Citations

Background: Meniscal preservation has been demonstrated to contribute to long-term knee health and has been a successful intervention in isolation and in patients with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). The long-term results of meniscal repair in the setting of revision ACLR have yet to be documented. Purpose: To report the incidence of meniscal repair failures at the 6-year follow-up in a cohort of patients who underwent concurrent revision ACLR and primary meniscal repair. Study Design: Prospective cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: All revision ACLRs with concomitant primary meniscal repair cases from a multicenter group between 2006 and 2011 were selected. Six-year follow-up was obtained to determine whether any subsequent surgery had occurred since their initial revision ACLR. If so, operative reports were obtained, whenever possible, to verify pathological condition and treatment. Results: In total, 221 patients from 1234 revision ACLRs underwent concurrent primary meniscal repairs (18% of the cohort). There were 238 repairs performed: 173 medial and 65 lateral. The majority of these repairs (n = 181; 76%) were performed with an all-inside technique. Six-year surgical follow-up was obtained in 77% (171/221) of the cohort, or 189 of 238 (79%) of the repairs (136 medial, 53 lateral). The meniscal repair failure rate, defined as reoperation, was 16% (31/189) at 6 years. Of the 31 failures, 28 were medial (24 all-inside, 4 inside-out; 28/136 = 20.6% failure rate) and 3 were lateral (2 all-inside, 1 inside-out; 3/53 = 5.7% failure rate). Three medial failures were treated in conjunction with a subsequent repeat revision ACLR. Medial tears underwent reoperation for failure at a significantly higher rate than lateral tears (20.6% vs 5.7%; P = .01) and had a significantly shorter survival time compared with lateral tears ( P = .02). No difference was found between the failure and nonfailure groups when it came to tear type, tear length, repair technique utilized, suture/implant type, or number of sutures used between the 2 groups. Conclusion: Meniscal repair in the revision ACLR setting has a 16% failure rate at 6 years. Failure rates for medial tears (20.6%) were found to be higher than that for lateral tears (5.7%), which aligns with previous studies in both the revision and primary ACLR setting.

Abstract BACKGROUND Tovorafenib is a type II rapidly accelerated fibrosarcoma (RAF) kinase inhibitor approved by the FDA in 2024 for relapsing or chemotherapy-refractory pediatric low-grade gliomas with mutations or alterations in the gene BRAF. There is potential for the use of this drug outside the pediatric population. We present a single institution case series of adults with CNS tumors with mutations or alterations in BRAF treated (off-label) with tovorafenib. METHODS Chart review. RESULTS 8 adult (age >18) patients were treated with tovorafenib at our institution between March 2024 and June 2025. Age range was 21-66 years old (median age 42). The population included 5 males and 3 females. Indications for treatment were pilocytic astrocytoma (n = 2), high grade astrocytoma with piloid features (HGAP) (n = 2), Erdheim-Chester disease (n = 2), pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma (n = 1), and otherwise unclassified low-grade glioma (n = 1). All patients had mutations or alterations in BRAF including KIAA1549 fusion (n = 4), V600E mutation (n = 3), or GAB2 fusion (n = 1). Radiographic response to therapy was seen in 5/8 patients with 3 cases of radiographic stability (though one patient later progressed) and 2 cases of decrease in tumor size (in a pilocytic astrocytoma and in an HGAP). Both cases of decreased tumor size after treatment were in tumors with KIAA1549 fusions. Adverse effects of tovorafenib included fatigue (n=2), headache, myalgias, diplopia, cytopenias, and transaminitis (n=1). 3/8 patients had to pause or stop treatment due to adverse effects (intolerable headache, cytopenias, and transaminitis respectively). CONCLUSION Tovorafenib is a promising new treatment for CNS tumors with BRAF mutations or alterations. Our single institution case series suggests the efficacy of this drug for multiple tumor types in adults. Certain tumor subtypes such as KIAA1549 fusions may be more likely to benefit from this treatment.

Importance Treatment for cognitive dysfunction due to postacute sequelae of long COVID (ie, symptoms of fatigue, malaise, weakness, confusion that persist beyond 12 weeks after an initial COVID infection) remains a significant unmet need. Objective To test evidence-based rehabilitation strategies for improving cognitive symptoms in persons with long COVID. Design, Setting, and Participants This was a 5-arm, multicenter, randomized clinical trial of 3 remotely delivered interventions conducted between August 17, 2023, and June 10, 2024. The study took place at 22 trial sites and included the screening of individuals with cognitive long COVID. Interventions Participants were randomized to 1 of 5 arms: adaptive computerized cognitive training (BrainHQ [Posit Science]), cognitive-behavioral rehabilitation involving both group and individual counseling sessions (PASC-Cognitive Recovery [PASC-CoRE]) paired with BrainHQ, and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) paired with BrainHQ. Two comparator arms were included as follows: unstructured computer puzzles and games (active comparator) and sham tDCS paired with BrainHQ. The interventions occurred 5 times per week over 10 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures Cognitive and behavioral in-person assessments were performed at baseline, midintervention, at the end of intervention, and 3 months after the end of the intervention. The primary outcome measure was the modified Everyday Cognition Scale 2 (ECog2) completed at the end of the intervention compared to the baseline visit based on participant self-report looking back over the prior 7 days. Results A total of 378 individuals were screened, from which there were 328 participants (median [IQR] age, 48.0 [37.0-58.0] years; 241 female [73.5%]; race: 15 Asian [4.6%], 47 Black [14.3%], and 235 White [71.6%]; ethnicity: 52 Hispanic [15.9%]). None of the 3 active interventions demonstrated benefits on the modified ECog2 in the intention-to-treat population by the end of the intervention period. The adjusted differences in mean change were 0.0 (95% CI, −0.2 to 0.2) for BrainHQ vs active comparator, 0.1 (95% CI, −0.1 to 0.3) for PASC-CoRE + BrainHQ vs active comparator, 0.0 (95% CI, −0.2 to 0.2) for tDCS-active + BrainHQ vs tDCS-sham + BrainHQ, and 0.1 (95% CI, −0.1 to 0.3) for PASC-CoRE + BrainHQ vs BrainHQ alone. Secondary participant-reported outcomes and neuropsychological tests showed no differential benefits for any treatment arm. All 5 arms demonstrated some improvements over time on the modified ECog2 and on secondary outcomes. There were no serious adverse events attributable to the interventions. Conclusions and Relevance This phase 2 randomized clinical trial failed to demonstrate differential benefits for online cognitive training, a structured cognitive rehabilitation program, and tDCS for cognitive long COVID. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05965739 .

Objective To provide evidence‐based and expert guidance for the treatment and management of non‐renal systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE); treatment and management of lupus nephritis are addressed in a separate guideline. Methods Clinical questions for treatment and management of SLE were developed in the PICO format (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome). Systematic literature reviews were developed for each PICO question, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess evidence quality and formulate recommendations. The Voting Panel achieved a consensus of ≥70% agreement on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of each recommendation. Results We present recommendations and ungraded, consensus‐based good practice statements for the treatment and management of SLE that are applicable to pediatric and adult patients. Recommendations emphasize uniform treatment with hydroxychloroquine, limiting duration of glucocorticoid use, and early introduction of conventional and/or biologic immunosuppressive therapies to achieve and maintain control of SLE inflammation (remission or a low level of disease activity), reduce SLE‐related morbidity and mortality, and minimize medication‐related toxicities. Conclusion This guideline presents direction regarding treatment and management of SLE and provides a foundation for well‐informed, shared clinician–patient decision‐making. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies, as treatment decisions may vary due to the unique clinical situation and personal preferences of each person with SLE.

Objective To provide evidence‐based and expert guidance for the treatment and management of non‐renal systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE); treatment and management of lupus nephritis are addressed in a separate guideline. Methods Clinical questions for treatment and management of SLE were developed in the PICO format (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome). Systematic literature reviews were developed for each PICO question, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess evidence quality and formulate recommendations. The Voting Panel achieved a consensus of ≥70% agreement on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of each recommendation. Results We present recommendations and ungraded, consensus‐based good practice statements for the treatment and management of SLE that are applicable to pediatric and adult patients. Recommendations emphasize uniform treatment with hydroxychloroquine, limiting duration of glucocorticoid use, and early introduction of conventional and/or biologic immunosuppressive therapies to achieve and maintain control of SLE inflammation (remission or a low level of disease activity), reduce SLE‐related morbidity and mortality, and minimize medication‐related toxicities. Conclusion This guideline presents direction regarding treatment and management of SLE and provides a foundation for well‐informed, shared clinician–patient decision‐making. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies, as treatment decisions may vary due to the unique clinical situation and personal preferences of each person with SLE.

Objective A patient‐centered approach for chronic disease management, including systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), aligns treatment with patients’ values and preferences, leading to improved outcomes. This paper summarizes how patient experiences, perspectives, and priorities informed the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2024 Lupus Nephritis (LN) and 2025 SLE screening, treatment guidelines. Methods We completed a cross‐sectional qualitative study using content analysis of two Patient Panel meetings for the ACR LN and SLE guidelines. Key themes were presented by Patient Panel representatives during Voting Panel Meetings along with evidence for each recommendation, to ensure comprehensive discussions and align treatment recommendations with patients’ priorities and values. Results Nineteen people (90% women) with diagnoses of SLE and/or LN participated in the Patient Panels and 17 consented to use their feedback for analysis. Thematic analysis of their discussions revealed nine patient‐reported key themes in three domains: (1) treatment and monitoring of LN and SLE: medication side effects, daily function, treatment goals, and monitoring and screening; (2) clinical communication: strategies to optimize communication and provider and structural impediments to effective communication; and (3) improving transparency and information sharing: clinical trial participation, and medical costs and insurance coverage. These themes were actively incorporated into discussions during the Voting Panels for the ACR LN and SLE guidelines. Conclusion This work supported the integration of patient experiences in the clinical practice guideline development process and aligned recommendations with real‐world patient experiences and priorities, thereby enhancing the clinical applicability of the ACR LN and SLE guidelines. image

Background: Chronic right ventricular pacing (RVP) can lead to electrical dyssynchrony, often resulting in pacemaker-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM). Although biventricular pacing (BiVP) is a standard upgrade strategy, it is associated with notable rates of non-response and procedural limitations. Conduction system pacing (CSP), including His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP), offers a more physiological approach by directly engaging the native conduction system. Emerging evidence supports the role of His-Purkinje conduction system pacing (HPCSP) in reversing adverse remodeling and improving clinical outcomes in PICM patients. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed across PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov through January 2025. Studies were included if they evaluated outcomes in patients with PICM who had been chronically paced in the right ventricle and subsequently upgraded to HPCSP. Key endpoints included changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class. Results: Six studies comprising 144 patients were included. Over an average follow-up of 17.9 ± 10.5 months, significant improvement in LVEF was observed, increasing from 35 ± 8% prior to upgrade to 48 ± 12% following HPCSP (P < 0.001). Similarly, NYHA class improved from a baseline of 2.7 ± 0.8 to 1.9 ± 0.8 (P < 0.001), indicating meaningful symptomatic relief. Conclusion: Upgrading to His-Purkinje conduction system pacing is a safe and effective strategy in patients with PICM. It offers significant improvements in cardiac function and quality of life by restoring physiologic electrical activation. HPCSP represents a promising alternative to BiVP in this population and should be considered in clinical decision-making for pacing upgrades.

Introduction: Hypercholesterolemia drives atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Bempedoic acid (BA) lowers low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) by inhibiting ATP-citrate-lyase, providing a non-statin option for patients who need additional lipid control. Hypothesis: We expected BA to improve atherogenic lipids and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) without raising cardiovascular (CV) mortality and with an acceptable safety profile. Aims: To measure the pooled effect of BA on (1) LDL-C, (2) non-HDL-C, (3) high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) and to compare clinical outcomes for (4) MACE, (5) CV mortality, and (6) hyperuricemia versus placebo. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Google Scholar and ClinicalTrials.gov through 1 April 2025 identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of BA versus placebo in adults with hypercholesterolemia. Data were extracted into a spreadsheet, and analyses were performed with RevMan 5.4. Results: 13 RCT's with 22345 patients met the inclusion criteria. BA produced robust lipid and inflammatory improvements. LDL-C fell by 24.3 % (95 % CI −27.8 to −20.9), non-HDL-C by 19.8 % (95 % CI −25.0 to −14.6), and hsCRP by 26.7 % (95 % CI −39.6 to −13.7). These changes translated into a 19 % relative reduction in MACE (RR 0.81, 95 % CI 0.68–0.96), while CV mortality was unchanged (RR 0.87, 95 % CI 0.53–1.43). As anticipated, hyperuricemia risk almost doubled with BA (RR 1.93, 95 % CI 1.75–2.14). Conclusion: BA consistently lowers LDL-C, non-HDL-C and systemic inflammation and reduces MACE without affecting CV mortality. The main safety concern is higher hyperuricemia, which appears manageable with monitoring. These findings support BA as an effective add-on therapy for patients who are statin-intolerant or need further lipid reduction, while highlighting the need for longer trials to assess mortality benefits and long-term safety.

Introduction: Dyslipidemia remains a major driver of cardiovascular disease. Monoclonal antibodies (mAb) that block angiopoietin-like protein 3 (ANGPTL3) lower atherogenic lipids by a mechanism distinct from statins. Earlier evidence centred on the Evinacumab. A new trial now evaluate the investigational antibody SHR-1918. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that treatment with ANGPTL3 mAbs whether evinacumab or SHR-1918 would significantly improve lipid parameters compared to placebo without increasing adverse events. Aims: To Quantify the pooled effect of ANGPTL3 mAbs on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), Triglycerides, apolipoprotein B (ApoB) and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) and Compare efficacy and safety between Evinacumab and SHR-1918 subgroups. Methods: A systematic search of Pubmed, Google Scholar MEDLINE, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov untill 1 April 2025 was done and relevant randomised controlled trials (RCT's) comparing ANGPTL3 mAbs with placebo in dyslipidaemic patients were included. Data was extracted on spreadsheet and Data analysis was done in RevMan 5.4. Results: 5 RCT's comprising of 603 patients met inclusion criteria. The pooled analysis showed marked reductions in atherogenic lipids with ANGPTL3 monoclonal antibodies versus placebo, including low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (SMD = –2.73, 95 % CI –4.16 to –1.31, P < 0.001), triglycerides (SMD = –3.54, 95 % CI –4.71 to –2.37, P < 0.001), apolipoprotein B (SMD = –1.98, 95 % CI –2.97 to –1.00, P < 0.001) and non-HDL-C (SMD = –2.89, 95 % CI –4.00 to –1.78, P < 0.001). Sub-group analyses demonstrated directionally consistent lipid lowering for both evinacumab and the newer agent SHR-1918. Adverse-event due to treatment evaluation revealed no significant increase in Adverse events due to treatment (RR = 1.05, 95 % CI 0.87 to 1.27, P = 0.63) or serious events (RR = 1.37, 95 % CI 0.54 to 3.44, P = 0.49), indicating good overall tolerability. Conclusion: monoclonal antibodies targeting ANGPTL3 encompassing both evinacumab and the newer agent SHR-1918 consistently reduced LDL-C, triglycerides, and related lipid markers with a favourable tolerability profile. Further large, long-term studies are needed to fully establish their safety, clinical effectiveness, and potential to improve cardiovascular outcomes.