Citations

Study Design. Subanalysis of a prospective, multicenter, observational study at 72 US adult, pediatric, and mixed trauma centers. Objective. We investigated trauma-related risk factors and patient-level factors associated with multiregional spinal column injury, defined as cervical spine injury (CSI) requiring treatment and thoracolumbar injury (TLI). Summary of Background Data. Traumatic spinal injury causes morbidity and mortality in pediatric patients. Injuries to multiple spinal column regions require early identification and thoughtful management. Methods. All children <18 years undergoing cervical spine evaluation after blunt multisystem trauma were prospectively identified and enrolled. Clinically significant CSI was defined by cervical spine surgery or halo placement. TLI incidence and management was recorded. The primary outcome was multiregional spinal column injury (CSI+TLI). Results. Of 19,651 enrolled patients, 1484 children (7.5%) experienced a TLI, 159 (0.81%) had CSI requiring treatment, and 30 (0.15%) had CSI+TLI. Multivariate analysis revealed that the trauma-related factors mechanism of injury ( P <0.001), rib fractures (odds ratio (OR) 2.8 [2.3-3.4]), hemothorax/pneumothorax (OR 2.0 [1.7-2.4]), bowel injury (OR 4.0 [2.9-5.4]), pelvic fracture (OR 1.5 [1.2-1.9]), and clinically significant CSI (OR 1.9 [1.2-2.9]) were independently associated with TLI. Of the 159 children with clinically significant CSI, 30 also experienced TLI (19%). Multivariate analysis identified prehospitalization intubation (OR 3.1 [1.1-8.4]) and rib fractures (OR 3.9 [1.2-12.8]) as independent associations with CSI+TLI. Conclusions. Of children with CSI requiring treatment, 19% experienced TLI. MOI and various trauma-related injuries were independently associated with TLI, whereas prehospitalization intubation and rib fractures were independent risk factors for CSI+TLI. These factors should trigger screening for multiregional spinal column injury in pediatric trauma patients. Furthermore, if there is known TLI, the cervical spine should be evaluated, and if there is significant CSI, then dedicated imaging of the thoracic and lumbar spine is indicated. Level of Evidence. III

ABSTRACT Purpose To validate a custom smartphone application for at‐home visual acuity (VA) measurement in children. Methods A total of 452 children aged 3–17.5 years participated. Certified examiners measured in‐office test–retest VA (logMAR) using gold‐standard Amblyopia Treatment Study HOTV (3‐to‐6‐year‐olds, younger cohort) or electronic Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (7‐to‐17.5‐year‐olds, older cohort) protocols at 3–4.5 m and app‐based VA at 1.5 m. Caregivers measured at‐home app‐based VA at 1.5 m. Results Comparing at‐home app‐based with gold‐standard VA, in eyes 20/40 or better, 95% (143/151) and 93% (91/98) of the younger and older cohorts were within 2 lines, respectively (mean differences: younger = −0.03, older = −0.04; 95% limits‐of‐agreement half‐width (LOA): younger = ±0.26, older = ±0.22). In eyes 20/50 or worse, 66% (42/64) and 75% (76/101) of the younger and older cohorts were within 2 lines, respectively (mean differences: younger = 0.11, older = 0.13, LOA: younger = ±0.50, older = ±0.51). Comparing in‐office app‐based VA with gold‐standard VA, in eyes 20/40 or better, 98% (160/164) and 94% (99/105) of the younger and older cohorts were within 2 lines, respectively (mean differences: younger = −0.03, older = −0.03; LOA: younger = ±0.22; older = ±0.24). In eyes 20/50 or worse, 85% (60/71) and 91% (101/111) of the younger and older cohorts were within 2 lines, respectively (mean differences: younger = 0.04; older = 0.04; LOA: younger = ±0.39; older = ±0.24). For gold‐standard test–retest, in eyes 20/40 or better, 99% (163/164) and 99% (104/105) of the younger and older cohorts had retest within 2 lines, respectively (mean differences: younger = 0.00; older = 0.01; LOA: younger = ±0.17; older = ±0.11). For 20/50 or worse, 92% (66/72) and 100% (111/111) in the younger and older cohorts were within 2 lines, respectively (mean differences: younger = 0.01; older = 0.02; LOA: younger = ±0.35; older = ±0.15). Conclusions Our app demonstrated good concordance with the gold standard at home and in the office for eyes with VA of 20/40 or better. However, concordance decreased considerably for eyes with VA 20/50 or worse, particularly at home.

Advances in oncology drug development are driving the emergence of novel therapies, challenging traditional dose-efficacy assumptions in dose-finding oncology trials. Traditional trial designs aim to identify a maximum tolerated dose (MTD) by assessing patients’ dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) – adopting traditional dose-efficacy paradigms that efficacy increases with treatment dose. With these new therapies in mind, emphasis should shift toward methodological advancements in trial designs aimed at identifying optimal doses, rather than solely determining MTDs. Incorporating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) within dose-finding oncology trials is increasingly recommended to better understand treatments’ tolerability profiles, especially given the extended tolerability assessment windows for novel immunotherapies and targeted therapies. This article introduces PRO-ADD ( P atient- R eported O utcomes A ided D ose-optimisation D esign), a modular trial design framework for dose-optimisation. We leverage this framework to optimise dosage with respect to three key outcomes – clinician-assessed DLTs, PROs and preliminary efficacy. PRO-ADD performs well at identifying the optimal dose (both efficacious and tolerable) – successfully identifying the most tolerable effective dose and avoiding escalation to larger, safe doses offering no additional efficacy benefit. As the field evolves, patient-centric dose-finding approaches incorporating PROs are crucial in advancing our understanding of treatment tolerability, and in turn, shaping the future landscape of dose-finding oncology trials.

Abstract Skin biopsies analyzed with α-synuclein seed amplification assays (SAAs) are a simple way to clinically interrogate the presence of α-synuclein aggregates. We determined the accuracy of skin biopsy SAA in predicting the clinical diagnoses of Parkinson disease (PD), PD with dementia (PDD) and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB). Blinded SAAs were performed in 3 independent laboratories. Subjects diagnosed with PD, PDD and DLB were analyzed together as group 1, clinically unaffected subjects as group 2 and those with risk factors for LBD as group 3. Punch biopsies were taken from the posterior neck and analyzed by the 3 labs in 6 separate SAAs. Pairwise agreement between labs and assays ranged from excellent (kappa 0.82) to moderate (kappa 0.40-0.68). Sensitivity across assays ranged between 50.0% and 61.3%; specificity ranged between 68.6% and 100%. Comparisons of group 1 vs group 2 produced the greatest specificities, between 77.3% and 100%. In 17 cases that subsequently came to autopsy, 93% of SAAs were positive in those at the neocortical LBD stage but in only &lt;10% of those at lower stages. Skin biopsy α-synuclein SAA may be useful as a diagnostic and progression biomarker in Lewy body dementia clinical trials.

Introduction Sleep is routinely assessed in the management of mental health conditions. Wearable technologies like smartwatches offer a non-intrusive method to quantitatively measure sleep. However, there are limited empirical benchmarks for sleep duration and sleep quality measured by wearables against user reports. This study aims to evaluate the concordance between user-reported and smartwatch-measured hours of sleep and sleep quality. Methods Participants were recruited from two decentralized digital health well-being studies and completed a 7-day sleep diary while simultaneously wearing their smartwatch to sleep (November 7, 2023 - June 30, 2024). Participants self-reported sleep timestamps and perceived sleep quality using the Sleep Quality Scale. Sleep timestamps and quality were also derived from their smartwatches (Garmin Vívoactive 4 2019, Garmin Venu 2 Plus 2022, and Garmin Venu 3/3S 2023). Statistical analyses included paired t-tests, equipercentile linking, and chi-square tests to assess agreement between smartwatch and self-reported sleep parameters. Exploratory analyses established the difference between reported and recorded sleep duration in healthcare shift workers. Results From 841 sleep instances reported by 130 participants wearing three different generation smartwatches, the mean difference in sleep duration between smartwatch-recorded and participant-reported was 21.22 (Garmin Vívoactive), 11.67 (Garmin Venu 2 Plus), and 6.58 (Garmin Venu 3/3S) minutes, respectively. There were statistically significant between-group differences in mean sleep durations assessed by participant self-report vs. Vívoactive 4 smartwatches, but not self-report vs. Venu 2 Plus or Venu 3/3S smartwatches. Equipercentile linking revealed concordance between smartwatch sleep scores and self-reported sleep quality using the Sleep Quality Scale (SQS) between 4 and 7, with disagreements observed at the SQS ranges from 0–4 and 7-10. Conclusions These results suggest that wearables can reliably measure sleep duration, and future research warrants improvements in algorithms that estimate sleep quality with validations across different wearable vendors.

We previously reported initial results of the pivotal phase II trial of atezolizumab for patients with alveolar soft part sarcoma (ASPS; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03141684 ). Here, we report on three additional years of observation. Fifty-three patients with ASPS received atezolizumab. Median duration of response increased to 37.0 months. Objective response rate (ORR) and median progression-free survival (mPFS) remained essentially as previously reported (35.8% [95% CI, 23.1 to 50.2] and 20.8 months [IQR, 7.6-not reached], respectively). ASPSCR1::TFE3 fusion type was determined for 47/53 patients; ORR and mPFS were higher among the 41 patients expressing type 1 (43.9% [95% CI, 28.5 to 60.2] and 28.3 months [IQR, 9.2-not reached], respectively) than the six patients expressing type 2 (0% [95% CI, 0 to 45.9] and 7.5 months [IQR, 3.9-not reached], respectively, PFS HR, 3.2 [95% CI, 1.01 to 10.2]). Eleven patients chose a per-protocol drug holiday (range, 3.5-26.4 months) after ≥2 years of treatment; two experienced disease progression during the holiday. Nine eligible patients elected to receive bevacizumab plus atezolizumab after progressing on monotherapy; ORR was 0% and mPFS was 18.5 months (IQR, 7.9-21.1) in this small cohort. Long-term results support using atezolizumab to treat ASPS, even for several years; a drug holiday with careful monitoring may be an option for some patients.

Abstract Objective: Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) programs continue to evolve with increases in multidisciplinary teams, complex oral antibiotics, long-acting injectable antimicrobials, patients with substance use disorder (SUD) and telehealth. We sought to examine how OPAT programs are currently structured and identify barriers to safe care. Design: Cross-sectional survey. Participants: Physician, pharmacist, and advanced practice providers (APP) Emerging Infections Network (EIN) members. Methods: A survey was conducted between February and March 2025 to assess OPAT structure, expansion to complex outpatient antimicrobial therapy (COpAT), and barriers to safe OPAT care. Results: Of 1639 EIN members, 622 (38%) responded; 75% reported an active role in OPAT. Oversight of patients on COpAT was reported by 59%, and mandatory ID consultation for OPAT by 59%. Eighty-one percent reported >75% of OPAT patients were followed by ID. Most patients received OPAT at home (78%) followed by post-acute care facilities. Outpatient and inpatient ID physicians were responsible for laboratory test monitoring (75% and 30% respectively), while 37% reported a multidisciplinary OPAT team and 32% reported non-specialists. Respondents cited inadequate support in data analysis, administration, information technology and financial support for clinical staff. Common challenges were lack of leadership awareness (51%), difficulty managing patients with SUD (50%) and timely access to laboratory test results (48%). Conclusions: ID physicians were commonly involved in OPAT care, with many programs expanding to COpAT. Several barriers to the safe delivery of OPAT remain, including lack of institutional support, reimbursement and poor communication between stakeholders.

Diagnosing rare genetic diseases remains a major challenge despite widespread clinical testing. Long-read RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) offers a powerful approach to capturing the effects of genetic variants on the transcriptome, yet challenges with sequencing coverage, cost, tissue selection, and scalability have limited its clinical adoption. To address this, we developed STRIPE (Sequencing Targeted RNAs Identifies Pathogenic Events), a targeted long-read RNA-seq–based strategy for rare disease diagnosis and variant interpretation. STRIPE enables deep sequencing of full-length transcripts for any customized disease-specific gene panel such that a wide range of clinically informative readouts, including transcript aberrations and sequence variants, can be detected at haplotype-level resolution. Applying STRIPE to 88 individuals spanning two major rare disease groups, we accurately reidentified known pathogenic variants and revealed their transcript consequences, including many unexpected ones. For 8 of 15 splice site region variants, we observed more complex RNA processing defects beyond single exon skipping or cryptic splice site activation. Notably, we find that donor splice site variants frequently activate cryptic intronic polyadenylation sites, leading to premature transcript termination. Leveraging unique strengths of long-read RNA-seq, STRIPE also resolved variants of uncertain significance and uncovered disease-causing variants in five previously undiagnosed individuals. Overall, STRIPE is a powerful, adaptable, and scalable strategy with broad potential to improve clinical variant interpretation and advance genetic diagnosis of rare diseases.