Citations

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of different supervised machine learning algorithms to predict achievement of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in neck pain after surgery in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). METHODS This was a retrospective analysis of the prospective Quality Outcomes Database CSM cohort. The data set was divided into an 80% training and a 20% test set. Various supervised learning algorithms (including logistic regression, support vector machine, decision tree, random forest, extra trees, gaussian naïve Bayes, k–nearest neighbors, multilayer perceptron, and extreme gradient boosted trees) were evaluated on their performance to predict achievement of MCID in neck pain at 3 and 24 months after surgery, given a set of predicting baseline features. Model performance was assessed with accuracy, F1 score, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, precision, recall/sensitivity, and specificity. RESULTS In total, 535 patients (46.9%) achieved MCID for neck pain at 3 months and 569 patients (49.9%) achieved it at 24 months. In each follow-up cohort, 501 patients (93.6%) were satisfied at 3 months after surgery and 569 patients (100%) were satisfied at 24 months after surgery. Of the supervised machine learning algorithms tested, logistic regression demonstrated the best accuracy (3 months: 0.76 ± 0.031, 24 months: 0.773 ± 0.044), followed by F1 score (3 months: 0.759 ± 0.019, 24 months: 0.777 ± 0.039) and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (3 months: 0.762 ± 0.027, 24 months: 0.773 ± 0.043) at predicting achievement of MCID for neck pain at both follow-up time points, with fair performance. The best precision was also demonstrated by logistic regression at 3 (0.724 ± 0.058) and 24 (0.780 ± 0.097) months. The best recall/sensitivity was demonstrated by multilayer perceptron at 3 months (0.841 ± 0.094) and by extra trees at 24 months (0.817 ± 0.115). Highest specificity was shown by support vector machine at 3 months (0.952 ± 0.013) and by logistic regression at 24 months (0.747 ± 0.18). CONCLUSIONS Appropriate selection of models for studies should be based on the strengths of each model and the aims of the studies. For maximally predicting true achievement of MCID in neck pain, of all the predictions in this balanced data set the appropriate metric for the authors’ study was precision. For both short- and long-term follow-ups, logistic regression demonstrated the highest precision of all models tested. Logistic regression performed consistently the best of all models tested and remains a powerful model for clinical classification tasks.

Abstract Patients with severe infections and a pre-existing indication for antithrombotic therapy, i.e. antiplatelet agents, anticoagulant drugs, or their combinations, require integrated clinical counselling among coagulation, infectious disease, and cardiology specialists, due to sepsis-induced coagulopathy that frequently occurs. Bacterial and viral pathogens constitute an increasing threat to global public health, especially for patients with ongoing antithrombotic treatment who have a high risk of thrombotic recurrences and high susceptibility to severe infections with increased morbidity and mortality. Similarly, sepsis survivors are at increased risk for major vascular events. Coagulopathy, which often complicates severe infections, is associated with a high mortality and obligates clinicians to adjust antithrombotic drug type and dosing to avoid bleeding while preventing thrombotic complications. This clinical consensus statement reviews the best available evidence to provide expert opinion and statements on the management of patients hospitalized for severe bacterial or viral infections with a pre-existing indication for antithrombotic therapy (single or combined), in whom sepsis-induced coagulopathy is often observed. Balancing the risk of thrombosis and bleeding in these patients and preventing infections with vaccines, if available, are crucial to prevent events or improve outcomes and prognosis.

Abstract Introduction Research was undertaken to better understand the path to a narcolepsy diagnosis, common symptoms, and the impact of narcolepsy on work, social interactions, and mental health. Methods In February 2022, an email invitation to an online, 27-question survey was sent to US members of MyNarcolepsyTeam, a social network of >9,800 members. Results In total, 110 members completed the survey. 38% of respondents started to experience symptoms before reaching 16 years of age. Most commonly experienced symptoms included excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS; 93%) and fatigue (84%). In total, 72% were also experiencing some form of sleep disturbance and 67% were already suffering from cognitive/memory challenges. 68% who were eventually diagnosed with narcolepsy type 1 (NT1) had cataplexy attacks. For 31%, getting to a narcolepsy diagnosis took ≥10 years. In fact, 64% were initially under- or misdiagnosed with something other than narcolepsy, including depression (73%), sleep apnea (36%), or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (16%). 74% of patients with NT1 have continued to experience cataplexy, with 46% having some form of a cataplexy episode a few times per week. Cataplexy episodes were triggered by a wide range of emotional situations, including over-tiredness (70%), anger (48%), being startled (46%), laughter (46%), fear (44%), excitement (38%), or crying (33%). 76% of respondents indicated that the impact of narcolepsy on daily life is extremely or very severe. The far-reaching impact on quality of life was evident in that most respondents reported that narcolepsy interfered with work (82%), social life (86%), everyday chores (85%), and exercise (85%) and has limited career options (76%). The emotional toll of narcolepsy manifested in feeling isolated (83%), depressed (81%), anxious (80%), or embarrassed (75%). Conclusion Patients routinely experienced a misdiagnosis or a “missed” diagnosis based on common symptoms experienced. Being able to quickly identify narcolepsy as the root cause for symptoms of EDS, fatigue, and sleep disturbances can lead to getting the patient on the best treatment path as early as possible. Understanding the physical, emotional, and quality-of-life impact of narcolepsy can help clinicians provide a more holistic approach to treating their patients. Support (if any) Avadel Pharmaceuticals

Abstract Introduction Individuals with narcolepsy were surveyed to better understand desired treatment outcomes and how those outcomes map to commonly experienced symptoms, treatment awareness, and medication usage. Methods In February 2022, an email invitation to a 27-question online survey was sent to US members of MyNarcolepsyTeam, a social network of >9,800 members. Results In total, 110 members completed the survey. The most frequently mentioned desired treatment goals aligned with the most commonly reported symptoms: being able to stop sleeping during the day (77%); increased energy (62%); improved memory (36%); improved productivity (29%); improved sleep continuity (22%); and for patients with narcolepsy type 1, reducing cataplexy (28%). A common theme was desire for a medication that would treat the underlying cause and not just improve specific symptoms. In one patient’s own words: “I want to see treatments that target the root problem of poor nighttime sleep rather than just being a band-aid for [excessive daytime sleepiness] EDS, like stimulants are.” Only a small percentage of respondents (13%) were not currently taking any type of medication to address narcolepsy symptoms. 64% were currently taking ≥2 medications to address both the daytime and nighttime symptoms. Most commonly mentioned current treatments were dextroamphetamine-amphetamine (30%), modafinil (22%), melatonin (16%), armodafinil (15%), venlafaxine (14%), and oxybate (14%). Notably, 33% of patients taking sodium oxybate chose sleeping through the night as a desired outcome. Most common sources for learning about treatments were narcolepsy-specific websites (53%), MyNarcolepsyTeam specifically (45%), the patient’s doctor (42%), scientific articles (42%), and advocacy groups (37%). Conclusion Patients experience a wide range of both daytime and nighttime symptoms and seek relief from both sets of symptoms including EDS (93%), fatigue (79%), cognitive challenges (74%), as well as sleep disruptions (63%). As a result, the majority need multiple medications. Understanding the experiences and needs of people with narcolepsy provides significant opportunities for clinicians to support, educate, and treat their patients holistically. Additionally, content readily available on the internet, whether it is narcolepsy-specific content or social networks, helps patients proactively discuss options with their clinician. Support (if any) Avadel Pharmaceuticals

Abstract The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) has set clear priorities in recent years to promote inclusion, diversity, access, and equity (IDA&E) in infectious disease (ID) clinical practice, medical education, and research. The IDSA IDA&E Task Force was launched in 2018 to ensure implementation of these principles. The IDSA Training Program Directors Committee met in 2021 and discussed IDA&E best practices as they pertain to the education of ID fellows. Committee members sought to develop specific goals and strategies related to recruitment, clinical training, didactics, and faculty development. This article represents a presentation of ideas brought forth at the meeting in those spheres and is meant to serve as a reference document for ID training program directors seeking guidance in this area.

Abstract Aims In this protocol-predefined substudy of the RHAPSODY trial, the primary aim was to assess whether pericardial late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) was associated with time to pericarditis recurrence. Methods and results RHAPSODY was a Phase 3 double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized-withdrawal trial that demonstrated the efficacy of rilonacept in recurrent pericarditis (RP). Patients with a history of multiple RP and an active recurrence were enrolled and had the option to participate in a cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging substudy. CMRs were interpreted by a blinded independent core laboratory with prespecified criteria to define pericardial LGE. Compared to patients with trace or mild pericardial LGE (n = 9), patients with moderate or severe pericardial LGE (n = 16) generally had a higher number of recurrent episodes per year (5.3 vs. 3.9) and a higher mean CRP level (3.6 vs. 1.1 mg/dL). Overall, 10/14 (71.4%) who received a placebo had a recurrence compared to 0/11 (0%) who received rilonacept. In patients randomized to placebo who had moderate or severe pericardial LGE, the median time to recurrence was 4.2 weeks compared to 10.7 weeks in patients who had trace or mild pericardial LGE. At the conclusion of the event-driven randomized-withdrawal period, among patients receiving a placebo, 5/7 (71.4%) with trace or mild pericardial LGE and 5/7 (71.4%) with moderate or severe pericardial LGE had a recurrence. Conclusions Among patients with multiple RP, these preliminary findings support the concept of pericardial LGE as an imaging biomarker that may inform the duration of treatment and risk of recurrence with cessation of therapy and larger studies should be considered. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03737110

OBJECTIVE The Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) was established in 2012 by the NeuroPoint Alliance, a nonprofit organization supported by the American Association of Neurological Surgeons. Currently, the QOD has launched six different modules to cover a broad spectrum of neurosurgical practice—namely lumbar spine surgery, cervical spine surgery, brain tumor, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), functional neurosurgery for Parkinson’s disease, and cerebrovascular surgery. This investigation aims to summarize research efforts and evidence yielded through QOD research endeavors. METHODS The authors identified all publications from January 1, 2012, to February 18, 2023, that were produced by using data collected prospectively in a QOD module without a prespecified research purpose in the context of quality surveillance and improvement. Citations were compiled and presented along with comprehensive documentation of the main study objective and take-home message. RESULTS A total of 94 studies have been produced through QOD efforts during the past decade. QOD-derived literature has been predominantly dedicated to spinal surgical outcomes, with 59 and 22 studies focusing on lumbar and cervical spine surgery, respectively, and 6 studies focusing on both. More specifically, the QOD Study Group—a research collaborative between 16 high-enrolling sites—has yielded 24 studies on lumbar grade 1 spondylolisthesis and 13 studies on cervical spondylotic myelopathy, using two focused data sets with high data accuracy and long-term follow-up. The more recent neuro-oncological QOD efforts, i.e., the Tumor QOD and the SRS Quality Registry, have contributed 5 studies, providing insights into the real-world neuro-oncological practice and the role of patient-reported outcomes. CONCLUSIONS Prospective quality registries are an important resource for observational research, yielding clinical evidence to guide decision-making across neurosurgical subspecialties. Future directions of the QOD efforts include the development of research efforts within the neuro-oncological registries and the American Spine Registry—which has now replaced the inactive spinal modules of the QOD—and the focused research on high-grade lumbar spondylolisthesis and cervical radiculopathy.

Background Hereditary and acquired thrombophilia are risk factors for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Whether testing helps guide management decisions is controversial. Objective These evidence-based guidelines from the American Society of Hematology (ASH) intend to support decision making about thrombophilia testing. Methods ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel covering clinical and methodological expertise and minimizing bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University GRADE Centre provided logistical support, performed systematic reviews, and created evidence profiles and evidence-to-decision tables. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach (GRADE) was used. Recommendations were subject to public comment. Results The panel agreed on 23 recommendations regarding thrombophilia testing and associated management. Nearly all recommendations are based on very low certainty in the evidence due to modeling assumptions. Conclusions The panel issued a strong recommendation against testing the general population before starting combined oral contraceptives (COCs) and conditional recommendations for thrombophilia testing in the following scenarios: (a) patients with VTE associated with nonsurgical major transient or hormonal risk factors; (b) patients with cerebral or splanchnic venous thrombosis, in settings where anticoagulation would otherwise be discontinued; (c) individuals with a family history of antithrombin, protein C, or protein S deficiency when considering thromboprophylaxis for minor provoking risk factors and for guidance to avoid COCs/hormone replacement therapy; (d) pregnant women with a family history of high-risk thrombophilia types; and (e) patients with cancer at low or intermediate risk of thrombosis and with a family history of VTE. For all other questions, the panel provided conditional recommendations against testing for thrombophilia.

OBJECTIVE The American Spine Registry (ASR) is a collaborative effort between the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and the American Association of Neurological Surgeons. The goal of this study was to evaluate how representative the ASR is of the national practice with spinal procedures, as recorded in the National Inpatient Sample (NIS). METHODS The authors queried the NIS and the ASR for cervical and lumbar arthrodesis cases performed during 2017–2019. International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision and Current Procedural Terminology codes were used to identify patients undergoing cervical and lumbar procedures. The two groups were compared for the overall proportion of cervical and lumbar procedures, age distribution, sex, surgical approach features, race, and hospital volume. Outcomes available in the ASR, such as patient-reported outcomes and reoperations, were not analyzed due to nonavailability in the NIS. The representativeness of the ASR compared to the NIS was assessed via Cohen’s d effect sizes, and absolute standardized mean differences (SMDs) of < 0.2 were considered trivial, whereas > 0.5 were considered moderately large. RESULTS A total of 24,800 arthrodesis procedures were identified in the ASR for the period between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2019. During the same time period, 1,305,360 cases were recorded in the NIS. Cervical fusions comprised 35.9% of the ASR cohort (8911 cases) and 36.0% of the NIS cohort (469,287 cases). The two databases presented trivial differences in terms of patient age and sex for all years of interest across both cervical and lumbar arthrodeses (SMD < 0.2). Trivial differences were also noted in the distribution of open versus percutaneous procedures of the cervical and lumbar spine (SMD < 0.2). Among lumbar cases, anterior approaches were more common in the ASR than in the NIS (32.1% vs 22.3%, SMD = 0.22), but the discrepancy among cervical cases in the two databases was trivial (SMD = 0.03). Small differences were illustrated in terms of race, with SMDs < 0.5, and a more significant discrepancy was identified in the geographic distribution of participating sites (SMDs of 0.7 and 0.74 for cervical and lumbar cases, respectively). For both of these measures, SMDs in 2019 were smaller than those in 2018 and 2017. CONCLUSIONS The ASR and NIS databases presented a very high similarity in proportions of cervical and lumbar spine surgeries, as well as similar distributions of age and sex, and distribution of open versus endoscopic approach. Slight discrepancies in anterior versus posterior approach among lumbar cases and patient race, and more significant discrepancies in geographic representation were also identified, yet decreasing trends in differences suggested the improving representativeness of the ASR over the course of time and its progressive growth. These conclusions are important to underline the external validity of quality investigations and research conclusions to be drawn from analyses in which the ASR is used.

Purpose Identifying actionable oncogenic mutations have changed the therapeutic landscape in different types of tumors. This study investigated the utility of comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP), a hybrid capture-based next-generation sequencing (NGS) assay, in clinical practice in a developing country. Methods In this retrospective cohort study, CGP was performed on clinical samples from patients with different solid tumors recruited between December 2016 and November 2020, using hybrid capture-based genomic profiling, at the individual treating physicians’ request in the clinical care for therapy decisions. Kaplan–Meier survival curves were estimated to characterize the time-to-event variables. Results Patients median age was 61 years (range: 14–87 years), and 64.7% were female. The most common histological diagnosis was lung primary tumors, with 90 patients corresponding to 52.9% of the samples (95% CI 45.4-60.4%). Actionable mutations with FDA-approved medications for specific alterations correspondent to tumoral histology were identified in 58 cases (46.4%), whereas other alterations were detected in 47 different samples (37.6%). The median overall survival was 15.5 months (95% CI 11.7 months-NR). Patients who were subjected to genomic evaluation at diagnosis reached a median overall survival of 18.3 months (95% CI 14.9 months-NR) compared to 14.1 months (95% CI 11.1 months-NR) in patients who obtained genomic evaluation after tumor progression and during standard treatment ( P = .7). Conclusion CGP of different types of tumors identifies clinically relevant genomic alterations that have benefited from targeted therapy and improve cancer care in a developing country to guide personalized treatment to beneficial outcomes of cancer patients.