Citations

ABSTRACT Bipolar disorder’s (BD) clinical heterogeneity has an unresolved genetic basis. We meta-analyzed genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of 16 BD subphenotypes in 226,032 individuals from 57 cohorts (38,022 cases); 10 advanced to multivariate and multi-trait analyses. Four factors (compulsive, psychotic, dysregulated, internalizing) explained 82.8% of shared genetic variance. BD1 and BD2 loaded on distinct factors despite a high genetic correlation; 87.0% of common-factor loci were significant in neither subtype. Unipolar mania aligned with psychosis over internalizing, and was distinguishable from BD1, and rapid cycling showed heritable cross-domain liability. We identified 356 risk loci, 158 novel, including the first univariate-GWAS associations for psychosis, unipolar mania, rapid cycling and schizoaffective disorder—and 249 credible genes (89 high-confidence), 12 with approved-drug or clinical-phase annotations. Cell-type association showed a midbrain dopaminergic–GABAergic gradient along the psychotic factor. BD’s genetic architecture appears hierarchical—a general liability resolving into dimensions of course and comorbidity beyond diagnostic subtypes.

Abstract Severe aplastic anemia (SAA) is a rare and life-threatening bone marrow failure disorder. Immunosuppressive therapy (IST) with antithymocyte globulin and cyclosporine has long been a frontline treatment option in SAA; however, its limited durability and risk of long-term complications such as secondary malignancies remain a drawback in this treatment modality. Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is a potentially curative option with significantly improved outcomes over the long term, particularly with HLA-matched related donors. However, the use of alternative donors, such as haploidentical, mismatched, or matched unrelated donors, has previously been limited due to increased transplant-related morbidity, particularly graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). HCTs have therefore been limited to young recipients and those with HLA-matched related donors, creating significant disparity for older adults and those who lack matched donor options. Nevertheless, more recent advances in HCT, such as posttransplant cyclophosphamide for GVHD prophylaxis, have led to improved outcomes of HCT with alternative donors; however, alternative donor HCT remains underused as up-front therapy, in part because of limited multicenter trial data. This review discusses current SAA treatment approaches, including both IST and HCT, and highlights remaining gaps. It also discusses how ongoing clinical trials such as CureAA and TransIT could help address these gaps. Furthermore, we discuss the importance of stakeholder engagement and implementation science in the integration of research-based evidence into clinical practice. Bridging these gaps is necessary for achieving equitable access for patients historically excluded from frontline HCT, including older adults and racially or ethnically diverse populations.

Abstract INTRODUCTION Neurofilament light chain (NfL) quantification aids in diagnosing and predicting neurological disorders, but clinical and laboratory practices vary across centers. Differences in result interpretation and reporting further challenge test commutability. This study aimed to review the global analytical and post‐analytical methods used for NfL measurement in routine clinical practice across different contexts. METHODS We established an international working group (WG) and distributed a survey to its members to gather information on context of use (COU), (pre) analytical methods, cutoff usage, as well as the interpretation and reporting of NfL measurements. RESULTS Among the centers, 63% measured NfL in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), 87% in blood, and 53% in both. COU was widespread, with 50% defining pathological cutoffs based on publications and 42% considering age. Reporting was primarily done through numeric results (95%). DISCUSSION Harmonizing cutoffs, reporting, and interpretation across various clinical contexts will facilitate the incorporation of this biomarker into routine clinical practice. Highlights Unique international overview of current analytical and post‐analytical methods for neurofilament light chain (NfL) measurement in routine clinical practice. Tailored sheets for each neurological application. Strategies to harmonize cutoffs, reporting, and interpretation of NfL's measurement.

Abstract Atrial fibrillation (AF) is increasingly diagnosed early, close to its first occurrence due to: (i) increased public awareness with self-screening; (ii) health care initiatives including population screening and opportunistic case finding; and (iii) increased use and surveillance of implantable cardiac devices. At its onset, AF is often low burden, and cardiovascular co-morbidities may be absent or at an early stage. Thus, the management of recent-onset AF has become an issue of growing importance. Professional guidelines have traditionally focused on anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis, generally recommending a cautious approach to rhythm control, and priority has been given to rate control to alleviate symptoms. In recent guidelines, the importance of managing lifestyle and co-morbidities has increased. The AF-SCREEN collaboration proposes that a vigorous approach to active management of recent-onset AF may be warranted. This includes addressing co-morbidities and promoting healthy lifestyles to prevent the emergence or progression of AF and associated cardiovascular disease, as well as the initiation of active rhythm control ± anticoagulation to prevent AF-related morbidity and mortality, including stroke and heart failure (HF). Intuitively, intervention early after AF onset would be beneficial since lifestyle and co-morbidity management, plus rhythm control and anticoagulation, are important contributors to improved outcomes in patients with established AF, but robust evidence is lacking for recent-onset AF. There is a delicate balance between achieving favourable outcomes such as preventing strokes, HF and AF progression vs the complications and potential adverse effects of interventions. Given the serious long-term consequences, innovative approaches are necessary to determine the value and risks of initiating active therapy very early in the course of AF. More data are needed to guide the best management of recent-onset AF, bearing AF burden in mind. Long-term studies using large national databases linked to electronic medical records and rhythm monitoring devices offer excellent opportunities. Shorter-term studies focusing on reducing AF burden to slow AF progression and studies focusing on outcomes such as HF could be used in both randomized clinical trials and observational cohort studies.

AimsPolymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) is a chronic autoimmune disorder that mainly affects older adults. Pulmonary disease in PMR is rare but may be under‐recognized and pathological descriptions thereof are few. We aimed to characterize diffuse parenchymal lung disease (DPLD) in PMR.Methods and resultsInstitutional archives were searched for patients having PMR and DPLD with lung tissue sampling. After excluding cases with infection, concomitant rheumatoid arthritis, or smoking‐related DPLD only, 11 patients (9 women, median age 75 years) were enrolled. Clinical history and pathology slides were reviewed. One of the 11 patients (9%) had concomitant giant cell arteritis; the remaining patients had no other rheumatological diseases. All had been treated for PMR with immunosuppression, and most presented years later (median 6 years) with non‐specific respiratory symptoms. Radiographically, bilateral ground‐glass opacities and reticulation were typical and were usually lower lobe predominant. Histologically, fibrosis was seen in 8 of 11 (73%) patients and was unclassifiable in four; non‐specific interstitial pneumonia was encountered in three patients, and usual interstitial pneumonia was seen in only one case. Evidence of acute lung injury occurred in 9 (82%) patients, including three with acute lung injury only, usually manifesting as organizing pneumonia. Diffuse alveolar haemorrhage was seen in four cases (29%), including two patients with haemoptysis and capillaritis.ConclusionsOur data corroborate prior reports of clinically significant DPLD in some patients with PMR. Histopathological findings mirror other rheumatological disorders and include diffuse alveolar haemorrhage with capillaritis. Additional studies are warranted to clarify the association between PMR and DPLD.

ABSTRACT The characteristics at diagnosis and clinical course of primary extranodal follicular lymphoma (EFL) have not been extensively described. The International Extranodal Lymphoma Study Group (IELSG) conducted an international retrospective survey aimed to describe the clinical features at diagnosis and the outcomes of FL cases with a clinically dominant extranodal component. The dataset included 605 pathologically reviewed cases from 19 different countries, and their outcomes were compared to those of nodal follicular lymphomas. The two most common presentation sites for EFL were the skin ( n = 334) and the gastrointestinal tract ( n = 72), with 22 cases having primary duodenal localization. These subsets exhibited unique features at diagnosis and significantly different overall survival (OS) patterns. After a median follow‐up of 5.5 years, primary cutaneous lymphomas showed a superior outcome [10‐year OS: 89% (95% CI, 83%–93%)], while primary gastrointestinal lymphomas had an intermediate outcome [10‐year OS: 79% (95% CI, 59%–90%)]. Among the gastrointestinal lymphomas, primary duodenal lymphomas tended toward the best outcome [10‐year OS: 95% (95% CI, 69%–99%)]. Other primary extranodal sites had inferior outcomes [10‐year OS: 59% (95% CI, 48%–68%)], similar to primary nodal lymphomas [10‐year OS: 57% (95% CI, 49%–64%)]. These findings support the identification of specific primary FL localizations as distinct entities with particular clinical and biological characteristics.

OBJECTIVE Spinal stereotactic radiosurgery (SSRS) is an established treatment modality for spinal metastatic disease. A common complication of SSRS is postradiation pathologic fracture. The authors evaluated the risk of pathologic fracture in sacral SSRS. METHODS All patients receiving SSRS in 1 to 5 fractions to 1 or more sacral levels between 2011 and 2020 at participating institutions were included. Demographic, histological, anatomical, and outcome data were obtained from electronic medical records. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 28. RESULTS Of 67 total patients, 50 (74.6%) were men and 17 (25.4%) were women. The most common tumor histologies were prostate adenocarcinoma (n = 16 [23.9%]) and renal cell carcinoma (n = 12 [17.9%]). Median (range) age at treatment was 63 (8–87) years. The mean ± SD (range) number of levels treated was 1.5 ± 0.7 (1–4) levels. Mean ± SD (range) bone density at S1 was 208.0 ± 74.4 (−3.0 to 443.3) Hounsfield units (HUs). Median (range) follow-up was 16.6 (1.5–132) months, median ± SD (range) overall survival was 24 ± 21.0 (1.7–83.3) months, and the 1-year local control rate was 83.6%. Fourteen patients (20.9%) experienced fracture within the radiation field. There was no association between fracture and patient sex (p = 0.32), age (p = 0.40), S1 HU (p = 0.28), tumor location according to Denis classification (p = 0.87), presence of pain (p = 0.66), single versus multifraction radiation (p = 0.44), or number of levels treated (p = 0.52). Patients experiencing in-field progression were more likely to experience fracture (61.5% vs 10.2%, p < 0.001), and patients experiencing fracture had a higher average Spine Instability Neoplastic Score than patients without fracture (5.7 vs 4.3, p = 0.049). Only local control remained as a factor associated with sacral fracture in the multivariate analysis. Of the patients experiencing fracture, 10 (71.4%) were symptomatic and 3 of those (30.0%) underwent post-SSRS surgical intervention. CONCLUSIONS Pathologic fracture may occur after sacral SSRS in a significant number of patients and is significantly associated with failure of local control.

Purpose To establish international expert consensus on surgical techniques, complications, and rehabilitation protocols for lateral extra‐articular procedures (LEAPs) performed adjunctively with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Methods Fifty‐five knee surgeons from 17 countries on 5 continents completed a 3‐round modified Delphi process. In the final round, 16 statements on LEAP techniques and complications were scored on a 5‐point Likert scale; ≥75% “agree/strongly agree” constituted consensus. When appropriate, strength of recommendation was graded. Statements lacking support were revised until consensus or abandonment. Results Six statements achieved unanimous consensus (100%), 2 had strong consensus (90%‐99.9%), and 3 reached consensus (75%‐89.9%); 4 were removed. Key technical recommendations were as follows: (1) in iliotibial band procedures, the graft strip should pass beneath the lateral collateral ligament; (2) an anatomic technique is mandatory for anterolateral ligament reconstruction; and (3) no single LEAP is clinically superior to another. Unanimous agreement indicated that modern LEAPs do not increase lateral compartment osteoarthritis risk, carry a low complication rate, and do not necessitate changes to rehabilitation or return‐to‐play timelines. Conclusions Consensus defined core surgical principles and confirmed the safety of adding LEAPs to anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. When an iliotibial band graft is used, it should be routed deep to the lateral collateral ligament and fixed between 0° and 60° of knee flexion under low tension. For anterolateral ligament reconstruction, femoral fixation should be in full extension at a posterior‐proximal point relative to the lateral epicondyle. Although no single LEAP proved superiority, adherence to these principles permits safe, effective surgery without altering standard rehabilitation or return‐to‐sport protocols and without increasing osteoarthritis risk. Level of Evidence Level V, expert opinion.

Purpose To define expert consensus on whether and how lateral extra‐articular procedures (LEAPs) should accompany anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction to optimize outcomes in ACL‐deficient knees. Methods Fifty‐five knee surgeons from 17 countries on 5 continents completed a 3‐round modified Delphi process. Twenty‐one statements on patient selection for combined ACL reconstruction (ACLR) + LEAPs were graded on 5‐point Likert scales; ≥75% “agree/strongly agree” signified consensus. Strength of recommendation was ranked, and statements failing the threshold were revised or discarded after discussion. Results One statement achieved unanimous agreement (100%): it is strongly recommended to add a LEAP for active patients ≤25 years receiving hamstring‐autograft ACLR to reduce graft failure. Strong consensus (≥90%) supported LEAPs in primary ACLR when grade 3 pivot shift (97.9%), knee hyperextension (97.9%), skeletally immature status (79.5%), revision ACLR (91.5%), return to pivoting sports (93.2%), active patients ≤25 years using nonhamstring grafts (90.7%), grade 3 Lachman test (90%), and when multiple relative risk factors coexist (statement 36, 97.1%). Consensus (75%‐89.9%) favored LEAPs for chronic symptomatic ACL deficiency (86.1%), posterior tibial slope >12° (85.7%), and a history of contralateral ACL injury (88.9%). Eight statements did not reach consensus regarding small‐diameter autografts, female athletes, imaging signs of anterolateral injury (e.g., Segond fracture, lateral femoral‐notch sign), and concomitant meniscal procedures. One statement on LEAPs with primary ACL repair was withdrawn because the project focused on reconstruction. Conclusions International experts strongly recommend adding a LEAP in young active patients undergoing hamstring‐autograft ACLR and in cases of high‐grade rotational or anterior laxity, knee hyperextension, revision surgery, or returning to pivoting sports. Unresolved issues include small graft size, female athletes, imaging findings of rotational instability, and concurrent meniscal procedures, highlighting priorities for future research. Level of Evidence Level V, expert opinion.