Citations

ABSTRACT Oligo‐secretory and non‐secretory MM present a clinical challenge due to the difficulties in initial diagnosis, response to treatment assessment, and relapse detection. They are excluded from most clinical trials, which typically require measurable disease. We describe the characteristics and outcomes of 86 patients with secretory myeloma at diagnosis who developed an OSR, matched 1:1 to a cohort with secretory relapse (SR). With a median follow‐up of 9.3 years, 16.6% (48/289) of evaluable patients developed an OSR. Lower levels of light chains at presentation, and younger age are predictive of an OSR. The median OS since relapse of the OSR group was 4.01 (95% CI 1.625–6.395) versus 3.25 (95% CI 2.255–4.245) years in the SR control group ( p = 0.4). A third of our OSR cohort had a subsequent SR. We did not find any predictive factor for SR after OSR. The median OS of the subgroup of patients who developed a SR after OSR was 3.35 years (95% CI 1.541–5.159), versus 5.8 years (95% CI 2.072–9.528) in the group that remained oligo‐secretory ( p = 0.336). The median TTNT of the SR after OSR group was 1.68 years (95% CI 0.341–0.919) versus 4.58 (95% CI not reached‐not reached) in the group that remained oligo‐secretory ( p < 0.001).

ABSTRACT Introduction It is controversial whether surgical correction of tethered spinal cord in non‐myelomeningocele tethered cord patients results in reversal versus stabilization of urologic (GU), gastrointestinal (GI), and musculoskeletal (MSK) symptoms. Objective To determine factors associated with clinical improvement in symptoms after spinal cord de‐tethering, and evaluate whether pre‐operative urodynamic testing predicts post‐operative clinical outcomes. Methods 213 non‐myelomeningocele children who underwent primary spinal cord de‐tethering at a quaternary children's hospital from 2012 to 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Age at surgery, gender, and presence of GU symptoms, constipation, MSK symptoms, and urodynamic studies were collected. Pre‐operative symptoms and demographics were compared between patients with and without resolution of GU symptoms after surgery. Results Mean age at surgery was 5.36 years, 48% were female, and mean length of follow up was 1.8 years. Before surgery, 133/213 (62%) experienced a GU symptom. 105/213 (49%) patients were potty‐trained. Of 105 potty‐trained patients, 50 (48%) had daytime incontinence and 55 (52%) had nocturnal enuresis. Of 88 potty‐trained patients with urinary symptoms, 22 (25%) had resolution of and 59 (67%) had improvement following surgery. Of the 102 with constipation, 45 (44%) had improvement. Of the 116 with musculoskeletal symptoms, 60 (52%) had improvement. Patients with resolution of GU symptoms were younger (4.97 vs. 8 years, p = 0.0019). Patients with daytime urinary incontinence ( p = 0.0119) were less likely to have resolution of GU symptoms. There was no difference in urodynamic findings between patients with and without improvement or resolution of urologic symptoms. Conclusion Younger age at de‐tethering surgery is associated with improvement in genitourinary symptoms. Preoperative urodynamic studies may not be predictive of postoperative outcomes.

Purpose: This letter addresses a recent paper by Mailend et al. (2025) that expressed concerns about the Apraxia of Speech Rating Scale (ASRS) and offered guidelines and definitions regarding its principles, scale labels, item definitions, and scoring procedures, including the addition of new items to the scale. The primary purpose of this letter is to clarify the uncertainty that other users of the scale may have about whether the current ASRS version (ASRS 3.5; Duffy et al., 2023) should be altered to include the numerous proposed revisions. It provides examples of proposed revisions that, in our judgment, are helpful, redundant, questionable or premature, or are misaligned with the primary purposes of the scale. Conclusions: Some of the proposed revisions to the ASRS are helpful and likely to improve reliability by reducing user uncertainty about ratings. Others are questionable or premature without supporting data or are not aligned with the primary purposes of the scale.

Abstract Background Recurrent alcohol use is a major determinant of liver‐related outcomes in patients recovering from alcohol‐associated hepatitis (AH). However, the timing and predictors of return to drinking (RTD) are not well‐studied. Methods We analyzed alcohol use among patients with AH enrolled in two AlcHepNet multicenter studies: a Phase 2b randomized controlled trial and a prospective observational study. TimeLine FollowBack (TLFB) assessed drinking at each visit. RTD was defined as any alcohol use since the previous visit. The cumulative incidence of RTD was evaluated using the Fine–Gray method, with death as a competing risk. Factors associated with RTD were evaluated using univariate and multivariate Cox regression. Results Among 518 patients alive at Day 28, RTD occurred in 7.7%, 21.7%, and 30.8% at 30, 90, and 180 days, respectively. Patients with moderate AH (mAH, MELD 11–19, n = 103) had a higher RTD incidence at 180 days than those with severe AH (sAH, MELD ≥20, n = 415) (44.3% vs. 27.5%; p = 0.01). RTD was associated with higher AUDIT scores, family history of alcohol use disorder (AUD), lower education, greater alcohol use at baseline, lower MELD scores, and less ascites (all p ≤ 0.01). In multivariable analysis, >20 drinking days in the prior month was associated with increased risk of RTD (HR: 3.46, 95% CI: 2.21–5.39), whereas college education or higher was protective (HR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.32–0.88). Conclusion RTD occurred in 22% of AH patients within 90 days postrecovery, highlighting the need for early AUD interventions. Frequent drinking days at baseline and lower education were strongly linked to early RTD.

BACKGROUND Guidelines and evidence related to antibiotic prophylaxis in dermatologic surgery have evolved since the authors' previously published advisory statement. OBJECTIVE To provide an updated advisory statement on antibiotic prophylaxis in dermatologic surgery as guided by updated recommendations from the American Heart Association and the American Dental Association with the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons guidelines. METHODS A structured literature review was performed. A multidisciplinary team of specialists from dermatologic surgery, infectious diseases, and pharmacy were convened to review up-to-date data and develop updated comprehensive evidence-based recommendations. RESULTS Consistent with the previous advisory statement, prophylactic antibiotics are recommended for patients with high-risk cardiac or prosthetic joint conditions, when the dermatologic surgical site is infected or if the procedure breaches the mucosa. Significant changes were made for prophylaxis of surgical site infection. Updated recommendations were made regarding antibiotic selection in penicillin-allergic patients and intraoperative use of intraincisional clindamycin in the local anesthetic. LIMITATIONS Reviewed data are predominantly limited to retrospective data. CONCLUSION Recommendations regarding antibiotic prophylaxis around dermatologic surgery are evolving as new data and practices are introduced. The 2025 advisory statement provides the latest recommendations for appropriate use of antibiotic prophylaxis in dermatologic surgery.