Citations

Abstract Background Lower extremity compression therapy has been proposed as an adjunct to mitigate diuretic resistance during acute decompensation of heart failure (ADHF). We evaluated the effect of lower leg compression with elastic bandages on diuretic efficiency in patients with diuretic-resistant ADHF. Methods Historical cohort study enrolling adult cardiac ICU admissions with ADHF who used elastic bandages (EB) at Mayo Clinic in Minnesota from 2007 to 2017. The diuretic efficiency before and after applying EB was the primary outcome. Results A total of 176 patients with heart failure who received elastic bandages were included. The in-hospital mortality rate, the median hospital length of stay, and 30-day hospital readmission were 9.7%, 11.4 days (IQR 7.1–19.0), and 11%, respectively. When EB was applied, the average daily loop diuretic dosage was decreased by a mean difference of 1.19 mg per 40 mg furosemide equivalent (95% CI: 0.22 to 2.2; p = 0.016). The average post-EB diuretic efficiency was 1,355 mL (IQR 1,119, 1,590) per 40-mg furosemide, which was significantly higher than before EB application, with a mean difference of 340 mL per 40-mg furosemide equivalent (95% CI: -554, -125; p = 0.002). A higher diuretic efficiency led to lower diuretic doses. Average daily urine output before and after EB application was not different (2,642 pre-EB vs. 2,792 post-EB mL/day; 95% CI: -455 to 154; p = 0.33). Conclusion EB use enhances diuretic efficacy during ADHF. Further studies are needed to determine the potential clinical benefits and risks of applying EB compression treatment in ADHF.

Abstract Objective Ceribell Inc.'s point‐of‐care electroencephalographic (EEG) system and artificial intelligence‐based Automated Seizure Burden Estimator (ASBE; ClarityPro) have US Food and Drug Administration clearance for diagnosing electrographic status epilepticus (ESE). The AccuRASE study using ASBE version 6 (V6) showed high negative predictive value (NPV) but limited sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) at certain thresholds. Version 8 (V8) is the updated algorithm trained with additional EEG samples. Methods We tested V8 on the previously used rapid‐response EEG test dataset (not used to train V8). Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were compared against blinded expert annotations. ESE, ESE and possible ESE (ESE/pESE), electrographic seizures (ESz), and Esz with highly epileptiform patterns (Esz/HEPs) at burden thresholds of >1%, >10%, >20%, >50%, and >90% were analyzed. Additionally, we evaluated the built‐in ESE and ESE/pESE alerts (≥90% over 5 min, ≥20% over 1 h, or ≥10 continuous minutes of seizure). Results V8 showed 100% sensitivity at lower thresholds (>10%–20%) for ESE (V6 .86), without a specificity loss (V8 .9 vs. V6 .85), and retained NPV (V8 1.0 vs. V6 .99). Sensitivity at 50% threshold was .86 for ESE (V6 .71), and specificity was .94 (V6 .91); PPV for ESE was 30% for ESE and 80% for ESE/pESE. The specificity for ESE remained high for 90% burden (V8 .96, V6 .97) but the sensitivity dropped (.29 vs. V6 .43). Sensitivity was lower for ESz/HEPs (.54 → .44 at >10% threshold), although the algorithm is not designed to detect HEPs. Built‐in alert analysis showed significantly improved sensitivity for ESE (.57 → .86); specificity and NPV remained high (>.94). Significance ASBE V8 showed meaningful improvements in sensitivity, continued excellent NPV, and improved built‐in alert accuracy for ESE and ESE/pESE. The best seizure burden threshold for ruling out ESE now is 20% (vs. 10% with V6) and that for ruling in ESE/pESE with reasonable certainty is 50% (vs. 90% with V6).

Abstract Background: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is driven predominantly by oncogenic KRAS signaling and characterized by an immunosuppressive, fibrotic tumor microenvironment that limits therapeutic responses. RMC-6236, a pan-KRAS inhibitor, and ONIOYID, an investigational anti-tumor agent, each demonstrate partial activity in KRAS-mutant cancers. However, their combined therapeutic potential in PDAC remains unexplored. Here, we evaluated the anti-tumor efficacy, survival benefit, and immunomodulatory effects of RMC-6236, ONIOYID and irinotecan alone and dual combinations multiple in vitro and in vivo PDAC models. Methods: In vitro cytotoxicity assays were performed using KPC, PANC-1, AsPC-1, and PANC-02 cell lines. In vivo therapeutic studies were conducted in orthotopic KPC and PANC-1 tumor models. RMC-6236 was administered orally at 10 mg/kg; ONIOYID and irinotecan was administered intravenously at 5 mg/kg. Tumor growth inhibition, survival, collagen deposition, and immune cell infiltration were analyzed. Tumor microenvironment remodeling was quantified via immunohistochemistry for CD8, CD4, collagen I, and fibronectin. Results: The combination of RMC-6236 and ONIOYID elicited potent anti-tumor effects across all evaluated PDAC cell lines, achieving greater than 90% growth inhibition in vitro. In vivo, co-treatment resulted in more than 90% tumor regression in both KPC and PANC-1 xenograft models, markedly surpassing the efficacy of individual monotherapies and other dual-agent controls. Combination therapy significantly extended overall survival and produced sustained suppression of tumor progression. Mechanistic analyses revealed a substantial reduction in collagen and fibronectin deposition within the tumor microenvironment, consistent with attenuation of desmoplasia. Immune profiling demonstrated a robust enhancement of intratumoral CD8+ and CD4+ T-cell infiltration, along with a pronounced decrease in survivin expression. Importantly, no observable systemic toxicity was detected in treated animals. Conclusions: RMC-6236 combined with ONIOYID yields synergistic anti-tumor effects, remodels the fibrotic PDAC microenvironment, enhances T-cell infiltration, and significantly improves survival in aggressive pancreatic tumor models. These findings provide strong rationale for clinical evaluation of RMC-6236-based combination therapies for KRAS driven PDAC. Citation Format: Hari Krishnareddy Rachamala, Fang Wei, Debabrata Mukhopadhyay, Hani M. Babiker. Combined KRAS pathway inhibition and ONIOYID treatment enhances tumor regression, attenuates desmoplasia, and augments T cell infiltration in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2026; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2026 Apr 17-22; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2026;86(7 Suppl):Abstract nr 5842.

Objectives While extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) may be an efficacious adjunctive treatment option for musculoskeletal injuries, current research is limited by significant heterogeneity within treatment protocols. This study aims to establish international expert consensus recommendations on ESWT terminology, parameters, procedural considerations, contraindications and side effects in the application of ESWT to sports injuries. Methods A systematic literature search was performed on the use of ESWT for musculoskeletal and sports medicine injuries to identify potential panellists, followed by the development of a steering committee-led questionnaire. A three-stage, modified Delphi questionnaire was provided to a panel of 41 international clinical and research experts across 13 countries. Panellists had the opportunity to suggest edits to existing statements or recommend additional statements in Round 1. Consensus was defined as≥75% agreement. Results All 41 panellists completed Rounds 1, 2 and 3. Consensus was reached on 69/118 statements (58.5%), including recommendations on terminology and fundamental concepts, indications for use, procedural aspects for tendinopathy and bone pathologies, treatment correlations with imaging, periprocedural and postprocedural considerations, absolute and relative contraindications and potential side effects. Of the 49 statements that did not reach consensus, 17/49 (34.7%) were related to procedural aspects of bone pathology. Conclusion This international panel presents recommendations on ESWT terminology, indications and treatment considerations to guide ESWT use and decision-making by sports medicine clinicians. While our panel supported the use of ESWT in the treatment of bone pathologies, certain procedural aspects of ESWT specific to these injuries did not reach consensus and require further investigation.