Citations

Abstract Background Patients with lichen planus (LP) refractory to available therapies often experience a high disease burden, representing a population with a clear unmet need for new treatments. Objectives To evaluate the efficacy and safety of secukinumab 300 mg over 32 weeks in adult patients with biopsy-proven cutaneous LP (CLP), mucosal LP (MLP) or lichen planopilaris (LPP) that is inadequately controlled by topical corticosteroids. Methods PRELUDE was a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled phase II proof-of-concept study that enrolled patients with CLP, MLP or LPP. Eligible patients were randomized to either secukinumab 300 mg every 4 weeks for 32 weeks (SECQ4W) or placebo for 16 weeks followed by secukinumab 300 mg every 2 weeks (SECQ2W) for 16 weeks. The primary endpoint was achievement of the newly designed Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score ≤ 2 at week 16. Results Overall, 111 patients were randomized (n = 37 each) to CLP, MLP and LPP cohorts. As the proof-of-concept criteria were not met for any of the three cohorts, the primary objective was not met. A numerically higher proportion of patients achieved IGA ≤ 2 response at week 16 with SECQ4W vs. placebo in the MLP {37.5% [95% credibility interval (Crl) 20.3–57.2] vs. 23.1% (95% Crl 6.5–49.2)} and LPP cohorts [37.5% (95% Crl 20.2–57.3) vs. 30.8% (95% Crl 10.8–57.6)]. In the LPP cohort, a sustained response for IGA ≤ 2 from week 16 to week 32 was achieved with SECQ4W (week 16, 37.5%; week 32, 45.8%), and a substantial improvement was observed in IGA ≤ 2 response in patients from this cohort who switched from placebo (week 16, 30.8%) to SECQ2W after week 16 (week 32, 63.6%). The safety profile was consistent with the known profile of secukinumab and showed no new or unexpected signals. Conclusions PRELUDE is the first randomized controlled basket trial evaluating interleukin (IL)-17A inhibition with secukinumab across three subtypes of LP. Secukinumab was well tolerated and safe, showing different response rates across the three subtypes, with numerical IGA improvements in MLP and LPP, and no response in CLP. The study raises the question of a differential role of IL-17A across LP subtypes. The novel IGA score showed significant correlation with both patient- and physician-reported outcome measurements.

Behavioral neurology & neuropsychiatry (BNNP) is a field that seeks to understand brain–behavior relationships, including fundamental brain organization principles and the many ways that brain structures and connectivity can be disrupted, leading to abnormalities of behavior, cognition, emotion, perception, and social cognition. In North America, BNNP has existed as an integrated subspecialty through the United Council for Neurologic Subspecialties since 2006. Nonetheless, the number of behavioral neurologists across academic medical centers and community settings is not keeping pace with increasing clinical and research demand. In this commentary, we provide a brief history of BNNP followed by an outline of the current challenges and opportunities for BNNP from the behavioral neurologist’s perspective across clinical, research, and educational spheres. We provide a practical guide for promoting BNNP and addressing the shortage of behavioral neurologists to facilitate the continued growth and development of the subspecialty. We also urge a greater commitment to recruit trainees from diverse backgrounds so as to dismantle persistent obstacles that hinder inclusivity in BNNP—efforts that will further enhance the growth and impact of the subspecialty. With rapidly expanding diagnostic and therapeutic approaches across a range of conditions at the intersection of neurology and psychiatry, BNNP is well positioned to attract new trainees and expand its reach across clinical, research, and educational activities.

Ornithine transcarbamylase deficiency (OTCD) is a rare, X linked disorder that can manifest in late adulthood in heterozygous females as severe hyperammonaemia following environmental stressors. We present a case of hyperammonaemic encephalopathy that was triggered by glucocorticoid administration in an adult woman with heterozygous OTCD with clinical response to haemodialysis, ammonia scavengers and a high-calorie, low-protein diet.

AbstractPurposeBy assessing longitudinal associations between COVID‐19 census burdens and hospital characteristics, such as bed size and critical access status, we can explore whether pandemic‐era hospital quality benchmarking requires risk‐adjustment or stratification for hospital‐level characteristics.MethodsWe used hospital‐level data from the US Department of Health and Human Services including weekly total hospital and COVID‐19 censuses from August 2020 to August 2023 and the 2021 American Hospital Association survey. We calculated weekly percentages of total adult hospital beds containing COVID‐19 patients. We then calculated the number of weeks each hospital spent at Extreme (≥20% of beds occupied by COVID‐19 patients), High (10%–19%), Moderate (5%–9%), and Low (<5%) COVID‐19 stress. We assessed longitudinal hospital‐level COVID‐19 stress, stratified by 15 hospital characteristics including joint commission accreditation, bed size, teaching status, critical access hospital status, and core‐based statistical area (CBSA) rurality.FindingsAmong n = 2582 US hospitals, the median(IQR) weekly percentage of hospital capacity occupied by COVID‐19 patients was 6.7%(3.6%–13.0%). 80,268/213,383 (38%) hospital‐weeks experienced Low COVID‐19 census stress, 28% Moderate stress, 22% High stress, and 12% Extreme stress. COVID‐19 census burdens were similar across most hospital characteristics, but were significantly greater for critical access hospitals.ConclusionsUS hospitals experienced similar COVID‐19 census burdens across multiple institutional characteristics. Evidence‐based inclusion of pandemic‐era outcomes in hospital quality reporting may not require significant hospital‐level risk‐adjustment or stratification, with the exception of rural or critical access hospitals, which experienced differentially greater COVID‐19 census burdens and may merit hospital‐level risk‐adjustment considerations.