Citations

ABSTRACTIntroduction/AimsGlucocorticoid (GC)‐related adverse reactions and risks are commonly seen during the treatment of immune‐mediated and inflammatory neuromuscular disorders. There is wide variation in the management of associated complications. The aim of this study is to develop international consensus guidance on the management of GC‐related complications in neuromuscular disorders.MethodsThrough the American Association of Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM), an international task force of 15 experts was convened to develop clinical guidance for the management of GC‐related complications in neuromuscular patients. The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method (RAM) was used to develop consensus guidance statements. Initial guidance statements were crafted after a thorough literature review and were modified after anonymous panel input, with up to three rounds of voting via email to achieve consensus.ResultsStatements were developed and achieved consensus for general care, monitoring of patients while on GC, osteoporosis prevention, vaccinations, infection screening, and Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia prophylaxis. A multidisciplinary approach to the management of GC‐related complications was emphasized.DiscussionThese formal consensus statements provide guidance to clinicians who use GC in the treatment of neuromuscular diseases regarding prevention and management of the more common associated adverse events and risks that arise with long and short‐term GC use and serve as a springboard for investigation and updates.

AbstractBackgroundAlthough the rate of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) in African‐ancestry (AA) Americans is higher than that of persons from European‐ancestry (EA) populations, AA participants have been underrepresented in AD neuropathological studies.MethodUtilizing the AD Research Centers (ADRC) infrastructure, we obtained AA donor pre‐frontal cortex (PFC) tissue from brain repositories of 12 ADRC and generated bulk RNA sequencing (RNA‐seq) data for 179 samples that met QC and inclusion criteria. Previously generated PFC RNAseq data were obtained for 28 additional AA donors from the Columbia University ADRC. Differential gene expression was evaluated among 125 donors with a neuropathological diagnosis of AD (NIA‐Reagan intermediate or high likelihood) and 82 neuropathologically confirmed controls using regression models including covariates for age at death, sex, cell‐type frequencies, and RNA integrity number (RIN) calculated with Limma. FDR‐corrected p‐values (padj) were calculated to control for the 33,611 genes examined.ResultA total of 482 genes surpassed the multiple‐testing threshold. The most significant, ADAMTS2 (p = 2.96 × 10‐8, padj = 0.001), showed increased expression in AD cases (see Table/Figure). We note that ADAMTS2 was differentially expressed in a prior EA study of neuropathologically confirmed AD cases and controls (Panitch et al. Molecular Psychiatry 2021). Additionally, a recent analysis of cognitive resilience in EA neuropathological AD cases identified a strong association with ADAMTS2 (See Li et al. AAIC2024 abstract). Of the differentially expressed genes observed in the Panitch et al. EA study, 385 (35%) were nominally significant,65 (5.8%) were corrected significant, and most (89%) of these genes had the same effect direction in the AA cohort. Some of the observed associations appear to be AA specific (e.g., EFR3B, IRS4, and CA12; see Table). Additionally, we found nominally significant (p<0.05) associations with expression of APOE (Log2 fold change [L2FC = ‐0.20, p = 0.012) and several other established AD genes including SORL1 (L2FC = ‐0.10, p = 0.014) and IGF1R(L2FC = 0.11, p = 0.0013).ConclusionThis largest‐ever (to our knowledge) gene expression study of AD in postmortem brain tissue from AA donors implicates many more genes as having a role in AD in this population than previously identified in genome‐wide association studies and provides insight into trans‐ancestry differences risk for AD.

AbstractObjectiveWe describe neurologic phenotype, clinical associations, and outcomes in autoimmune brainstem encephalitis.MethodsMedical records of neural‐IgG positive autoimmune brainstem encephalitis patients diagnosed at Mayo Clinic (January 1, 2006–December 31, 2022) were reviewed.ResultsNinety‐eight patients (57 male) were included. Median age of symptom onset was 51 years (range, 8 months‐85 years). Frequent presenting features were ≥1: diplopia (80%), ataxia (78%), dysarthria (68%), vestibulocochlear symptoms (67%), dysphagia (61%), nausea/vomiting (42%), and facial weakness (32%). Altered mental status (11%) was uncommon. Neural antibodies detected were as follows: KLHL‐11 (26 patients), GAD65 (high titer, 12), ANNA‐1 (anti‐Hu, 8), ANNA‐2 (anti‐Ri, 8), Ma2 (7), IgLON‐5 (6), AQP4 (6), MOG (4), glycine receptor (4), GQ1B (4), PCA‐1 (anti‐Yo, 4), DPPX (2), neurochondrin (2), neurofilament (2), NMDA‐R (2), AGNA‐1 (SOX‐1, 1), ANNA‐3 (DACH1, 1), amphiphysin (1), CRMP‐5 (1), ITPR‐1 (1), PCA‐Tr (DNER, 1), and PDE10A (1). Cancer was identified in 55 patients: germ cell (23 patients; 3 extra‐testicular), ductal breast adenocarcinoma (8), small cell carcinoma (6, lung 4), adenocarcinomas (6), neuroendocrine carcinoma (3), hematologic (2), squamous cell (2), and other (7). Median modified Ranking score (mRS) at last follow‐up was 3 (range, 0–6). Factors associated with poor outcome included abnormal brain MRI, bulbar symptoms, and elevated CSF IgG index. Kaplan–Meier analysis revealed faster progression to wheelchair in patients who were immunotherapy refractory and with elevated CSF IgG index. Diagnostic criteria for autoimmune brainstem encephalitis (definite and probable) are proposed.InterpretationAutoimmune brainstem encephalitis is a distinct clinical subphenotype of autoimmune encephalitis. Abnormal brain MRI, bulbar symptoms, and elevated CSF‐IgG index associate with poor outcome.

Diagnosis of motor neuron diseases and other corticospinal tractopathies requires a comprehensive approach that integrates clinical symptoms and laboratory findings with findings from conventional MRI and advanced neuroimaging.

Abstract STUDY QUESTION How should premature/primary ovarian insufficiency (POI) be diagnosed and managed based on the best available evidence from published literature? SUMMARY ANSWER The current guideline provides 145 recommendations on symptoms, diagnosis, causation, sequelae, and treatment of POI. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Premature ovarian insufficiency (POI) presents a significant challenge to women’s health, with far-reaching implications, both physically and emotionally. The potential implications include adverse effects on quality of life; fertility; and bone, cardiovascular, and cognitive health. Although hormone therapy (HT) can mitigate some of these effects, many questions still remain regarding the optimal management of POI. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION The guideline was developed according to the structured methodology for development of ESHRE guidelines. Key questions were determined by a group of experts and informed by a scoping survey of women and health care professionals. Literature searches and assessments were then performed. Papers published up to 30 January 2024 and written in English were included in the guideline. An integrity review was conducted for the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on POI included in the guideline. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Based on the collected evidence, recommendations were formulated and discussed within the guideline development group until consensus was reached. Women with lived experience of POI informed the recommendations in general, and particularly on those on provision of care. A stakeholder review was organized after finalization of the draft. The final version was approved by the guideline development group and the ESHRE Executive Committee. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE New data indicate a higher prevalence of POI, 3.5%, than was previously thought. This guideline aims to help health care professionals to apply best practice care for women with POI. The recent update of the POI guideline covers 40 clinical questions on diagnosis of the condition, the different sequelae, including bone, cardiovascular, neurological and sexual function, fertility and general well-being, and treatment options, including HT. The list of clinical questions was expanded from the previous iteration of the guideline (2015) based on the scoping survey and appreciation of emerging knowledge of POI. Questions were added on the role of anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) in the diagnosis of POI, fertility preservation, muscle health, and specific considerations for HT in iatrogenic POI. Additionally, the topic on complementary treatments was extended with specific focus on non-hormonal treatments and lifestyle management options. Significant changes from the previous 2015 guideline include the recommendations that only one elevated FSH &gt;25 IU is required for diagnosis of POI, and guidance that AMH testing, repeat FSH measurement, and/or AMH may be required where there is diagnostic uncertainty. Recommendations were also updated regarding genetic testing, estrogen doses and regimens, use of the combined oral contraceptive and testosterone therapy. Women with lived experience of POI informed the recommendations on provision of care. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION The guideline describes different management options, but it must be acknowledged that for most of these options, supporting evidence is limited for POI. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The guideline provides health care professionals with clear advice on best practice in POI care, based on the best evidence currently available. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to guide further studies in POI. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) The guideline was developed and funded by ESHRE, American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), Centre for Research Excellence in Women's Health in Reproduction Life (CRE-WHiRL), and International Menopause Society (IMS), covering expenses associated with the guideline meetings, literature searches, and dissemination of the guideline. The guideline group members did not receive payments. N.P. declared grants from Bayer Pharma (research and consultancy) and NIHR—research POISE; consulting fees from Abbott, Astellas, Bayer, Besins, Lawley, Mithra, Theramex, Viatris; honoraria from Astellas, Bayer, Besins, Gedeon Richter, Theramex, Viatris; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Astellas, Bayer, Theramex, Viatris; President, International Menopause Society, Medical Advisory Committee member, British Menopause Society, Patron Daisy Network. A.J.V. declared grants from Amgen Australia, Australian NHMRC, and Australian MRFF; consulting fees from IQ Fertility; honoraria from the Australasian Menopause Society; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board of Astellas; Board Member of the International Menopause Society (2020 to current) and Past president of the Australasian Menopause Society (2017–2019); R.A.A. declared grants from Roche (Research support, to institution), and participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board of Bayer. M.C. declared grants from NHI; payments or honoraria from Up-to-Date (as editor/reviewer); Board Member of American Society of Reproductive Medicine, and of American Gynecological and Obstetrical Society. M.D. declared (NIHR—HTA Reference Number: NIHR133461; NIHR—HTA Reference Number: NIHR128757; Action Medical Research and Borne: GN2818) consulting fees from a small personal medical practice, support for attending meetings and/or travel from ESHRE, Bayer and UCLH special Trustees; Participation on the Advisory Board of the British Menopause Society, UKSTORE project, the Progress Educational Trust, and the Turner Syndrome Support Society UK; Leadership or fiduciary roles in the British Fertility Society (Trustee), Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital Charity (chair of Trustees), and the Essex Wynter charitable trust (Trustee). C.E. declared being Chair of a SIG from the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners Integrative Medicine Specific Interest Group and Program Lead for Next Practice Western Sydney Integrative Health. C.H.G. declared grants from Novo Nordisk Foundation (Nos. NNF15OC0016474 and NNF20OC0060610), sygesikringen danmark (No 2022-0189), and the Independent Research Fund Denmark (Nos. 0134-00406 and 0134-00130B); consulting fees from Novo Nordisk, Merck, and Astra Zeneca. S.K. declared grants from Roche diagnostics. A.K. declared grants from NIH R01 5R01HD101475; consulting fees as Medical Reviewer for Flo and for Healthline; honoraria as Medical Consultant for Summus; support for attending meetings from the Reproductive Scientist Development Program; Society for Reproductive Investigation Council Member and Society for Assisted Reproduction Registry/Validation Chair; R.E.N. declared consulting fees from Astellas, Bayer Pharma, Besins Healthcare, Fidia, Theramex; honoraria from Abbott, Astellas, Exeltis, Fidia, Gedeon Richter, Merck & Co, Novo Nordisk, Shionogi Limited, Theramex, Viatris; payment for expert testimony from Vichy Laboratories; Participation in Data Safety Monitoring Board of Advisory board from Astellas and Bayer Healthcare; President elect of the International Menopause Society (IMS). H.T. declared a grant from NHMRC Centre for Research Excellence for women’s health in reproductive life. A.B. declared being chair of the Daisy Network Charity. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. DISCLAIMER This guideline represents the views of ESHRE, ASRM, CRE-WHiRL, and IMS, which were achieved after careful consideration of the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. In the absence of scientific evidence on certain aspects, a consensus between the relevant stakeholders has been obtained. Adherence to these clinical practice guidelines does not guarantee a successful or specific outcome, nor does it establish a standard of care. Clinical practice guidelines do not replace the need for application of clinical judgement to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type. The collaborating societies make no warranty, expressed or implied, regarding the clinical practice guidelines and specifically exclude any warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular use or purpose. (Full disclaimer available at www.eshre.eu/guidelines.)

PURPOSE The nodal burden of patients with residual isolated tumor cells (ITCs) in the sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) (ypN0i+) is unknown, and axillary management is not standardized. We investigated rates of additional positive lymph nodes (LNs) at axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) and oncologic outcomes in patients with ypN0i+ treated with and without ALND. METHODS The Oncoplastic Breast Consortium-05/ICARO cohort study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT06464341 ) retrospectively analyzed data from patients with stage I to III breast cancer with ITCs in SLNs after NAC from 62 centers in 18 countries. The primary end point was the 3-year rate of any axillary recurrence. The rate of any invasive recurrence was the secondary end point. RESULTS In total, 583 patients were included, of whom 182 (31%) had completion ALND and 401 (69%) did not. The median age was 48 years. Most patients (74%) were clinically node-positive at diagnosis and 41% had hormone receptor–positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative tumors. The mean number of SLNs with ITCs was 1.2. Patients treated with ALND were more likely to present with cN2/3 disease (17% v 7%, P < .001), have ITCs detected on frozen section (62% v 8%, P < .001), have lymphovascular invasion (38% v 24%, P < .001), and receive adjuvant chest wall (89% v 78%, P = .024) and nodal radiation (82% v 75%, P = .038). Additional positive nodes were found at ALND in 30% of patients, but only 5% had macrometastases. The 3-year rates of any axillary and any invasive recurrence were 2% (95% CI, 0.95 to 3.6) and 11% (95% CI, 8 to 14), respectively, with no statistical difference by type of axillary surgery. CONCLUSION The nodal burden in patients with ypN0(i+) was low, and axillary recurrence after ALND omission was rare in patients selected for this approach. These results do not support routine ALND in all patients with ypN0(i+).

Abstract Spinal cord disease is important in most people with multiple sclerosis, but assessment remains less emphasized in patient care, basic and clinical research and therapeutic trials. The North American Imaging in Multiple Sclerosis Spinal Cord Interest Group was formed to determine and present the contemporary landscape of multiple sclerosis spinal cord evaluation, further existing and advanced spinal cord imaging techniques, and foster collaborative work. Important themes arose: (i) multiple sclerosis spinal cord lesions (differential diagnosis, association with clinical course); (ii) spinal cord radiological–pathological associations; (iii) ‘critical’ spinal cord lesions; (iv) multiple sclerosis topographical model; (v) spinal cord atrophy; and (vi) automated and special imaging techniques. Distinguishing multiple sclerosis from other myelopathic aetiology is increasingly refined by imaging and serological studies. Post-mortem spinal cord findings and MRI pathological correlative studies demonstrate MRI’s high sensitivity in detecting microstructural demyelination and axonal loss. Spinal leptomeninges include immune inflammatory infiltrates, some in B-cell lymphoid-like structures. ‘Critical’ demyelinating lesions along spinal cord corticospinal tracts are anatomically consistent with and may be disproportionately associated with motor progression. Multiple sclerosis topographical model implicates the spinal cord as an area where threshold impairment associates with multiple sclerosis disability. Progressive spinal cord atrophy and ‘silent’ multiple sclerosis progression may be emerging as an important multiple sclerosis prognostic biomarker. Manual atrophy assessment is complicated by rater bias, while automation (e.g. Spinal Cord Toolbox), and artificial intelligence may reduce this. Collaborative research by the North American Imaging in Multiple Sclerosis and similar groups with experts combining distinct strengths is key to advancing assessment and treatment of people with multiple sclerosis spinal cord disease.