Citations

Objective: To assess outcomes of women with uterine fibroids (UFs) and heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) treated with 300 mg elagolix twice daily plus add-back therapy (E2 1 mg/NETA 0.5 mg once daily) or placebo who were not considered responders in pooled analysis of two phase 3, 6-month randomized clinical trials (Elaris UF-1 and UF-2). Methods: Responders were defined as women who met both primary end point bleeding criteria (<80 mL menstrual blood loss [MBL] during the final month and ≥50% reduction in MBL from baseline to the final month) and either completed the study or discontinued due to predefined reasons. Thus, women termed nonresponders who were analyzed in this study who met neither or one bleeding end point or met both criteria but prematurely discontinued treatment because of adverse events, perceived lack of efficacy, or required surgical or interventional treatment for UFs were analyzed in this study. This post hoc analysis assessed mean changes from baseline in MBL, as well as adverse events. Results: Among 367 women receiving elagolix with add-back with observed data, 89 (24%) were not considered responders. Within this subset, 17 (19%) women met both bleeding criteria but prematurely discontinued treatment for the reasons mentioned above, while 23 (26%) met one bleeding criterion and 49 (55%) met neither bleeding criteria, regardless of discontinuation status. Among all nonresponders, a numerical trend toward greater mean reductions in MBL was observed in those receiving elagolix with add-back, compared with placebo group nonresponders. No differences in adverse events were observed between responders and nonresponders. Conclusion: Forty of 89 (45%) women with HMB and UFs who were classified as nonresponders in the UF-1 or UF-2 trials may have had a clinically meaningful response to elagolix with add-back therapy because they met at least one of the objective bleeding criteria. Clinical Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02654054 and NCT02691494. (NEJM 2020; 382:328–340) DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1904351

AbstractBackgroundAutomated wide complex tachycardia (WCT) differentiation into ventricular tachycardia (VT) and supraventricular wide complex tachycardia (SWCT) may be accomplished using novel calculations that quantify the extent of mean electrical vector changes between the WCT and baseline electrocardiogram (ECG). At present, it is unknown whether quantifying mean electrical vector changes within three orthogonal vectorcardiogram (VCG) leads (X, Y, and Z leads) can improve automated VT and SWCT classification.MethodsA derivation cohort of paired WCT and baseline ECGs was used to derive five logistic regression models: (i) one novel WCT differentiation model (i.e., VCG Model), (ii) three previously developed WCT differentiation models (i.e., WCT Formula, VT Prediction Model, and WCT Formula II), and (iii) one “all‐inclusive” model (i.e., Hybrid Model). A separate validation cohort of paired WCT and baseline ECGs was used to trial and compare each model's performance.ResultsThe VCG Model, composed of WCT QRS duration, baseline QRS duration, absolute change in QRS duration, X‐lead QRS amplitude change, Y‐lead QRS amplitude change, and Z‐lead QRS amplitude change, demonstrated effective WCT differentiation (area under the curve [AUC] 0.94) for the derivation cohort. For the validation cohort, the diagnostic performance of the VCG Model (AUC 0.94) was similar to that achieved by the WCT Formula (AUC 0.95), VT Prediction Model (AUC 0.91), WCT Formula II (AUC 0.94), and Hybrid Model (AUC 0.95).ConclusionCustom calculations derived from mathematically synthesized VCG signals may be used to formulate an effective means to differentiate WCTs automatically.

OBJECTIVE Reduction of Meyerding grade is often performed during fusion for spondylolisthesis. Although radiographic appearance may improve, correlation with patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is rarely reported. In this study, the authors’ aim was to assess the impact of spondylolisthesis reduction on 24-month PRO measures after decompression and fusion surgery for Meyerding grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. METHODS The Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) was queried for patients undergoing posterior lumbar fusion for spondylolisthesis with a minimum 24-month follow-up, and quantitative correlation between Meyerding slippage reduction and PROs was performed. Baseline and 24-month PROs, including the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), EQ-5D, Numeric Rating Scale (NRS)–back pain (NRS-BP), NRS-leg pain (NRS-LP), and satisfaction (North American Spine Society patient satisfaction questionnaire) scores were noted. Multivariable regression models were fitted for 24-month PROs and complications after adjusting for an array of preoperative and surgical variables. Data were analyzed for magnitude of slippage reduction and correlated with PROs. Patients were divided into two groups: < 3 mm reduction and ≥ 3 mm reduction. RESULTS Of 608 patients from 12 participating sites, 206 patients with complete data were identified in the QOD and included in this study. Baseline patient demographics, comorbidities, and clinical characteristics were similarly distributed between the cohorts except for depression, listhesis magnitude, and the proportion with dynamic listhesis (which were accounted for in the multivariable analysis). One hundred four (50.5%) patients underwent lumbar decompression and fusion with slippage reduction ≥ 3 mm (mean 5.19, range 3 to 11), and 102 (49.5%) patients underwent lumbar decompression and fusion with slippage reduction < 3 mm (mean 0.41, range 2 to −2). Patients in both groups (slippage reduction ≥ 3 mm, and slippage reduction < 3 mm) reported significant improvement in all primary patient reported outcomes (all p < 0.001). There was no significant difference with regard to the PROs between patients with or without intraoperative reduction of listhesis on univariate and multivariable analyses (ODI, EQ-5D, NRS-BP, NRS-LP, or satisfaction). There was no significant difference in complications between cohorts. CONCLUSIONS Significant improvement was found in terms of all PROs in patients undergoing decompression and fusion for lumbar spondylolisthesis. There was no correlation with clinical outcomes and magnitude of Meyerding slippage reduction.

Background: Data regarding opioid prescribing patterns following pediatric orthopaedic procedures is limited. The aim of this work was to evaluate the effects of tiered guidelines for discharge opioid prescriptions following common pediatric orthopaedic procedures. Methods: Quality improvement project conducted at a single academic institution. Guidelines for discharge opioid prescriptions were implemented January 2018 and established 4 tiers of increasing invasiveness for 28 common pediatric orthopaedic procedures. Patients who underwent these procedures in 2017 comprised the preguideline cohort (N=258), while patients treated in 2019 comprised the postguideline cohort (N=212). Opioid prescriptions were reported as oral morphine equivalents (OMEs). Univariate tests were performed to assess statistically significant differences before and after implementation of the guidelines. Results: There was a significant decrease in OME prescribed between preguideline and postguideline cohorts (median OME 97.5 vs. 37.5). When analyzed according to procedure tiers, tiers 1, 2, and 4 showed significant decreases in OME prescribed between 2017 and 2019. The rate of no opioids prescribed at discharge increased from 13% to 23% between preguideline and postguideline cohorts. The 30-day refill rate did not significantly change. After implementation of guidelines, 91% of all prescriptions were within the guideline parameters, and there was a significant reduction in prescription variability. In tier 4 procedures, median OME prescribed decreased from 375 preguideline to 188 postguideline, but was associated with greater opioid refills within 30 days of discharge (10.2% preguideline vs. 28.8% postguideline). Conclusions: Tiered guidelines for discharge opioid prescriptions following pediatric orthopaedic procedures can significantly decrease the quantity of opioids prescribed. Furthermore, we noted excellent adherence and no overall increase in the rates of narcotic refills. Such guidelines may improve pediatric orthopaedists’ ability to responsibly treat postoperative pain while limiting the distribution of unneeded opioids. Level of Evidence: Level IV—quality improvement project.

Study Design Retrospective cohort study Objective Substantial variability in both the measurement and classification of subsidence limits the strength of conclusions that can be drawn from previous studies. The purpose of this study was to precisely characterize patterns of cervical cage subsidence utilizing computed tomography (CT) scans, determine risk factors for cervical cage subsidence, and investigate the impact of subsidence on pseudarthrosis rates. Methods We performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent one- to three-levels of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) utilizing titanium interbodies with anterior plating between the years 2018 and 2020. Subsidence measurements were performed by two independent reviewers on CT scans obtained 6 months postoperatively. Subsidence was then classified as mild if subsidence into the inferior and superior endplate were both ≤2 mm, moderate if the worst subsidence into the inferior or superior endplate was between 2 to 4 mm, or severe if the worst subsidence into the inferior or superior endplate was ≥4 mm. Results A total of 51 patients (100 levels) were included in this study. A total of 48 levels demonstrated mild subsidence (≤2 mm), 38 demonstrated moderate subsidence (2-4 mm), and 14 demonstrated severe subsidence (≥4 mm). Risk factors for severe subsidence included male gender, multilevel constructs, greater mean vertebral height loss, increased cage height, lower Taillard index, and lower screw tip to vertebral body height ratio. Severe subsidence was not associated with an increased rate of pseudarthrosis. Conclusion Following ACDF with titanium cervical cages, subsidence is an anticipated postoperative occurrence and is not associated with an increased risk of pseudarthrosis.

256 Background: Ovarian cancer is the leading cause of gynecologic cancer mortality in the US. Given the high burden of disease and complexities in the provision of quality care, a multidisciplinary team approach is critical to optimal care delivery. In 2019, the Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) launched a multiphase, stakeholder-driven initiative to improve care for this patient population. Results of a national survey of cancer programs to identify the needs of patients are reported here. Methods: A 20 question survey was developed by an expert steering committee including gynecologic oncologists, pathologists, genetic counselors, a nurse navigator, and cancer center administrators. The instrument was designed to collect data about cancer programs, key ovarian cancer patient needs, and barriers to and opportunities for improving ovarian cancer care. The online survey was open for participation for 4 weeks using the Qualtrics platform and distributed via email to ACCC and Society of Gynecologic Oncology members. Results: We received 26 total responses from Comprehensive Community (26%), NCI-Designed Comprehensive (22%), Academic Comprehensive (22%), and Integrated Network (13%) Cancer Programs. Annual ovarian cancer cases ranged from 22 to 190 (median: 50.5). 85% of programs has a multidisciplinary team for ovarian cancer and 61% were part of a referral network. On average, programs has 1.5 phase II and 2 phase III clinical trials currently available for ovarian cancer (all programs had at least 1 trial available). Palliative care and comprehensive symptom management was integrated into the first appointment (15%), integrated at the time of recurrence (4%), and most frequently, available by consult (81%). We assessed genetic testing practices at each program. Aggregated across programs, 79% of patients received germline multipanel testing, 71% germline BRCA only, 50% somatic multigene, and 51% somatic BRCA only. The frequency of consultations included: genetic counseling (75%), nurse navigation (75%), social work (50%), dietetics (40%), financial counseling (25%). Genetic evaluations were typically ordered by Gynecologic Oncology (88%), genetic counseling (4%), or both (8%). When asked what topic they would choose for a quality improvement project, genetic testing and counseling was the most frequent choice (46%), followed by clinical trials enrollment and availability (23%), multidisciplinary team care (19%), education on best practices (15%), palliative care (15%), and ancillary services (15%). Conclusions: Multidisciplinary care for ovarian cancer was common across a range of cancer programs but integration of palliative care, social work, dietetics, and financial counseling could be improved. Expanding clinical trials and genetic testing and counseling were the most frequently identified opportunities to improve ovarian cancer care.

Currently, large numbers of clinical trials are performed to investigate different forms of experimental therapy for patients suffering from chronic spinal cord injury (SCI). However, for the enrollment process, there are different views on how the time period between injury and interventions should be determined. Herein, we sought to evaluate the impact of time-to-enrollment in chronic SCI clinical trials. A data set comprising 957 clinical studies from clinicalTrials.gov was downloaded and analyzed focusing on the eligibility criteria for post-injury time-to-enrollment. We also aggregated individual patient data from nine clinical trials of regenerative interventions for chronic SCI selected by a systematic literature search from 1990 to 2018. Characteristics of the studies were assessed and compared by dividing into three groups based on time-to-enrollment (group 1 ≤ 12 months, group 2 = 12–23 months and group 3 ≥ 24 months). In ClinicalTrials.gov registry, 445 trials were identified for chronic SCI where 87% (385) were unrestricted in the maximum post-injury time for trial eligibility. From systematic literature search, nine studies and 156 patients (group 1 = 30, group 2 = 55 and group 3 = 71) were included. The range of time-to-enrollment was 0.5 to 321 months in those studies. We also observed various degrees of motor and sensory improvement in between three time-to-enrollment groups. Our results indicate that enrolling wide ranges of time-to-enrollment in a group may present imprecise outcomes. Clinical trial designs should consider appropriate post-injury time frames to evaluate therapeutic benefit.