Citations

Abstract Background The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) is intended to detect a change in a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) large enough for a patient to appreciate. Their growing use in orthopaedic research stems from the necessity to identify a metric, other than the p value, to better assess the effect size of an outcome. Yet, given that MCIDs are population-specific and that there are multiple calculation methods, there is concern about inconsistencies. Given the increasing use of MCIDs in total hip arthroplasty (THA) research, a systematic review of calculated MCID values and their respective ranges, as well as an assessment of their applications, is important to guide and encourage their use as a critical measure of effect size in THA outcomes research. Questions/purposes We systematically reviewed MCID calculations and reporting in current THA research to answer the following: (1) What are the most-reported PROM MCIDs in THA, and what is their range of values? (2) What proportion of studies report anchor-based versus distribution-based MCID values? (3) What are the most common methods by which anchor-based MCID values are derived? (4) What are the most common derivation methods for distribution-based MCID values? (5) How do the reported medians and corresponding ranges compare between calculation methods for each PROM? Methods The EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PubMed databases were systematically reviewed from inception through March 2022 for THA studies reporting an MCID value for any PROMs. Two independent authors reviewed articles for inclusion. All articles calculating new PROM MCID scores after primary THA were included for data extraction and analysis. MCID values for each PROM, MCID calculation method, number of patients, and study demographics were extracted from each article. In total, 30 articles were included. There were 45 unique PROMs for which 242 MCIDs were reported. These studies had a total of 1,000,874 patients with a median age of 64 years and median BMI of 28.7 kg/m 2 . Women made up 55% of patients in the total study population, and the median follow-up period was 12 months (range 0 to 77 months). The overall risk of bias was assessed as moderate using the modified Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies criteria for comparative studies (the mean score for comparative papers in this review was 18 of 24, with higher scores representing better study quality) and noncomparative studies (for these, the mean score was 10 of a possible 16 points, with higher scores representing higher study quality). Calculated values were classified as anchor-based, distribution-based, or not reported. MCID values for each PROM, MCID calculation method, number of patients, and study demographics were extracted from each study. Anchor-based and distribution-based MCIDs were compared for each unique PROM using a Wilcoxon rank sum test, given the non-normal distribution of values. Results The Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and the Hip Injury and Osteoarthritis Score (HOOS) Pain and Quality of Life subscore MCIDs were the most frequently reported, comprising 12% (29 of 242), 8% (20 of 242), and 8% (20 of 242), respectively. The EuroQol VAS (EQ-VAS) was the next-most frequently reported (7% [17 of 242]) followed by the EuroQol 5D (EQ-5D) (7% [16 of 242]). The median anchor-based value for the OHS was 9 (IQR 8 to 11), while the median distribution-based value was 6 (IQR 5 to 6). The median anchor-based MCID values for HOOS Pain and Quality of Life were 33 (IQR 28 to 35) and 25 (14 to 27), respectively; the median distribution-based values were 10 (IQR 9 to 10) and 13 (IQR 10 to 14), respectively. Thirty percent (nine of 30) of studies used an anchor-based method to calculate a new MCID, while 40% (12 of 30) used a distribution-based technique. Thirty percent of studies (nine of 30) calculated MCID values using both methods. For studies reporting an anchor-based calculation method, a question assessing pain relief, satisfaction, or quality of life on a five-point Likert scale was the most commonly used anchor (30% [eight of 27]), followed by a receiver operating characteristic curve estimation (22% [six of 27]). For studies using distribution-based calculations, the most common method was one-half the standard deviation of the difference between preoperative and postoperative PROM scores (46% [12 of 26]). Most reported median MCID values (nine of 14) did not differ by calculation method for each unique PROM (p > 0.05). The OHS, HOOS JR, and HOOS Function, Symptoms, and Activities of Daily Living subscores all varied by calculation method, because each anchor-based value was larger than its respective distribution-based value. Conclusion We found that MCIDs do not vary very much by calculation method across most outcome measurement tools. Additionally, there are consistencies in MCID calculation methods, because most authors used an anchor question with a Likert scale for the anchor-based approach or used one-half the standard deviation of preoperative and postoperative PROM score differences for the distribution-based approach. For some of the most frequently reported MCIDs, however, anchor-based values tend to be larger than distribution-based values for their respective PROMs. Clinical Relevance We recommend using a 9-point increase as the MCID for the OHS, consistent with the median reported anchor-based value derived from several high-quality studies with large patient groups that used anchor-based approaches for MCID calculations, which we believe are most appropriate for most applications in clinical research. Likewise, we recommend using the anchor-based 33-point and 25-point MCIDs for the HOOS Pain and Quality of Life subscores, respectively. We encourage using anchor-based MCID values of WOMAC Pain, Function, and Stiffness subscores, which were 29, 26, and 30, respectively.

Background: There are limited data on the incidence of capitellar osteochondritis dissecans (OCD) in the United States (US) population. Purpose: To determine the incidence of symptomatic capitellar OCD in a representative US subpopulation and identify changes in its incidence over time and to investigate the relationship between the incidence of capitellar OCD and patient sex and age. Study Design: Descriptive epidemiology study. Methods: A retrospective review was performed of patients aged ≤24 years from Olmsted County, Minnesota, with symptomatic capitellar OCD over a 25-year period (1995-2019). Patients with acute osteochondral injuries, Panner disease, and hereditary arthropathy were excluded. Poisson regression was utilized to identify the predictors of a capitellar OCD diagnosis. Incidence rates (per 100,000) were assessed for changes over time. Age groups of younger (10-15 years) versus older (16-24 years) patients were compared. Results: A total of 45 patients (78% male) were identified. The mean age was 14.5 years (range, 10-24 years); 31 patients were in the younger group, and 14 patients were in the older group. Sport participation was seen in 89%of patients; 90% were overhead athletes, and 58% were throwing athletes. The incidence of capitellar OCD was 6.0 per 100,000 overall, 9.5 per 100,000 for male patients, and 2.6 per 100,000 for female patients. The incidence was highest for male patients in the younger group (15.3/100,000) and lowest for female patients in the older group (0.8/100,000). The estimated incidence rate ratio for younger versus older patients was 3.3 ( P < .001), and the incidence rate ratio for male versus female patients was 3.5 ( P < .001). There were no changes in the incidence of capitellar OCD over time as a continuous or 5-year categorical variable ( P = .290 and P = .460, respectively). Overall, 82% of patients were treated surgically. There were no significant changes in surgical rates over time. Conclusion: In this US subpopulation, the overall incidence of symptomatic capitellar OCD between the ages of 10 and 24 years was 6.0 per 100,000 over the 25-year period studied, which is higher than previously reported US estimates. Incidence rates and treatment strategies did not change significantly over time.

Purpose of review Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) disproportionately causes severe outcomes in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTR). Antispike monoclonal antibodies have been authorized for therapy and prophylaxis for COVID-19. Here, we review the current state of antispike monoclonal antibodies and their role for SOTRs. Recent findings Bamlanivimab with or without etesevimab, casirivimab-imdevimab and sotrovimab have reduced the rates of hospitalization and severe disease in high-risk patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. Multiple retrospective studies have also demonstrated monoclonal antibodies are effective in SOTR populations. However, the evolution of resistant severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants of concerns has resulted in revocation of the authorization of bamlanivimab with or without etesevimab, and casirivimab-imdevimab as treatment and postexposure prophylaxis (PEP). Sotrovimab and bebtelovimab are currently authorized for treatment of the predominant circulating SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 (Omicron), but not as pre or PEP. Tixagevimab–cilgavimab, a long-acting antibody combination preparation, is authorized for preexposure prophylaxis in high-risk immunocompromised populations, including SOTRs, who are less likely to mount an effective immune response following vaccination series and booster. Summary Antispike monoclonal antibodies are useful for the prevention and treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in SOTRs. However, their clinical use should be determined by the evolving epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 variants in the community.

Combination anti-retroviral therapy has drastically improved solid organ transplantation outcomes in persons living with HIV. DAA therapy has led to the successful eradication of HCV. While recent data have suggested improvement in outcomes in HIV/HCV-coinfected liver transplant recipients, temporal trends in patient survival within pre- and post-DAA eras are yet to be elucidated. The UNOS database was utilized to identify deceased donor liver transplant recipients between 1 January 2000 and 30 September 2020 and stratify them by HIV and HCV infection status. A total of 85,730 patients met the inclusion criteria. One-year and five-year patient survival improved (93% and 80%, respectively) for all transplants performed post-2015. For HIV/HCV-coinfected recipients, survival improved significantly from 78% (pre-2015) to 92% (post-2015). Multivariate regression analyses identified advanced recipient age, Black race, diabetes mellitus and decompensated cirrhosis as risk factors associated with higher one-year mortality. Liver transplant outcomes in HIV/HCV-coinfected liver transplant recipients have significantly improved over the last quinquennium in the setting of the highly effective combination of ART and DAA therapy. The presence of HIV, HCV, HIV/HCV-coinfection and active HCV viremia at the time of transplant do not cause higher mortality risk in liver transplant recipients in the current era.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to compare pediatric hip aspiration in the operating room under general anesthesia or via bedside aspiration under moderate sedation and delineate the anesthetic time required. Methods: A database query conducted at two academic institutions identified all patients under the age of 17 who underwent hip aspiration between 2000 and 2017. At one institution, aspiration was performed in the operating room under general anesthesia. Patients were kept anesthetized until cell count was complete. At the second institution, aspiration was performed in the emergency room at bedside under sedation. The medical record was reviewed for demographic data, hip aspiration results, diagnoses, treatment, and anesthesia time. Results: A total of 233 patients (233 hips) with a mean age of 7.2 years were identified. Seventy-five patients underwent aspiration in the operating room, and 158 patients underwent bedside aspiration. Patients with a negative aspiration averaged 87 min under anesthesia when performed in the operating room and 29 min under sedation when performed at bedside. Patients with a negative aspiration performed in the operating room after 5 pm averaged 99 min under anesthesia, and 73 min under anesthesia when performed between 7 am and 5 pm (p < 0.01). Seventy-eight (49%) patients who underwent bedside aspiration did not require operative intervention and therefore avoided general anesthesia. Conclusion: Pediatric hip aspiration performed in the operating room results in prolonged anesthesia times while synovial fluid is transported and processed. Anesthesia times are significantly longer after 5 pm. Bedside aspiration resulted in significantly less anesthesia exposure, with half of patients undergoing bedside aspiration avoiding general anesthesia altogether. Level of evidence: Level III.

Background. Nocardia is an environmental pathogen with a predilection for causing opportunistic infections in immunocompromised patients, including solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients. Although risk factors have been identified for developing nocardiosis in this population, little is known regarding clinical factors resulting in poor outcomes. We evaluated a cohort of SOT recipients with nocardiosis for associations with 12-month mortality. Methods. We performed a multicenter retrospective cohort study of adult SOT recipients diagnosed with culture-confirmed nocardiosis from 2000 to 2020. Patients were followed for 12 months after diagnosis, unless abbreviated by mortality. Multivariable Cox regression was performed to analyze associations with 12-month mortality. A subgroup analysis of patients with disseminated nocardiosis was performed to analyze treatment variables. Results. A total of 125 SOT recipients met inclusion criteria; 12-month mortality was 16.8%. Liver transplantation (hazard ratio [HR] 3.52; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.27-9.76) and time from symptom onset to presentation (HR 0.92/d; 95% CI 0.86-0.99) were independently associated with 12-month mortality, whereas disseminated infection was not (HR 1.23; 95% CI 0.49-3.13). No treatment-specific factors were significantly associated with mortality in 33 patients with disseminated nocardiosis, although survivors had a higher rate of linezolid use. Conclusions. This study identified 2 independent associations with 12-month mortality, representing demographics and infection severity. Disseminated infection was not independently associated with poor outcomes, and specific sites of infection may be more important than dissemination itself. No treatment-specific factors were associated with mortality, though this analysis was likely underpowered. Further study of treatment strategies based on specific Nocardia syndromes is warranted.

AbstractBackgroundInnovations in machined and three‐dimensionally (3D) printed implant technology have allowed for customized complex pelvic reconstructions. We sought to determine the survivorship of custom hemipelvis reconstruction using ilium‐only fixation at a minimum 2‐year follow‐up, their modes of failure, and the postoperative complications resulting from the procedure.MethodsA retrospective review identified 12 consecutive patients treated with custom hemipelvis reconstruction. Indications for surgery were bone tumor requiring internal hemipelvectomy (four patients) or multiply revised, failed hip arthroplasty with massive bone loss (eight patients). All patients had a minimum of 2‐year follow‐up with a mean of 60.5 months. Kaplan–Meier survivorship analysis was determined for all patients. Postoperative complications and reoperations were categorized for all patients.ResultsAt a mean of 60.5 months, 11 of 12 patients had retained their custom implant (92% survivorship). One implant was removed as a result of an acute periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). There were no cases of aseptic loosening. Seven of 12 patients required reoperation (three PJI; two dislocations; two superficial wound complications), with five patients going on to reoperation‐free survival.ConclusionsCustom hemipelvis reconstruction utilizing an ilium monoflange provides durable short‐term fixation at a minimum 2‐year follow‐up. Reoperation for infection and dislocation is common.

Abstract CIViC (Clinical Interpretation of Variants in Cancer; civicdb.org) is a crowd-sourced, public domain knowledgebase composed of literature-derived evidence characterizing the clinical utility of cancer variants. As clinical sequencing becomes more prevalent in cancer management, the need for cancer variant interpretation has grown beyond the capability of any single institution. CIViC contains peer-reviewed, published literature curated and expertly-moderated into structured data units (Evidence Items) that can be accessed globally and in real time, reducing barriers to clinical variant knowledge sharing. We have extended CIViC’s functionality to support emergent variant interpretation guidelines, increase interoperability with other variant resources, and promote widespread dissemination of structured curated data. To support the full breadth of variant interpretation from basic to translational, including integration of somatic and germline variant knowledge and inference of drug response, we have enabled curation of three new Evidence Types (Predisposing, Oncogenic and Functional). The growing CIViC knowledgebase has over 300 contributors and distributes clinically-relevant cancer variant data currently representing &gt;3200 variants in &gt;470 genes from &gt;3100 publications.