Citations

AbstractBackgroundImmunocompromised individuals are at risk for Nocardia infection, with a recurrence rate of approximately 5%. Solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients often receive secondary prophylaxis due to their requirement of lifelong immunosuppression. However, data supporting this practice is sparse. We sought to evaluate Nocardia recurrence in SOT recipients, specifically evaluating secondary prophylaxis.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of SOT recipients diagnosed with nocardiosis from 2000 through 2020. We included adult SOT recipients who completed their course of Nocardia therapy and had at least 6 months of posttherapy follow‐up. The primary outcome was Nocardia recurrence, which included relapse and reinfection.ResultsOne hundred two patients met inclusion criteria. Sixty‐six (64.7%) were male and mean age was 58.6 ± 11.7 years. Most common SOT types were kidney (46.1%), heart (18.6%), kidney‐pancreas (11.8%), and lung (10.8%). Most common sites of infection were lung (85.3%), skin (17.6%), and brain (14.7%). Secondary prophylaxis was utilized in 53 (52.0%) patients. Trimethoprim‐sulfamethoxazole (TMP‐SMX) single‐strength daily was the most common prophylaxis agent and dose. Five patients (4.9%) experienced Nocardia recurrence, three of which were receiving secondary prophylaxis at time of recurrence. Two recurrences were with the same Nocardia species. Factors associated with recurrence were lung transplantation (p = .011), chronic lung disease (p = .032), and treatment ≤120 days (p = .006). Time from treatment completion to recurrence ranged from 107 to 875 days.ConclusionsNocardia recurrence in SOT recipients is an uncommon event. TMP‐SMX secondary prophylaxis is incompletely protective and recurrence may be dependent upon other factors. Further study of secondary prophylaxis is warranted.

AbstractGain of 1q22 at diagnosis portends poorer outcomes in multiple myeloma (MM), but the prognostic significance of acquired 1q22 gain is unknown. We identified 63 MM patients seen at Mayo Clinic from 1/2004 to 12/2019 without 1q22 gain at diagnosis who acquired it during follow up and compared them to 63 control patients who did not acquire 1q22 gain with similar follow up. We also compared outcomes in the acquired 1q22 gain group with outcomes in 126 patients with 1q22 gain present at diagnosis. The incidence of acquired 1q22 gain was 6.1% (median follow‐up 6.8 years); median time to acquisition was 5.0 years (range: 0.7–11.5 years). Abnormalities on baseline fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) included trisomies (54%) and monosomy 13 (39%); 16 (25%) had high‐risk (HR) translocations or del(17p). Median progression‐free survival with front line therapy was 29.5 months in patients with acquired 1q22 gain, versus 31.4 months in control patients (p = .34) and 31.2 months in patients with de novo 1q22 gain (p = .04). Median overall survival (OS) from diagnosis was 10.9 years in patients with acquired 1q22 gain, versus 13.0 years in control patients (p = .03) and 6.3 years in patients with de novo 1q22 gain (p = .01). Presence of HR FISH at baseline increased risk of 1q22 gain acquisition. We demonstrate that acquisition of 1q22 gain is a significant molecular event in MM, associated with reduced OS. Among HR patients for whom this clonal evolution is determined, a risk‐adapted approach and/or clinical trial should be considered.

Abstract Background The past two decades have witnessed a surge in the use of cervical spine joint procedures including joint injections, nerve blocks and radiofrequency ablation to treat chronic neck pain, yet many aspects of the procedures remain controversial. Methods In August 2020, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine and the American Academy of Pain Medicine approved and charged the Cervical Joint Working Group to develop neck pain guidelines. Eighteen stakeholder societies were identified, and formal request-for-participation and member nomination letters were sent to those organizations. Participating entities selected panel members and an ad hoc steering committee selected preliminary questions, which were then revised by the full committee. Each question was assigned to a module composed of 4–5 members, who worked with the Subcommittee Lead and the Committee Chairs on preliminary versions, which were sent to the full committee after revisions. We used a modified Delphi method whereby the questions were sent to the committee en bloc and comments were returned in a non-blinded fashion to the Chairs, who incorporated the comments and sent out revised versions until consensus was reached. Before commencing, it was agreed that a recommendation would be noted with >50% agreement among committee members, but a consensus recommendation would require ≥75% agreement. Results Twenty questions were selected, with 100% consensus achieved in committee on 17 topics. Among participating organizations, 14 of 15 that voted approved or supported the guidelines en bloc, with 14 questions being approved with no dissensions or abstentions. Specific questions addressed included the value of clinical presentation and imaging in selecting patients for procedures, whether conservative treatment should be used before injections, whether imaging is necessary for blocks, diagnostic and prognostic value of medial branch blocks and intra-articular joint injections, the effects of sedation and injectate volume on validity, whether facet blocks have therapeutic value, what the ideal cut-off value is for designating a block as positive, how many blocks should be performed before radiofrequency ablation, the orientation of electrodes, whether larger lesions translate into higher success rates, whether stimulation should be used before radiofrequency ablation, how best to mitigate complication risks, if different standards should be applied to clinical practice and trials, and the indications for repeating radiofrequency ablation. Conclusions Cervical medial branch radiofrequency ablation may provide benefit to well-selected individuals, with medial branch blocks being more predictive than intra-articular injections. More stringent selection criteria are likely to improve denervation outcomes, but at the expense of false-negatives (ie, lower overall success rate). Clinical trials should be tailored based on objectives, and selection criteria for some may be more stringent than what is ideal in clinical practice.

Abstract BACKGROUND Dyslipoproteinemias can be classified by their distinct lipoprotein patterns, which helps determine atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk and directs lipid management but this has required advanced laboratory testing. OBJECTIVE To develop a new algorithm for classifying lipoprotein disorders that only relies on the standard lipid panel. METHODS Lipid thresholds for defining the different lipoprotein phenotypes were derived for Non-High-Density Lipoprotein-Cholesterol (NonHDL-C) and Triglycerides (TG) to be concordant when possible with the current US Multi-Society guidelines for blood cholesterol management. RESULTS The new classification method categorizes patients into all the classical Fredrickson-like phenotypes except for Type III dysbetalipoproteinemia. In addition, a new hypolipidemic phenotype (Type VI) due to genetic mutations in apoB-metabolism is described. The validity of the new algorithm was confirmed by lipid analysis by NMR (N = 11,365) and by concordance with classification by agarose gel electrophoresis/beta-quantification (N = 5504). Furthermore, based on the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) cohort (N = 14742), the lipoprotein phenotypes differ in their association with ASCVD (TypeV > IIb > IVb > IIa > IVa > normolipidemic) and can be used prognostically as risk enhancer conditions in the management of patients. CONCLUSIONS We describe a clinically useful lipoprotein phenotyping system that is only dependent upon the standard lipid panel. It, therefore, can be easily implemented for increasing compliance with current guidelines and for improving the care of patients at risk for ASCVD.

Introduction Diagnostic processes in the emergency department (ED) involve multiple interactions among individuals who interface with information systems to access and record information. A better understanding of diagnostic processes is needed to mitigate errors. This paper describes a study protocol to map diagnostic processes in the ED as a foundation for developing future error mitigation strategies. Methods and analysis This study of an adult and a paediatric academic ED uses a prospective mixed methods case study design informed by an ED-specific diagnostic decision-making model (the modified ED-National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) model) and two cognitive theories (dual process theory and distributed cognition). Data sources include audio recordings of patient and care team interactions, electronic health record data, observer field notes and stakeholder interviews. Multiple qualitative analysis methods will be used to explore diagnostic processes in situ, including systems information flow, human–human and human–system interactions and contextual factors influencing cognition. The study has three parts. Part 1 involves prospective field observations of patients with undifferentiated symptoms at high risk for diagnostic error, where each patient is followed throughout the entire care delivery process. Part 2 involves observing individual care team providers over a 4-hour window to capture their diagnostic workflow, team coordination and communication across multiple patients. Part 3 uses interviews with key stakeholders to understand different perspectives on the diagnostic process, as well as perceived strengths and vulnerabilities, in order to enrich the ED-NASEM diagnostic model. Ethics and dissemination The University of Michigan Institutional Review Board approved this study, HUM00156261. This foundational work will help identify strengths and vulnerabilities in diagnostic processes. Further, it will inform the future development and testing of patient, provider and systems-level interventions for mitigating error and improving patient safety in these and other EDs. The work will be disseminated through journal publications and presentations at national and international meetings.