Citations

ABSTRACT Rationale Before evidence‐based practice (EBP) was formally adopted, healthcare decisions relied on critical thinking and clinical judgment informed by disciplinary knowledge, theory, and research, but lacked full integration of patient values with clinical expertise. Sackett et al. redefined EBP as the integration of the best available evidence, clinical expertise, and patient values. This framework has been embraced by nursing and other healthcare disciplines, embedding EBP into education, clinical protocols, and quality improvement efforts. Despite widespread adoption, traditional conceptualizations prioritize empirical evidence above patient values, potentially undermining individualized care. Aims and Objectives This paper proposes a reconceptualization that places patient and client values—their why —at the center of EBP, inspired by Simon Sinek's Golden Circle model which emphasizes starting with purpose to influence behavior effectively. Prioritizing the patient's values before incorporating empirical evidence into a care plan ensures that care aligns with their personal goals and definitions of health, fostering therapeutic relationships and supporting meaningful behavior change. Methods A conceptual analysis was conducted using Simon Sinek's Golden Circle model as a guiding framework. This model emphasizes starting with purpose to influence behavior effectively. The analysis explores how integrating patient values first, followed by empirical evidence and clinical expertise, can operationalize person‐centered EBP. Results The reconceptualized framework positions patient values as the foundation of care planning. By aligning interventions with patients' personal goals and values first, clinicians can strengthen therapeutic relationships and support individualized care. Conclusion Effective nursing clinicians and leaders must embrace this patient‐first approach to truly operationalize person‐centered, evidence‐based care that respects the diverse needs and motivations of patients.

Importance Acute invasive fungal rhinosinusitis (AIFRS) is a rapidly progressive and potentially life-threatening infection that predominantly affects immunocompromised patients. Recent advances in diagnostic imaging, antifungal therapy, and surgical techniques may have altered its incidence, morbidity, and mortality. Objective To evaluate temporal trends in the pooled proportion, morbidity, and mortality of AIFRS in immunocompromised patients and assess the association of diagnostic and therapeutic advances. Data Sources Systematic searches of Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Google Scholar from 1977 through October 20, 2025, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Study Selection Prospective, retrospective, and cross-sectional studies and case series reporting pooled proportion, morbidity, or mortality of AIFRS in immunocompromised patients were included. Non-English articles, reviews, editorials, and studies with fewer than 10 patients were excluded. Data Extraction and Synthesis Two independent reviewers extracted data using standardized templates; disagreements were resolved by consensus. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Murad tool for case series. Random-effects meta-analysis generated pooled proportion, morbidity, and mortality rates with 95% CIs. Heterogeneity was quantified using I 2 statistics. Meta-regression and sensitivity analyses evaluated temporal trends and study-level effects. Main Outcomes and Measures Pooled proportion, morbidity, and mortality rates of AIFRS stratified by publication period (1983-2012 vs 2013-2025). Results A total of 205 studies comprising 48 437 immunocompromised patients (median [range] age, 49.4 [5.2-68.8] years), including 10 311 (21.3%) with AIFRS, were analyzed. The pooled proportion was 11.8% (95% CI, 7.9%-17.2%), rising to 16.6% (95% CI, 8.7%-29.2%) in studies from 2013 to 2025. Overall mortality was 31.2% (95% CI, 28.3%-34.3%), declining from 41.9% (95% CI, 35.0%-49.1%) before 2013 to 28.2% (95% CI, 25.1%-31.4%) after 2013. Morbidity was 37.0% (95% CI, 32.9%-41.4%), with similar rates across periods (39.3% before 2013 vs 36.4% after 2013). The most common complications were vision loss, exophthalmos/proptosis, and orbital exenteration. Conclusions and Relevance This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that the pooled proportion of AIFRS among immunocompromised patients has increased while mortality has declined, reflecting advances in diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. Early detection and aggressive management remain critical to improving outcomes.

Background Cysteine–cysteine chemokine receptors 2 (CCR2) and 5 (CCR5) contribute to immune suppression in tumor microenvironments. CCR2 and CCR5 antagonists have demonstrated antitumor activity in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and colorectal cancer (CRC), respectively. This phase 1b/2, open-label study evaluated BMS-813160, a CCR2/5 dual antagonist, in combination with chemotherapy±nivolumab in advanced PDAC or metastatic CRC. Methods Part 1 included patients with metastatic untreated (first-line (1L)) PDAC, 1L CRC, or previously treated (second or third line (2/3L)) microsatellite stable (MSS) CRC. Patients received 2 weeks of BMS-813160 monotherapy (300 mg two times a day, 600 mg once daily, 300 mg once daily, or 150 mg once daily) and then BMS-813160+chemotherapy (gemcitabine+nab-paclitaxel (gem/nabP; 1L PDAC), 5-fluorouracil+leucovorin+irinotecan (FOLFIRI; 1L CRC)), or nivolumab (2/3L MSS CRC). Part 2 included patients with metastatic 1L PDAC or 2L CRC. Patients received BMS-813160 300 mg two times a day+gem/nabP±nivolumab (1L PDAC), BMS-813160 300 mg two times a day or 150 mg once daily+FOLFIRI (2L CRC), or chemotherapy alone. Primary endpoints were safety and pharmacodynamics (Part 1) and efficacy (Part 2). Results In Part 1, 22 of 75 (29%) and 54 of 72 (72%) patients experienced a treatment-related adverse event during monotherapy lead-in and overall, respectively. Two dose-limiting toxicities (rash and pericardial effusion with pericarditis, both grade 3) occurred. In Part 2, patients with 1L PDAC who received BMS-813160 300 mg two times a day+gem/nabP+nivolumab achieved an overall response rate (ORR) of 37% (13/35); the median duration of response (DOR) was 45 weeks (95% CI 26.1 to not evaluable). ORRs with BMS-813160 300 mg two times a day+gem/nabP and gem/nabP alone were 26% (9/35) and 28% (9/32), respectively; median DORs were 121 and 31 weeks, respectively. Progression-free survival rates at 24 weeks were 56% (BMS-813160 300 mg two times a day+gem/nabP+nivolumab), 56% (BMS-813160 300 mg two times a day+gem/nabP), and 50% (gem/nabP). ORRs in 2L CRC were 19% (6/32; BMS-813160 300 mg two times a day+FOLFIRI), 13% (4/32; BMS-813160 150 mg once daily+FOLFIRI), and 27% (7/26; FOLFIRI). Conclusions In 1L PDAC, BMS-813160 300 two times a day+gem/nabP±nivolumab demonstrated durable antitumor response and was well tolerated. BMS-813160 combination regimens were tolerable in other cohorts, but clinical efficacy was not demonstrated. Trial registration number NCT03184870 .

Coronary artery spasm (CAS) is a dynamic vasomotor disorder characterized by transient, intense constriction of epicardial coronary arteries, leading to myocardial ischemia in patients with and without obstructive coronary artery disease. CAS plays a central role in vasospastic angina, ischemia with nonobstructive coronary arteries and myocardial infarction with nonobstructive coronary arteries, malignant arrhythmias, and sudden cardiac death. Its pathophysiology is multifactorial, involving endothelial dysfunction, vascular smooth muscle hyperreactivity, inflammation, oxidative stress, autonomic imbalance, and genetic susceptibility, with notable ethnic and sex-related differences. Diagnosis relies on integration of clinical features, electrocardiographic changes, and invasive coronary provocation testing using acetylcholine or ergonovine, supported by advanced imaging and functional assessment when microvascular involvement is suspected. Management is centered on calcium channel blockers and nitrates, aggressive risk factor modification, particularly smoking cessation, and individualized strategies for refractory or high-risk patients. Improved recognition and standardized diagnostic pathways are essential to optimize outcomes and reduce life-threatening complications associated with CAS.

Shock is a life-threatening state of circulatory failure characterized by inadequate tissue oxygen delivery and cellular hypoxia. Lactate has emerged as a central biomarker in the diagnosis, risk stratification, and management of shock, yet its interpretation is complex and context dependent. Although traditionally viewed as a marker of anaerobic metabolism and tissue hypoperfusion, hyperlactatemia in distributive shock, particularly sepsis, frequently reflects multifactorial mechanisms, including increased aerobic glycolysis, adrenergic stimulation, mitochondrial dysfunction, and impaired hepatic clearance. This review examines the pathophysiology and classification of shock, the biochemical basis of lactate production and clearance, and the prognostic significance of both static lactate levels and lactate kinetics. We synthesize evidence supporting lactate as a robust prognostic marker while highlighting limitations of lactate-targeted resuscitation strategies. Emerging data favor multimodal approaches integrating lactate trends with complementary perfusion markers such as capillary refill time and central venous oxygen saturation. Lactate should be interpreted as one component of a comprehensive physiological assessment rather than an isolated therapeutic target.

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide, accounting for approximately 10% of all cancer cases. Despite the proven effectiveness of conventional screening modalities such as colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), their invasive nature, high cost, and limited patient compliance hinder widespread adoption. Recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) and bowel sound-based signal processing have enabled non-invasive approaches for gastrointestinal diagnostics. Among these, bowel sound analysis—historically considered subjective—has reemerged as a promising biomarker using digital auscultation and machine learning. Objective: This review explores the potential of AI-powered bowel sound analytics for early detection, screening, and characterization of colorectal cancer. It aims to assess current methodologies, summarize reported performance metrics, and highlight translational opportunities and challenges in clinical implementation. Methods: A narrative review was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane databases using the terms colorectal cancer, bowel sounds, phonoenterography, artificial intelligence, and non-invasive diagnosis. Eligible studies involving human bowel sound-based recordings, AI-based sound analysis, or machine learning applications in gastrointestinal pathology were reviewed for study design, signal acquisition methods, AI model architecture, and diagnostic accuracy. Results: Across studies using convolutional neural networks (CNNs), gradient boosting, and transformer-based models, reported diagnostic accuracies ranged from 88% to 96%. Area under the curve (AUC) values were ≥0.83, with F1 scores between 0.71 and 0.85 for bowel sound classification. In CRC-specific frameworks such as BowelRCNN, AI models successfully differentiate abnormal bowel sound intervals and spectral patterns associated with tumor-related motility disturbances and partial obstruction. Distinct bowel sound-based signatures—such as prolonged sound-to-sound intervals and high-pitched “tinkling” proximal to lesions—demonstrate the physiological basis for CRC detection through bowel sound-based biomarkers. Conclusions: AI-driven bowel sound analysis represents an emerging, exploratory research direction rather than a validated colorectal cancer screening modality. While early studies demonstrate physiological plausibility and technical feasibility, no large-scale, CRC-specific validation studies currently establish sensitivity, specificity, PPV, or NPV for cancer detection. Accordingly, bowel sound analytics should be viewed as hypothesis-generating and potentially complementary to established screening tools, rather than a near-term alternative to validated modalities such as FIT, multitarget stool DNA testing, or colonoscopy.

Abstract Background Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is impaired in patients with Crohn’s disease (CD). Upadacitinib (UPA), a Janus kinase inhibitor, demonstrated efficacy and safety in the phase 3 U-EXCEED (NCT03345836) and U-EXCEL (NCT03345849) induction, and U-ENDURE (NCT03345823) maintenance trials in patients with moderately to severely active CD. We assessed the effect of UPA maintenance treatment on HRQoL in patients with moderately to severely active CD from the U-ENDURE long-term extension (LTE) study. Methods Patients who completed the 52-week U-ENDURE maintenance study were eligible to participate in the LTE study, continuing their previously assigned maintenance treatment. Of the 337 patients receiving UPA (168, UPA 30 mg; 169, UPA 15 mg) in the U-ENDURE maintenance trial, a total of 244 patients (137, UPA 30 mg; 107, UPA 15 mg) were included in this analysis. All 244 patients completed week 96 of the LTE. Endpoints included percentage of patients who achieved Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) response (≥16-point increase from induction baseline), IBDQ remission (total score ≥170 points), a meaningful within-person change (MWPC) of ≥ 9point increase from baseline in the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy – Fatigue Scale (FACIT-F) and a MWPC of ≥ 4.1- and ≥3.9-point increase from baseline on the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) physical (PCS) and mental (MCS) component summary score, respectively, at maintenance week 52 and LTE week 96. We also assessed MWPC in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment in CD (WPAI-CD) domains defined as a decrease of ≥ 6.1% in presenteeism, ≥6.5% in absenteeism, ≥7.3% in overall work impairment and ≥8.5% in activity impairment. Data were reported using nonresponder imputation. Results The proportion of patients in the UPA 30 mg group achieving HRQoL outcomes was maintained from maintenance week 52 to LTE week 96, including achievement of IBDQ response (61.3% vs 57.7%), IBDQ remission (53.3% vs 53.3%), MWPC improvement in FACIT-F (50.4% vs 40.9%), SF-36 PCS (56.9% vs 56.2%), SF-36 MCS (47.4% vs 40.9%) and MWPC improvements in WPAI-CD domains presenteeism (45.6% vs 48.1%), overall work impairment (49.4% vs 51.9%) and daily activity impairment (57.7% vs 56.9%). Patients in the UPA 15 mg group also maintained achievement of these HRQoL outcomes over time (Table). Conclusion UPA (15 and 30 mg) maintenance treatment over a 3-year period was associated with sustained and clinically meaningful disease-specific and generic HRQoL improvement in patients with moderately to severely active CD. Despite the overall trend favouring UPA 30 mg, differences in patient-reported outcomes between the 2 dose groups were small. Conflict of interest: Panés, Julián: Personal Fees: J. Panés received consultancy fees/honorarium from AbbVie, Alimentiv, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ferring, Galapagos, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Mirum, Nimbus, Pfizer, Progenity, Prometheus, Protagonist, Revolo, Sanofi, Sorriso, Spyre Therapeutics, Surrozen, Takeda, and Wasserman, and has served on data safety monitoring boards for Alimentiv, Mirum, Roche, Sorriso, Sanofi, and Surrozen Louis, Edouard: Education and Reserach Grants for my department: Abbvie, Takeda, Johnson and Johnson, Pfizer, Fresenius-Kabi, Celltrion, EG pharma, Sandoz, Falk Personal Fees for conferences, advisory boards and consultancy: Abbvie, Takeda, Ferring, Pfizer, Johnson and Johnson, Lilly, Galapagos, Celltrion, Arena, BMS, Falk, Biokuris, Fresenius-Kabi, Thabor Bossuyt, Peter: Grant support for research from AbbVie, EG Consulting fee from AbbVie, Bristol Meyers Squibb, CIRC, Galapagos, Janssen, Jeito capital, Lilly, Pentax, Pfizer, PSI-CRO, Roche, Takeda, Tetrameros Speakers fee from AbbVie, AMC ICP, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Dr Falk Benelux, EG, Galapagos, Globalport, Lilly, Medtalks, Materia Prima, Pentax, Springer Media Joshi, Namita: Namita Joshi is a full-time employees/contractor of AbbVie and may own AbbVie stock or options. Xuan, Si: Full-time employee/contractor of AbbVie and may own AbbVie stock or options. Shukla, Nidhi: Full-time employee/contractor of AbbVie and may own AbbVie stock or options. Dubcenco, Elena: Full-time employee/contractor of AbbVie and may own AbbVie stock or options. Aponte, Fernando: Full-time employee/contractor of AbbVie and may own AbbVie stock or options. Perkovic, Ashley: Full-time employee/contractor of AbbVie and may own AbbVie stock or options. Loftus, Jr, Edward: Grant: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Genentech, Gilead, Janssen, Pfizer, Receptos, Robarts Clinical Trials, Takeda, Theravance, UCB. Personal Fees: AbbVie, Allergan, Amgen, Arena, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Calibr, Celgene, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Gilead, Iterative Scopes, Janssen, Ono Pharma, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, Takeda, UCB.

Abstract Background The STOMP2 trial sought to determine whether the implantable autologous cell therapy AVB-114 is an effective add-on therapy for patients with persistent Crohn’s perianal fistulas. The trial design incorporated wait-list controlled (WLC) elements, allowing eligible control group subjects who completed the 9 mo primary endpoint visit in Part 1 to request AVB-114 treatment in Part 2 and strengthen the evaluation of AVB-114’s safety and effectiveness. Methods Eligible patients had a single perianal fistula tract and had failed prior treatment or had documented medication intolerance to biologic or conventional Crohn’s disease therapy. Subjects at 14 U.S. sites were randomized 1:1 to either standard of care (SoC; fistula optimization including seton placement) or AVB-114 implantation. The primary endpoint was combined fistula remission at 9 mo, defined as no collections >2cm on MRI, visual closure of the external opening, and no drainage of fluid despite gentle finger compression. A logistic regression time from exposure model through 9 mo utilized complete Part 1 data and all available Part 2 data to estimate combined AVB-114 effectiveness. Results Part 1 combined remission (using Non-Responder Imputation) was 8.3% (2/24) for SoC and 45.8% (11/24) for AVB-114 (38% difference, 95% CI 11 – 60%, post-hoc p-value of 0.0078). Twenty SoC subjects were treated with AVB-114 in Part 2. Four of the 9 Part 2 subjects with 9 mo combined remission data available were in combined fistula remission (44.4%). No subjects failed 9 mo radiological remission (first component of the primary endpoint), thus clinical remission (composite of the latter two components) was equivalent to combined remission. AVB-114 clinical remission in Part 1 and Part 2 to-date were similar, and when combined provided narrower estimates with the same coverage (Figure 1). Mean (SD) 9 mo perianal disease activity index (PDAI) scores for SoC, Part 1 AVB-114, and Part 2 AVB-114 were 5.0 (2.6), 4.1 (2.9), and 3.8 (3.5), respectively. Lower 9 mo scores and decreases from baseline were independently associated with an increased probability of clinical remission. Two serious treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs; pseudopolyposis and proctalgia) occurred, with the latter attributed to AVB-114. Non-serious product related TEAE were predominantly related to postoperative perianal pain. Two grade 2 (moderate) AEs of cellulitis and abdominal wall abscess were attributed to adipose tissue collection. Conclusion Both the randomized and combined (all-treated) analyses demonstrated substantial AVB-114 effectiveness through 9 mo in this challenging patient population. AEs were anticipated, and generally mild and infrequent. Conflict of interest: Schwartz, David: 1) Abbvie: consultant 2) Janssen: Consultant 3) Takeda: Consultant 4) Avbios- consultant 5) Olympus- consultant Dozois, Eric: TBD Ehman, Eric: TBD Faubion, William: TBD Hudesman, David: Consultant: Avalo, Abbvie, Abivax, Biocon, BMS, CorEvitas, Eli Lilly, Johnson and Johnson, Pfizer, Prometheus, Sanofi, Takeda, Fresenius Kabi Research Support: Pfizer and Johnson and Johnson Espen, Benjamin: employee of Avobis Bio LLC Pabla, Baldeep: Astellas, J & J - Advisory Board Prometheus - Speaker Eli Lilly - Speaker Papadakis, Konstantinos: TBD

Abstract Background Icotrokinra is the first targeted oral peptide that selectively blocks the IL-23 receptor (IL-23R) and precisely inhibits the IL-23 pathway. In ANTHEM-UC—a Phase 2b, randomised, double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled, dose-ranging study in adults with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC)—all doses of icotrokinra achieved the primary endpoint of clinical response and delivered clinically meaningful improvements across key secondary endpoints at Week (W)12,1 which were maintained or improved at W28.2 Here we report the impact of icotrokinra on systemic and tissue biomarkers of inflammatory burden in UC. Methods Participants were randomised (1:1:1:1) to receive once-daily icotrokinra 100 mg, 200 mg, 400 mg, or PBO. Clinical inflammatory biomarkers, C-reactive protein (CRP) and faecal calprotectin (FCP), along with serum IL-23 pathway biomarkers (IL-22, IL-17A, and IL-17F) were used to determine the impact of icotrokinra on systemic inflammation. Gene expression changes in colonic biopsies were used to confirm tissue IL-23 pathway engagement and dampening of tissue inflammation with icotrokinra. Results At the W12 primary timepoint, all doses of icotrokinra attenuated levels of serum CRP and FCP (Figure 1). All doses of icotrokinra, but not PBO, markedly reduced serum levels of IL-22, IL-17A, and IL-17F at W12 relative to baseline. Greater reductions in these serum biomarkers of IL-23 pathway activation were observed with the 200 mg and 400 mg doses relative to the 100 mg dose (Figure 1, nominal p < 0.05). All doses of icotrokinra, but not PBO, markedly reduced expression of gene sets associated with the IL-23–driven inflammation in tissue at W12 relative to baseline (Figure 2, nominal p < 0.0001). With icotrokinra treatment, the tissue transcriptome more closely resembled that of healthy individuals, with decreased expression of gene sets associated with UC-relevant inflammatory cell types and increased expression of genes characteristic of healthy epithelial cells. Importantly, dampening of systemic and tissue inflammation with icotrokinra was sustained at W28 (Figures 1 & 2). Conclusion We show for the first time that blocking the IL-23R can inhibit IL-23-mediated inflammatory signaling in UC patients. Icotrokinra treatment induced a sustained (W28) reduction in systemic and tissue biomarkers of inflammatory burden in UC. Furthermore, icotrokinra induced transcriptional changes that are consistent with dampening of IL-23–driven inflammation and normalization of the tissue transcriptome. While all once-daily doses of icotrokinra attenuated systemic and tissue inflammation, greater reduction of systemic inflammatory burden was observed with the 200 mg and 400 mg doses of icotrokinra. References: 1. Abreu MT, et al. United European Gastroenterol J. 2025 10;13(suppl 8):172-3. 2. Jairath V, et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2025 120;10(suppl 2):S312. Conflict of interest: Louis, Edouard: Education and Research Grants for my department: Abbvie, Takeda, Janssen, Pfizer, Fresenius-Kabi, Celltrion, EG pharma, Sandoz, Falk Personal Fees for conferences, advisory boards and consultancy: Abbvie, Takeda, Ferring, Pfizer, Janssen, Lilly, Galapagos, Celltrion, Arena, BMS, Falk, Biokuris, Fresenius-Kabi, Thabor Jairath, Vipul: Consulting fees from AbbVie, Alimentiv, Amgen, Anaptys Bio, Asahi Kasei, Asieris, Astra Zeneca, Attovia, Blackbird Labs, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingleheim, Biomebank, Caldera, Calluna, Catalytic Health, Celltrion, Ensho, Enthera, Exeliome Biosciences, Ferring, Fresenius Kabi, Gilead, Granite Bio, GSK, Johnson & Johnson, Lilly, Merck, Mountainfield, MRM Health, Nxera, Organon, OSE Immunotherapeutics, Pendopharm, Pioneering Medicine, Pfizer, Prometheus, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, SCOPE, Shattuck Labs, Sorriso, Spyre, Synedgen, Takeda, Teva, Tillotts, Union Therapeutics, Ventus, Ventyx, Vividion, Xencor, Zealand Pharma. Siegmund, Britta: Consultant for AbbVie, Abivax, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dr. Falk Pharma, Eli Lilly, Endpoint Health, Galapagos, Johnson & Johnson, Materia Prima, MSD, Pfizer, Takeda, Wedbush Securities speaker for AbbVie, AlfaSigma, Bristol Myers Squibb, CED Service GmbH, Dr. Falk Pharma, Eli Lilly, Ferring, Galapagos, Johnson & Johnson, MD Education, MSD, Pfizer, Tr1xBio grant from Pfizer. Kannan, Arun K: Employee and shareholder of Johnson & Johnson Zeeman, Martha: Employee and shareholder of Johnson & Johnson Hart, Amy: Employee and shareholder of Johnson & Johnson Strawn, David: Employee and shareholder of Johnson & Johnson Venkat, Swati: Employee and shareholder of Johnson & Johnson Tomsho, Lynn: Employee and shareholder of Johnson & Johnson Mcrae, Bradford: Employee and shareholder of Johnson & Johnson Ruane, Darren: Employee and shareholder of Johnson & Johnson Surace, Lindsey: Employee and shareholder of Johnson & Johnson Erondu, Ngozi: Employee and shareholder of Johnson & Johnson Zhan, Joyce: Employee and shareholder of Johnson & Johnson Chen, Minhu: I have received speaker honoraria from Takeda China, Xian Janssen, and AbbVie China, as well as research funding from Takeda (China). Chachu, Karen: Advisory board for Johnson & Johnson consultant for OptumRx Matsuoka, Katsuyoshi: Grant: Abbvie Inc., Mochida Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., ZERIA Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Nippon Kayaku Co., Ltd., JIMRO Co., Ltd. Personal Fees: Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K., Abbvie Inc., EA Pharma Co., Ltd., Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Mochida Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., ZERIA Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Nippon Kayaku Co., Ltd., Pfizer Inc., Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Eli Lilly Japan K.K., Kissei Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Gilead Sciences, Celltrion Healthcare, Bristol-Myers Squibb Limdi, Jimmy: Speaker/consultancy fees from AbbVie, Abivax, Arena, BioHit, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Ferring, Galapagos, Johnson & Johnson, MSD, Pfizer, Takeda research support from Galapagos, Takeda Rydzewska, Grazyna: Speaker and consultant fees from AbbVie, AlfaSigma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biocodex, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ferring, Johnson & Johnson, Lilly, PRO.MED.Pl, Recordati, Sanprobi, SOBI, Takeda travel/accommodation meeting expenses from AbbVie, Ferring, Takeda Abreu, Maria Teresa: Grant/Research Support: Janssen, Prometheus Bioscience, Takeda Consultant: Janssen, Prometheus Bioscience, Takeda Gilead, Eli Lilly, AbbVie Inc., Bristol Myers, Imedex, Loftus Jr, Edward V: Consultant/advisory board member for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly and Company, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Takeda, UCB.

Context.— The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for SARS-CoV-2 assays encompassed both in vitro diagnostic and laboratory-developed tests. Related testing data and documents from EUAs were published on the FDA website as PDF files, constituting a rich data resource. Objective.— To highlight the value of structured descriptive and validation data and provide recommendations on improving the quality, accessibility, and shareability of the FDA’s digital resources. Design.— SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics EUAs and related files were acquired from the FDA, and data were extracted through an iterative manual or automated process with quality assurance in accordance with a set of data entry definitions to generate a data product (ie, data analysis and presentation of data into tables, graphs, and reports, optionally including different data sets) that could be disseminated. Results.— Four challenges limited the usability of FDA EUA data, including (1) distinguishing EUA tests owing to similar names or inconsistent naming conventions; (2) document location and tracking owing to inconsistent EUA document identifiers, resource locators, and versioning; (3) data location and retrieval owing to heterogeneous structure and data formatting within EUA documentation; and (4) maintenance of existing data owing to lack of clear and traceable communication around EUA amendments. Conclusions.— Converging efforts from disparate groups to extract and synthesize FDA test data reveal an unaddressed need for better organization and communication. Existing FDA data reporting systems must be improved and adapted for the demands of the connected data science era.