Citations

Abstract Identifying patients at high risk for acute kidney injury (AKI) during hospitalization among patients admitted with severe alcoholic hepatitis (AH) is an unmet clinical need. We performed a multicentric prospective cohort study using data from 4 different cohorts on well‐characterized patients hospitalized with severe AH. Data collected on 773 AH patients from 4 cohorts across the globe were randomly split into test (n = 390) and validation (n = 383) cohorts. We found that 32% of the patients developed inpatient AKI in the test cohort. Approximately 60% of patients met criteria for systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) at admission. Hepatic encephalopathy, SIRS, and Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease score at admission predicted inpatient AKI with odds ratios of 3.86, 2.24, and 1.14, respectively. The AKI risk score developed using these predictors stratified risk of inpatient AKI to low (score <3), moderate (3‐4), and high (>4). These findings were replicated in the validation cohort. In the whole study cohort, patients with AKI had a lower 90‐day survival (53% versus 77%; P < 0.001). Those with AKI risk score of >4 had significantly lower 90‐day survival as compared with those with risk scores between 3 and 4 and <3 (47% versus 68% versus 88%; P < 0.001). In conclusion, AKI occurs frequently in AH patients and negatively impacts short‐term mortality. The AKI risk score is useful in identifying patients at high risk for inpatient AKI and may be useful for developing new therapeutic strategies to prevent AKI in patients with AH.

BackgroundData on liver transplant (LT) outcomes using deceased donors with heavy drinking (HD) (>2 drinks per day) are scanty.MethodsUsing the United Network for Organ Sharing database (2002-2014), we examined outcomes after LT in adults comparing deceased HD donors with non-HD (ND) donors.ResultsOf 56 182 first LTs performed in the United States for 10 common indications using deceased donors, 47 882 with available information on alcohol use were analyzed. Of these 47 882 LT recipients, 7298 (15%) were from HD donors, with similar proportion over time (2002-2014, Armitage trend testP= 0.75) and for recipient liver disease etiology (χ2P= 0.42). Proportion of liver organ used for LT was lower for HD donors compared with ND donors (63% vs 78%;P< 0.001). Five-year outcomes on first LT comparing 7166 HD donors and 21 498 ND donors matched based on propensity score were similar for liver graft (73.7% vs 73.7%, log rankP= 0.98) and patient survival (77.6% vs 77.0%,P= 0.36). On Cox regression analysis, history of HD in deceased donors did not affect liver graft 1.02 (0.97-1.08) or patient survival 1.03 (0.97-1.09).ConclusionsAmong LT recipients using select liver grafts, history of HD in deceased donors does not impact outcomes after LT.

AbstractBackgroundPatients and clinicians do not often agree on whether a decision has been made about cancer care. This could be explained by factors related to communication quality and/or the type of decision being made.MethodsWe used a self‐developed coding scheme to code a random sample of 128 encounters in which patients and clinicians either agreed (n=64) or disagreed (n=64) that a cancer care decision was made and tested for associations between concordance and key communication behaviours. We also identified and characterized cancer care decisions by topic and level of patient involvement and looked for trends.ResultsWe identified 378 cancer care decisions across 128 encounters. Explicit decisions were most commonly made about topics wherein decision control could be easily delegated to a clear and present expert (eg either the patient or the clinician). Related to this, level of patient involvement varied significantly by decision topic. Explicit decisions were rarely made in an observable way about social, non‐clinical or self‐management related topics, although patients and clinicians both reported having made a cancer care decision in encounters where no decisions were observed. We found no association between communication behaviours and concordance in our sample.ConclusionsWhat counts as a “decision” in cancer care may be constructed within disparate social roles that leave many agendas unaddressed and decisions unmade. Changing the content of conversations to encourage explicit decisions about self‐management and life context‐related topics may have greater value in enabling shared understanding than promoting communication behaviours among already high‐performing communicators.

Alterations in nuclear morphology are common in cancer progression. However, the degree to which gross morphological abnormalities translate into compromised higher‐order chromatin organization is poorly understood. To explore the functional links between gene expression and chromatin structure in breast cancer, we performed RNA‐seq gene expression analysis on the basal breast cancer progression model based on human MCF10A cells. Positional gene enrichment identified the major histone gene cluster at chromosome 6p22 as one of the most significantly upregulated (and not amplified) clusters of genes from the normal‐like MCF10A to premalignant MCF10AT1 and metastatic MCF10CA1a cells. This cluster is subdivided into three sub‐clusters of histone genes that are organized into hierarchical topologically associating domains (TADs). Interestingly, the sub‐clusters of histone genes are located at TAD boundaries and interact more frequently with each other than the regions in‐between them, suggesting that the histone sub‐clusters form an active chromatin hub. The anchor sites of loops within this hub are occupied by CTCF, a known chromatin organizer. These histone genes are transcribed and processed at a specific sub‐nuclear microenvironment termed the major histone locus body (HLB). While the overall chromatin structure of the major HLB is maintained across breast cancer progression, we detected alterations in its structure that may relate to gene expression. Importantly, breast tumor specimens also exhibit a coordinate pattern of upregulation across the major histone gene cluster. Our results provide a novel insight into the connection between the higher‐order chromatin organization of the major HLB and its regulation during breast cancer progression.

Abstract The Division of Lung Diseases of the NHLBI and the Cardiovascular Medical Education and Research Fund held a workshop to discuss how to leverage the anticipated scientific output from the recently launched “Redefining Pulmonary Hypertension through Pulmonary Vascular Disease Phenomics” (PVDOMICS) program to develop newer approaches to pulmonary vascular disease. PVDOMICS is a collaborative, protocol-driven network to analyze all patient populations with pulmonary hypertension to define novel pulmonary vascular disease (PVD) phenotypes. Stakeholders, including basic, translational, and clinical investigators; clinicians; patient advocacy organizations; regulatory agencies; and pharmaceutical industry experts, joined to discuss the application of precision medicine to PVD clinical trials. Recommendations were generated for discussion of research priorities in line with NHLBI Strategic Vision Goals that include: (1) A national effort, involving all the stakeholders, should seek to coordinate biosamples and biodata from all funded programs to a web-based repository so that information can be shared and correlated with other research projects. Example programs sponsored by NHLBI include PVDOMICS, Pulmonary Hypertension Breakthrough Initiative, the National Biological Sample and Data Repository for PAH, and the National Precision Medicine Initiative. (2) A task force to develop a master clinical trials protocol for PVD to apply precision medicine principles to future clinical trials. Specific features include: (a) adoption of smaller clinical trials that incorporate biomarker-guided enrichment strategies, using adaptive and innovative statistical designs; and (b) development of newer endpoints that reflect well-defined and clinically meaningful changes. (3) Development of updated and systematic variables in imaging, hemodynamic, cellular, genomic, and metabolic tests that will help precisely identify individual and shared features of PVD and serve as the basis of novel phenotypes for therapeutic interventions.