Citations

Abstract Dobbs, WC, Almonroeder, TG, Carpenter, M, Schmitt, RE, Jacobson, AK, Luedke, JA, Roberts, BM, and Jagim, AR. Relationships between the Army Combat Fitness Test scoring structure and laboratory measurements of physical fitness in reserve officer training corps cadets. J Strength Cond Res 39(7): 798–808, 2025—The Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT) assesses aerobic and anaerobic fitness capabilities in the U.S. Army. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between raw and composite ACFT scores and laboratory-based measurements of fitness. Nineteen Reserve Officers' Training Corp cadets performed a battery of laboratory-based fitness testing. Tests included a movement screening (Fusionetics), countermovement jumps, and maximal isometric mid-thigh pulls on portable force plates to determine power and strength. A Wingate test involving maximal cycling for 30 seconds was used to determine peak and mean power. On a separate day, cadets completed body composition and a graded exercise test on a motorized treadmill to determine peak oxygen uptake (V̇ o 2 peak). Pearson correlations and partial corrections with 2000 bootstraps were used to compare ACFT scores (raw, composite, gender-neutral composite, and z -scores) with laboratory results. Significant associations were identified as 95% confidence intervals, not including zero. The results indicated that V̇ o 2 peak ( r = 0.61, [0.08–0.84]), body fat percentage ( r = −0.4, [−0.72 to −0.06]), and relative peak power ( r = 0.38, [0.02–0.68]) were associated with the total ACFT composite score when partialled by sex. All laboratory tests, except the movement screening, showed meaningful associations with total ACFT z -scores and gender-neutral ACFT scores ( r > 0.54). However, most relationships were eliminated when partialled out by sex, which may be due to a low sample size of women. This suggests the current scoring structure utilized for men is representative of aerobic and anaerobic fitness parameters and may be able to discriminate performance levels.

Background: Lithium is a mainstay treatment for bipolar disorder, but its narrow therapeutic index and susceptibility to pharmacokinetic interactions make appropriate monitoring crucial. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), such as semaglutide, are increasingly prescribed for type 2 diabetes and weight management. Scarce evidence exists on the potential interaction between semaglutide and lithium. Methods: We present 3 cases involving patients on stable lithium regimens who were initiated on semaglutide, reviewing potential mechanisms underlying the interaction between them. Findings: In 2 cases, lithium levels increased significantly, leading to toxicity despite stable renal function and no changes in concurrent medications. In the third case, preemptive reductions in lithium dosage mitigated toxicity, although lithium levels remained higher than anticipated. Mechanistic hypotheses that might contribute to semaglutide-associated elevated lithium levels include altered kidney function, dehydration from reduced oral intake, vomiting, or diarrhea, and delayed gastric emptying. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is one of the first documented case series describing a potential interaction between semaglutide and lithium in the medical literature. These cases underscore the importance of vigilant monitoring when combining lithium with semaglutide, and potentially other GLP-1 RAs. Baseline renal function, hydration status, and lithium levels should be assessed before initiating semaglutide, and lithium levels should be monitored more frequently during therapy. Clinicians prescribing semaglutide to patients on lithium should exercise caution, monitor for signs of toxicity, and provide appropriate patient education. Further research is needed to elucidate the mechanisms of this potential interaction and its clinical significance.

Abstract Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) poses a challenge in hematology given its varied symptoms, and the complex interplay between disease and treatment effects on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The phase 3 POLARIX study demonstrated superior progression-free survival and a similar safety profile with polatuzumab vedotin plus rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (Pola-R-CHP) vs R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) in patients with previously untreated DLBCL. Here, we evaluate HRQoL through patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments to fully characterize the patient experience in the POLARIX study. Changes from baseline in HRQoL, lymphoma symptoms, and gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms were assessed, as well as incidence and severity of common symptoms by PROs vs clinician-reported adverse events (AEs). Baseline characteristics of PRO-evaluable patients (N = 874) were consistent. Comparison between PROs and clinician-reported AEs revealed a notable discordance; patients generally reported a higher incidence of symptoms than clinicians, emphasizing the need for patient-centric tools to accurately capture the patient experience. Both treatments exhibited rapid and sustained improvements in HRQoL and lymphoma symptoms, with the most substantial improvements seen in global health status/QoL, lymphoma symptoms, fatigue, role, emotional, and social functioning. GI symptoms (diarrhea, constipation, nausea, and vomiting) were generally similar between treatment arms and returned to baseline levels after treatment completion. These HRQoL data underscore the complementarity of PROs, as an adjunct to clinician-reported AEs, in evaluating the efficacy and tolerability of new treatments, including Pola-R-CHP, which may represent a new benchmark for patient-reported HRQoL in previously untreated DLBCL. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03274492.

This systematic review examined multicenter randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted during the Sepsis-3 era that evaluated pharmaceutical and mechanistic interventions in adult patients with sepsis or septic shock, with a focus on identifying interventions that demonstrated mortality benefit. A comprehensive search was performed across Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and Web of Science for trials published since 2016. Studies were included if they enrolled adult patients with sepsis or septic shock using Sepsis-3 criteria and reported mortality as either a primary or secondary outcome. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers and included trial design characteristics, funding source, randomization methods, and reported outcomes. Among the 31 eligible multicenter RCTs enrolling over 7,000 patients across 550 centers, only four trials showed a mortality benefit. These included three studies from China—two evaluating herbal anti-inflammatory compounds and one evaluating aminophylline—and one European study assessing corticosteroid therapy in vasopressor-dependent septic shock. The remaining 27 trials reported no mortality benefit, and substantial heterogeneity was observed in patient populations, sepsis definitions, and outcome reporting. Median mortality in control arms was 31.6% (IQR 24.1–45.5), and 35.4% (IQR 25.7–49.6) in intervention arms. These findings suggest that despite extensive efforts, most interventions have not reduced mortality in multicenter sepsis trials. Future research should focus on optimizing trial design, refining patient selection, and incorporating patient-centered outcomes beyond mortality.

The clinical benefit of blood transfusion is undeniable, and yet reliance on donated blood products has several shortcomings. These include risks of supply shortages due to reliance on volunteer donors, short storage life, and potential infectious disease transmission. Immune response complications to donated blood cannot be completely avoided, despite significant advances in testing. Many of these limitations are exacerbated in low-income countries. For decades, cell-free hemoglobin-based blood substitutes have been developed and tested as potential substitutes for red blood cell transfusions. Early studies found that purified, native hemoglobin exhibited significant safety risks, such as hypertension from excessive vasoconstriction and evidence of multiple organ toxicities. These effects are likely in part due to the reactive heme center, which will scavenge nitric oxide, generate reactive oxygen species, and may drive sterile inflammation. Numerous strategies have been explored to further modify hemoglobin in the hope of creating a safe and well-tolerated blood substitute. Despite some promising results in preliminary studies, large-scale clinical trials have continued to show elevated rates of adverse events and/or a failure to meet specified clinical endpoints. As a result, no hemoglobin-based oxygen carrier (HBOC) has obtained US Food and Drug Administration approval for clinical use. This review focuses on the history of HBOC development, the lessons that have been learned from prior failures of HBOC programs, and the status of ongoing artificial oxygen carrier development efforts.

PURPOSE Ziftomenib—a potent, highly selective, oral menin inhibitor—was well tolerated and demonstrated encouraging clinical activity as monotherapy for relapsed/refractory NPM1 -mutated ( NPM1 -m) and KMT2A -rearranged AML in the KOMET-001 phase I trial. METHODS In the registration-enabling phase II part of KOMET-001, patients with relapsed/refractory NPM1 -m AML received ziftomenib 600 mg once daily. The primary end point was the rate of complete remission with full hematologic recovery (CR)/CR with partial hematologic recovery (CRh). RESULTS From January 26, 2023, to May 13, 2024, 92 patients (median age, 69 years [range, 33-84]) were treated. The primary end point was met, with a CR/CRh rate of 22% (95% CI, 14 to 32; P = .0058); 61% were negative for measurable residual disease. Overall response rate was 33% (95% CI, 23 to 43), with a median duration of 4.6 months (95% CI, 2.8 to 7.4). Prespecified subgroup analyses showed comparable CR/CRh regardless of previous therapy, including venetoclax, or type of comutations. Median overall survival was 6.6 months (95% CI, 3.6 to 8.6). Common grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events were febrile neutropenia (26%), anemia (20%), and thrombocytopenia (20%). Differentiation syndrome occurred in 25% of patients (15% grade 3; no grade 4-5) and was manageable with protocol-defined mitigation. Three patients (3%) discontinued treatment because of ziftomenib-related adverse events. CONCLUSION Ziftomenib demonstrated significant clinical benefit and deep responses in patients with heavily pretreated, relapsed/refractory NPM1 -m AML. Ziftomenib was well tolerated with a safety profile consistent with previous studies, including manageable differentiation syndrome, lack of clinically significant QTc prolongation, and low rates of myelosuppression.