Citations

Objective To provide evidence‐based recommendations and expert guidance for the management of Kawasaki disease (KD), focusing on clinical scenarios more commonly addressed by rheumatologists. Methods Sixteen clinical questions regarding diagnostic testing, treatment, and management of KD were developed in the Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes (PICO) question format. Systematic literature reviews were conducted for each PICO question. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation method to assess the quality of evidence and formulate recommendations. Each recommendation required consensus from at least 70% of the Voting Panel. Results We present 1 good practice statement, 11 recommendations, and 1 ungraded position statement to guide the management of KD and clinical scenarios of suspected KD. These recommendations for KD are focused on situations in which input from rheumatologists may be requested by other managing specialists, such as in cases of treatment‐refractory, severe, or complicated KD. The good practice statement affirms that all patients with KD should receive initial treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG). In addition, we developed 7 strong and 4 conditional recommendations for the management of KD or suspected KD. Strong recommendations include prompt treatment of incomplete KD, treatment with aspirin, and obtaining an echocardiogram in the setting of unexplained macrophage activation syndrome or shock. Conditional recommendations include use of IVIG with other adjuvant agents for patients with KD and high‐risk features of IVIG resistance and/or coronary artery aneurysms. These recommendations endorse minimizing risk to the patient by using established therapy promptly at disease onset and identifying situations in which adjunctive therapy may be warranted. Conclusion These recommendations provide guidance regarding diagnostic strategies, use of pharmacologic agents, and use of echocardiography in patients with suspected or confirmed KD.

Objective To provide evidence‐based recommendations and expert guidance for the management of Kawasaki disease (KD), focusing on clinical scenarios more commonly addressed by rheumatologists. Methods Sixteen clinical questions regarding diagnostic testing, treatment, and management of KD were developed in the Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes (PICO) question format. Systematic literature reviews were conducted for each PICO question. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation method to assess the quality of evidence and formulate recommendations. Each recommendation required consensus from at least 70% of the Voting Panel. Results We present 1 good practice statement, 11 recommendations, and 1 ungraded position statement to guide the management of KD and clinical scenarios of suspected KD. These recommendations for KD are focused on situations in which input from rheumatologists may be requested by other managing specialists, such as in cases of treatment‐refractory, severe, or complicated KD. The good practice statement affirms that all patients with KD should receive initial treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG). In addition, we developed 7 strong and 4 conditional recommendations for the management of KD or suspected KD. Strong recommendations include prompt treatment of incomplete KD, treatment with aspirin, and obtaining an echocardiogram in the setting of unexplained macrophage activation syndrome or shock. Conditional recommendations include use of IVIG with other adjuvant agents for patients with KD and high‐risk features of IVIG resistance and/or coronary artery aneurysms. These recommendations endorse minimizing risk to the patient by using established therapy promptly at disease onset and identifying situations in which adjunctive therapy may be warranted. Conclusion These recommendations provide guidance regarding diagnostic strategies, use of pharmacologic agents, and use of echocardiography in patients with suspected or confirmed KD.

AbstractFusion genes have been identified in a wide array of human neoplasms including hematologic and solid tumors, including gastrointestinal tract neoplasia. A fusion gene is the product of parts of two genes that are joined together following a deletion, translocation, or chromosomal inversion. Together with single nucleotide variants, insertions, deletions, and amplification, fusion genes represent one of the key genomic mechanisms for tumor development. Detecting fusions in the clinic is accomplished by a variety of techniques including break‐apart fluorescence in situ hybridization, reverse transcription‐polymerase chain reaction, and next‐generation sequencing. Some recurrent gene fusions have been successfully targeted by small molecule or monoclonal antibody therapies (ie targeted therapies), while others are used as biomarkers for diagnostic and prognostic purposes. The purpose of this review article is to discuss the clinical utility of detection of gene fusions in carcinomas and neoplasms arising primarily in the digestive system.

AbstractThe Alzheimer's Association hosted the second Latinos & Alzheimer's Symposium in May 2021. Due to the COVID‐19 pandemic, the meeting was held online over 2 days, with virtual presentations, discussions, mentoring sessions, and posters. The Latino population in the United States is projected to have the steepest increase in Alzheimer's disease (AD) in the next 40 years, compared to other ethnic groups. Latinos have increased risk for AD and other dementias, limited access to quality care, and are severely underrepresented in AD and dementia research and clinical trials. The symposium highlighted developments in AD research with Latino populations, including advances in AD biomarkers, and novel cognitive assessments for Spanish‐speaking populations, as well as the need to effectively recruit and retain Latinos in clinical research, and how best to deliver health‐care services and to aid caregivers of Latinos living with AD.

AbstractIntroductionPatients with small‐cell lung cancer (SCLC) have a very poor prognosis. However, a subset of SCLC achieves long‐term survival. The objective of this study was to investigate factors and pattern of long‐term survival in patients with limited‐stage small cell lung cancer (LS‐SCLC) who achieved a complete response (CR) after chemoradiotherapy.Patient and MethodsThis was a single‐center retrospective study. The analysis of hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) was performed using Cox proportional hazards model. For pattern analysis, the date of recurrence was used as the endpoint. The nominal categorical variables were analyzed by the χ2 test. Survival was estimated using the Kaplan–Meier model, and the results were reported as the median and interquartile range.ResultsWe identified 162 patients, median age was 64.7 (56.2–70.2) years, and 94 (58%) were females. Eighty‐one patients (50%) had recurrence during follow‐up. Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.45–0.93; p = 0.016) and neurological paraneoplastic syndrome (PNS) (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.29–0.72; p < 0.001) were independent factors associated with improved overall survival (OS). Patients with GERD had prolonged recurrence free survival (RFS) compared to patients without GERD (median, 29.1 months vs. 13.9 months, p < 0.001), whereas patients with neurological PNS had a reduced recurrence rate compared to those patients without neurological PNS (No. [%], 8 [20.5] vs. 73 [59.3], p < 0.001).ConclusionsPatients with LS‐SCLC achieving a CR after chemoradiotherapy, GERD, and neurological PNS were associated with improved OS. GERD and neurological PNS were associated with longer RFS and lower recurrence rate, respectively.

Background and objectives Documentation is important for quality improvement, education, and research. There is currently a lack of recommendations regarding key aspects of documentation in regional anesthesia. The aim of this study was to establish recommendations for documentation in regional anesthesia. Methods Following the formation of the executive committee and a directed literature review, a long list of potential documentation components was created. A modified Delphi process was then employed to achieve consensus amongst a group of international experts in regional anesthesia. This consisted of 2 rounds of anonymous electronic voting and a final virtual round table discussion with live polling on items not yet excluded or accepted from previous rounds. Progression or exclusion of potential components through the rounds was based on the achievement of strong consensus. Strong consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement and weak consensus as 50%–74% agreement. Results Seventy-seven collaborators participated in both rounds 1 and 2, while 50 collaborators took part in round 3. In total, experts voted on 83 items and achieved a strong consensus on 51 items, weak consensus on 3 and rejected 29. Conclusion By means of a modified Delphi process, we have established expert consensus on documentation in regional anesthesia.

OBJECTIVES: To describe hospital variation in use of “guideline-based care” for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to COVID-19. DESIGN: Retrospective, observational study. SETTING: The Society of Critical Care Medicine’s Discovery Viral Infection and RESPIRATORY ILLNESS UNIVERSAL STUDY COVID-19 REGISTRY. PATIENTS: Adult patients with ARDS due to COVID-19 between February 15, 2020, and April 12, 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Hospital-level use of “guideline-based care” for ARDS including low-tidal-volume ventilation, plateau pressure less than 30 cm H2O, and prone ventilation for a Pao 2/Fio 2 ratio less than 100. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 1,495 adults with COVID-19 ARDS receiving care across 42 hospitals, 50.4% ever received care consistent with ARDS clinical practice guidelines. After adjusting for patient demographics and severity of illness, hospital characteristics, and pandemic timing, hospital of admission contributed to 14% of the risk-adjusted variation in “guideline-based care.” A patient treated at a randomly selected hospital with higher use of guideline-based care had a median odds ratio of 2.0 (95% CI, 1.1–3.4) for receipt of “guideline-based care” compared with a patient receiving treatment at a randomly selected hospital with low use of recommended therapies. Median-adjusted inhospital mortality was 53% (interquartile range, 47–62%), with a nonsignificantly decreased risk of mortality for patients admitted to hospitals in the highest use “guideline-based care” quartile (49%) compared with the lowest use quartile (60%) (odds ratio, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.3–1.9; p = 0.49). CONCLUSIONS: During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, only half of patients received “guideline-based care” for ARDS management, with wide practice variation across hospitals. Strategies that improve adherence to recommended ARDS management strategies are needed.

AbstractRare cases of COVID‐19 vaccinated individuals develop anti‐platelet factor 4 (PF4) antibodies that cause thrombocytopenia and thrombotic complications, a syndrome referred to as vaccine‐induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT). Currently, information on the characteristics and persistence of anti‐PF4 antibodies that cause VITT after Ad26.COV2.S vaccination is limited, and available diagnostic assays fail to differentiate Ad26.COV2.S and ChAdOx1 nCoV‐19‐associated VITT from similar clinical disorders, namely heparin‐induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) and spontaneous HIT. Here we demonstrate that while Ad26.COV2.S‐associated VITT patients are uniformly strongly positive in PF4‐polyanion enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs); they are frequently negative in the serotonin release assay (SRA). The PF4‐dependent p‐selectin expression assay (PEA) that uses platelets treated with PF4 rather than heparin consistently diagnosed Ad26.COV2.S‐associated VITT. Most Ad26.COV2.S‐associated VITT antibodies persisted for >5 months in PF4‐polyanion ELISAs, while the PEA became negative earlier. Two patients had otherwise unexplained mild persistent thrombocytopenia (140‐150 x 103/µL) 6 months after acute presentation. From an epidemiological perspective, differentiating VITT from spontaneous HIT, another entity that develops in the absence of proximate heparin exposure, and HIT is important, but currently available PF4‐polyanion ELISAs and functional assay are non‐specific and detect all three conditions. Here, we report that a novel un‐complexed PF4 ELISA specifically differentiates VITT, secondary to both Ad26.COV2.S and ChAdOx1 nCoV‐19, from both spontaneous HIT, HIT and commonly‐encountered HIT‐suspected patients who are PF4/polyanion ELISA‐positive but negative in functional assays. In summary, Ad26.COV2.S‐associated VITT antibodies are persistent, and the un‐complexed PF4 ELISA appears to be both sensitive and specific for VITT diagnosis.