Citations

Isocitrate Dehydrogenase-1 (IDH1) is commonly mutated in lower-grade diffuse gliomas. The IDH1R132H mutation is an important diagnostic tool for tumor diagnosis and prognosis; however, its role in glioma development, and its impact on response to therapy, is not fully understood. We developed a murine model of proneural IDH1R132H-mutated glioma that shows elevated production of 2-hydroxyglutarate (2-HG) and increased trimethylation of lysine residue K27 on histone H3 (H3K27me3) compared to IDH1 wild-type tumors. We found that using Tazemetostat to inhibit the methyltransferase for H3K27, Enhancer of Zeste 2 (EZH2), reduced H3K27me3 levels and increased acetylation on H3K27. We also found that, although the histone deacetylase inhibitor (HDACi) Panobinostat was less cytotoxic in IDH1R132H-mutated cells (either isolated from murine glioma or oligodendrocyte progenitor cells infected in vitro with a retrovirus expressing IDH1R132H) compared to IDH1-wild-type cells, combination treatment with Tazemetostat is synergistic in both mutant and wild-type models. These findings indicate a novel therapeutic strategy for IDH1-mutated gliomas that targets the specific epigenetic alteration in these tumors.

ImportanceImplementing multidisciplinary teams for treatment of complex brain tumors needing awake craniotomies is associated with significant costs. To date, there is a paucity of analysis on the cost utility of introducing advanced multidisciplinary standardized teams to enable awake craniotomies.ObjectiveTo assess the cost utility of introducing a standardized program of awake craniotomies.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsA retrospective economic evaluation was conducted at Mayo Clinic Florida. All patients with single, unilateral lesions who underwent elective awake craniotomies between January 2016 and December 2021 were considered eligible for inclusion. The economic perspective of the health care institution and a time horizon of 1 year were considered. Data were analyzed from October 2022 to May 2023.ExposureTreatment with an awake craniotomy before standardization (2016-2018) compared with treatment with awake craniotomy after standardization (2018-2021).Main Outcomes and MeasuresPatient demographics, perioperative, and postoperative outcomes, including length of stay, intensive care (ICU) admission, extent of resection, readmission rates, and 1-year mortality were compared between patients undergoing surgery before and after standardization. Direct medical costs were estimated from Medicare reimbursement rates for all billed procedures. A cost-utility analysis was performed considering differences in direct medical costs and in 1-year mortality within the periods before and after standardization of procedures. Uncertainty was explored in probability sensitivity analysis.ResultsA total of 164 patients (mean [SD] age, 49.9 [15.7] years; 98 [60%] male patients) were included in the study. Of those, 56 underwent surgery before and 108 after implementation of procedure standardization. Procedure standardization was associated with reductions in length of stay from a mean (SD) of 3.34 (1.79) to 2.46 (1.61) days (difference, 0.88 days; 95% CI, 0.33-1.42 days; P = .002), length of stay in ICU from a mean (SD) of 1.32 (0.69) to 0.99 (0.90) nights (difference, 0.33 nights; 95% CI, 0.06-0.60 nights; P = .02), 30-day readmission rate from 14% (8 patients) in the prestandardization cohort to 5% (5 patients) (difference, 9%; 95% CI, 19.6%-0.3%; P = .03), while extent of resection and intraoperative complication rates were similar between both cohorts. The standardized protocol was associated with mean (SD) savings of $7088.80 ($12 389.50) and decreases in 1-year mortality (dominant intervention). This protocol was found to be cost saving in 75.5% of all simulations in probability sensitivity analysis.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this economic evaluation of standardization of awake craniotomy, there was a generalized reduction in length of stay, ICU admission time, and direct medical costs with implementation of an optimized protocol. This was achieved without compromising patient outcomes and with similar extent of resection, complication rates, and reduced readmission rates.

Background: Despite numerous measures used to prevent pressure ulcers, their growing prevalence in recent years is expected to continue as the population ages. This review aims to report the outcomes of the regenerative potential of MSCs in treating pressure ulcers, assessing the effectiveness of MSCs in treating pressure ulcers. Methods: A computerized search for articles on animal models that use MSCs as primary therapy to treat pressure ulcers, published from conception to present, was conducted using PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL. Our search yielded 52 articles, narrowed to 44 after excluding duplicates. Results: Out of 52 articles collected from four databases, 11 met the inclusion criteria. A total of 11 articles published between 2008 and 2020 met the inclusion criteria. Eight studies were observational descriptive papers in animal models, and three were prospective. Six studies used autologous MSCs, while five used allogenic MSCs. Three studies were conducted in humans, and the remaining eight were conducted in animals. The most common method of cell delivery was an intradermal injection in the margins of the ulcer. All studies reported positive results, including improved wound healing, reduced inflammation, and improved tissue regeneration. Conclusions: MSCs have shown promising results in treating pressure ulcers in animal and clinical trials. The combination of MSCs and scaffold materials has also been studied and found to be effective in wound healing. A standardized human wound model has been proposed further to investigate the efficacy of cell-based therapies for chronic wounds. However, more research is needed to determine the best quantity of cells to apply for pressure ulcers and to ensure the safety and efficacy of these treatments in clinical settings.