Citations

Abstract Introduction: In oncology clinical trials, overall survival (OS) is considered the gold standard efficacy endpoint. However, in multiple myeloma, the prolonged survival times and availability of multiple salvage therapies render it difficult to rely on OS as a primary endpoint. Instead, progression-free survival (PFS) or clinical response can be a relevant biomarker. At the same time, some health technology assessment bodies will only consider evidence based on patient-relevant endpoints, such as morbidity, mortality, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL), within their benefit assessments. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide insights into how a treatment affects HRQoL, including symptoms and functioning. In the phase 3 MAIA trial, daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (D-Rd) demonstrated a significantly prolonged PFS and rapid and sustained improvements in PROs compared with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) alone at a median follow-up of 28 months. Updated results with longer follow-up confirmed a continued PFS benefit, deepening best clinical responses, and a significant OS benefit with D-Rd. Here, we report the results of analyses exploring the relationship between clinical efficacy endpoints and PROs in the MAIA trial. Methods: In MAIA (NCT02252172), TIE patients with NDMM were randomized to D-Rd or Rd until disease progression (PD) or unacceptable side effects. Clinical response and PD were defined per the International Myeloma Working Group uniform response criteria. PROs were assessed at baseline, on day 1 of cycles 3, 6, 9, and 12 for year 1, every 6 months thereafter until PD, or at end of treatment and at 8 and 16 weeks post-progression using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30-item (EORTC QLQ-C30). The current analyses were conducted on patients with a baseline PRO assessment and ≥1 post-baseline PRO assessment using a clinical cutoff date of February 19, 2021. Patients from both treatment groups were pooled and stratified by best clinical response. For PROs, the threshold for clinically meaningful change from baseline was defined a priori as ≥10 points based on published literature. Analyses were conducted for the global health status (GHS), fatigue, and pain scales of the EORTC QLQ-C30. The proportions of patients with clinically meaningful improvement in these PROs from baseline at any time while on treatment were calculated for and compared across best clinical response subgroups. For this analysis, patients were censored at the time of PD or discontinuation of therapy. Results were summarized with odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Additionally, the proportions of patients with clinically meaningful worsening in PROs from baseline at the time of and post-progression were also calculated for those who had PD. No adjustments were made for multiplicity. Nominal P-values are presented. Results: Best clinical response at a median follow-up of 56.2 months for the 710 patients included in this analysis is shown in the Table. For GHS, fatigue, and pain, the proportion of patients who reported clinically meaningful improvement from baseline increased with increasing depth of best clinical response. Odds ratios comparing best clinical response vs stable disease reflect this relationship and are shown in the Figure. Of the 264 patients who experienced PD and had PRO data at the time of or post-progression, 38.6%, 54.9%, and 39.4% reported meaningful worsening of GHS, pain, and fatigue, respectively, at the time of or post-progression. Conclusions: Patients with deeper best clinical response were more likely to report meaningful improvements in PROs. Patients who experienced PD reported worsening of GHS and symptoms at the time of or following progression. These analyses provide evidence of the association between key clinical efficacy endpoints and PROs and demonstrate the patient relevance of these clinical endpoints. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Perrot: Abbvie: Honoraria; BMS Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Kumar: Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Tenebio: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Plesner: Takeda: Research Funding; Genentech: Other: Advisor, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Other: Advisor, Research Funding; AbbVie: Other: Advisor, Research Funding; CSL Behring: Other: Advisor; Janssen: Other: Advisor, Research Funding; Celgene: Other: Advisor, Research Funding; Genmab: Research Funding. Orlowski: Asylia Therapeutics, Inc., BioTheryX, Inc., and Heidelberg Pharma, AG.: Other: Laboratory research funding; CARsgen Therapeutics, Celgene, Exelixis, Janssen Biotech, Sanofi-Aventis, Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Other: Clinical research funding; Amgen, Inc., BioTheryX, Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, EcoR1 Capital LLC, Genzyme, GSK Biologicals, Janssen Biotech, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Inc., Neoleukin Corporation, Oncopeptides AB, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi-Aventis, and Takeda P: Consultancy, Honoraria; Asylia Therapeutics, Inc.: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Patents & Royalties; Amgen, Inc., BioTheryX, Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Forma Therapeutics, Genzyme, GSK Biologicals, Janssen Biotech, Juno Therapeutics, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Inc., Kite Pharma, Neoleukin Corporation, Oncopeptides AB, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, I: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Moreau: Abbvie: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria; Celgene BMS: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Bahlis: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria. Nahi: XNK Therapeutics AB: Consultancy. Hulin: abbvie: Honoraria; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Quach: Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; CSL: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen/Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Goldschmidt: GSK: Honoraria; Incyte: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Chugai: Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Dietmar-Hopp-Foundation: Other: Grant; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Johns Hopkins University: Other: Grant; Mundipharma: Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding; Molecular Partners: Research Funding. O'Dwyer: Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; ONK Therapeutics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy. Venner: Amgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria. Weisel: Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy; Novartis: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria. Raje: Celgene, Amgen, Bluebird Bio, Janssen, Caribou, and BMS: Other. Macro: Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel accomodation, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel accomodation, Research Funding; GSK: Honoraria; Celgen/BMS: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria. Leleu: Sanofi: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Pierre Fabre: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Carsgen Therapeutics Ltd: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Non-financial support. Liu: Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Fastenau: Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Gries: Janssen: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Ho: DRG Abacus: Consultancy; Emalex Biosciences: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Mistry: Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Tromp: Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Delioukina: Janssen: Current Employment. Vermeulen: Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Usmani: Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; EdoPharma: Consultancy; SkylineDX: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding.

OBJECTIVE The prevalence of epilepsy in the older adult population is increasing. While surgical intervention in younger patients is supported by level I evidence, the safety and efficacy of epilepsy surgery in older individuals is less well established. The aim of this study was to evaluate seizure freedom rates and surgical outcomes in older epilepsy patients. METHODS The authors’ institutional electronic database was queried for patients older than 50 who had undergone epilepsy surgery during 2002–2018. Cases were grouped into 50–59, 60–69, and 70+ years old. Seizure freedom at the last follow-up constituted the primary outcome of interest. The institutional analysis was supplemented by a literature review and meta-analysis (random effects model) of all published studies on this topic as well as by an analysis of complication rates, mortality rates, and cost data from a nationwide administrative database (Vizient Inc., years 2016–2019). RESULTS A total of 73 patients (n = 16 for 50–59 years, n = 47 for 60–69, and n = 10 for 70+) were treated at the authors’ institution. The median age was 63 years, and 66% of the patients were female. At a median follow-up of 24 months, seizure freedom was 73% for the overall cohort, 63% for the 50–59 group, 77% for the 60–69 group, and 70% for the 70+ group. The literature search identified 15 additional retrospective studies (474 cases). Temporal lobectomy was the most commonly performed procedure (73%), and mesial temporal sclerosis was the most common pathology (52%), followed by nonspecific gliosis (19%). The pooled mean follow-up was 39 months (range 6–114.8 months) with a pooled seizure freedom rate of 65% (95% CI 59%–72%). On multivariable meta-regression analysis, an older mean age at surgery (coefficient [coeff] 2.1, 95% CI 1.1–3.1, p < 0.001) and the presence of mesial temporal sclerosis (coeff 0.3, 95% CI 0.1–0.6, p = 0.015) were the most important predictors of seizure freedom. Finally, analysis of the Vizient database revealed mortality rates of 0.5%, 1.1%, and 9.6%; complication rates of 7.1%, 10.1%, and 17.3%; and mean hospital costs of $31,977, $34,586, and $40,153 for patients aged 50–59, 60–69, and 70+ years, respectively. CONCLUSIONS While seizure-free outcomes of epilepsy surgery are excellent, there is an expected increase in morbidity and mortality with increasing age. Findings in this study on the safety and efficacy of epilepsy surgery in the older population may serve as a useful guide during preoperative decision-making and patient counseling.

Abstract Background: The p.H157Y variant of TREM2 (Triggering Receptor Expressed on Myeloid Cells 2) has been reported to increase Alzheimer’s disease (AD) risk. This mutation in the extracellular domain of TREM2 localizes at the cleavage site and was shown to enhance shedding and impair phagocytosis in vitro by ectopic expression of TREM2-H157Y in HEK293 cells. However, the physiological and AD-related outcomes of TREM2 H157Y mutation in vivo remain unknown.Methods: We generated a novel Trem2 H157Y knock-in mouse model through CRISPR-Cas9 technology and investigated how Trem2 H157Y mutation impacts TREM2 proteolytic processing, synaptic function, and AD-related amyloid pathology by conducting biochemical assays, immunofluorescent staining, hippocampal electrophysiology, and in vivo micro-dialysis in awake, free-moving animals.Results: Consistent with previous in vitro findings, TREM2-H157Y increases the amount of soluble TREM2 (sTREM2) in the cortex and serum of mutant mice compared to the wild type controls. Interestingly, the Trem2 H157Y variant enhances synaptic plasticity without affecting microglial density and morphology. In the presence of amyloid pathology, TREM2-H157Y surprisingly accelerates Aβ clearance and reduces amyloid burden and microgliosis. Conclusion: Taken together, our findings support a beneficial effect of the Trem2 H157Y mutation in synaptic function and in mitigating amyloid pathology. Considering the genetic association of TREM2 p.H157Y with AD, we speculate TREM2-H157Y might increase AD risk through an amyloid-independent pathway, as such its effects on tauopathy and neurodegeneration merit further investigation.

Background: Meniscal allograft transplant (MAT) is an important treatment option for young patients with deficient menisci; however, there is a lack of consensus on the optimal method of allograft fixation. Hypothesis: The various methods of MAT fixation have measurable and significant differences in outcomes. Study Design: Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A single-arm meta-analysis of studies reporting graft failure, reoperations, and other clinical outcomes after MAT was performed. Studies were stratified by suture-only, bone plug, and bone bridge fixation methods. Proportionate rates of failure and reoperation for each fixation technique were pooled with a mixed-effects model, after which reconstruction of relative risks with confidence intervals was performed using the Katz logarithmic method. Results: A total of 2604 patients underwent MAT. Weighted mean follow-up was 4.3 years (95% CI, 3.2-5.6 years). During this follow-up period, graft failure rates were 6.2% (95% CI, 3.2%-11.6%) for bone plug fixation, 6.9% (95% CI, 4.5%-10.3%) for suture-only fixation, and 9.3% (95% CI, 6.2%-13.9%) for bone bridge fixation. Transplanted menisci secured using bone plugs displayed a lower risk of failure compared with menisci secured via bone bridges (RR = 0.97; 95% CI, 0.94-0.99; P = .02). Risks of failure were not significantly different when comparing suture fixation to bone bridge (RR = 1.02; 95% CI, 0.99-1.06; P = .12) and bone plugs (RR = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96-1.02; P = .64). Allografts secured using bone plugs were at a lower risk of requiring reoperations compared with those secured using sutures (RR = 0.91; 95% CI, 0.87-0.95; P < .001), whereas allografts secured using bone bridges had a higher risk of reoperation when compared with those secured using either sutures (RR = 1.28; 95% CI, 1.19-1.38; P < .001) or bone plugs (RR = 1.41; 95% CI, 1.32-1.51; P < .001). Improvements in Lysholm and International Knee Documentation Committee scores were comparable among the different groups. Conclusion: This meta-analysis demonstrates that bone plug fixation of transplanted meniscal allografts carries a lower risk of failure than the bone bridge method and has a lower risk of requiring subsequent operations than both suture-only and bone bridge methods of fixation. This suggests that the technique used in the fixation of a transplanted meniscal allograft is an important factor in the clinical outcomes of patients receiving MATs.

OBJECTIVE Insular lobe epilepsy is a challenging condition to diagnose and treat. Due to anatomical intricacy and proximity to eloquent brain regions, resection of epileptic foci in that region can be associated with significant postoperative morbidity. The aim of this study was to review available evidence on postoperative outcomes following insular epilepsy surgery. METHODS A comprehensive literature search (PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane) was conducted for studies investigating the postoperative outcomes for seizures originating in the insula. Seizure freedom at last follow-up (at least 12 months) comprised the primary endpoint. The authors also present their institutional experience with 8 patients (4 pediatric, 4 adult). RESULTS A total of 19 studies with 204 cases (90 pediatric, 114 adult) were identified. The median age at surgery was 23 years, and 48% were males. The median epilepsy duration was 8 years, and 17% of patients had undergone prior epilepsy surgery. Epilepsy was lesional in 67%. The most common approach was transsylvian (60%). The most commonly resected area was the anterior insular region (n = 42, 21%), whereas radical insulectomy was performed in 13% of cases (n = 27). The most common pathology was cortical dysplasia (n = 68, 51%), followed by low-grade neoplasm (n = 16, 12%). In the literature, seizure freedom was noted in 60% of pediatric and 69% of adult patients at a median follow-up of 29 months (75% and 50%, respectively, in the current series). A neurological deficit occurred in 43% of cases (10% permanent), with extremity paresis comprising the most common deficit (n = 35, 21%), followed by facial paresis (n = 32, 19%). Language deficits were more common in left-sided approaches (24% vs 2%, p < 0.001). Univariate analysis for seizure freedom revealed a significantly higher proportion of patients with lesional epilepsy among those with at least 12 months of follow-up (77% vs 59%, p = 0.032). CONCLUSIONS These findings may serve as a benchmark when tailoring decision-making for insular epilepsy, and may assist surgeons in their preoperative discussions with patients. Although seizure freedom rates are quite high with insular epilepsy treatment, the associated morbidity needs to be weighed against the potential for seizure freedom.

Background Immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated acute kidney injury (ICPi-AKI) has emerged as an important toxicity among patients with cancer. Methods We collected data on 429 patients with ICPi-AKI and 429 control patients who received ICPis contemporaneously but who did not develop ICPi-AKI from 30 sites in 10 countries. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of ICPi-AKI and its recovery. A multivariable Cox model was used to estimate the effect of ICPi rechallenge versus no rechallenge on survival following ICPi-AKI. Results ICPi-AKI occurred at a median of 16 weeks (IQR 8–32) following ICPi initiation. Lower baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate, proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use, and extrarenal immune-related adverse events (irAEs) were each associated with a higher risk of ICPi-AKI. Acute tubulointerstitial nephritis was the most common lesion on kidney biopsy (125/151 biopsied patients [82.7%]). Renal recovery occurred in 276 patients (64.3%) at a median of 7 weeks (IQR 3–10) following ICPi-AKI. Treatment with corticosteroids within 14 days following ICPi-AKI diagnosis was associated with higher odds of renal recovery (adjusted OR 2.64; 95% CI 1.58 to 4.41). Among patients treated with corticosteroids, early initiation of corticosteroids (within 3 days of ICPi-AKI) was associated with a higher odds of renal recovery compared with later initiation (more than 3 days following ICPi-AKI) (adjusted OR 2.09; 95% CI 1.16 to 3.79). Of 121 patients rechallenged, 20 (16.5%) developed recurrent ICPi-AKI. There was no difference in survival among patients rechallenged versus those not rechallenged following ICPi-AKI. Conclusions Patients who developed ICPi-AKI were more likely to have impaired renal function at baseline, use a PPI, and have extrarenal irAEs. Two-thirds of patients had renal recovery following ICPi-AKI. Treatment with corticosteroids was associated with improved renal recovery.

OBJECTIVE CSF shunt insertion is the most commonly performed neurosurgical procedure for pediatric patients with hydrocephalus, and complications including infections and catheter obstruction are common. The rate of readmission in the first 30 days after surgery has been used across surgical disciplines to determine healthcare quality. In the current study, the authors sought to assess factors associated with early shunt revision within 30 days using real-world data. METHODS Targeted shunt data set participant user files of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) from 2016 to 2019 were queried for patients undergoing a shunt procedure. A multivariable logistic regression model was performed to assess the impact of demographics, etiologies, comorbidities, congenital malformations, and shunt adjuncts on shunt revision within 30 days, as well as shunt revision due to infection within 30 days. RESULTS A total of 3919 primary pediatric shunt insertions were identified in the NSQIP database, with a mean (± SD) patient age of 26.3 ± 51.6 months. There were a total of 285 (7.3%) unplanned shunt revisions within 30 days, with a mean duration of 14.9 ± 8.5 days to first intervention. The most common reason for intervention was mechanical shunt failure (32.6% of revision, 2.4% overall, n = 93), followed by infection (31.2% of all interventions, 2.3% overall, n = 89) and wound disruption or CSF leak (22.1% of all interventions, 1.6% overall, n = 63). Patients younger than 6 months of age had the highest overall unplanned 30-day revision rate (8.5%, 203/2402) as well as the highest 30-day shunt infection rate (3%, 72/2402). Patients who required a revision were also more likely to have a cardiac risk factor (34.7%, n = 99, vs 29.2%, n = 1061; p = 0.048). Multivariable logistic regression revealed that compared to patients 9–18 years old, those aged 2–9 years had significantly lower odds of repeat shunt intervention (p = 0.047), while certain etiologies including congenital hydrocephalus (p = 0.0127), intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) of prematurity (p = 0.0173), neoplasm (p = 0.0005), infection (p = 0.0004), and syndromic etiology (p = 0.0136), as well as presence of ostomy (p = 0.0095), were associated with higher odds of repeat intervention. For shunt infection, IVH of prematurity was found to be associated with significantly higher odds (p = 0.0427) of shunt infection within 30 days, while use of intraventricular antibiotics was associated with significantly lower odds (p = 0.0085). CONCLUSIONS In this study of outcomes after pediatric shunt placement using a nationally derived cohort, early shunt failure and infection within 30 days were found to remain as considerable risks. The analysis of this national surgical quality registry confirms that, in accordance with other multicenter studies, hydrocephalus etiology, age, and presence of ostomy are important predictors of the need for early shunt revision. IVH of prematurity is associated with early infections while intraventricular antibiotics may be protective. These findings could be used for benchmarking in hospital efforts to improve quality of care for pediatric patients with hydrocephalus.

AbstractBackgroundCurrent options for the reduction of acne scarring (eg, ablative laser resurfacing) are associated with considerable side effects and limitations in terms of patient population. Percutaneous collagen induction via microneedling poses an alternative treatment method due to its low rates of reported adverse events and side effects.ObjectiveTo assess the safety and effectiveness of microneedling treatments in reducing acne scars.MethodsA total of 22 patients (18 females and 4 males) with a mean age of 38 ± 7.6 years were assessed regarding the appearance of facial acne scarring. Acne scars were assessed via the Acne Scar Assessment Scale (ASAS) and the Goodman and Baron acne scar grading scale before and after two/three treatments. Additionally, the post‐interventional development of side reactions, adverse events, and patient‐reported outcomes (eg, pain/discomfort, skin redness) was reported.ResultsCompared to baseline, the mean ASAS value was improved statistically significantly on average by 1.41 and 1.46 after the second treatment as assessed by the independent raters and the patients, respectively. In patients who received a total of three treatments, a statistically significant mean improvement in ASAS value of 1.35 and 1.66 compared to baseline was assessed by the independent raters and patients, respectively. No unexpected adverse events were reported. The severity and rate of side reactions decreased over the course of this study.ConclusionMicroneedling treatments can pose a safe and effective option in the reduction of acne scarring. In this study, microneedling helped achieving a significant reduction of acne scars while showing high patient safety.

OBJECTIVE Reduction of Meyerding grade is often performed during fusion for spondylolisthesis. Although radiographic appearance may improve, correlation with patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is rarely reported. In this study, the authors’ aim was to assess the impact of spondylolisthesis reduction on 24-month PRO measures after decompression and fusion surgery for Meyerding grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. METHODS The Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) was queried for patients undergoing posterior lumbar fusion for spondylolisthesis with a minimum 24-month follow-up, and quantitative correlation between Meyerding slippage reduction and PROs was performed. Baseline and 24-month PROs, including the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), EQ-5D, Numeric Rating Scale (NRS)–back pain (NRS-BP), NRS-leg pain (NRS-LP), and satisfaction (North American Spine Society patient satisfaction questionnaire) scores were noted. Multivariable regression models were fitted for 24-month PROs and complications after adjusting for an array of preoperative and surgical variables. Data were analyzed for magnitude of slippage reduction and correlated with PROs. Patients were divided into two groups: < 3 mm reduction and ≥ 3 mm reduction. RESULTS Of 608 patients from 12 participating sites, 206 patients with complete data were identified in the QOD and included in this study. Baseline patient demographics, comorbidities, and clinical characteristics were similarly distributed between the cohorts except for depression, listhesis magnitude, and the proportion with dynamic listhesis (which were accounted for in the multivariable analysis). One hundred four (50.5%) patients underwent lumbar decompression and fusion with slippage reduction ≥ 3 mm (mean 5.19, range 3 to 11), and 102 (49.5%) patients underwent lumbar decompression and fusion with slippage reduction < 3 mm (mean 0.41, range 2 to −2). Patients in both groups (slippage reduction ≥ 3 mm, and slippage reduction < 3 mm) reported significant improvement in all primary patient reported outcomes (all p < 0.001). There was no significant difference with regard to the PROs between patients with or without intraoperative reduction of listhesis on univariate and multivariable analyses (ODI, EQ-5D, NRS-BP, NRS-LP, or satisfaction). There was no significant difference in complications between cohorts. CONCLUSIONS Significant improvement was found in terms of all PROs in patients undergoing decompression and fusion for lumbar spondylolisthesis. There was no correlation with clinical outcomes and magnitude of Meyerding slippage reduction.

AbstractObjectiveThis study was undertaken to determine whether the vertical parasagittal approach or the lateral peri‐insular/peri‐Sylvian approach to hemispheric surgery is the superior technique in achieving long‐term seizure freedom.MethodsWe conducted a post hoc subgroup analysis of the HOPS (Hemispheric Surgery Outcome Prediction Scale) study, an international, multicenter, retrospective cohort study that identified predictors of seizure freedom through logistic regression modeling. Only patients undergoing vertical parasagittal, lateral peri‐insular/peri‐Sylvian, or lateral trans‐Sylvian hemispherotomy were included in this post hoc analysis. Differences in seizure freedom rates were assessed using a time‐to‐event method and calculated using the Kaplan–Meier survival method.ResultsData for 672 participants across 23 centers were collected on the specific hemispherotomy approach. Of these, 72 (10.7%) underwent vertical parasagittal hemispherotomy and 600 (89.3%) underwent lateral peri‐insular/peri‐Sylvian or trans‐Sylvian hemispherotomy. Seizure freedom was obtained in 62.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 53.5%–70.2%) of the entire cohort at 10‐year follow‐up. Seizure freedom was 88.8% (95% CI = 78.9%–94.3%) at 1‐year follow‐up and persisted at 85.5% (95% CI = 74.7%–92.0%) across 5‐ and 10‐year follow‐up in the vertical subgroup. In contrast, seizure freedom decreased from 89.2% (95% CI = 86.3%–91.5%) at 1‐year to 72.1% (95% CI = 66.9%–76.7%) at 5‐year to 57.2% (95% CI = 46.6%–66.4%) at 10‐year follow‐up for the lateral subgroup. Log‐rank test found that vertical hemispherotomy was associated with durable seizure‐free progression compared to the lateral approach (p = .01). Patients undergoing the lateral hemispherotomy technique had a shorter time‐to‐seizure recurrence (hazard ratio = 2.56, 95% CI = 1.08–6.04, p = .03) and increased seizure recurrence odds (odds ratio = 3.67, 95% CI = 1.05–12.86, p = .04) compared to those undergoing the vertical hemispherotomy technique.SignificanceThis pilot study demonstrated more durable seizure freedom of the vertical technique compared to lateral hemispherotomy techniques. Further studies, such as prospective expertise‐based observational studies or a randomized clinical trial, are required to determine whether a vertical approach to hemispheric surgery provides superior long‐term seizure outcomes.