies for SIFE and sFLC ratio (n = 372), 3 studies for UIFE and sFLC ratio (n = 242), and 10 studies for all 3 tests (n = 1430). Pooled sensitivities were as follows: SIFE, 0.68 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62-0.73); UIFE, 0.77 (95% CI, 0.72-0.81); SIFE and UIFE, 0.89 (95% CI, 0.84-0.93); and sFLC ratio, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.78-0.86). When SIFE, UIFE, and sFLC ratio were combined, the sensitivity reached 0.99 (95% CI, 0.96-1.00). The high sensitivity of combining SIFE, UIFE, and sFLC ratio supports their use as a reliable initial testing strategy to raise suspicion for AL amyloidosis and guide decisions regarding future diagnostic modalities.

Abstract Aims Infective endocarditis (IE) is a serious and potentially fatal complication of mitral valve (MV) intervention. There are limited data comparing the incidence of IE after MV repair compared with bioprosthetic MV replacement. The aim of this study was to analyse the incidence and timing of IE after MV repair compared with bioprosthetic valve replacement, in both surgical and transcatheter patient populations. Methods and results A literature search of Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library (January 2000—September 2025) was conducted. Pooled IE incidence rates were derived using random-effects models. Eighty-two studies (80 939 patients, total follow-up 350 252 patient-years) were included. The overall incidence rate of IE was 0.97 per 100-patient-years (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71–1.34). IE was more common after surgical MV replacement (SMVR) than surgical MV repair (SMVr): incidence rate 0.93 (95% CI 0.41–1.81) vs 0.39 (95% CI 0.25–0.62) per 100-patient-years, incidence rate ratio (IRR) 2.34 (95% CI 1.06–5.18), P = .035. The incidence of IE after transcatheter MV replacement (TMVR) was comparable to transcatheter MV repair (TMVr) (2.88 [95% CI 1.91–4.33] vs 1.70 [95% CI 0.84–3.43] per 100-patient-years), IRR 1.56 (95% CI 0.73–3.34), P = .250. The cumulative incidence of IE following SMVR was significantly higher than following SMVr at 1- and 2-years post-procedure, but not at 6 months. Conclusions IE is an infrequent complication of mitral valve intervention. The incidence of IE following SMVR is significantly higher than following SMVr, while the incidence of IE following TMVR is numerically but not significantly higher than following TMVr. Reducing IE risk after mitral intervention is a clinical and research priority.

Introduction With the rapidly changing landscape of rectal cancer treatment, it is becoming increasingly challenging for clinicians to interpret and synthesise the vast amount of high-quality evidence being generated. A core outcome set (COS) for clinical trials in rectal cancer would help address issues surrounding outcome selection and reporting. The purpose of this research project is to develop a COS to be used in research comparing different treatment paradigms in the management of rectal cancer. Methods and analysis This will be a mixed-methods project, including a systematic review, semi-structured interviews and a Delphi consensus process. The project was designed in accordance with the COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Handbook, which provides a framework for COS development based on existing evidence. A multidisciplinary Study Advisory Group, composed of rectal cancer providers, methodologists and patients, will oversee the project. A systematic review will be performed to identify an inclusive list of outcomes reported by researchers in previous rectal cancer trials. Outcomes will be collapsed into various core areas and domains according to the OMERACT Filter V.2.0. Semi-structured interviews with rectal cancer survivors and their partners/caregivers will help identify additional patient-centric outcomes not captured in the systematic review. Finally, after a final list of outcomes is generated, patients and healthcare professionals will be invited to participate in a Delphi process to develop the final COS. Ethics and dissemination The study has received full approval with the Research Ethics Committee at the Integrated Health and Social Services Network for West-Central Montreal (health network responsible for the Jewish General Hospital) (REC: 2025-4377) and the Institutional Review Board of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine (IRB: STUDY-25-00515). The results of this study will be presented at national and international meetings and a manuscript will be submitted for publication in a high-impact surgery and/or oncology peer-reviewed journal. Trial registration number The study was registered in the COMET database in December 2023 ( https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2941 ). The full systematic review protocol, along with the search strategy and inclusion/exclusion criteria, was registered online in September 2023 (researchregistry.com; reviewregistry1705).