Citations

Background: The prevalence of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in U.S. adults is over 30%, yet the role of lifestyle factors in the etiology of NAFLD remains understudied. We examined the associations of physical activity, by intensity and type, and television viewing with prevalent NAFLD. Methods: Cross-sectional analysis of a population-based sample of 2726 Black (49%) and White (51%) adults (Mean (SD) age, 50 (3.6) years; 57.3% female) from the CARDIA study. Exposures were aerobic activity by intensity (moderate, vigorous; hours/week); activity type (aerobic, muscle-strengthening; hours/week); and television viewing (hours/week), examined concurrently in all models and assessed by validated questionnaires. Our outcome was NAFLD (liver attenuation < 51 Hounsfield Units), measured by non-contrast computed tomography, after exclusions for other causes of liver fat. Covariates were sex, age, race, study center, education, diet quality, smoking status, alcohol consumption, and body mass index or waist circumference. Results: 648 participants had NAFLD. In the fully adjusted modified Poisson regression model, the risk ratios per interquartile range of each exposure were moderate-intensity aerobic activity, 1.10 (95% CI, 0.97–1.26); vigorous-intensity aerobic activity, 0.72 (0.63–0.82); muscle-strengthening activity, 0.89 (0.80–1.01); and television viewing, 1.20 (1.10–1.32). Relative to less active participants with higher levels of television viewing, those who participated in ≥2 h/week of both vigorous-intensity aerobic and muscle-strengthening activity and <7 h/week of television viewing had 65% lower risk of NAFLD (risk ratio = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.23–0.51). Conclusion: Adults who follow public health recommendations for vigorous-aerobic and muscle-strengthening activity, as well as minimize television viewing, are considerably less likely to have NAFLD than those who do not follow the recommendations and who have relatively high levels of television viewing.

ImportanceSystematic data on the association between anticancer therapies and thromboembolic events (TEEs) in patients with COVID-19 are lacking.ObjectiveTo assess the association between anticancer therapy exposure within 3 months prior to COVID-19 and TEEs following COVID-19 diagnosis in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included patients who were hospitalized and had active cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data were accrued from March 2020 to December 2021 and analyzed from December 2021 to October 2022.ExposureTreatments of interest (TOIs) (endocrine therapy, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors/tyrosine kinase inhibitors [VEGFis/TKIs], immunomodulators [IMiDs], immune checkpoint inhibitors [ICIs], chemotherapy) vs reference (no systemic therapy) in 3 months prior to COVID-19.Main Outcomes and MeasuresMain outcomes were (1) venous thromboembolism (VTE) and (2) arterial thromboembolism (ATE). Secondary outcome was severity of COVID-19 (rates of intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, 30-day all-cause mortality following TEEs in TOI vs reference group) at 30-day follow-up.ResultsOf 4988 hospitalized patients with cancer (median [IQR] age, 69 [59-78] years; 2608 [52%] male), 1869 had received 1 or more TOIs. Incidence of VTE was higher in all TOI groups: endocrine therapy, 7%; VEGFis/TKIs, 10%; IMiDs, 8%; ICIs, 12%; and chemotherapy, 10%, compared with patients not receiving systemic therapies (6%). In multivariable log-binomial regression analyses, relative risk of VTE (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.69) but not ATE (aRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.56-1.16) was significantly higher in those exposed to all TOIs pooled together vs those with no exposure. Among individual drugs, ICIs were significantly associated with VTE (aRR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.01-2.07). Also noted were significant associations between VTE and active and progressing cancer (aRR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.01-2.03), history of VTE (aRR, 3.10; 95% CI, 2.38-4.04), and high-risk site of cancer (aRR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.14-1.75). Black patients had a higher risk of TEEs (aRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03-1.50) than White patients. Patients with TEEs had high intensive care unit admission (46%) and mechanical ventilation (31%) rates. Relative risk of death in patients with TEEs was higher in those exposed to TOIs vs not (aRR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.91-1.38) and was significantly associated with poor performance status (aRR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.30-2.40) and active/progressing cancer (aRR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.13-2.13).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, relative risk of developing VTE was high among patients receiving TOIs and varied by the type of therapy, underlying risk factors, and demographics, such as race and ethnicity. These findings highlight the need for close monitoring and perhaps personalized thromboprophylaxis to prevent morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19–related thromboembolism in patients with cancer.

With more than 6000 attendees between in-person and virtual offerings, the American Epilepsy Society Meeting 2022 in Nashville, felt as busy as in prepandemic times. An ever-growing number of physicians, scientists, and allied health professionals gathered to learn a variety of topics about epilepsy. The program was carefully tailored to meet the needs of professionals with different interests and career stages. This article summarizes the different symposia presented at the meeting. Basic science lectures addressed the primary elements of seizure generation and pathophysiology of epilepsy in different disease states. Scientists congregated to learn about anti-seizure medications, mechanisms of action, and new tools to treat epilepsy including surgery and neurostimulation. Some symposia were also dedicated to discuss epilepsy comorbidities and practical issues regarding epilepsy care. An increasing number of patient advocates discussing their stories were intertwined within scientific activities. Many smaller group sessions targeted more specific topics to encourage member participation, including Special Interest Groups, Investigator, and Skills Workshops. Special lectures included the renown Hoyer and Lombroso, an ILAE/IBE joint session, a spotlight on the impact of Dobbs v. Jackson on reproductive health in epilepsy, and a joint session with the NAEC on coding and reimbursement policies. The hot topics symposium was focused on traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic epilepsy. A balanced collaboration with the industry allowed presentations of the latest pharmaceutical and engineering advances in satellite symposia.

Introduction Postdural puncture headache (PDPH) can follow unintentional dural puncture during epidural techniques or intentional dural puncture during neuraxial procedures such as a lumbar puncture or spinal anesthesia. Evidence-based guidance on the prevention, diagnosis or management of this condition is, however, currently lacking. This multisociety guidance aims to fill this void and provide practitioners with comprehensive information and patient-centric recommendations to prevent, diagnose and manage patients with PDPH. Methods Based on input from committee members and stakeholders, the committee cochairs developed 10 review questions deemed important for the prevention, diagnosis and management of PDPH. A literature search for each question was performed in MEDLINE (Ovid) on 2 March 2022. The results from each search were imported into separate Covidence projects for deduplication and screening, followed by data extraction. Additional relevant clinical trials, systematic reviews and research studies published through March 2022 were also considered for the development of guidelines and shared with contributors. Each group submitted a structured narrative review along with recommendations graded according to the US Preventative Services Task Force grading of evidence. The interim draft was shared electronically, with each collaborator requested to vote anonymously on each recommendation using two rounds of a modified Delphi approach. Results Based on contemporary evidence and consensus, the multidisciplinary panel generated 50 recommendations to provide guidance regarding risk factors, prevention, diagnosis and management of PDPH, along with their strength and certainty of evidence. After two rounds of voting, we achieved a high level of consensus for all statements and recommendations. Several recommendations had moderate-to-low certainty of evidence. Conclusions These clinical practice guidelines for PDPH provide a framework to improve identification, evaluation and delivery of evidence-based care by physicians performing neuraxial procedures to improve the quality of care and align with patients’ interests. Uncertainty remains regarding best practice for the majority of management approaches for PDPH due to the paucity of evidence. Additionally, opportunities for future research are identified.

Importance Postdural puncture headache (PDPH) can follow unintentional dural puncture during epidural techniques or intentional dural puncture during neuraxial procedures, such as a lumbar puncture or spinal anesthesia. Evidence-based guidance on the prevention, diagnosis, and management of this condition is, however, currently lacking. Objective To fill the practice guidelines void and provide comprehensive information and patient-centric recommendations for preventing, diagnosing, and managing PDPH. Evidence Review With input from committee members and stakeholders of 6 participating professional societies, 10 review questions that were deemed important for the prevention, diagnosis, and management of PDPH were developed. A literature search for each question was performed in MEDLINE on March 2, 2022. Additional relevant clinical trials, systematic reviews, and research studies published through March 2022 were also considered for practice guideline development and shared with collaborator groups. Each group submitted a structured narrative review along with recommendations that were rated according to the US Preventive Services Task Force grading of evidence. Collaborators were asked to vote anonymously on each recommendation using 2 rounds of a modified Delphi approach. Findings After 2 rounds of electronic voting by a 21-member multidisciplinary collaborator team, 47 recommendations were generated to provide guidance on the risk factors for and the prevention, diagnosis, and management of PDPH, along with ratings for the strength and certainty of evidence. A 90% to 100% consensus was obtained for almost all recommendations. Several recommendations were rated as having moderate to low certainty. Opportunities for future research were identified. Conclusions and Relevance Results of this consensus statement suggest that current approaches to the treatment and management of PDPH are not uniform due to the paucity of evidence. The practice guidelines, however, provide a framework for individual clinicians to assess PDPH risk, confirm the diagnosis, and adopt a systematic approach to its management.

Background The impact of changes in Doppler‐derived kidney venous flow in heart failure (HF) is not well studied. We aimed to investigate the association of Doppler‐derived kidney venous stasis index (KVSI) and intrakidney venous‐flow (IKVF) patterns with adverse cardiorenal outcomes in patients with HF. Methods and Results In this observational cohort study, consecutive inpatients with HF referred to a nephrologist because of a history of diuretic resistance and abnormal kidney function (n=216) underwent spectral kidney assessments after admission (Doppler 1) and 25 to 35 days later (Doppler 2) to identify IKVF patterns (continuous/pulsatile/biphasic/monophasic) and KVSI levels. Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to evaluate the associations between KVSI/IKVF patterns at Doppler 1 as well as changes from Doppler 1 to Doppler 2 and risk of cardiorenal events up to 18 months after admission. Worsening HF or death occurred in 126 patients. Both baseline KVSI (hazard ratio [HR], 1.49 [95% CI, 1.37–1.61] per 0.1‐unit increase) and baseline IKVF pattern (HR, 2.47 [95% CI, 2.01–3.04] per 1 pattern severity increase) were significantly associated with worsening HF/death. Increases in both KVSI and IKVF pattern severity from Doppler 1 to 2 were also associated with an increased risk of worsening HF/death (HR, 3.00 [95% CI, 2.08–4.32] per 0.1‐unit increase change; and HR, 6.73 [95% CI, 3.27–13.86] per 1 pattern increase in severity change, respectively). Similar results were observed for kidney outcomes. Conclusions Baseline kidney venous flow predicted adverse cardiorenal events, and inclusion of serial kidney venous flow in cardiorenal risk stratification could facilitate clinical decision‐making for patients with HF. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03039959.

Abstract Chronic granulomatous disease (CGD) is a primary immunodeficiency characterized by life-threatening infections and inflammatory conditions. Hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is the definitive treatment for CGD, but questions remain regarding patient selection and impact of active disease on transplant outcomes. We performed a multi-institutional retrospective and prospective study of 391 patients with CGD treated either conventionally (non-HCT) enrolled from 2004 to 2018 or with HCT from 1996 to 2018. Median follow-up after HCT was 3.7 years with a 3-year overall survival of 82% and event-free survival of 69%. In a multivariate analysis, a Lansky/Karnofsky score &lt;90 and use of HLA-mismatched donors negatively affected survival. Age, genotype, and oxidase status did not affect outcomes. Before HCT, patients had higher infection density, higher frequency of noninfectious lung and liver diseases, and more steroid use than conventionally treated patients; however, these issues did not adversely affect HCT survival. Presence of pre-HCT inflammatory conditions was associated with chronic graft-versus-host disease. Graft failure or receipt of a second HCT occurred in 17.6% of the patients and was associated with melphalan-based conditioning and/or early mixed chimerism. At 3 to 5 years after HCT, patients had improved growth and nutrition, resolved infections and inflammatory disease, and lower rates of antimicrobial prophylaxis or corticosteroid use compared with both their baseline and those of conventionally treated patients. HCT leads to durable resolution of CGD symptoms and lowers the burden of the disease. Patients with active infection or inflammation are candidates for transplants; HCT should be considered before the development of comorbidities that could affect performance status. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02082353.

Abstract Background Time spent awaiting discharge after the acute need for hospitalization has resolved is an important potential contributor to hospital length of stay (LOS). Objective To measure the prevalence, impact, and context of patients who remain hospitalized for prolonged periods after completion of acute care needs. Design, Setting, and Participants We conducted a cross‐sectional “point‐in‐time” survey at each of 15 academic US hospitals using a structured data collection tool with on‐service acute care medicine attending physicians in fall 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures Primary outcomes were number and percentage of patients considered “medically ready for discharge” with emphasis on those who had experienced a “major barrier to discharge” (medically ready for discharge for ≥1 week). Estimated LOS attributable to major discharge barriers, contributory discharge needs, and associated hospital characteristics were measured. Results Of 1928 patients sampled, 35.0% ( n = 674) were medically ready for discharge including 9.8% ( n = 189) with major discharge barriers. Many patients with major discharge barriers (44.4%; 84/189) had spent a month or longer medically ready for discharge and commonly (84.1%; 159/189) required some form of skilled therapy or daily living support services for discharge. Higher proportions of patients experiencing major discharge barriers were found in public versus private, nonprofit hospitals (12.0% vs. 7.2%; p = .001) and county versus noncounty hospitals (14.5% vs. 8.8%; p = .002). Conclusions Patients experience major discharge barriers in many US hospitals and spend prolonged time awaiting discharge, often for support needs that may be outside of clinician control.