Citations

AbstractBackgroundImmunoglobulin (IG) therapy is widely used to treat primary and secondary immune deficiencies and as immunomodulatory agent for various disorders. There is great concern that shortages of IG may rise, potentially affecting medical treatment options.Study Design and MethodsAn international survey was developed to study how intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIGs) are used and managed within hospitals in case of shortages. Study data were collected and managed using REDCap electronic data capture tools hosted by the Biomedical Excellence for Safer Transfusion (BEST) Collaborative. The survey was directed to hospital pharmacists and blood bank transfusion professionals and disseminated through members of the BEST Collaborative network.ResultsSurvey respondents from institutions in the USA, Canada, Europe, Japan, and Australia (n = 13) confirmed that the primary specialties utilizing IG are neurology, hematology, and immunology. More than 60% of respondents reported IG supply shortages, but mitigation strategies were not well developed.DiscussionAs IG is the leading driver in plasma demand, more studies are needed to understand current and future demand for IG from the clinical perspective. Necessity lies in establishing clinical guidance to address shortages.

Background Women show increased prevalence and severity of migraine compared to men. Whether small molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor (CGRP-R) antagonists (i.e., gepants) and monoclonal antibodies targeting either the CGRP-R or the CGRP peptide might show sexually dimorphic outcomes for acute and preventive therapy has not been established. Methods We conducted a subpopulation analysis of available published data from FDA reviews to evaluate potential sex differences in the response rates of ubrogepant, rimegepant and zavegepant for acute migraine therapy. Available data from FDA reviews of erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab and eptinezumab, approved CGRP-R and CGRP monoclonal antibodies and of atogepant were examined for prevention outcomes based on patient sex. Preventive outcomes were analyzed separately for patients with episodic migraine and chronic migraine. Results In women, the three approved gepants produced statistically significant drug effects regardless of dose tested on the FDA mandated co-primary endpoints, the proportion of patients achieving two-hour pain-freedom and the proportion of patients free of their most bothersome symptom at two hours post-dose. In women, the average placebo-subtracted two-hour pain-freedom proportion was 9.5% (CI: 7.4 to 11.6) and the average numbers needed to treat was 11. The free from most bothersome symptom at two hours outcomes were also significant in women. The gepant drugs did not reach statistically significant effects on the two-hour pain-freedom endpoint in the men, with an average drug effect of 2.8% (CI: −2.5 to 8.2) and an average number needed to treat of 36. For freedom from most bothersome symptom at two hours post-dose endpoint, differences were not significant in male patients. The treatment effect in each of the gepant studies was always numerically greater in women than in men. In evaluation of prevention outcomes with the antibodies or atogepant using the change from the specified primary endpoint (e.g., monthly migraine days), the observed treatment effect for episodic migraine patients almost always favored drug over placebo in both women and men. For chronic migraine patients the treatment effects of antibodies were similar in men and women and always favored the drug treated group. Conclusion/Interpretation: Small molecule CGRP-R antagonists are effective in acute migraine therapy in women but available data do not demonstrate effectiveness in men. CGRP-targeting therapies are effective for migraine prevention in both male and female episodic migraine patients but possible sex differences remain uncertain. In male and female chronic migraine patients, CGRP/CGRP-R antibodies were similarly effective. The data highlight possible differential effects of CGRP targeted therapies in different patient populations and the need for increased understanding of CGRP neurobiology in men and women.

Abstract Brain tumor diagnostics have significantly evolved with the use of positron emission tomography (PET) and advanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) techniques. In addition to anatomical MRI, these modalities may provide valuable information for several clinical applications such as differential diagnosis, delineation of tumor extent, prognostication, differentiation between tumor relapse and treatment-related changes, and the evaluation of response to anticancer therapy. In particular, joint recommendations of the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) Group, the European Association of Neuro-oncology, and major European and American Nuclear Medicine societies highlighted that the additional clinical value of radiolabeled amino acids compared to anatomical MRI alone is outstanding and that its widespread clinical use should be supported. For advanced MRI and its steadily increasing use in clinical practice, the Standardization Subcommittee of the Jumpstarting Brain Tumor Drug Development Coalition provided more recently an updated acquisition protocol for the widely used dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion MRI. Besides amino acid PET and perfusion MRI, other PET tracers and advanced MRI techniques (e.g. MR spectroscopy) are of considerable clinical interest and are increasingly integrated into everyday clinical practice. Nevertheless, these modalities have shortcomings which should be considered in clinical routine. This comprehensive review provides an overview of potential challenges, limitations, and pitfalls associated with PET imaging and advanced MRI techniques in patients with gliomas or brain metastases. Despite these issues, PET imaging and advanced MRI techniques continue to play an indispensable role in brain tumor management. Acknowledging and mitigating these challenges through interdisciplinary collaboration, standardized protocols, and continuous innovation will further enhance the utility of these modalities in guiding optimal patient care.

Abstract Background: Mechanical thrombectomy (MT) has revolutionized the treatment of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) due to large vessel occlusion (LVO), but its efficacy and safety in medium vessel occlusion (MeVO) remain less explored. This multicenter, retrospective study aims to investigate the incidence and clinical outcomes of vessel perforations (confirmed by extravasation during an angiographic series) during MT for AIS caused by MeVO. Methods: Data were collected from 37 academic centers across North America, Asia, and Europe between September 2017 and July 2021. A total of 1373 AIS patients with MeVO underwent MT. Baseline characteristics, procedural details, and clinical outcomes were analyzed. Results: The incidence of vessel perforation was 4.8% (66/1373). Notably, our analysis indicates variations in perforation rates across different arterial segments: 8.9% in M3 segments, 4.3% in M2 segments, and 8.3% in A2 segments (p = 0.612). Patients with perforation had significantly worse outcomes, with lower rates of favorable angiographic outcomes (TICI 2c-3: 23% vs 58.9%, p < 0.001; TICI 2b-3: 56.5% vs 88.3%, p < 0.001). Functional outcomes were also worse in the perforation group (mRS 0–1 at 3 months: 22.7% vs 36.6%, p = 0.031; mRS 0–2 at 3 months: 28.8% vs 53.9%, p < 0.001). Mortality was higher in the perforation group (30.3% vs 16.8%, p = 0.008). Conclusion: This study reveals that while the occurrence of vessel perforation in MT for AIS due to MeVO is relatively rare, it is associated with poor functional outcomes and higher mortality. The findings highlight the need for increased caution and specialized training in performing MT for MeVO. Further prospective research is required for risk mitigation strategies.

Objective: The REDISCOVER consensus conference aimed at developing and validating guidelines on the perioperative care of patients with borderline-resectable (BR-) and locally advanced (LA) pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Background: Coupled with improvements in chemotherapy and radiation, the contemporary approach to pancreatic surgery supports the resection of BR-PDAC and, to a lesser extent, LA-PDAC. Guidelines outlining the selection and perioperative care for these patients are lacking. Methods: The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology was used to develop the REDISCOVER guidelines and create recommendations. The Delphi approach was used to reach a consensus (agreement ≥80%) among experts. Recommendations were approved after a debate and vote among international experts in pancreatic surgery and pancreatic cancer management. A Validation Committee used the AGREE II-GRS tool to assess the methodological quality of the guidelines. Moreover, an independent multidisciplinary advisory group revised the statements to ensure adherence to nonsurgical guidelines. Results: Overall, 34 recommendations were created targeting centralization, training, staging, patient selection for surgery, possibility of surgery in uncommon scenarios, timing of surgery, avoidance of vascular reconstruction, details of vascular resection/reconstruction, arterial divestment, frozen section histology of perivascular tissue, extent of lymphadenectomy, anticoagulation prophylaxis, and role of minimally invasive surgery. The level of evidence was however low for 29 of 34 clinical questions. Participants agreed that the most conducive means to promptly advance our understanding in this field is to establish an international registry addressing this patient population (https://rediscover.unipi.it/). Conclusions: The REDISCOVER guidelines provide clinical recommendations pertaining to pancreatectomy with vascular resection for patients with BR-PDAC and LA-PDAC, and serve as the basis of a new international registry for this patient population.

Objective: To determine the prevalence of clinical significance reporting in contemporary comparative effectiveness research (CER). Background: In CER, a statistically significant difference between study groups may or may not be clinically significant. Misinterpreting statistically significant results could lead to inappropriate recommendations that increase health care costs and treatment toxicity. Methods: CER studies from 2022 issues of the Annals of Surgery , Journal of the American Medical Association , Journal of Clinical Oncology , Journal of Surgical Research , and Journal of the American College of Surgeons were systematically reviewed by 2 different investigators. The primary outcome of interest was whether the authors specified what they considered to be a clinically significant difference in the “Methods.” Results: Of 307 reviewed studies, 162 were clinical trials and 145 were observational studies. Authors specified what they considered to be a clinically significant difference in 26 studies (8.5%). Clinical significance was defined using clinically validated standards in 25 studies and subjectively in 1 study. Seven studies (2.3%) recommended a change in clinical decision-making, all with primary outcomes achieving statistical significance. Five (71.4%) of these studies did not have clinical significance defined in their methods. In randomized controlled trials with statistically significant results, sample size was inversely correlated with effect size ( r = −0.30, P = 0.038). Conclusions: In contemporary CER, most authors do not specify what they consider to be a clinically significant difference in study outcome. Most studies recommending a change in clinical decision-making did so based on statistical significance alone, and clinical significance was usually defined with clinically validated standards.

According to the World Health Organization, cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death among women worldwide, yet its magnitude is often underestimated. Biological and gender differences affect health, diagnosis, and healthcare in numerous ways. The lack of sex and gender awareness in health research and healthcare is an ongoing issue that affects not only research but also treatment and outcomes. The importance of recognizing the impacts of both sex and gender on health and of knowing the differences between the two in healthcare is beginning to gain ground. There is more appreciation of the roles that biological differences (sex) and sociocultural power structures (gender) have, and both sex and gender affect health behavior, the development of diseases, their diagnosis, management, and the long-term effects of an illness. An important issue is the knowledge and awareness of women about vascular diseases. The risk of cardiovascular events is drastically underestimated by women themselves, as well as by those around them. The purpose of this review is to draw attention to improving the medical care and treatment of women with vascular diseases.

Abstract Aims In patients with catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (CPVT), a rare inherited arrhythmia syndrome, arrhythmic events can be prevented by medication and lifestyle recommendations. In patients who experience breakthrough arrhythmic events, non-adherence plays an essential role. We aimed to investigate the incidence and potential reasons for non-adherence to medication and lifestyle recommendations in a large, international cohort of patients with CPVT. Methods and results An online multilingual survey was shared with CPVT patients worldwide by their cardiologists, through peer-recruitment, and on social media from November 2022 until July 2023. Self-reported non-adherence was measured using the validated Medication Adherence Rating Scale (MARS) and a newly developed questionnaire about lifestyle. Additionally, validated questionnaires were used to assess potential reasons for medication non-adherence. Two-hundred-and-eighteen patients completed the survey, of whom 200 (92%) were prescribed medication [122 (61%) female; median age 33.5 years (interquartile range: 22–50)]. One-hundred-and-three (52%) were prescribed beta-blocker and flecainide, 85 (43%) beta-blocker, and 11 (6%) flecainide. Thirty-four (17%) patients experienced a syncope, aborted cardiac arrest or appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator shock after diagnosis. Nineteen (13.4%) patients were exercising more than recommended. Thirty (15%) patients were non-adherent to medication. Female sex [odds ratio (OR) 3.7, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3–12.0, P = 0.019], flecainide monotherapy compared to combination therapy (OR 6.8, 95% CI 1.6–31.0, P = 0.010), and a higher agreement with statements regarding concerns about CPVT medication (OR 1.2, 95% CI 1.1–1.3, P < 0.001) were independently associated with non-adherence. Conclusion The significant rate of non-adherence associated with concerns regarding CPVT-related medication, emphasizes the potential for improving therapy adherence by targeted patient education.

INTRODUCTION: Modeling supporting recommendations for colonoscopy and stool-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests assumes 100% sequential participant adherence. The impact of observed adherence on the long-term effectiveness of screening is unknown. We evaluated the effectiveness of a program of screening colonoscopy every 10 years vs annual high-sensitivity guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing (HSgFOBT) using observed sequential adherence data. METHODS: The MIcrosimulation SCreening ANalysis (MISCAN) model used observed sequential screening adherence, HSgFOBT positivity, and diagnostic colonoscopy adherence in HSgFOBT-positive individuals from the National Colonoscopy Study (single-screening colonoscopy vs ≥4 HSgFOBT sequential rounds). We compared CRC incidence and mortality over 15 years with no screening or 10 yearly screening colonoscopy vs annual HSgFOBT with 100% and differential observed adherence from the trial. RESULTS: Without screening, simulated incidence and mortality over 15 years were 20.9 (95% probability interval 15.8–26.9) and 6.9 (5.0–9.2) per 1,000 participants, respectively. In the case of 100% adherence, only screening colonoscopy was predicted to result in lower incidence; however, both tests lowered simulated mortality to a similar level (2.1 [1.6–2.9] for screening colonoscopy and 2.5 [1.8–3.4] for HSgFOBT). Observed adherence for screening colonoscopy (83.6%) was higher than observed sequential HSgFOBT adherence (73.1% first round; 49.1% by round 4), resulting in lower simulated incidence and mortality for screening colonoscopy (14.4 [10.8–18.5] and 2.9 [2.1–3.9], respectively) than HSgFOBT (20.8 [15.8–28.1] and 3.9 [2.9–5.4], respectively), despite a 91% adherence to diagnostic colonoscopy with FOBT positivity. The relative risk of CRC mortality for screening colonoscopy vs HSgFOBT was 0.75 (95% probability interval 0.68–0.80). Findings were similar in sensitivity analyses with alternative assumptions for repeat colonoscopy, test performance, risk, age, and projection horizon. DISCUSSION: Where sequential adherence to stool-based screening is suboptimal and colonoscopy is accessible and acceptable—as observed in the National Colonoscopy Study—offering screening colonoscopy can increase screening effectiveness.