Citations

ABSTRACT Background Radiotherapy is a cornerstone of treatment for pediatric central nervous system (CNS) tumors, but dose selection remains uniform despite interpatient variability in tumor radiosensitivity. This is consequential in children, for whom toxicity can have lifelong effects. Genomic-adjusted radiation dose (GARD) integrates tumor genomics with delivered radiation dose to quantify the biological effect of radiotherapy and has been validated across adult malignancies. Its relevance in pediatric CNS tumors is unknown. Methods We performed a cohort study using gene expression and data from 246 pediatric patients with high-grade glioma, medulloblastoma, or ependymoma from the Children’s Brain Tumor Network. GARD was calculated using a sequencing-adapted radiosensitivity index integrated with radiation dose through the linear–quadratic model. Associations of GARD and physical radiation dose with event-free and overall survival were evaluated using Cox proportional hazards models stratified by tumor type and anatomic location. Patients who did not receive radiotherapy comprised a negative control cohort (sham-GARD). Results Among patients receiving radiotherapy, physical dose was uniform, whereas GARD showed substantial interpatient variability in biological effect. Higher GARD was associated with improved event-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0·90, 95% CI 0·83–0·97; p=0·004) and overall survival (HR 0·90, 95% CI 0·83–0·99; p=0·018). Physical dose was not associated with either endpoint. Among patients who did not receive radiotherapy, sham-GARD was not associated with outcomes, supporting GARD as a treatment-specific predictor rather than a prognostic biomarker. Conclusions In pediatric CNS tumors, the biological effect of radiotherapy quantified by GARD was associated with outcomes, whereas physical dose was not. These findings challenge uniform radiotherapy dosing and support genomically informed dose individualization. Prospective evaluation of GARD-guided radiotherapy is warranted to optimize tumor control while minimizing long-term toxicity in children.

Importance Treatment for cognitive dysfunction due to postacute sequelae of long COVID (ie, symptoms of fatigue, malaise, weakness, confusion that persist beyond 12 weeks after an initial COVID infection) remains a significant unmet need. Objective To test evidence-based rehabilitation strategies for improving cognitive symptoms in persons with long COVID. Design, Setting, and Participants This was a 5-arm, multicenter, randomized clinical trial of 3 remotely delivered interventions conducted between August 17, 2023, and June 10, 2024. The study took place at 22 trial sites and included the screening of individuals with cognitive long COVID. Interventions Participants were randomized to 1 of 5 arms: adaptive computerized cognitive training (BrainHQ [Posit Science]), cognitive-behavioral rehabilitation involving both group and individual counseling sessions (PASC-Cognitive Recovery [PASC-CoRE]) paired with BrainHQ, and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) paired with BrainHQ. Two comparator arms were included as follows: unstructured computer puzzles and games (active comparator) and sham tDCS paired with BrainHQ. The interventions occurred 5 times per week over 10 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures Cognitive and behavioral in-person assessments were performed at baseline, midintervention, at the end of intervention, and 3 months after the end of the intervention. The primary outcome measure was the modified Everyday Cognition Scale 2 (ECog2) completed at the end of the intervention compared to the baseline visit based on participant self-report looking back over the prior 7 days. Results A total of 378 individuals were screened, from which there were 328 participants (median [IQR] age, 48.0 [37.0-58.0] years; 241 female [73.5%]; race: 15 Asian [4.6%], 47 Black [14.3%], and 235 White [71.6%]; ethnicity: 52 Hispanic [15.9%]). None of the 3 active interventions demonstrated benefits on the modified ECog2 in the intention-to-treat population by the end of the intervention period. The adjusted differences in mean change were 0.0 (95% CI, −0.2 to 0.2) for BrainHQ vs active comparator, 0.1 (95% CI, −0.1 to 0.3) for PASC-CoRE + BrainHQ vs active comparator, 0.0 (95% CI, −0.2 to 0.2) for tDCS-active + BrainHQ vs tDCS-sham + BrainHQ, and 0.1 (95% CI, −0.1 to 0.3) for PASC-CoRE + BrainHQ vs BrainHQ alone. Secondary participant-reported outcomes and neuropsychological tests showed no differential benefits for any treatment arm. All 5 arms demonstrated some improvements over time on the modified ECog2 and on secondary outcomes. There were no serious adverse events attributable to the interventions. Conclusions and Relevance This phase 2 randomized clinical trial failed to demonstrate differential benefits for online cognitive training, a structured cognitive rehabilitation program, and tDCS for cognitive long COVID. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05965739 .

This article highlights the important role of speech-language pathologists (SLPs) in palliative care (PC), emphasizing their contribution to supporting people with eating, drinking, and swallowing difficulties during serious illnesses and at the end of life. The recommendations underscore the necessity of interdisciplinary collaboration among SLPs and other PC team members, the importance of patient and caregiver education, and the application of patient-centered, comfort-focused approaches to dysphagia intervention. Drawing on current research and expert insights, this article explores the use of SLP services in PC, as well as the challenges in supporting people with eating and drinking difficulties in advanced stages of illness, embedded with practical tips for clinicians.

Importance Office-based phototherapy is cost-effective for psoriasis but difficult to access. Home-based phototherapy is patient preferred but has limited clinical data, particularly in patients with darker skin. Objective To compare the effectiveness of home- vs office-based narrowband UV-B phototherapy for psoriasis. Design, Setting, and Participants The Light Treatment Effectiveness study was an investigator-initiated, pragmatic, open-label, parallel-group, multicenter, noninferiority randomized clinical trial embedded in routine care at 42 academic and private clinical dermatology practices in the US. Enrollment occurred from March 1, 2019, to December 4, 2023, with follow-up through June 2024. Participants were 12 years and older with plaque or guttate psoriasis who were candidates for home- and office-based phototherapy. Interventions Participants were randomized to receive a home narrowband UV-B machine with guided mode dosimetry or routine care with office-based narrowband UV-B for 12 weeks, followed by an additional 12-week observation period. Main Outcomes and Measures The coprimary effectiveness outcomes were Physician Global Assessment (PGA) dichotomized as clear/almost clear skin (score of ≤1) at the end of the intervention period and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) score of 5 or lower (no to small effect on quality of life) at week 12. Results Of 783 patients enrolled (mean [SD] age, 48.0 [15.5] years; 376 [48.0%] male), 393 received home-based phototherapy and 390 received office-based phototherapy, with 350 (44.7%) having skin phototype (SPT) I/II, 350 (44.7%) having SPT III/IV, and 83 (10.6%) having SPT V/VI. A total of 93 patients (11.9%) were receiving systemic treatment. At baseline, mean (SD) PGA was 2.7 (0.8) and DLQI was 12.2 (7.2). At week 12, 129 patients (32.8%) receiving home-based phototherapy and 100 patients (25.6%) receiving office-based phototherapy achieved clear/almost clear skin, and 206 (52.4%) and 131 (33.6%) achieved DLQI of 5 or lower, respectively. Home-based phototherapy was noninferior to office-based phototherapy for PGA and DLQI in the overall population and across all SPTs. Home-based phototherapy, compared to office-based phototherapy, was associated with better treatment adherence (202 patients [51.4%] vs 62 patients [15.9%]; P < .001), lower burden of indirect costs to patients, and more episodes of persistent erythema (466 of 7957 treatments [5.9%] vs 46 of 3934 treatments [1.2%]; P < .001). Both treatments were well tolerated with no discontinuations due to adverse events. Conclusions and Relevance In this randomized clinical trial, home-based phototherapy was as effective as office-based phototherapy for plaque or guttate psoriasis in everyday clinical practice and had less burden to patients. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03726489

Dentists prescribe a large portion of all oral antibiotics, and these are associated with a risk of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). The aim of this study was to quantify the risk of ADRs associated with oral antibiotics commonly prescribed by dentists. NHS Digital Prescribing data and Yellow Card Drug Analysis data for 2010 to 2017 were abstracted to quantify dental antibiotic prescribing in England, and the rate and types of ADRs associated with them. During the period of study, the mean number of actively practicing dentists in England was 23,624. Amoxicillin accounted for 64.8% of dental antibiotic prescribing and had the lowest reported rate of fatal ADRs (0.1/million prescriptions) and overall ADRs (21.5/million prescriptions). Indeed, amoxicillin was respectively 6 and 3 times less likely to cause an ADR than the other penicillins, penicillin V and amoxicillin + clavulanic acid, and appears to be very safe in patients with no history of penicillin allergy. In contrast, clindamycin, which is often used in patients with penicillin allergy, had the highest rate of fatal (2.9/million prescriptions) and overall (337.3/million prescriptions) ADRs, with Clostridiodes (formerly Clostridium) difficile infections pivotal to its ADR profile. Other amoxicillin alternatives, clarithromycin and metronidazole, while significantly worse than amoxicillin, were 3 and nearly 5 times less likely to cause an ADR than clindamycin. Ranked from least to most likely to cause an ADR, antibiotics most commonly prescribed were as follows: amoxicillin < cephalosporins < erythromycin < tetracyclines < azithromycin < metronidazole < amoxicillin + clavulanic acid < clarithromycin < penicillin V < clindamycin. This study confirmed the high level of safety associated with use of amoxicillin by dentists and the significantly worse rates of fatal and nonfatal ADRs associated with other penicillins and alternatives to amoxicillin for those who are penicillin allergic. In particular, clindamycin had the highest rate of fatal and nonfatal ADRs of any of the antibiotics commonly prescribed by dentists.

BACKGROUNDThere is a glaring lack of published evidence‐based strategies to improve the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) patient experience scores on the physician domain. Strategies that have been used are resource intensive and difficult to sustain.OBJECTIVEWe hypothesized that prompting providers to assess their own etiquette‐based practices every 2 weeks over the course of 1 year would improve patient experience on the physician domain.DESIGNRandomized controlled trial.SETTING4 acute care hospitals.PARTICIPANTSHospitalists.INTERVENTIONHospitalists were randomized to the study or the control arm. The study arm was prompted every 2 weeks for 12 months to report how frequently they engaged in 7 best‐practice bedside etiquette behaviors. Control arm participants received similarly worded questions on quality improvement behaviors.MEASUREMENTProvider experience scores were calculated from the physician HCAHPS and Press Ganey survey provider items.RESULTSPhysicians reported high rates of etiquette‐based behavior at baseline, and this changed modestly over the study period. Self‐reported etiquette behaviors were not associated with experience scores. The difference in difference analysis of the baseline and postintervention physician experience scores between the intervention arm and the control arm was not statistically significant (P = 0.71).CONCLUSIONIn this 12‐month study, biweekly reflection and reporting of best‐practice bedside etiquette behaviors did not result in significant improvement on physician domain experience scores. It is likely that hospitalists' self‐assessment of their bedside etiquette may not reflect patient perception of these behaviors. Furthermore, hospitalists may be resistant to improvement in this area since they rate themselves highly at baseline.