Citations

Abstract Introduction Advanced Practice Providers (APPs; Advanced practice registered nurses, physician assistants) and physicians-in-training (residents, fellows) receive inadequate education on obstructive sleep apnea (OSA)/perioperative OSA risks. However, they are front-line providers assessing these patients. Failure to mitigate this risk has led to significant postoperative morbidity/mortality. We assessed these providers’ perceptions to OSA/perioperative OSA training. Methods Surveys were sent to three provider roles, APPs, residents, and fellows, in four categories of practice at nine academic institutions between May 9-June 30, 2021. Chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests assessed association between survey responses and participant characteristics. False discovery rate adjustment accounted for multiple comparisons, threshold of q<0.05 for statistical significance. Cochran-Mantel-Haenzsel tests evaluated associations stratified by institution. Results 2236 of 6724 (33.3%) participants responded: 48.4% APPs, 11% Fellows and 40.6% Residents. Primary category of practice included: 20.3% Anesthesiology, 8.9% Family Medicine, 34.1%, Internal Medicine (IM)/IM subspecialties, 6.7% Obstetrics/Gynecology/Gynecologic Oncology, 25.9% Surgery/Surgery subspecialties, 4.1% Other.While 93.2% of respondents believed OSA is a risk factor for perioperative complications, fewer respondents reported that they felt adequately trained to assess for OSA (50.9%) in general, with significant differences noted by provider role (range 42-70%, q=0.001) and across the categories of practice (range 12-82%, q=0.001). Even fewer felt adequately trained to assess for OSA in perioperative patients (38.2%) with significant differences noted by provider role (range 31-52%, q=0.001) and across the categories of practice (range 15-84%, q=0.001).Across all categories of practice, respondents indicated that they would like additional educational training about OSA (76.7%). This varied by clinical role (range 64-82%, q=0.003), but not categories of practice (range 73-84%, q=0.13). Furthermore, respondents indicated they also desired additional education about OSA in the perioperative patient (75.5%). This extended across all clinical roles (range 68-77%, q=0.09) and categories of practice (range 72-80%, q=0.09). Conclusion We found significant differences in APP and physician-in-training perceptions of the adequacy of their current training and desire for further OSA/perioperative OSA education. Our study identifies a critical gap and opportunity to improve provider understanding and patient care. Support (If Any) American Academy of Sleep Medicine Foundation (AASMF) award.

Abstract Background: Delirium is a highly prevalent and morbid syndrome in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Music is a promising non-pharmacological intervention with beneficial effects on anxiety and stress, while its effects on delirium duration and severity are not well understood.Methods/design: Our study is a two-arm, randomized parallel-group, clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy of music intervention compared to a silence-track attention control on delirium/coma duration in mechanically ventilated critically ill older adults. One-hundred-sixty mechanically ventilated adults 50 years of age or older will be randomized to one of two arms within 72 hours of ICU admission: (1) one-hour music listening sessions twice daily through noise-cancelling headphones, or (2) one-hour sessions of a silence track twice daily through noise-cancelling headphones. Our primary aim is to compare delirium/coma free days after randomization during the 7-day study intervention phase using the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM ICU) and the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) for delirium and coma. Secondary outcomes include pain and anxiety evaluated twice daily during the intervention phase and throughout the duration of ICU stay using the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) and Visual Analogue Scale-Anxiety (VAS-A). Enrolled participants will be followed after hospital discharge to further measure cognition as well as screening for depression and anxiety using the following telephone-based instruments: Indiana University Telephone-Based Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (IU TBANS), Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7).Discussion: This randomized clinical trial will measure the efficacy of a music listening intervention for delirium and coma duration early in the intensive care unit among older adults.Trial Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04182334

Abstract Clinical question In adults with low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels >1.8 mmol/L (>70 mg/dL) who are already taking the maximum dose of statins or are intolerant to statins, should another lipid-lowering drug be added, either a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor or ezetimibe, to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events? If so, which drug is preferred? Having decided to use one, should we add the other lipid-lowering drug? Current practice Most guidelines emphasise LDL cholesterol targets in their recommendations for prescribing PCSK9 inhibitors and/or ezetimibe in adults at high risk of experiencing a major adverse cardiovascular event. However, to achieve these goals in very high risk patients with statins alone is almost impossible, so physicians are increasingly considering other lipid-lowering drugs solely for achieving LDL cholesterol treatment goals rather than for achieving important absolute cardiovascular risk reduction. Most guidelines do not systematically assess the cardiovascular benefits of adding PCSK9 inhibitors and/or ezetimibe for all risk groups across primary and secondary prevention, nor do they report, in accordance with explicit judgments of assumed patients’ values and preferences, absolute benefits and harms and potential treatment burdens. Recommendations The guideline panel provided mostly weak recommendations, which means we rely on shared decision making when applying these recommendations. For adults already using statins, the panel suggests adding a second lipid-lowering drug in people at very high and high cardiovascular risk but recommends against adding it in people at low cardiovascular risk. For adults who are intolerant to statins, the panel recommends using a lipid-lowering drug in people at very high and high cardiovascular risk but against adding it in those at low cardiovascular risk. When choosing to add another lipid-lowering drug, the panel suggests ezetimibe in preference to PCSK9 inhibitors. The panel suggests further adding a PCSK9 inhibitor to ezetimibe for adults already taking statins at very high risk and those at very high and high risk who are intolerant to statins. How this guideline was created An international panel including patients, clinicians, and methodologists produced these recommendations following standards for trustworthy guidelines and using the GRADE approach. The panel identified four risk groups of patients (low, moderate, high, and very high cardiovascular risk) and primarily applied an individual patient perspective in moving from evidence to recommendations, though societal issues were a secondary consideration. The panel considered the balance of benefits and harms and burdens of starting a PCSK9 inhibitor and/or ezetimibe, making assumptions of adults’ average values and preferences. Interactive evidence summaries and decision aids accompany multi-layered recommendations, developed in an online authoring and publication platform ( www.magicapp.org ) that also allows re-use and adaptation. The evidence A linked systematic review and network meta-analysis (14 trials including 83 660 participants) of benefits found that PCSK9 inhibitors or ezetimibe probably reduce myocardial infarctions and stroke in patients with very high and high cardiovascular risk, with no impact on mortality (moderate to high certainty evidence), but not in those with moderate and low cardiovascular risk. PCSK9 inhibitors may have similar effects to ezetimibe on reducing non-fatal myocardial infarction or stroke (low certainty evidence). These relative benefits were consistent, but their absolute magnitude varied based on cardiovascular risk in individual patients (for example, for 1000 people treated with PCSK9 inhibitors in addition to statins over five years, benefits ranged from 2 fewer strokes in the lowest risk to 21 fewer in the highest risk). Two systematic reviews on harms found no important adverse events for these drugs (moderate to high certainty evidence). PCSK9 inhibitors require injections that sometimes result in injection site reactions (best estimate 15 more per 1000 in a 5 year timeframe), representing a burden and harm that may matter to patients. The MATCH-IT decision support tool allows you to interact with the evidence and your patients across the alternative options: https://magicevidence.org/match-it/220504dist-lipid-lowering-drugs/ . Understanding the recommendations The stratification into four cardiovascular risk groups means that, to use the recommendations, physicians need to identify their patient’s risk first. We therefore suggest, specific to various geographical regions, using some reliable risk calculators that estimate patients’ cardiovascular risk based on a mix of known risk factors. The largely weak recommendations concerning the addition of ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors reflect what the panel considered to be a close balance between small reductions in stroke and myocardial infarctions weighed against the burdens and limited harms. Because of the anticipated large variability of patients’ values and preferences, well informed choices warrant shared decision making. Interactive evidence summaries and decision aids linked to the recommendations can facilitate such shared decisions. The strong recommendations against adding another drug in people at low cardiovascular risk reflect what the panel considered to be a burden without important benefits. The strong recommendation for adding either ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors in people at high and very high cardiovascular risk reflect a clear benefit. The panel recognised the key uncertainty in the evidence concerning patient values and preferences, namely that what most people consider important reductions in cardiovascular risks, weighed against burdens and harms, remains unclear. Finally, availability and costs will influence decisions when healthcare systems, clinicians, or people consider adding ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors.

Abstract Objective To compare the impact of ezetimibe and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors on cardiovascular outcomes in adults taking maximally tolerated statin therapy or who are statin intolerant. Design Network meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library up to 31 December 2020. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised controlled trials of ezetimibe and PCSK9 inhibitors with ≥500 patients and follow-up of ≥6 months. Main outcome measures We performed frequentist fixed-effects network meta-analysis and GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation) to assess certainty of evidence. Results included relative risks (RR) and absolute risks per 1000 patients treated for five years for non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), non-fatal stroke, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality. We estimated absolute risk differences assuming constant RR (estimated from network meta-analysis) across different baseline therapies and cardiovascular risk thresholds; the PREDICT risk calculator estimated cardiovascular risk in primary and secondary prevention. Patients were categorised at low to very high cardiovascular risk. A guideline panel and systematic review authors established the minimal important differences (MID) of 12 per 1000 for MI and 10 per 1000 for stroke. Results We identified 14 trials assessing ezetimibe and PCSK9 inhibitors among 83 660 adults using statins. Adding ezetimibe to statins reduced MI (RR 0.87 (95% confidence interval 0.80 to 0.94)) and stroke (RR 0.82 (0.71 to 0.96)) but not all-cause mortality (RR 0.99 (0.92 to 1.06)) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.97 (0.87 to 1.09)). Similarly, adding PCSK9 inhibitor to statins reduced MI (0.81 (0.76 to 0.87)) and stroke (0.74 (0.64 to 0.85)) but not all-cause (0.95 (0.87 to 1.03)) or cardiovascular mortality (0.95 (0.87 to 1.03)). Among adults with very high cardiovascular risk, adding PCSK9 inhibitor was likely to reduce MI (16 per 1000) and stroke (21 per 1000) (moderate to high certainty); whereas adding ezetimibe was likely to reduce stroke (14 per 1000), but the reduction of MI (11 per 1000) (moderate certainty) did not reach MID. Adding ezetimibe to PCSK9 inhibitor and statin may reduce stroke (11 per 1000), but the reduction of MI (9 per 1000) (low certainty) did not reach MID. Adding PCSK9 inhibitors to statins and ezetimibe may reduce MI (14 per 1000) and stroke (17 per 1000) (low certainty). Among adults with high cardiovascular risk, adding PCSK9 inhibitor probably reduced MI (12 per 1000) and stroke (16 per 1000) (moderate certainty); adding ezetimibe probably reduced stroke (11 per 1000), but the reduction in MI did not achieve MID (8 per 1000) (moderate certainty). Adding ezetimibe to PCSK9 inhibitor and statins did not reduce outcomes beyond MID, while adding PCSK9 inhibitor to ezetimibe and statins may reduce stroke (13 per 1000). These effects were consistent in statin-intolerant patients. Among moderate and low cardiovascular risk groups, adding PCSK9 inhibitor or ezetimibe to statins yielded little or no benefit for MI and stroke. Conclusions Ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors may reduce non-fatal MI and stroke in adults at very high or high cardiovascular risk who are receiving maximally tolerated statin therapy or are statin-intolerant, but not in those with moderate and low cardiovascular risk.

Objective To determine the harms of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors in people who need lipid-lowering therapy. Methods This systematic review included randomised controlled trials that compared PCSK9 inhibitors with placebo, standard care or active lipid-lowering comparators in people who need lipid-lowering therapy with the follow-up duration of at least 24 weeks. We summarised the relative effects for potential harms from PCSK9 inhibitors using random-effect pairwise meta-analyses and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation) for each outcome. Results We included 32 trials with 65 861 participants (with the median follow-up duration of 40 weeks, ranging from 24 to 146 weeks). The meta-analysis showed an incidence of injection-site reaction leading to discontinuation (absolute incidence of 15 events (95% CI 11 to 20) per 1000 persons in a 5-year time frame, high certainty evidence). PCSK9 inhibitors do not increase the risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus, neurocognitive events, cataracts or gastrointestinal haemorrhage with high certainty evidence. PCSK9 inhibitors probably do not increase the risks of myalgia or muscular pain leading to discontinuation or any adverse events leading to discontinuation with moderate evidence certainty. Given very limited evidence, PCSK9 inhibitors might not increase influenza-like symptoms leading to discontinuation (risk ratio 1.5; 95% CI 0.06 to 36.58). We did not identify credible subgroup analyses results, including shorter versus longer follow-up duration of trials. Conclusions PCSK9 inhibitors slightly increase the risk of severe injection-site reaction but not cataracts, gastrointestinal haemorrhage, neurocognitive events, new-onset diabetes or severe myalgia or muscular pain.

AbstractEpilepsy syndromes have been recognized for >50 years, as distinct electroclinical phenotypes with therapeutic and prognostic implications. Nonetheless, no formally accepted International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) classification of epilepsy syndromes has existed. The ILAE Task Force on Nosology and Definitions was established to reach consensus regarding which entities fulfilled criteria for an epilepsy syndrome and to provide definitions for each syndrome. We defined an epilepsy syndrome as “a characteristic cluster of clinical and electroencephalographic features, often supported by specific etiological findings (structural, genetic, metabolic, immune, and infectious).” The diagnosis of a syndrome in an individual with epilepsy frequently carries prognostic and treatment implications. Syndromes often have age‐dependent presentations and a range of specific comorbidities. This paper describes the guiding principles and process for syndrome identification in both children and adults, and the template of clinical data included for each syndrome. We divided syndromes into typical age at onset, and further characterized them based on seizure and epilepsy types and association with developmental and/or epileptic encephalopathy or progressive neurological deterioration. Definitions for each specific syndrome are contained within the corresponding position papers.

Abstract The International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) Task Force on Nosology and Definitions proposes a classification and definition of epilepsy syndromes in the neonate and infant with seizure onset up to 2 years of age. The incidence of epilepsy is high in this age group and epilepsy is frequently associated with significant comorbidities and mortality. The licensing of syndrome specific antiseizure medications following randomized controlled trials and the development of precision, gene‐related therapies are two of the drivers defining the electroclinical phenotypes of syndromes with onset in infancy. The principal aim of this proposal, consistent with the 2017 ILAE Classification of the Epilepsies, is to support epilepsy diagnosis and emphasize the importance of classifying epilepsy in an individual both by syndrome and etiology. For each syndrome, we report epidemiology, clinical course, seizure types, electroencephalography (EEG), neuroimaging, genetics, and differential diagnosis. Syndromes are separated into self‐limited syndromes, where there is likely to be spontaneous remission and developmental and epileptic encephalopathies , diseases where there is developmental impairment related to both the underlying etiology independent of epileptiform activity and the epileptic encephalopathy. The emerging class of etiology‐specific epilepsy syndromes, where there is a specific etiology for the epilepsy that is associated with a clearly defined, relatively uniform, and distinct clinical phenotype in most affected individuals as well as consistent EEG, neuroimaging, and/or genetic correlates, is presented. The number of etiology‐defined syndromes will continue to increase, and these newly described syndromes will in time be incorporated into this classification. The tables summarize mandatory features, cautionary alerts, and exclusionary features for the common syndromes. Guidance is given on the criteria for syndrome diagnosis in resource‐limited regions where laboratory confirmation, including EEG, MRI, and genetic testing, might not be available.

Abstract In 2017, the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) Classification of Epilepsies described the “genetic generalized epilepsies” (GGEs), which contained the “idiopathic generalized epilepsies” (IGEs). The goal of this paper is to delineate the four syndromes comprising the IGEs, namely childhood absence epilepsy, juvenile absence epilepsy, juvenile myoclonic epilepsy, and epilepsy with generalized tonic–clonic seizures alone. We provide updated diagnostic criteria for these IGE syndromes determined by the expert consensus opinion of the ILAE’s Task Force on Nosology and Definitions (2017–2021) and international external experts outside our Task Force. We incorporate current knowledge from recent advances in genetic, imaging, and electroencephalographic studies, together with current terminology and classification of seizures and epilepsies. Patients that do not fulfill criteria for one of these syndromes, but that have one, or a combination, of the following generalized seizure types: absence, myoclonic, tonic‐clonic and myoclonic‐tonic‐clonic seizures, with 2.5–5.5 Hz generalized spike‐wave should be classified as having GGE. Recognizing these four IGE syndromes as a special grouping among the GGEs is helpful, as they carry prognostic and therapeutic implications.

Abstract The 2017 International League Against Epilepsy classification has defined a three‐tier system with epilepsy syndrome identification at the third level. Although a syndrome cannot be determined in all children with epilepsy, identification of a specific syndrome provides guidance on management and prognosis. In this paper, we describe the childhood onset epilepsy syndromes, most of which have both mandatory seizure type(s) and interictal electroencephalographic (EEG) features. Based on the 2017 Classification of Seizures and Epilepsies, some syndrome names have been updated using terms directly describing the seizure semiology. Epilepsy syndromes beginning in childhood have been divided into three categories: (1) self‐limited focal epilepsies, comprising four syndromes: self‐limited epilepsy with centrotemporal spikes, self‐limited epilepsy with autonomic seizures, childhood occipital visual epilepsy, and photosensitive occipital lobe epilepsy; (2) generalized epilepsies, comprising three syndromes: childhood absence epilepsy, epilepsy with myoclonic absence, and epilepsy with eyelid myoclonia; and (3) developmental and/or epileptic encephalopathies, comprising five syndromes: epilepsy with myoclonic–atonic seizures, Lennox–Gastaut syndrome, developmental and/or epileptic encephalopathy with spike‐and‐wave activation in sleep, hemiconvulsion–hemiplegia–epilepsy syndrome, and febrile infection‐related epilepsy syndrome. We define each, highlighting the mandatory seizure(s), EEG features, phenotypic variations, and findings from key investigations.