Citations

Abstract Background Upper gastrointestinal Crohn’s disease (UGICD) is an uncommon phenotype with limited management guidelines. We reviewed evidence on the safety and efficacy of pharmacological interventions for UGICD. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL (1990-2025) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative observational studies evaluating pharmacological or dietary interventions for UGICD, including esophagus to jejunum. Two reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed bias (Newcastle–Ottawa Scale). Primary outcomes were clinical remission and response. Due to limited, heterogeneous evidence, data are summarized descriptively. Results Of 1207 citations, 11 observational studies (nine retrospective, two prospective) and post-hoc analyses from two RCTs met the criteria, involving 387 patients. Most had ileocolonic involvement (280/387; 72.3%); only 8.5% (33/387) had isolated UGICD. Five studies (137 patients) reported esophageal CD. Follow-up ranged from 6 weeks to 28 years. Interventions and outcomes varied. Anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) drugs and corticosteroids, alone or combined with other treatments, were associated with improvements in clinical outcomes, endoscopic healing, and histology, but controlled data are lacking. Other therapies, including proton pump inhibitors, H2-receptor antagonists, enteric nutrition, immunomodulators, anti-integrins, and anti-interleukin12/23, showed moderate to minimal improvement. Conclusions Our systematic review highlights a paucity of evidence to inform therapeutic strategies in UGICD. Positive outcomes were reported for corticosteroids and anti-TNF, but from small observational and uncontrolled studies. Data for most advanced therapies remain limited, highlighting a large unmet need to inform clinical practice.

Abstract Background Although recent guidance recommends early surgical debridement for native joint septic arthritis (NJSA), supporting data, particularly on long-term outcomes, remains scarce. Methods We conducted a retrospective multicenter cohort study of adults (≥18 years) with NJSA who underwent surgery across Mayo Clinic campuses between 2012 and 2021. Clinical outcomes at 1 year were assessed using a 9-level Desirability of Outcome Ranking (DOOR) scale, incorporating survival, treatment failure (relapse, reinfection, readmission, or significant surgical events), and joint recovery. Time to surgery from hospital admission was analyzed both as a continuous variable and as categories: < 1, 1–2, or ≥3 days. Results Among 268 patients, 30% underwent surgery <1 day from admission, 47% in 1–2 days, and 24% in ≥3 days. At 1 year, 57% achieved full recovery without unfavorable events (DOOR score 1), while treatment failure occurred in 34%. In unadjusted analyses, longer surgical delay was significantly associated with higher (worse) DOOR scores (per IQR increase [from 0 to 2 days], OR: 1.5; 95% CI: 1.0–2.1; P = .026), increased 1-year mortality (HR: 1.7; 95% CI: 1.1–2.6; P = .019) and treatment failure (HR: 1.5; 95% CI: 1.1–2.0; P = .007). Even after adjusting for age and Charlson comorbidity index, the association between surgical delay and treatment failure remained significant (HR: 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1–2.0; P = .016). Conclusions The finding that delayed surgical intervention is associated with an increased risk of treatment failure reinforces current expert recommendations for timely surgical management in NJSA.

Objective To develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for non-invasive neuromodulation devices in acute and preventive migraine treatment. Methods A systematic review was conducted across six databases from 1946 to April 2025. Randomized controlled trials evaluating Food and Drug Administration-cleared or Conformité Européenne (CE)-marked non-invasive neuromodulation devices were included. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, and recommendations were developed through consensus following GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks. The working group comprised 15 senior members and six junior members. Results From 1536 initial records, 15 studies met the inclusion criteria and were finally used to develop evidence-based recommendations. Evidence quality ranged from very low to moderate. Weak recommendations were issued for SAVI Dual, Cefaly, Relivion, and Nerivio in the treatment of acute migraine attacks, and for gammaCore Sapphire, Cefaly, and Nerivio in the preventive migraine treatment. Other cleared devices received no recommendations or have no eligible studies for the GRADE assessment. The primary limitations across studies included imprecision due to small sample sizes and various methodological concerns. Additionally, expert consensus recommendations were developed for devices and clinical scenarios not adequately covered by randomized controlled trials, including potential applications in pediatric populations, vestibular migraine, chronic migraine, menstrual migraine, and medication overuse headache. Conclusion Non-invasive neuromodulation devices offer promising alternatives to drug treatment for migraine management. These devices are safe and generally well tolerated and devoid of drug interactions. While current evidence quality varies, ongoing research and technological advancements show encouraging potential. Future studies should adhere to International Headache Society guidelines for neuromodulation device trials, address proper sham controls and blinding assessment, and account for patient adherence challenges in device use. Expanded insurance coverage would enhance cost-effectiveness and device accessibility. These guidelines provide a framework for clinical decision-making while highlighting areas requiring further research.

Background This systematic review and meta-analysis synthesized migraine-related disability outcomes according to headache frequency subclassifications, including low-frequency episodic migraine (LFEM), high-frequency episodic migraine (HFEM) and chronic migraine (CM). Methods We searched the PubMed and Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) up to 16 October 2024 for peer-reviewed non-interventional studies reporting migraine-related disability outcomes in CM and subclassifications of episodic migraine (e.g. LFEM and HFEM). Eligible studies with an HFEM subgroup were grouped by headache frequency measure (monthly migraine days [MMD] or monthly headache days [MHD]), HFEM subgroup, disability parameter and study setting. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted on groups with three or more studies, with the results presented in forest plots. Risk of bias was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute tools. Results Of the 32 included studies, 27 were grouped, yielding five meta-analysis groups containing three or more studies. All five groups had an HFEM subgroup of 8–14 MHD. Accordingly, we classified LFEM as 0–7 MHD and CM as ≥15 MHD. Ten studies contributed data to the five meta-analysis groups. Estimated pooled values are reported by headache frequency subgroup for each meta-analysis group: LFEM (95% confidence interval [CI]), HFEM (95% CI) and CM (95% CI). For meta-analysis group 1, four population-based studies reported Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) Grade IV proportions, with pooled values of 11.1% (7.1–17.1), 43.9% (31.8–56.9) and 57.5% (42.7–71.1), respectively. For meta-analysis group 2, five population-based studies documented Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) outcomes. Pooled mean overall work productivity impairment (OWPI) scores were 36.9% (30.8–43.1), 44.7% (38.4–51.0) and 52.0% (47.7–56.3), respectively. Pooled mean activity impairment (AI) scores were 36.4% (33.7–39.1), 46.4% (42.8–50.0) and 53.5% (52.1–54.8), respectively. For meta-analysis group 3, three clinic-based studies presented MIDAS Grade IV proportions. Pooled values were 15.0% (4.4–40.5), 42.4% (17.1–72.4) and 65.7% (30.3–89.4), respectively. For meta-analysis group 4, three clinic-based studies reported WPAI outcomes. Pooled mean OWPI scores were 28.8% (21.6–35.9), 40.2% (36.2–44.2) and 49.6% (46.3–52.9), respectively. Pooled mean AI scores were 29.4% (21.9–36.9), 43.5% (39.0–48.1) and 51.6% (48.8–54.4), respectively. For meta-analysis group 5, three clinic-based studies detailed MIDAS scores. Pooled mean scores were 10.7 (3.9–17.5), 23.9 (9.4–38.4) and 49.6 (15.8–83.3), respectively. Conclusions This study showed a pattern of increasing migraine-related disability with rising headache frequency. Regardless of study setting, our meta-analyses also suggested a severe level of disability in many individuals (42%–44%) with HFEM, highlighting an unmet need for more effective migraine management. Disability burden and headache frequency should both be considered when determining treatment needs and therapy access, particularly for patients with HFEM. Study Registration: INPLASY2024120039.

Abstract Objectives/Background This study was undertaken to review the published literature and provide a position statement from the American Headache Society regarding the safety, efficacy, and impact on access to care of telemedicine for the clinical management of patients with headache disorders. Access to specialized care in headache medicine is severely limited in the United States and worldwide. Telemedicine has been used as an approach to care delivery in headache medicine for more than a decade, with accelerated adoption during the COVID‐19 pandemic. There is now uncertainty regarding the extent to which telemedicine will be accepted by health systems and reimbursed by payers moving forward. The purpose of this position statement is to summarize evidence and clinical experience supporting the utility of telemedicine in headache medicine. Methods Evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of telemedicine, and patient and clinician satisfaction with the use of telemedicine for headache specialty care, was gathered from a variety of sources, including PubMed, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov . The results and conclusions based upon these results were reviewed and discussed by the authors and the Board of Directors of the American Headache Society to confirm consistency with clinical experience and to achieve consensus. Results Several randomized clinical trials and observational studies have been performed to compare telemedicine with in‐person visits in the management of patients with headache disorders. These studies showed consistently that telemedicine is noninferior to in‐person care based upon multiple outcome measures, including disability measures, patient satisfaction, and clinician satisfaction. In addition, these studies found that telemedicine rarely leads to a missed diagnosis of secondary headache or mismanagement of primary headache. Telemedicine has substantial advantages for patients, including improved access to care and reduced costs associated with obtaining care. Studies evaluating health care utilization indicate no significant differences between patients evaluated and treated virtually versus in person. Obvious limitations of telemedicine include the inability to perform an in‐person physical exam or to perform injections. For a substantial number of patients, however, these limitations are outweighed by its advantages. The experience with telemedicine reported in the literature is consistent with the experience of the Board of Directors of the American Headache Society, who endorse its use for patients when feasible and appropriate. Conclusion Telemedicine has significantly advanced the care of patients with headache disorders. Its further development and deployment should be supported and reimbursed.

55 Background: Prior authorization (PA) processes are known to create administrative burdens and delays in care, but little is known about how these challenges impact rural oncology patients and practice settings. Methods: To understand the broad impact of prior authorization on rural oncology patients and practices, we conducted this study across three community oncology practices serving majority rural patient populations with distinct geography, healthcare infrastructure, and models of care. Sites included one critical access hospital system located in a highly-rural community (Lakewood Health System; Staples, Minnesota), a community-based hub-and-spoke hospital system-based practice located in a mid-sized community (Mayo Clinic Health System – Northfield; Northfield, Minnesota), and a standalone referral level III trauma center serving a highly rural patient base (Self Regional Healthcare; Greenwood, South Carolina). This retrospective cohort study examined all intravenous and subcutaneous cancer-directed therapy plans (no oral therapy) that required PA submission at these locations over a three-month period from October 1, 2024 to December 31, 2024. Results: 129 PA submissions were required during the study period. 82 were due to cancer-directed therapy agents (of which 14 were immunotherapy agents), and 47 were due to adjunctive therapies (of which 22, 16, and 9 were due to granulocyte stimulation, bone preservation, and anti-emesis agents, respectively). All 129 PA submissions ultimately resulted in approval of the desired medication or formulary-approved biosimilar. Delays from PA submission to approval ranged from 0 to 18 days. A total of 209 patient-days were delayed due to PA during the study period, which did not ultimately result in change of care or denial of care in any instance. Conclusions: At all sites included in this study, all PA submissions were eventually authorized. The PA process was found to introduce inconsistent and potentially avoidable delays for hundreds of patients and their care teams. These findings highlight the inefficiency of current PA processes among rural cancer populations and the practices that care for them, underscoring the need for ongoing efforts directed at state and federal PA reform.

Abstract Objectives To implementation an automated multi-institutional pipeline that delivers breast-cancer risk integrated with polygenic risk scores, monogenic variants, family history, and clinical factors, emphasizing operational challenges and their solutions. Materials and Methods A five-stage process was executed at ten sites. Data streams from REDCap surveys, PRS and monogenic reports, and MeTree pedigrees were normalized and forwarded through a REDCap plug-in to the CanRisk API. Results Integrated risk was returned to >10 000 women; 3.6% were ≥25 % lifetime risk and 0.9% carried pathogenic variants. Pipeline generated score aligns well with manual generated ones. Major barriers such as heterogeneous pedigree formats, missing data, edge-case handling, and evolving model versions were identified and resolved through mapping rules, imputations, and iterative testing. Discussion Cross-platform data harmonization and stakeholder alignment were decisive for success. Borderline-risk communication and model-version drift remain open issues. Conclusion Large-scale PRS-integrated breast-cancer risk reporting is feasible but requires robust interoperability standards and iterative governance.

Abstract Purpose: Isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) 1/2–isoform inhibitors have clinical efficacy in IDH1/IDH2-mutated neoplasms. However, primary resistance and secondary resistance limit their therapeutic potential. LY3410738, an oral, brain-penetrant, dual IDH1/IDH2-mutated isoform-selective inhibitor, was designed to overcome resistance. Patients and Methods: This global, multicenter, open-label, phase I study of patients with IDH-mutant solid tumors evaluated LY3410738 as monotherapy (dose escalation) for advanced solid tumors in combination with cisplatin–gemcitabine (CISGEM) for newly diagnosed cholangiocarcinoma or with durvalumab for relapsed/refractory cholangiocarcinoma (dose expansion; NCT04521686). Primary objectives were the maximum tolerated dose, recommended phase II dose, and preliminary antitumor activity. Safety, pharmacokinetics, inhibition of D-2-hydroxyglutarate, and ctDNA were assessed. Results: Overall, 119 patients received LY3410738 alone (N = 94) or in combination with CISGEM (N = 19) or durvalumab (N = 6). No dose-limiting toxicities were observed; the maximum tolerated dose was not determined. Common adverse events included nausea, vomiting, and decreased appetite. Overall response rates of 5.2% and 11.1% and disease control rates of 56.9% and 63.0% were observed for patients with relapsed/refractory IDH1- or IDH2-mutant cholangiocarcinoma or IDH1-mutant glioma, respectively. D-2-hydroxyglutarate normalization was rapid and durable. In dose-expansion cohorts, combination treatments were tolerable, with one dose-limiting toxicity in the durvalumab cohort. LY3410738 plus CISGEM demonstrated a response rate of 42.1%, a median duration of response of 8.1 months, and a median progression-free survival of 10.2 months for patients with newly diagnosed IDH-mutant cholangiocarcinoma. Conclusions: LY3410738 demonstrated largely cytostatic antitumor activity in IDH1- or IDH2-mutated cholangiocarcinoma and IDH1-mutated gliomas. LY3410738 plus CISGEM exhibited favorable antitumor activity in patients with treatment-naïve IDH-mutated cholangiocarcinoma, warranting further exploration as a treatment strategy.

Abstract Chronic widespread pain (CWP) remains challenging due to its heterogeneous causes and complex mechanisms. A total of 2920 plasma proteins are analyzed from 29,254 UK Biobank participants. A total of 256 proteins are identified as cross‐sectionally correlated with CWP. A simple (top 10 proteins) and comprehensive (all significant proteins) proteomic‐based score (ProtS) is created for CWP diagnosis, both outperforming and improving the existing clinical score (area under the curve, AUC: 0.801, 0.723, and 0.791 alone, and 0.856 and 0.880 in combination). In addition, the protein score predicted 13‐years risk of pain‐related traits over the body, including pain onset, progression, and intensity; Moreover, it has stronger associations with nociplastic pain and fibromyalgia compared to nociceptive and neuropathic pain, implying a unique protein signature of different pain mechanisms. Finally, among 434 candidate proteins prioritized in the observational analysis, 18 are corroborated with causal relevance by Mendelian randomization, and importantly, four (CA14, DPEP1, LGALS3, and TNF) showed potential as novel drug targets repurposed for treating CWP.