Citations

Mayo Clinic

Clear

601 citation(s) found for "Murphy, J G".

Evaluation of Interventions for Cognitive Symptoms in Long COVID
Koltai, Deborah, Laskowitz, Daniel T. , Wisnivesky, Juan P., Federman, Alex D. , Silverstein, Adam M. , Lokhnygina, Yuliya, Haddad, Michelle M., Mahncke, Henry W. , Vleet, Tom Van, Huang, Rong , Cox, Wendy C., Terry, Diana, Karwowski, Jeannie, McCray, Netia, Lin, Jenny , Singh, Upinder , Geng, Linda N. , Reece, Rebecca , Moy, James N., Arvanitakis, Zoe , Parthasarathy, Sairam , Patterson, Thomas F., Gupta, Aditi , Parsonnet, Jeffrey, Kiriakopoulos, Elaine T. , Mullington, Janet , Jolley, Sarah E. , Shah, Nirav S. , Morimoto, Sarah Shizuko , Lee‐Iannotti, Joyce , Isache, Carmen, Frontera, Jennifer , O’Steen, Ashley, James, Melissa, Harper, Barrie, Zimmerman, Kanecia O. , Lawler, Andrew , Johnson, Brandon M. , Pitsch, Chloe E. , Feuerriegel, Elen , McKeehan, Jeffrey, Molden, Joie, Reid, Kayleigh M., Dowling, Sarah , Wodushek, Thomas, Canton, Diara, Turut, Dilara, Sheppard, Ethan , Scott‐Sutherland, Jennifer, Shaughnessy, Lynn, Beck, Michelle L. , Heisey, Sabrina, Katragadda, Vaishanvi, Yusuff, Amidat, Perlack, Amy, Merisme, Christie, Krause, David, Schulte, Duncan, Dupre, Fabiola, Sanchez, Gina A. Montealegre , Asupoto, Olanike, Simmons, Quinneil, Schroeder, Ryan W. , Timlin, Shannon, Devis, Ycar, Carter, Della, Caceres, Leomaris Caba, Rodríguez, Miguel Grande, Alvarez, Zariya , Yakubov, Amin , Engelson, Celia, Reyes, Michael, Youkhana, Alvin, Jennings, Cheryl , Naquiallah, Dina, Behun, Dylan , Stephen, Ellen, Timm, Emily , Bilimoria, Farrah, Li, Grace , Stricker, Thomas, Michelle, Kang, Minnie, Suarez, Rebeca Tojo, Carmona, Tania, Ramírez, Ana, Kadubek, Grace, Baker, Aileen, Romo-Serna, Andrea, Predki, Barbara, Leman, Cindy, Panhans, Cristina, Roth, Genevieve E., Rudraraju, Gowrisree , Miller, Hannah , DeLisa, Julie A., Williams, Kat, Woodson, Kimberly S., Jennette, Kyle J. , Villanueva, Laura, Norwick, Maria, Martínez, M. T., Rowley, Matt, Carrithers, Michael D. , Pliskin, Neil H. , Pérez, Nicolás , Durkin, Nicole M., Maniar, Nikita, Beety, Rachel, Daspgupta, Raktima, Ramchandran, Ramaswamy, Jaramillo, R., Hasek, Sharon, Macías, S Aguirre, Schuh, Tina , Ialacci, Sarah, Bailey, Christopher , Labbato, Danielle, Hautmann, Amanda , Smith, Beth, Nath, Dia, Meyer, Jessica , DiFrancesco, Kathryn, Pettinato, Kimberly, Curtis, Lynette, Daher, Joviane , Koberssy, Ziad , Mavar, Caleb, Andrefsky, John, Merheb, Alexander, Hernandez, Carla, Baissary, Jhony , Atieh, Ornina , Pereira, Carol, Carpenter, Deborah, Raynor, Jennifer , Brunton, Kristine, Podgoreanu, Andreea, Bunch, P. C., O’Brien, Sean M. , Dickey, Sheila, McNulty, Steven E., Gajjar, Varsha, Neale, Alec C. , Cohen, Cari, Geary, Elizabeth, Campanella, Franco, Anderson, Kirsten, Prestige, Laura, Guidotti-Breting, Leslie, Biewer, Megan, Morton, Melissa , Mathenia, Nicholas, Adeyemi, Oluwadamilola A. , Hengst, Samanike, Ning, Wei , Vanderloo, Adam, Caplan, Amanda, Chen, July, Acree, Mary Ellen , Nakhate, Mukund, Dan, Zaw Nu, Pk, Switzer, Aryal, Shambhu , Sanchez, Jessica, Sims, Luke, Ferdinand, Rebecca , Mammadova, Mehriban, Grimes, Carolyn Z. , Vidales, Elizabeth, Pham, Hau , Nielsen, Laura, Keller, Maryjane, Uruba, Syeda, Hernandez, Maria, Patel, Bela , Umana-Sanchez, Virginia, Pak, Chong, Gainer, Jeffery, BURR, R, Trapuzzano, Ashleigh, Celso, Brian G. , Bienkowski, Grace, Bowman, Jennifer, Verdecia, Jorge , Zerwekh, Kathryn, Serrano, Liliana , Marotz, Meghan, Propp, Piper, Sarig, Yonatan , Murphy, Annie, Comfort, Brandon, Torres, Iri, Klein, Jeffrey A. , Walker, John, Moore, John J., Tempest-Browning, Lisa, Arain, Mudassar, Kemp, Pamela, Sullivan, Samantha, Way, Sonja, Chevalier, Jessica, Sykes, Carly, Kruck, Carrie L., Sackett, L. W., Bang, Claire, Hynes, Mary, Gallagher, Torrey L., Childers-Kakos, Margaret, Zia, Ahmad, South, AP, Oravets, Anne, Ferreyra, Carolyn, Glaze, Chad, Villanueva, Daphne-Dominique , Blystone, Erica, Pritchard, Jane, Alyward, Laura, Cooper, Melissa, Chidester, Michelle, Alderson, R. Matt , Clark, Renee D., Hodder, Sally , Sarwari, Arif R, Juskowich, Joy, Welch, Shelly, Civil, Alyssa, Bendl, Ashley, Dicker, Elisa, Hanson, Hannah, Viola, Heather, Morinigo, Janice, Pantaleon, Karisma, Marcon, Kathryn, Stone, Kimberly, Stewart, Kiwan, Evo-Ortega, Lorraine, McVeety, Megan, Guliyeva, Sabina , Watson, Eric , Pehel, Shayna, Ko, Tim, Caropolo, Leah, Kocas, H. Deniz , O’Donnell, Andrew, Saperia, Corey , Thai, Daniel, Pathak, Divya , Keller, Jennifer M. , Olszewski, Kelly, Clinton, Kimberly, Cherian, Kirsten , Dutton, L M, Elepano, Ma, Mohapatra, Sukanya , Chen, Ting , Wroolie, Tonita, Leang, Zenita, Shashidhar, Sumana, Nguyen, T L, Ravisankar, Ashwath, Weiden, Brycie, Bolliger, Dawn, Glesne, Heather, Dixon, Jennifer , Chebrolu, Praneeth, Gazali, Zarine, Hurst, Whitney, Fry, Avery, Murthy, Ganesh, Grischo, Garrett, Erickson, Heidi L. , Gomez, Isaias, Copeland, Jacquelynn, Galaz, Judy, Autry, Lynn, DiLise-Russo, Marjorie, Marshell, Nikki, Borwege, Sabine, Vadovicky, Sheila, Marsh, Stephanie, Hartley, William, Murtagh, Linda, Kennedy, Anna, Meltzer-Christensen, Annie, Stringham, Caitlyn, Gaskin, Ella, Judd, Melissa, Côté, Sarah , Mahasenan, Shreya, Bjorklund, Todd, Farner, Cheryl E., Taylor, Barbara S. , Soileau, Bridgette, Cote, Cyrena , Hromas, Gabrielle A., Scholler, Irma, Longoria, Lisa, Heard, Patricia, Jones, Johnnie, Tragus, Robin , Harris, Maya, Pinones, Alexis, Anderson, Alyssa , Hastings, Gabrielyd, Courtright, jessica, Jayakumar, Madhumita, Fischer, M, Solis, Pamela, Harteloo, Alex, Elias-Warren, Anna, Nguyen, Daniel , McDonald, Dylan , Rau, Holly , Mernaugh, Jean, Pagulayan, Kathleen F. , Watanabe, Kino, Huden, Kristen, Peabody, Laurel, Mei, Tiffany, Ogunwuyi, Catherine, Cobbina, Esther, Sankar, Ian, Nguyen, Lisa , Fromm, N., Arnold, R. Douglas, Ogu, Stephanie, Yuan, Ying , Ibrahim, Homam , Szum, Izabella, Patel, Jignesh, Sultan, Sonia, Jazayeri, Yasmin, Anderson, Betty Lise, Muñoz, Isabel , Rhys, Logan, Vane, Ryan, Kim, Jessica , Diaz, Leticia M., Yee, Nathan, Gruhn, Robert, Browngoetz, Sarah, Johnson, Elisha, Chand, Arista , Bottrill, Kenneth , Henderson, Kymberly, Johnson, DeArmond, Richard C., Hughes, Trina, Silverstein, A , Silverstein, Adam P , Frontera, Jennifer , Geng, Linda N. , Knopman, David S. , Becker, Jacqueline , Charvet, Leigh , Pilloni, Giuseppina , Huang, Rong, Cox, Wendy, Karwowski, Jeannie, McComsey, Grace A. , Chu, Helen Y. , Ostrosky‐Zeichner, Luis , Fong, Tamara G. , Killgore, William D. S. , Dwyer, Brigid C. , Stringer, William W. , Krishnan, Jerry A , James, Melissa, Johnson, Brandon, Erlandson, Kristine M. , Dowling, Sarah, Hauser, Kristine , Doyle, Michael, Beck, Michelle, Tran, Anh, Altaras, Caroline , Sanchez, Gina, Krengel, Maxine , Ly, Monica T. , Asupoto, Olanike, Schroeder, Ryan, Rodriguez, Miguel, González, David Andrés , Torres, Jimena, García, Maria Luisa , Carrera, Laura, Rutherford, Melissa, Perez, Nicolas, Jaramillo, Ruthie, Smith, Beth, Walkup, Kevin, Scott, Sarah , Mavar, Caleb B., Carpenter, Deborah, Bunch, Pyper, Brown, Richard, Escobar, Carolina, Campanella, Franco, Mathenia, Nicholas, Glickman, Michael S. , Sims, Luke A., Pham, Hoai Phuang, Lopez, John, Hernandez, Maria, Lin, Matthew Junda , Gainer, Jeffery, Brown, Gina , Klein, Jeffrey, Reed, Jessica, Walker, John, Sackett, Lisa, Kaden, Sarah J. , Childers-Kakos, Margaret G, South, Amy, Blystone, Erica, Cooper, Melissa, Alderson, Rachael, Clark, Renee, Bardes, James M. , Hanson, Hannah, Loizos, Maria , Caropolo, Leah J., Fernandez, Luis, Keller, Jennifer, Lin, Rebecca, Brown, Daniel, Dixon, Jennifer, James, Michelle, Kala, Mrinalini , Smith, Ryan S. , Mahasenan, Shreya, Johnson, Hillary, Anderson, Alyssa, Hernandez, Jessica, Sullivan, Michael, Nguyen, Helen , Logue, Jennifer, Mei, Tiffany, Arnold, Rowan, Szum, Izabella , Hatlen, Timothy J. , Anderson, Betty, Munoz, Isabel, Wright, Matthew, Diaz, Leticia, DeCato, Thomas W. , Ortiz, Ernesto, Hildebrand, Lindsey L. , DeArmond, Richard

JAMA Neurology | November 10, 2025 | Volume: 83 | Issue: 1 | Pages: 49

10.1001/jamaneurol.2025.4415 | PMID 41212544 Get It

Importance Treatment for cognitive dysfunction due to postacute sequelae of long COVID (ie, symptoms of fatigue, malaise, weakness, confusion that persist beyond 12 weeks after an initial COVID infection) remains a significant unmet need. Objective To test evidence-based rehabilitation strategies for improving cognitive symptoms in persons with long COVID. Design, Setting, and Participants This was a 5-arm, multicenter, randomized clinical trial of 3 remotely delivered interventions conducted between August 17, 2023, and June 10, 2024. The study took place at 22 trial sites and included the screening of individuals with cognitive long COVID. Interventions Participants were randomized to 1 of 5 arms: adaptive computerized cognitive training (BrainHQ [Posit Science]), cognitive-behavioral rehabilitation involving both group and individual counseling sessions (PASC-Cognitive Recovery [PASC-CoRE]) paired with BrainHQ, and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) paired with BrainHQ. Two comparator arms were included as follows: unstructured computer puzzles and games (active comparator) and sham tDCS paired with BrainHQ. The interventions occurred 5 times per week over 10 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures Cognitive and behavioral in-person assessments were performed at baseline, midintervention, at the end of intervention, and 3 months after the end of the intervention. The primary outcome measure was the modified Everyday Cognition Scale 2 (ECog2) completed at the end of the intervention compared to the baseline visit based on participant self-report looking back over the prior 7 days. Results A total of 378 individuals were screened, from which there were 328 participants (median [IQR] age, 48.0 [37.0-58.0] years; 241 female [73.5%]; race: 15 Asian [4.6%], 47 Black [14.3%], and 235 White [71.6%]; ethnicity: 52 Hispanic [15.9%]). None of the 3 active interventions demonstrated benefits on the modified ECog2 in the intention-to-treat population by the end of the intervention period. The adjusted differences in mean change were 0.0 (95% CI, −0.2 to 0.2) for BrainHQ vs active comparator, 0.1 (95% CI, −0.1 to 0.3) for PASC-CoRE + BrainHQ vs active comparator, 0.0 (95% CI, −0.2 to 0.2) for tDCS-active + BrainHQ vs tDCS-sham + BrainHQ, and 0.1 (95% CI, −0.1 to 0.3) for PASC-CoRE + BrainHQ vs BrainHQ alone. Secondary participant-reported outcomes and neuropsychological tests showed no differential benefits for any treatment arm. All 5 arms demonstrated some improvements over time on the modified ECog2 and on secondary outcomes. There were no serious adverse events attributable to the interventions. Conclusions and Relevance This phase 2 randomized clinical trial failed to demonstrate differential benefits for online cognitive training, a structured cognitive rehabilitation program, and tDCS for cognitive long COVID. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05965739 .
Threshold-Based Overlap of Breast Cancer High-Risk Classification Using Family History, Polygenic Risk Scores, and Traditional Risk Models in 180,398 Women
Ho, Peh Joo , Loo, Christine Kim Yan , Lim, Ryan Jak Yang, Goh, Mui Heng, Abubakar, Mustapha , Ahearn, Thomas U. , Andrulis, Irene L. , Antonenkova, Natalia, Aronson, Kristan J. , Augustinsson, Annelie , Behrens, Sabine , Bodelón, Clara , Bogdanova, Natalia , Bolla, Manjeet K. , Brantley, Kristen D. , Brenner, Hermann , Byers, Helen L., Camp, Nicola J. , Cessna, Melissa H., Chang-Claude, Jenny, Choi, Ji-Yeob , Czene, Kamila , Dörk, Thilo , Eliassen, A. Heather , Engel, Christoph , Eriksson, Mikael , Evans, D. Gareth , Fritschi, Lin , Genkinger, Jeanine M. , Geurts-Giele, Willemina R.R. , Glendon, Gord, Hall, Per , Hamann, U. , Ho, Cecilia Y.S., Hooning, Maartje J. , Hoppe, Reiner , Humphreys, Keith , Ito, Hidemi , Jakubowska, Anna , Jernström, Helena , John, Esther M. , Johnson, Nichola , Kang, Daehee , Kim, Sung‐Won , Kitahara, Cari M. , Ko, Yon-Dschun, Kraft, Peter, Kwong, Ava , Lambrechts, Diether, Larsson, Susanna C. , Li, Shuai , Lindblom, Annika , Linet, Martha, Lissowska, Jolanta , Lophatananon, Artitaya , MacInnis, Robert J. , Mannermaa, Arto, Manoukian, Siranoush, Margolin, Sara, Matsuo, Keitaro , Michailidou, Kyriaki , Taib, Nur Aishah Mohd , Murphy, Rachel A. , Newman, William G. , Obi, Nadia , Olopade, Olufunmilayo I., Panayiotidis, Mihalis I. , Park, Sue K. , Park‐Simon, Tjoung‐Won , Patel, Alpa V , Peterlongo, Paolo , Plaseska‐Karanfilska, Dijana , Pylkäs, Katri , Rashid, Muhammad Usman , Rodríguez, Juan , Sandler, Dale P. , Sawyer, Elinor J. , Scott, Christopher G. , Shahi, Shamim , Shu, Xiao‐Ou , Shulman, Katerina, Simard, Jacques , Southey, Melissa C., Stone, Jennifer , Taylor, Jack A. , Teo, Soo‐Hwang , Teras, Lauren R. , Vachon, Celine M., Houdt, Maxime Van , Verhoeven, Jelle , Weinberg, Clarice R. , Wolk, Alicja , Yamaji, Taiki , Yip, Cheng Har , Zheng, Wei , Hartman, Mikael , Li, Jingmei , Investigators, on behalf of the ABCTB, Investigators, kConFab, Investigators, MyBrCa, Investigators, SGBCC, Olopade, Olufunmilayo I. , Lambrechts, Diether , Lambrechts, Diether , Hamann, Ute , Hooning, Maartje J. , Bogdanova, Natalia V , Czene, Kamila , Dörk, Thilo , Eliassen, A Heather , Engel, Christoph , Eriksson, Mikael , Evans, D Gareth , Fletcher, Olivia , Fritschi, Lin , Genkinger, Jeanine , Hall, Per N , Ho, Cecilia Y S , Humphreys, Keith , Ito, Hidemi , Jakubowska, Anna , Jernström, Helena , Johnson, Nichola , Kim, Sung-Won , Kitahara, Cari M , Kwong, Ava , Larsson, Susanna C , Li, Shuai , Lindblom, Annika , Lissowska, Jolanta , Lophatananon, Artitaya , Maclnnis, Robert , Matsuo, Keitaro , Michailidou, Kyriaki , Mohd Taib, Nur Aishah , Murphy, Rachel A , Newman, William G , Obi, Nadia , Panayiotidis, Mihalis I , Park, Sue K , Park-Simon, Tjoung-Won , Peterlongo, Paolo , Plaseska-Karanfilska, Dijana , Pylkäs, Katri , Rashid, Muhammad U , Rennert, Gad , Rodriguez, Juan , Sandler, Dale P , Sawyer, Elinor J , Scott, Christopher , Shu, Xiao-Ou , Simard, Jacques , Stone, Jennifer , Taylor, Jack A , Teo, Soo H , Teras, Lauren R , Houdt, Maxime Van , Verhoeven, Jelle , Weinberg, Clarice R , Wolk, Alicja , Zheng, Wei , Hartman, Mikael , Li, Jingmei , Lambrechts, Diether , Behrens, Sabine , John, Esther M , Olopade, Olufunmilayo I , Lambrechts, Diether , Augustinsson, Annelie , Brenner, Hermann , Camp, Nicola J , Brantley, Kristen D , Lim, Ryan Jak Yang, Byers, Helen, Castelao, Jose E. , Chang‐Claude, Jenny , Chanock, Stephen Jacob , Chenevix‐Trench, Georgia , Colonna, Sarah V. , Daly, Mary Beryl , Derouane, Françoise , Fletcher, Olivia , Gago-Domínguez, Manuela , Ho, Weang-Kee , Howell, Anthony , Iwasaki, Motoki , Ko, Yon‐Dschun, Mannermaa, Arto , Manoukian, Siranoush , Margolin, Sara , Milne, Roger L. , Muir, Kenneth , O’Brien, Katie M. , Rennert, Gad , Saloustros, Emmanouil , Southey, Melissa C. , Terry, Mary Beth , Torres, Diana , Investigators, on behalf of the ABCTB, Investigators, kConFab, Investigators, MyBrCa, Investigators, SGBCC

Cancers | November 3, 2025 | Volume: 17 | Issue: 21 | Pages: 3561

10.3390/cancers17213561 | PMID 41228354 Get It

Background: Breast cancer polygenic risk scores (PRS) and traditional risk models (e.g., the Gail model [Gail]) are known to contribute largely independent information, but it is unclear how the overlap varies by ancestry, age, disease type (invasive breast cancer, DCIS), and risk threshold. Methods: In a retrospective case–control study, we evaluated risk prediction performance in 180,398 women (161,849 of European ancestry; 18,549 of Asian ancestry). Odds ratios (ORs) from logistic regression models and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were estimated. Results: PRS for invasive disease showed a stronger association in younger (<50 years) women (OR = 2.51, AUC = 0.622) than in women ≥ 50 years (OR = 2.06, AUC = 0.653) of European ancestry. PRS performance in Asians was lower (OR range = 1.62–1.64, AUC = 0.551–0.600). Gail performance was modest across groups and poor in younger Asian women (OR = 0.94–0.99, AUC = 0.523–0.533). Age interactions were observed for both PRS (p < 0.001) and Gail (p < 0.001) in Europeans, whereas in Asians, age interaction was observed only for Gail (invasive: p < 0.001; DCIS: p = 0.002). PRS identified more high-risk individuals than Gail in Asian populations, especially ≥50 years, while Gail identified more in Europeans. Overlap between PRS, Gail, and family history was limited at higher thresholds. Calibration analysis, comparing empirical and model-based ROC curves, showed divergence for both PRS and Gail (p < 0.001), which indicates miscalibration. In Europeans, family history and prior biopsies drove Gail discrimination. In younger Asians, age at first live birth was influential. Conclusions: PRS adds value to risk stratification beyond traditional tools, especially in younger women and Asian ancestry populations.
Abstract 4341751: Outcomes Associated with Infective Endocarditis in Cardiac Intensive Care Unit Patients
Patel, Parth , Kashou, Anthony H. , Murphy, Joseph G. , Sehrawat, Ojasav , Hashem, Anas , Noseworthy, Peter A. , Crestanello, Juan A. , Jentzer, Jacob C.

Circulation | November 3, 2025 | Volume: 152 | Issue: Suppl_3 | Pages: No page available

10.1161/circ.152.suppl_3.4341751 Get It

Introduction: Infective endocarditis (IE) is a severe intracardiac infection, often requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Despite early surgical intervention, mortality remains high. Data for patients admitted to the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) is especially limited. Research Question: We aimed to investigate the short and long-term outcomes of patients with IE admitted to the CICU. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult patients admitted to the Mayo Clinic CICU (2007-2018) with confirmed acute IE, identified via database query and manual chart review. Patients were further categorized by cardiac surgery status: performed, indicated but declined, or not indicated. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality at 30-days and 1-year, analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional-hazard analysis. Models were adjusted for known predictors. Results: Overall, 233 CICU patients met criteria for IE. Median age was 64.0 years; 49 were female. In total, 104 patients had native valve IE; 128 had prosthetic or implantable device-associated IE. Staphylococcus aureus was the most prevalent organism (42.7%) and was present in 72.4% of 30-day deaths. Cardiac surgery was indicated in 182 (78.1%) patients - 129 patients underwent surgery, while 53 declined; 48 patients did not have indications. By 30 days, 58 (24.9%) patients died; significant predictors included older age, higher illness severity scores, and greater need for critical care therapies. The 30-day mortality estimates were markedly higher for patients who declined surgery (60.4%, adj. HR 4.17, 95% CI 2.02-8.52, p <0.001), and lower for those who received surgery vs those without surgical indications (11.9% vs 23.8%, adj. HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.20-0.98, p=0.04) (Figure 1). By 1-year, 93 (39.9%) patients died, including 36 (20.5%) hospital survivors. The 1-year mortality estimates were markedly higher for patients who declined surgery (85.1%, adj. HR 5.46, 95% CI 2.87-10.39, p <0.001), but was similar for patients who received surgery to those without surgical indications (31.8% vs 29.3%, adj. HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.49-1.78, p=0.84) (Figure 2). Conclusion: IE requiring CICU admission carries substantial mortality despite acute management. Higher severity scores, comorbidities, and intensive care interventions predict mortality. Early cardiac surgery improved short-term outcomes, but long-term mortality remains high.
Comparison of amyloid chronicity and EYO in autosomal dominant Alzheimer's disease
Wisch, Julie K. , Christian, Bradley T. , Schultz, Stephanie A. , Millar, Peter R , Ryan, Natalie S. , Belder, Christopher R S , Chrem, Patricio, Day, Gregory S. , Murphy, Mei, Roh, Jee Hoon , Xiong, Chengjie , Wang, Guoqiao , Li, Yan , Schindler, Suzanne E., Jack, Cliff R, Networ, the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer, Jack, Cliff, Day, Gregory S , Roh, Jee Hoon , Wisch, Julie K , McKay, Nicole S. , Zammit, Matthew D. , Cash, David M. , Cruchaga, Carlos , Ibanez, Laura , Jucker, Mathias , Yakushev, Igor , Murphy, Mei, Llibre‐Guerra, Jorge J. , Aguillon, David , Xiong, Chengjie , Schindler, Suzanne E. , McDade, Eric , Bateman, Randall J. , Benzinger, Tammie L.S. , Ances, Beau M. , Networ, the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer, Betthauser, Tobey J. , Gordon, Brian A.

Alzheimer's & Dementia | October 25, 2025 | Volume: 21 | Issue: 10 | Pages: No page available

10.1002/alz.70812 | PMID 41137622 Get It

Abstract INTRODUCTION Preclinical Alzheimer's disease (AD) can be described relative to biomarker positivity onset time. METHODS We estimated time from amyloid positivity (A+) using sampled iterative local approximation (SILA) in a longitudinal autosomal dominant AD (ADAD) sample ( N = 379) with amyloid positron emission tomography. We compared (1) predicted age at A+ to imputed age, (2) estimated age at A+ to estimated age at symptom onset, and (3) variance in cognitive performance explained. RESULTS Mean error between imputed and SILA‐estimated age at A+ ( N = 26) was 1.15 years. Age at A+ explained 39% of estimated years to symptom onset (EYO) variance. Time from A+ explained 19% of cognitive composite variance and 14% of Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes CDR‐SB variance; EYO explained 43% and 57%, respectively. DISCUSSION SILA estimates A+ age in ADAD with reasonably good accuracy. SILA‐estimated time from A+ describes the start of pathology, but the time from A+ onset to symptoms is variable in ADAD and better described by EYO. Highlights Amyloid chronicity predicts a 14‐year preclinical AD phase in ADAD. SILA accurately estimates age at A+ (MAE < 2 years). EYO outperforms chronicity in predicting symptom onset. APP mutation carriers show atypical amyloid accumulation. Chronicity models help reveal AD heterogeneity in preclinical stages.
Circulating cell‐free DNA methylation biomarkers for hepatocellular carcinoma risk prediction in HIV ‐positive Nigerian population
Zheng, Yinan , Han, Jingzhe , Qu, Yishu , Wang, Jun , Okeke, Edith, Davwar, Pantong , Duguru, Mary, Nyam, David, Oyeleke, Ganiyat K. , Sulaimon, Akanmu A., Hawkins, Claudia , Badmos, Kabir, Gursel, Demirkan, Silas, Olugbenga A. , Kocherginsky, Masha , Sun, Zequn , Achenbach, Chad J. , Yang, Hushan , Sagay, Atiene S. , Roberts, Lewis R., Hou, Lifang , Roberts, Lewis R. , Yang, Hushan , Roberts, Lewis R , Zheng, Yinan , Hou, Lifang , Wang, Jun , Joyce, Brian , Odeghe, Emuobor , Lesi, Olufunmilayo , Imade, Godwin , Abdulkareem, Fatimah Biade , Wei, Jian‐Jun , Kim, Kwang‐Youn A. , Zhang, Xuehong , Ogunsola, Folasade Tolulope , Murphy, Robert L. , Roberts, Lewis R.

International Journal of Cancer | October 23, 2025 | Volume: 158 | Issue: 5 | Pages: 1281-1291

10.1002/ijc.70204 | PMID 41129333 Get It

Abstract Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of cancer mortality globally, with particularly high burdens among people living with HIV (PLWH) in low‐resource settings like Nigeria. Effective early detection remains a major challenge due to limited access to imaging‐based surveillance and the low sensitivity of current biomarkers such as alpha‐fetoprotein (AFP). We conducted an epigenome‐wide association study (EWAS) of circulating cell‐free DNA (ccfDNA) methylation in a Nigerian cohort of HIV‐positive individuals ( n = 245), spanning HCC, cirrhosis (FibroScan ≥12.3 kPa), fibrosis (FibroScan ≥7.6 and <12.3 kPa), and HCC‐free without fibrosis (FibroScan <7.6 kPa) groups. Using random forest modeling, we developed and evaluated a ccfDNA methylation classifier (ccfDNAmRF) for HCC risk prediction. We identified 73 CpG sites significantly associated with HCC (false discovery rate <0.01). The ccfDNAmRF model demonstrated strong discriminatory power, achieving 100% sensitivity and 80%–91% specificity for distinguishing HCC from cirrhosis, fibrosis, and HCC‐free groups (area under the curve [AUC]: 92%–97%). Combining ccfDNA methylation risk scores with AFP further improved classification accuracy (AUC up to 98.5%). Notably, ccfDNA methylation patterns displayed clear dose–response relationships across the disease spectrum, supporting their utility for early‐stage detection and risk stratification. Our findings highlight the promise of ccfDNA methylation biomarkers as a non‐invasive, blood‐based screening tool for improving early identification of HCC cases among PLWH.
Final 60-Month Efficacy, Safety, and Kidney Stone Outcomes of a Phase 3 Trial of Lumasiran for Primary Hyperoxaluria Type 1 in Infants and Young Children
Sas, David J. , Michael, Mini , Frishberg, Yaacov, Ben‐Shalom, Efrat , Shasha‐Lavsky, Hadas , Sellier-Leclerc, A.L., Hogan, Julien, Du, W. J. , Murphy, Michael Desmond, Kaspar, Cristin , Magen, Daniella , Hayes, Wesley Nathan , Sellier‐Leclerc, Anne‐Laure , Hogan, Julien , Du, Weiming

Journal of the American Society of Nephrology | October 23, 2025 | Volume: 36 | Issue: 10S | Pages: No page available

10.1681/asn.2025v7er7rv3 Get It

Endothelial Cell Loss 1 Year After Successful DMEK in the Diabetes Endothelial Keratoplasty Study
Lass, Jonathan H. , Lass, Jonathan H., Benetz, Beth Ann, Verdier, David D., Szczotka-Flynn, Loretta B., Bauza, Colleen E., Reed, Zachariah W., Greiner, Mark A., Mian, Shahzad I., Patel, Sanjay V., Pramanik, Sudeep, Price, Francis W., Soper, Mark C., Terry, Mark A., Titus, Michael S., Kollman, Craig, Beck, Roy W., Price, Marianne O., Group, Diabetes Endothelial Keratoplasty Study, Gang, Anjulie, Hall, Taylor, Lucas, Katelyn, Lynn, Ashlyn, Cole, Shawna, Phelps, Derek, Baratz, Keith H. , Hardtke, Elainey, Treichel, Emily J., Hood, Christopher , Nallasamy, Nambi , Verkade, Angela , Jones, Kristin, Shapiro, Jeremy N. , Leavy, Lisa, Sinkey, Chris, Tenkman, Lawrence R., Gordon, DJ, Ketcherside, Christopher, Fox, Jenni, Coonfield, Kristy, Vislisel, Jesse M., Sharma, Yogi, Young, Angela M. , Schoenberg, Evan, Kelly, Sharra, Huffman, James, Sears, Melinda, Stone, Merisa, Phillips, Paul, Maloney, Charlene, Jun, Albert S. , Maria, Christina, Boyce, Michelle, Kam, Yong, Crosser, Vicki, Chen, Jessica , Straiko, Michael D., Bauer, Alex, Croasdale, Christopher, Brown, Gayle Waldheim, Veldman, Peter B., Evans, Que, Majmudar, Parag A., Epstein, Rachel , Vaidya, Neal, Rosselson, Marie, Nykaza, Jim, Jurkunas, Ula V., Venkateswaran, Nandini, Cheung, Michael K., Ayres, Brandon D. , Haught, Drew Monteleone, Prasad, Elizabeth, Toti, G, Wier, Jim, Brandsdorfer, Ari, Pape, Denise, Hansen, Mark, Hardten, David R., Reeves, Sherman, Dreyer, Allison, Mack, Megan, Hamill, M. Bowes , Nguyen, Jessica, Koo, Ellen, Stanfield, Ryan, Greenwood, Michael, Ernst, L, Messer, Brooke, Risbrudt, Nick, Stofferahn, Seth, Saville, Alyson, Castaneda, Leslie, Torres, Nidia, Potts, Luke B. , Alexander, Jamie, Rinn, Jennifer, Bokosky, John, Cardenas, Ilina, Murphy, Doreen, Priebe, Kinsey, Sica, Chris, Buckman, Natalie, Ansin, Amy, Clover, Jameson , Pivoney, Charles, Vizzerra, Anthony, Elbanhawy, Lindsey, Mullins, Monica, Statz, Brianne, Fout, Elizabeth, Drury, Donna, Tavolazzi, Trisha, Lass, Jonathan, Lass, Jonathan, Szczotka-Flynn, Loretta, Richards, Leslie, Raghupathy, Sangeetha, Spruill, Rashad, Bauza, Colleen, Kollman, Craig, Garrett, Kaitlyn, Reed, Zachariah, Benetz, Beth Ann, Lê, Jimmy T. , Redford, Maryann , Arafah, Baha M. , Greiner, Mark, Johnson, Paula C, Keeler, D. K., Monnier, Vincent M. , Titus, Michael, Verdier, David, Soper, Mark, Velhuisen, Paul Van, Hawkins, Barbara S., Macsai, Marian S., Patel, Sanjay, Mian, Shahzad, Pramanik, Sudeep, Price, Francis, Terry, Mark, Sell, David, Gabrielson, Deanna, Barton, Glenn, Bear, Andrew, Das, Pravamaya, Dawson, Lauren, Dingess, Ryan, Madere, Mark, Sengupta, Pratim , Wadleigh, Garth, Greiner, Mark A. , Lass, Jonathan H., Benetz, Beth Ann, Verdier, David D., Szczotka-Flynn, Loretta B., Bauza, Colleen E., Reed, Zachariah W., Greiner, Mark A., Mian, Shahzad I., Patel, Sanjay V., Pramanik, Sudeep, Price, Francis W., Soper, Mark C., Terry, Mark A., Titus, Michael S., Kollman, Craig, Price, Marianne O., Group, Diabetes Endothelial Keratoplasty Study, Gang, Anjulie, Hall, Taylor, Lucas, Katelyn, Lynn, Ashlyn, Cole, Shawna, Phelps, Derek, Hood, Christopher, Sáles, Christopher S. , Sinkey, Chris, Gordon, DJ, Ketcherside, Christopher, Fox, Jenni, Young, Angela, Schoenberg, Evan, Kelly, Sharra, Huffman, James, Sears, Melinda, Stone, Merisa, Srikumaran, Divya S. , Daoud, Yassine J. , Eghrari, Allen Omid , Ali, Muhammad , Croasdale, Christopher, Brown, Gayle Waldheim, Epstein, Rachel H. , Vaidya, Neal, Jurkunas, Ula V. , Cheung, Michael, Prasad, Elizabeth, Toti, Gwen, Brandsdorfer, Ari, Pape, Denise, Hansen, Mark, Reeves, Sherman, Dreyer, Allison, Mack, Megan, Nguyen, Jessica, Greenwood, Michael, Messer, Brooke, Saville, Alyson, Omar, Ahmed F. , Castaneda, Leslie, Torres, Nidia, Rinn, Jennifer, Bokosky, John, Cardenas, Ilina, Murphy, Doreen, Priebe, Kinsey, Sica, Chris, Schmidt, Gregory A. , Lass, Jonathan, Lass, Jonathan, Price, Marianne O. , Szczotka-Flynn, Loretta, Richards, Leslie, Bauza, Colleen, Beck, Roy W. , Kollman, Craig, McCarthy, Chris, Garrett, Kaitlyn, Reed, Zachariah, Benetz, Beth Ann, Greiner, Mark, Johnson, Paula, Titus, Michael, Verdier, David, Soper, Mark, Aleppo, Grazia , Bateman-House, Alison , Tu, Elmer Yuchen , Patel, Sanjay, Mian, Shahzad, Pramanik, Sudeep, Price, Francis, Terry, Mark, Sell, David, Gabrielson, Deanna, Barton, Glenn, Bear, Andrew, Das, Pravamaya, Dingess, Ryan, Sengupta, Paromita

JAMA Ophthalmology | October 17, 2025 | Volume: 143 | Issue: 12 | Pages: 1053

10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2025.4261 | PMID 41105099 Get It

Importance The effect of cornea donor diabetes on endothelial cell density (ECD) and morphometry after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) is not known. Objective To determine whether endothelial cell loss (ECL) and morphometric changes 1 year after successful DMEK are related to cornea donor’s diabetes status. Design, Setting, and Participants This was a multicenter, double-masked, randomized clinical trial conducted from February 2022 to July 2024 at 28 US clinical sites (46 surgeons) and 13 eye banks. Included in the trial were the eyes of recipients (some of whom received tissue from donors without diabetes and others who received tissue from donors with diabetes) who underwent successful DMEK, primarily for Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy, and had at least 1 analyzable postoperative endothelial image. Intervention DMEK performed with a cornea from a donor without or with diabetes, assigned using a minimization procedure to achieve an approximate 2:1 distribution. Main Outcomes and Measures ECD, ECL, coefficient of variation in cell area (CV), and percentage of hexagonal cells (HEX) at 1 year from eye bank and postoperative specular central endothelial images. Results A total 1274 eyes of 982 recipients (mean [SD] age, 70 [8] years; 569 female [57.9%]; 816 [64.1%] with tissue from donors without diabetes and 458 [35.9%] with tissue from donors with diabetes) were included in the study. Preoperatively, mean (SD) central ECD in tissue from donors without diabetes and with diabetes were 2676 (290) cells/mm 2 and 2671 (286) cells/mm 2 , respectively. At 1 year, mean (SD) ECL was 28.3% (16.1%) and 28.0% (17.0%), in the donor groups without and with diabetes, respectively (adjusted mean difference = −0.4%; 95% CI, −2.3% to 1.4%), resulting in a mean (SD) 1-year ECD of 1927 (498) cells/mm 2 and 1920 (496) cells/mm 2 , respectively (adjusted mean difference = 10 cells/mm 2 ; 95% CI, −36 to 56; P = .95). No difference in ECD at 1 year associated with diabetes severity was noted ( P = .97). Mean (SD) CV did not differ at 1 year between the 2 groups of eyes (31.5% [4.1%] vs 31.4% [4.1%]; adjusted mean difference = −0.4%; 95% CI, −0.9% to 0.1%; P = .51), and mean (SD) HEX did not differ at 1 year between the 2 groups of eyes (57.7% [5.8%] vs 57.2% [5.8%]; adjusted mean difference = 0.1%, 95% CI, −0.8% to 0.9%; P = .33). Conclusions and Relevance This randomized clinical trial found that ECL and morphometry 1 year after DMEK were not affected by cornea donor diabetes status. With comparable 1-year graft success with tissue from donors with and without diabetes demonstrated in this trial, these findings support the use of corneas from donors with diabetes for endothelial keratoplasty procedures. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05134480
Donor Diabetes and 1-Year Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty Success Rate
Price, Francis W. , Szczotka‐Flynn, Loretta , Bauza, Colleen , Reed, Zachariah W., Arafah, Baha M. , Greiner, Mark A. , Johnson, Paula, Keeler, Devon B., Pramanik, Sudeep, Soper, Mark, Terry, Mark A., Titus, Michael S. , Verdier, David D. , Kollman, Craig, Lass, Jonathan H. , Lass, Jonathan H., Group, Diabetes Endothelial Keratoplasty Study, Gang, Anjulie, Hall, Taylor, Lynn, A. G., Cole, Shawna, Phelps, Derek, Baratz, Keith H. , Hardtke, Elainey, Treichel, Emily J., Hood, Christopher , Nallasamy, Nambi , Verkade, Angela , Jones, Kristin, Shapiro, Jeremy, Leavy, Lisa, Sinkey, Chris, Tenkman, Lawrence R., Gordon, DJ, Ketcherside, Christopher, Fox, Jenni, Coonfield, Kristy, Vislisel, Jesse M., Sharma, Yogi, Young, Angela M. , Schoenberg, Evan, Kelly, Sharra, Huffman, James L. , Sears, Melinda, Stone, Merisa, Phillips, Paul, Maloney, Charlene, Jun, Albert S. , Maria, Christina, Boyce, Michelle, Kam, Yong, Crosser, Vicki, Chen, Jessica , Straiko, Michael D., Bauer, Alex, Croasdale, Christopher, Brown, Gayle Waldheim, Veldman, Peter B., Evans, Que, Majmudar, Parag A., Epstein, Rachel , Vaidya, N. N., Nykaza, Jim, Venkateswaran, Nandini, Ayres, Brandon D. , Haught, Drew Monteleone, Prasad, Elizabeth, Toti, Gwen, Wier, Jim, Brandsdorfer, Ari, Pape, Denise, Hansen, Mark D., Hardten, David R., Reeves, Sherman W., Dreyer, Allison, Mack, Megan, Hamill, Mark, Nguyen, Jessica , Stanfield, Ryan, Greenwood, Michael , Ernst, Lindsay, Risbrudt, Nick, Saville, Alyson, Castaneda, Leslie, Torres, Nidia, Potts, Luke B. , Alexander, Jamie, Rinn, Jennifer, Bokosky, John, Cardenas, Ilina, Murphy, Doreen, Priebe, Kinsey, Sica, Chris, Buckman, Natalie, Ansin, Amy, Clover, Jameson , Pivoney, Charles, Vizzerra, Anthony, Elbanhawy, Lindsey, Mullins, Monica, Statz, Brianne, Fout, Elizabeth, Drury, Donna, Tavolazzi, Trisha, Lass, Jonathan, Lass, Jonathan, Richards, Leslie, Raghupathy, Sangeetha, Spruill, Rashad, Bauza, Colleen, Beck, Roy, Garrett, Kaitlyn, Reed, Zachariah, Benetz, Beth Ann , Lê, Jimmy T. , Redford, Maryann , Arafah, Baha, Greiner, Mark, Keeler, Devon, Monnier, Vincent M. , Titus, Michael, Verdier, David, Velhuisen, Paul Van, Hawkins, Barbara S., Macsai, Marian S., Patel, Sanjay, Mian, Shahzad I. , Pramanik, Sudeep , Price, Francis, Terry, Mark, Sell, David, Gabrielson, Deanna, Barton, Glenn, Bear, Andrew, Das, Pravamaya, Dawson, Lauren, Dingess, Ryan, Madere, Mark, Wadleigh, Garth, Price, Marianne O. , Mian, Shahzad I. , Patel, Sanjay V. , Pramanik, Sudeep, Titus, Michael S., Beck, Roy W. , Lass, Jonathan H., Group, Diabetes Endothelial Keratoplasty Study, Lynn, Ashlyn, Cole, Shawna, Phelps, Derek, Hardtke, Elainey, Hood, Christopher, Shapiro, Jeremy, Sáles, Christopher S. , Leavy, Lisa, Gordon, DJ, Fox, Jenni, Coonfield, Kristy, Young, Angela, Schoenberg, Evan, Kelly, Sharra, Huffman, James, Sears, Melinda, Stone, Merisa, Srikumaran, Divya S. , Daoud, Yassine J. , Eghrari, Allen Omid , Ali, Muhammad , Crosser, Vicki, Croasdale, Christopher, Brown, Gayle Waldheim, Evans, Que, Epstein, Rachel H. , Nykaza, Jim, Jurkunas, Ula V. , Cheung, Michael, Wier, Jim, Brandsdorfer, Ari, Pape, Denise, Mack, Megan, Hamill, M. Bowes, Nguyen, Jessica, Koo, Ellen H. , Stanfield, Ryan, Risbrudt, Nick, Saville, Alyson, Omar, Ahmed F. , Castaneda, Leslie, Torres, Nidia, Bokosky, John, Cardenas, Ilina, Murphy, Doreen, Priebe, Kinsey, Schmidt, Gregory A. , Elbanhawy, Lindsey, Statz, Brianne, Tavolazzi, Trisha, Lass, Jonathan, Lass, Jonathan, Richards, Leslie, Spruill, Rashad, Bauza, Colleen, Beck, Roy, McCarthy, Chris, Reed, Zachariah, Arafah, Baha, Greiner, Mark, Titus, Michael, Verdier, David, Velhuisen, Paul Van, Aleppo, Grazia , Bateman-House, Alison , Tu, Elmer Yuchen , Patel, Sanjay, Price, Francis, Terry, Mark, Sell, David, Barton, Glenn, Das, Pravamaya, Dingess, Ryan, Madere, Mark, Sengupta, Partha Pratim , Wadleigh, Garth

JAMA Ophthalmology | October 17, 2025 | Volume: 143 | Issue: 12 | Pages: 1043

10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2025.4253 | PMID 41105094 Get It

Importance If the success of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) is not affected by whether the donor has diabetes, then the donor pool should expand. Objective To determine whether the 1-year DMEK success rate is affected by the presence of diabetes in the donor. Design, Setting, and Participants This was a multicenter, double-masked, randomized clinical trial conducted from February 2022 to July 2025 at 28 clinical sites (46 surgeons), with donor corneas provided by 13 eye banks in the US. Included in the study were individuals undergoing low to moderate risk DMEK (95% for Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy). Study data were analyzed from April to September 2025. Intervention DMEK performed with a cornea from a donor without or with diabetes, assigned using a minimization procedure (comparable with randomization) to achieve an approximate 2:1 distribution, respectively. Main Outcomes and Measures Graft success at 1 year Results A total of 1097 individuals (1421 study eyes; median [IQR] age, 71 [66-76] years; 631 female [57.5%]) were included in the study. The 1-year cumulative probability of graft success was 96.3% (95% CI, 95.0%-97.5%) among 912 study eyes (64.2%) receiving tissue from donors without diabetes and 97.1% (95% CI, 95.5%-98.4%) among 509 study eyes (35.8%) receiving tissue from donors with diabetes (difference between groups = 0.7 percentage points; 95% CI, −1.2 to 2.6; P = .63). The 1-year cumulative probability of graft success was 96.5% (95% CI, 93.6%-98.9%) in the mild donor diabetes severity subgroup (n = 173) and 97.3% (95% CI, 95.4%-98.8%) in the moderate to severe donor diabetes severity subgroup (n = 336), using a diabetes severity rating scale based on medical history. The rates of primary donor failure, early failure related to surgical complications, and subsequent failure were as follows: 2.5% (23 of 912), 0.7% (6 of 912), and 0.3% (3 of 912), respectively, in recipients of tissue from a donor without diabetes, and 2.6% (13 of 509), 0.4% (2 of 509), and 0%, respectively, among recipients of tissue from a donor with diabetes. There were no failures due to graft rejection. Conclusions and Relevance The 1-year success rate in eyes undergoing DMEK with successfully prepared tissue was very high regardless of donor diabetes status. These results, supported by the separately reported finding that endothelial cell loss and cornea morphometry after 1 year were not affected by donor diabetes status, provide strong support for having no restrictions on the use of tissue from donors with diabetes for DMEK. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05134480
B-223 DMD Duplications Identified by Carrier Screening Should NOT Automatically Be Classified as [Likely] Pathogenic: Data from Long-Read Sequencing of 15 Cases
Hasadsri, Linda , Ding, Qiliang , Balan, Jagadheshwar, Vidal‐Folch, Noemi, Pickart, Angela, Walsh, Jesse, Majumdar, Ramanath, Klee, Eric W. , Rowsey, Ross, Sun, Guangchao , Murphy, Stephen, Oglesbee, Devin

Clinical Chemistry | October 2, 2025 | Volume: 71 | Issue: Supplement_1 | Pages: No page available

10.1093/clinchem/hvaf086.611 Get It

Abstract Background Pathogenic variants in the DMD gene are associated with Duchenne and Becker muscular dystrophy (DMD/BMD). Professional medical societies currently recommend DMD carrier screening for all patients who are pregnant or considering pregnancy. Such testing may identify intragenic duplications of DMD (i.e., involving one or more exons but fully contained with the gene) in patients without a personal or family history of DMD/BMD. These incidentally detected DMD intragenic duplications, however, pose significant challenges for variant interpretation. Pathogenicity of an intragenic duplication depends on its structural configuration. Tandem duplications may cause reading frame disruption and gene loss-of-function; conversely, non-tandem duplications may not disrupt gene function. Current carrier screening assays cannot determine the structural configuration of an intragenic duplication. The current guidelines (e.g., the ClinGen PVS1 decision tree) presume intragenic duplications are in tandem unless proven otherwise. If this presumption of tandem configuration is inaccurate, it may lead to overestimation of variant pathogenicity, potentially resulting in unnecessary invasive procedures (e.g., amniocentesis for prenatal diagnosis) and/or having other negative impacts with regards to prenatal decision-making. This study aims to evaluate the validity of this presumption for incidentally detected DMD intragenic duplications. Methods We performed high-coverage whole-genome long-read sequencing on the PromethION instrument (Oxford Nanopore Technologies) for 15 cases with previously identified DMD intragenic duplications. Among these cases, four had personal or family history of DMD/BMD, while 11 had no known history (i.e., incidentally detected). The structural configurations of the duplications were determined by an in-house bioinformatics tool and manual inspection of the alignment files. Results In all 4 cases with a known personal or family history of DMD/BMD, the DMD intragenic duplications were confirmed to be in tandem, aligning with expectations of their pathogenicity. Interestingly, among the 11 cases with incidentally detected DMD intragenic duplications, seven (64%) were found to involve interspersed duplications. In five of these seven interspersed duplication cases, the involved DMD exons were co-duplicated with distinct segments of the Xp arm located 0.5–30 Mb away, forming complex structural variants. In another case, the duplicated DMD exons have inserted into the Xq arm, about 90 Mb downstream of DMD. The final case involved the duplicated DMD exons inserted into a repetitive region most consistent with 9q12 (i.e., the 9qh region). Conclusions Our study reveals that while DMD intragenic duplications in patients with a personal or family history of DMD/BMD were consistently in tandem, a substantial 64% of incidentally detected DMD intragenic duplications were not in tandem. These findings have important implications for both clinicians and laboratorians. They challenge the presumption of tandem configuration for DMD intragenic duplications in individuals where the variants were identified incidentally, e.g., through carrier screening in those without a family history of DMD/BMD. In these cases, we recommend classifying the DMD intragenic duplications as variants of uncertain significance (VUS), unless there is evidence of tandem configuration.
Acute Valve Syndrome Before Aortic Valve Replacement: Impact on Clinical Outcomes, Health Care Costs, and Resource Use
Généreux, Philippe , Lindman, Brian R. , Pîbarot, Philippe , Baron, Suzanne J. , Asselin, Chantal , Dratch, Alissa , Murphy, Shannon , Chikermane, Soumya , Thourani, Vinod H. , Koulogiannis, Konstantinos , Schwartz, Allan , Leon, Martin B. , Gillam, Linda D. , Lindman, Brian R , Pibarot, Phillippe , Baron, Suzanne J , Asselin, Chantal , Dratch, Alissa , Murphy, Shannon M E , Chikermane, Soumya , Koulogiannis, Kostantinos P , Schwartz, Allan , Leon, Martin B. , Pellikka, Patricia A , Gillam, Linda D , Généreux, Philippe , Giustino, Gennaro , Pellikka, Patricia A.

Journal of the American Heart Association | September 30, 2025 | Volume: 14 | Issue: 19 | Pages: No page available

10.1161/jaha.125.043486 | PMID 41025452 Get It

Background A classification system describing clinical presentation before aortic valve replacement (AVR) has recently been proposed (stable valve syndrome [SVS]), mildly symptomatic (progressive valve syndrome), or with acute and severe signs and symptoms (acute valve syndrome [AVS]). We aimed to evaluate the clinical impact, health care costs, and resource use associated with the mode of clinical presentation at the time of AVR among patients presenting with aortic stenosis. Methods Using the Market Clarity database (2017–2023), patients >18 years old with aortic stenosis and undergoing AVR (transcatheter or surgical) were included. Patients were categorized as SVS, progressive valve syndrome, or AVS based on their clinical presentation during the 1 year before AVR. All‐cause death, heart failure hospitalization, total health care costs (index hospitalization plus 1‐year follow‐up), and resource use were compared across clinical presentation groups using adjusted regression models. Results Of the 24 075 patients undergoing AVR for aortic stenosis, 270 (1.1%) had SVS, 10 195 (42.3%) progressive valve syndrome, and 13 610 (56.5%) AVS. Compared with SVS, AVS presentation was associated with increased risk of 1‐year death (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.93 [95% CI, 1.1–7.8]; P =0.03) and heart failure hospitalization (aHR, 4.15 [95% CI, 1.6–11.1]; P <0.01) after AVR. The total costs of AVR and 1‐year follow‐up were significantly higher in both the progressive valve syndrome (difference $27 410 [$13 507–$41 314]) and AVS groups (difference $36 267 [$22 302–$50 232]) compared with patients with SVS. Conclusions AVS was frequent among patients undergoing AVR and was associated with increase in death, heart failure hospitalization, health care costs, and resource use 1 year after AVR, and SVS presentation was associated with the best clinical and economic outcomes.