Citations

Clear

1825 citation(s) found for "Yu, Emily".

Endothelial Cell Loss 1 Year After Successful DMEK in the Diabetes Endothelial Keratoplasty Study
Lass, Jonathan H. , Lass, Jonathan H., Benetz, Beth Ann, Verdier, David D., Szczotka-Flynn, Loretta B., Bauza, Colleen E., Reed, Zachariah W., Greiner, Mark A., Mian, Shahzad I., Patel, Sanjay V., Pramanik, Sudeep, Price, Francis W., Soper, Mark C., Terry, Mark A., Titus, Michael S., Kollman, Craig, Beck, Roy W., Price, Marianne O., Group, Diabetes Endothelial Keratoplasty Study, Gang, Anjulie, Hall, Taylor, Lucas, Katelyn, Lynn, Ashlyn, Cole, Shawna, Phelps, Derek, Baratz, Keith H. , Hardtke, Elainey, Treichel, Emily J., Hood, Christopher , Nallasamy, Nambi , Verkade, Angela , Jones, Kristin, Shapiro, Jeremy N. , Leavy, Lisa, Sinkey, Chris, Tenkman, Lawrence R., Gordon, DJ, Ketcherside, Christopher, Fox, Jenni, Coonfield, Kristy, Vislisel, Jesse M., Sharma, Yogi, Young, Angela M. , Schoenberg, Evan, Kelly, Sharra, Huffman, James, Sears, Melinda, Stone, Merisa, Phillips, Paul, Maloney, Charlene, Jun, Albert S. , Maria, Christina, Boyce, Michelle, Kam, Yong, Crosser, Vicki, Chen, Jessica , Straiko, Michael D., Bauer, Alex, Croasdale, Christopher, Brown, Gayle Waldheim, Veldman, Peter B., Evans, Que, Majmudar, Parag A., Epstein, Rachel , Vaidya, Neal, Rosselson, Marie, Nykaza, Jim, Jurkunas, Ula V., Venkateswaran, Nandini, Cheung, Michael K., Ayres, Brandon D. , Haught, Drew Monteleone, Prasad, Elizabeth, Toti, G, Wier, Jim, Brandsdorfer, Ari, Pape, Denise, Hansen, Mark, Hardten, David R., Reeves, Sherman, Dreyer, Allison, Mack, Megan, Hamill, M. Bowes , Nguyen, Jessica, Koo, Ellen, Stanfield, Ryan, Greenwood, Michael, Ernst, L, Messer, Brooke, Risbrudt, Nick, Stofferahn, Seth, Saville, Alyson, Castaneda, Leslie, Torres, Nidia, Potts, Luke B. , Alexander, Jamie, Rinn, Jennifer, Bokosky, John, Cardenas, Ilina, Murphy, Doreen, Priebe, Kinsey, Sica, Chris, Buckman, Natalie, Ansin, Amy, Clover, Jameson , Pivoney, Charles, Vizzerra, Anthony, Elbanhawy, Lindsey, Mullins, Monica, Statz, Brianne, Fout, Elizabeth, Drury, Donna, Tavolazzi, Trisha, Lass, Jonathan, Lass, Jonathan, Szczotka-Flynn, Loretta, Richards, Leslie, Raghupathy, Sangeetha, Spruill, Rashad, Bauza, Colleen, Kollman, Craig, Garrett, Kaitlyn, Reed, Zachariah, Benetz, Beth Ann, Lê, Jimmy T. , Redford, Maryann , Arafah, Baha M. , Greiner, Mark, Johnson, Paula C, Keeler, D. K., Monnier, Vincent M. , Titus, Michael, Verdier, David, Soper, Mark, Velhuisen, Paul Van, Hawkins, Barbara S., Macsai, Marian S., Patel, Sanjay, Mian, Shahzad, Pramanik, Sudeep, Price, Francis, Terry, Mark, Sell, David, Gabrielson, Deanna, Barton, Glenn, Bear, Andrew, Das, Pravamaya, Dawson, Lauren, Dingess, Ryan, Madere, Mark, Sengupta, Pratim , Wadleigh, Garth, Greiner, Mark A. , Lass, Jonathan H., Benetz, Beth Ann, Verdier, David D., Szczotka-Flynn, Loretta B., Bauza, Colleen E., Reed, Zachariah W., Greiner, Mark A., Mian, Shahzad I., Patel, Sanjay V., Pramanik, Sudeep, Price, Francis W., Soper, Mark C., Terry, Mark A., Titus, Michael S., Kollman, Craig, Price, Marianne O., Group, Diabetes Endothelial Keratoplasty Study, Gang, Anjulie, Hall, Taylor, Lucas, Katelyn, Lynn, Ashlyn, Cole, Shawna, Phelps, Derek, Hood, Christopher, Sáles, Christopher S. , Sinkey, Chris, Gordon, DJ, Ketcherside, Christopher, Fox, Jenni, Young, Angela, Schoenberg, Evan, Kelly, Sharra, Huffman, James, Sears, Melinda, Stone, Merisa, Srikumaran, Divya S. , Daoud, Yassine J. , Eghrari, Allen Omid , Ali, Muhammad , Croasdale, Christopher, Brown, Gayle Waldheim, Epstein, Rachel H. , Vaidya, Neal, Jurkunas, Ula V. , Cheung, Michael, Prasad, Elizabeth, Toti, Gwen, Brandsdorfer, Ari, Pape, Denise, Hansen, Mark, Reeves, Sherman, Dreyer, Allison, Mack, Megan, Nguyen, Jessica, Greenwood, Michael, Messer, Brooke, Saville, Alyson, Omar, Ahmed F. , Castaneda, Leslie, Torres, Nidia, Rinn, Jennifer, Bokosky, John, Cardenas, Ilina, Murphy, Doreen, Priebe, Kinsey, Sica, Chris, Schmidt, Gregory A. , Lass, Jonathan, Lass, Jonathan, Price, Marianne O. , Szczotka-Flynn, Loretta, Richards, Leslie, Bauza, Colleen, Beck, Roy W. , Kollman, Craig, McCarthy, Chris, Garrett, Kaitlyn, Reed, Zachariah, Benetz, Beth Ann, Greiner, Mark, Johnson, Paula, Titus, Michael, Verdier, David, Soper, Mark, Aleppo, Grazia , Bateman-House, Alison , Tu, Elmer Yuchen , Patel, Sanjay, Mian, Shahzad, Pramanik, Sudeep, Price, Francis, Terry, Mark, Sell, David, Gabrielson, Deanna, Barton, Glenn, Bear, Andrew, Das, Pravamaya, Dingess, Ryan, Sengupta, Paromita

Mayo Clinic

JAMA Ophthalmology | October 17, 2025 | Volume: 143 | Issue: 12 | Pages: 1053

10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2025.4261 | PMID 41105099 Get It

Importance The effect of cornea donor diabetes on endothelial cell density (ECD) and morphometry after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) is not known. Objective To determine whether endothelial cell loss (ECL) and morphometric changes 1 year after successful DMEK are related to cornea donor’s diabetes status. Design, Setting, and Participants This was a multicenter, double-masked, randomized clinical trial conducted from February 2022 to July 2024 at 28 US clinical sites (46 surgeons) and 13 eye banks. Included in the trial were the eyes of recipients (some of whom received tissue from donors without diabetes and others who received tissue from donors with diabetes) who underwent successful DMEK, primarily for Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy, and had at least 1 analyzable postoperative endothelial image. Intervention DMEK performed with a cornea from a donor without or with diabetes, assigned using a minimization procedure to achieve an approximate 2:1 distribution. Main Outcomes and Measures ECD, ECL, coefficient of variation in cell area (CV), and percentage of hexagonal cells (HEX) at 1 year from eye bank and postoperative specular central endothelial images. Results A total 1274 eyes of 982 recipients (mean [SD] age, 70 [8] years; 569 female [57.9%]; 816 [64.1%] with tissue from donors without diabetes and 458 [35.9%] with tissue from donors with diabetes) were included in the study. Preoperatively, mean (SD) central ECD in tissue from donors without diabetes and with diabetes were 2676 (290) cells/mm 2 and 2671 (286) cells/mm 2 , respectively. At 1 year, mean (SD) ECL was 28.3% (16.1%) and 28.0% (17.0%), in the donor groups without and with diabetes, respectively (adjusted mean difference = −0.4%; 95% CI, −2.3% to 1.4%), resulting in a mean (SD) 1-year ECD of 1927 (498) cells/mm 2 and 1920 (496) cells/mm 2 , respectively (adjusted mean difference = 10 cells/mm 2 ; 95% CI, −36 to 56; P = .95). No difference in ECD at 1 year associated with diabetes severity was noted ( P = .97). Mean (SD) CV did not differ at 1 year between the 2 groups of eyes (31.5% [4.1%] vs 31.4% [4.1%]; adjusted mean difference = −0.4%; 95% CI, −0.9% to 0.1%; P = .51), and mean (SD) HEX did not differ at 1 year between the 2 groups of eyes (57.7% [5.8%] vs 57.2% [5.8%]; adjusted mean difference = 0.1%, 95% CI, −0.8% to 0.9%; P = .33). Conclusions and Relevance This randomized clinical trial found that ECL and morphometry 1 year after DMEK were not affected by cornea donor diabetes status. With comparable 1-year graft success with tissue from donors with and without diabetes demonstrated in this trial, these findings support the use of corneas from donors with diabetes for endothelial keratoplasty procedures. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05134480
Donor Diabetes and 1-Year Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty Success Rate
Price, Francis W. , Szczotka‐Flynn, Loretta , Bauza, Colleen , Reed, Zachariah W., Arafah, Baha M. , Greiner, Mark A. , Johnson, Paula, Keeler, Devon B., Pramanik, Sudeep, Soper, Mark, Terry, Mark A., Titus, Michael S. , Verdier, David D. , Kollman, Craig, Lass, Jonathan H. , Lass, Jonathan H., Group, Diabetes Endothelial Keratoplasty Study, Gang, Anjulie, Hall, Taylor, Lynn, A. G., Cole, Shawna, Phelps, Derek, Baratz, Keith H. , Hardtke, Elainey, Treichel, Emily J., Hood, Christopher , Nallasamy, Nambi , Verkade, Angela , Jones, Kristin, Shapiro, Jeremy, Leavy, Lisa, Sinkey, Chris, Tenkman, Lawrence R., Gordon, DJ, Ketcherside, Christopher, Fox, Jenni, Coonfield, Kristy, Vislisel, Jesse M., Sharma, Yogi, Young, Angela M. , Schoenberg, Evan, Kelly, Sharra, Huffman, James L. , Sears, Melinda, Stone, Merisa, Phillips, Paul, Maloney, Charlene, Jun, Albert S. , Maria, Christina, Boyce, Michelle, Kam, Yong, Crosser, Vicki, Chen, Jessica , Straiko, Michael D., Bauer, Alex, Croasdale, Christopher, Brown, Gayle Waldheim, Veldman, Peter B., Evans, Que, Majmudar, Parag A., Epstein, Rachel , Vaidya, N. N., Nykaza, Jim, Venkateswaran, Nandini, Ayres, Brandon D. , Haught, Drew Monteleone, Prasad, Elizabeth, Toti, Gwen, Wier, Jim, Brandsdorfer, Ari, Pape, Denise, Hansen, Mark D., Hardten, David R., Reeves, Sherman W., Dreyer, Allison, Mack, Megan, Hamill, Mark, Nguyen, Jessica , Stanfield, Ryan, Greenwood, Michael , Ernst, Lindsay, Risbrudt, Nick, Saville, Alyson, Castaneda, Leslie, Torres, Nidia, Potts, Luke B. , Alexander, Jamie, Rinn, Jennifer, Bokosky, John, Cardenas, Ilina, Murphy, Doreen, Priebe, Kinsey, Sica, Chris, Buckman, Natalie, Ansin, Amy, Clover, Jameson , Pivoney, Charles, Vizzerra, Anthony, Elbanhawy, Lindsey, Mullins, Monica, Statz, Brianne, Fout, Elizabeth, Drury, Donna, Tavolazzi, Trisha, Lass, Jonathan, Lass, Jonathan, Richards, Leslie, Raghupathy, Sangeetha, Spruill, Rashad, Bauza, Colleen, Beck, Roy, Garrett, Kaitlyn, Reed, Zachariah, Benetz, Beth Ann , Lê, Jimmy T. , Redford, Maryann , Arafah, Baha, Greiner, Mark, Keeler, Devon, Monnier, Vincent M. , Titus, Michael, Verdier, David, Velhuisen, Paul Van, Hawkins, Barbara S., Macsai, Marian S., Patel, Sanjay, Mian, Shahzad I. , Pramanik, Sudeep , Price, Francis, Terry, Mark, Sell, David, Gabrielson, Deanna, Barton, Glenn, Bear, Andrew, Das, Pravamaya, Dawson, Lauren, Dingess, Ryan, Madere, Mark, Wadleigh, Garth, Price, Marianne O. , Mian, Shahzad I. , Patel, Sanjay V. , Pramanik, Sudeep, Titus, Michael S., Beck, Roy W. , Lass, Jonathan H., Group, Diabetes Endothelial Keratoplasty Study, Lynn, Ashlyn, Cole, Shawna, Phelps, Derek, Hardtke, Elainey, Hood, Christopher, Shapiro, Jeremy, Sáles, Christopher S. , Leavy, Lisa, Gordon, DJ, Fox, Jenni, Coonfield, Kristy, Young, Angela, Schoenberg, Evan, Kelly, Sharra, Huffman, James, Sears, Melinda, Stone, Merisa, Srikumaran, Divya S. , Daoud, Yassine J. , Eghrari, Allen Omid , Ali, Muhammad , Crosser, Vicki, Croasdale, Christopher, Brown, Gayle Waldheim, Evans, Que, Epstein, Rachel H. , Nykaza, Jim, Jurkunas, Ula V. , Cheung, Michael, Wier, Jim, Brandsdorfer, Ari, Pape, Denise, Mack, Megan, Hamill, M. Bowes, Nguyen, Jessica, Koo, Ellen H. , Stanfield, Ryan, Risbrudt, Nick, Saville, Alyson, Omar, Ahmed F. , Castaneda, Leslie, Torres, Nidia, Bokosky, John, Cardenas, Ilina, Murphy, Doreen, Priebe, Kinsey, Schmidt, Gregory A. , Elbanhawy, Lindsey, Statz, Brianne, Tavolazzi, Trisha, Lass, Jonathan, Lass, Jonathan, Richards, Leslie, Spruill, Rashad, Bauza, Colleen, Beck, Roy, McCarthy, Chris, Reed, Zachariah, Arafah, Baha, Greiner, Mark, Titus, Michael, Verdier, David, Velhuisen, Paul Van, Aleppo, Grazia , Bateman-House, Alison , Tu, Elmer Yuchen , Patel, Sanjay, Price, Francis, Terry, Mark, Sell, David, Barton, Glenn, Das, Pravamaya, Dingess, Ryan, Madere, Mark, Sengupta, Partha Pratim , Wadleigh, Garth

Mayo Clinic

JAMA Ophthalmology | October 17, 2025 | Volume: 143 | Issue: 12 | Pages: 1043

10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2025.4253 | PMID 41105094 Get It

Importance If the success of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) is not affected by whether the donor has diabetes, then the donor pool should expand. Objective To determine whether the 1-year DMEK success rate is affected by the presence of diabetes in the donor. Design, Setting, and Participants This was a multicenter, double-masked, randomized clinical trial conducted from February 2022 to July 2025 at 28 clinical sites (46 surgeons), with donor corneas provided by 13 eye banks in the US. Included in the study were individuals undergoing low to moderate risk DMEK (95% for Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy). Study data were analyzed from April to September 2025. Intervention DMEK performed with a cornea from a donor without or with diabetes, assigned using a minimization procedure (comparable with randomization) to achieve an approximate 2:1 distribution, respectively. Main Outcomes and Measures Graft success at 1 year Results A total of 1097 individuals (1421 study eyes; median [IQR] age, 71 [66-76] years; 631 female [57.5%]) were included in the study. The 1-year cumulative probability of graft success was 96.3% (95% CI, 95.0%-97.5%) among 912 study eyes (64.2%) receiving tissue from donors without diabetes and 97.1% (95% CI, 95.5%-98.4%) among 509 study eyes (35.8%) receiving tissue from donors with diabetes (difference between groups = 0.7 percentage points; 95% CI, −1.2 to 2.6; P = .63). The 1-year cumulative probability of graft success was 96.5% (95% CI, 93.6%-98.9%) in the mild donor diabetes severity subgroup (n = 173) and 97.3% (95% CI, 95.4%-98.8%) in the moderate to severe donor diabetes severity subgroup (n = 336), using a diabetes severity rating scale based on medical history. The rates of primary donor failure, early failure related to surgical complications, and subsequent failure were as follows: 2.5% (23 of 912), 0.7% (6 of 912), and 0.3% (3 of 912), respectively, in recipients of tissue from a donor without diabetes, and 2.6% (13 of 509), 0.4% (2 of 509), and 0%, respectively, among recipients of tissue from a donor with diabetes. There were no failures due to graft rejection. Conclusions and Relevance The 1-year success rate in eyes undergoing DMEK with successfully prepared tissue was very high regardless of donor diabetes status. These results, supported by the separately reported finding that endothelial cell loss and cornea morphometry after 1 year were not affected by donor diabetes status, provide strong support for having no restrictions on the use of tissue from donors with diabetes for DMEK. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05134480
Abstract TH290: Blood Pressure Trajectory and Treatment Patterns Among Older Patients with Apparent Treatment Resistant Hypertension: Insights from a Large, Community-Based Healthcare System
Mamprejew, Nicole, Abusulb, Ammar, Cubeddu, Robert, Kassar, Emily, Labovitz, Arthur, Orringer, Carl, Alvi, Mohammed Ali, Albaghdadi, Mazen, Mamprejew, Nicole, Abusulb, Ammar, Cubeddu, Robert, Kassar, Emily, Labovitz, Arthur, Orringer, Carl, Alvi, Mohammed Ali, Albaghdadi, Mazen

Mayo Clinic

Hypertension | October 16, 2025 | Volume: 82 | Issue: Suppl_1 | Pages: No page available

10.1161/hyp.82.suppl_1.th290 Get It

Background: Aging increases the risk of resistant hypertension which is associated with an increased risk of mortality and cardiovascular events. Here, we examined the characteristics, blood pressure (BP) trajectories, and treatment patterns of older patients with apparent treatment resistant hypertension (aTRH). Hypothesis: We hypothesized aTRH would be undertreated, especially in octogenarians. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of all patients with two available ambulatory BP measurements separated by at least 3 months in a community-based teaching hospital. aTRH was defined as BP above goal despite the use of ≥3 antihypertensive medication classes or controlled BP on ≥4 antihypertensive medication classes. Results: Of the 71,470 patients with available data, 7308 (10.2%) met criteria for aTRH with a mean follow-up length of 18.9 months. Compared to patients with normal BP, patients with aTRH were older with a mean age of 74 years versus 65 years (p<0.001). Patients with aTRH were more likely to be males (58.3%) compared to the normal BP groups (40.6%, p<0.001) (Figure 1). Compared to patients with normal BP, patients with aTRH were more likely to be obese and have a higher prevalence of smoking history, diabetes, coronary artery disease, heart failure, peripheral arterial disease, atrial fibrillation, and chronic kidney disease (Figure 1). Amongst those with aTRH, 1566 (5.3%) were aged 18-65, 3763 (13.2%) were aged 66-79, and 2623 (19.7%) were ≥80 years old. At follow-up, among those with aTRH at baseline, 5773 (72.6%) remained with aTRH, 896 (11.3%) improved to non-aTRH, 1270 (16.0%) improved to controlled BP, and 13 (0.2%) improved to normal BP (Figure 2). Most patients irrespective of age had no change in the number of medications at follow-up; only 15.5% of octogenarians with aTRH had an increase in antihypertensives (Figure 3). Between baseline and follow up, octogenarians as a whole had a systolic BP drop of -2.34 (p<0.001), and diastolic BP drop of -0.56 (p=0.061), whereas octogenarians with aTRH had a systolic BP drop of -3.7 (p<0.001) and diastolic BP drop of -0.55 (p=0.050). Conclusion: In an ambulatory population of patients at a community hospital, the prevalence of aTRH was high among patients ≥80 years and associated with established cardiovascular risk factors. Most patients with aTRH do not have a change in BP status over time. Anti-hypertensive medication escalation is infrequent among patients with aTRH irrespective of age.
Consensus-based disease definitions for endocrine immune-related adverse events of immune checkpoint inhibitors
Zhu, Ling , Cheung, Yee-Ming Melody , Mammen, Jennifer S. , Quandt, Zoe , Jones, Renisha, McDunn, Jon, Al-Bahadili, Huda , Warner, Allison Betof , Blackwell, Susan, Cho, Tracey , Dougan, Michael , Funchain, Pauline , Johnson, Douglas B. , Kennedy, Randol , Lim, Annette M. , Overton, Laura, Perdigoto, Ana Luisa , Sachithanandan, Nirupa , Spain, Lavinia , Tsai, Katy K., Reynolds, Kerry L. , Shariff, Afreen , Quandt, Zoe , Betof Warner, Allison , Funchain, Pauline , Herndon, Justine , Lim, Annette M , Tsai, Katy , Reynolds, Kerry L , Cho, Tracey A , Chiang, Cherie Ying , Gallagher, Emily J. , Hamnvik, Ole‐Petter R. , Jones, Renisha, McDunn, Jon , Angell, Trevor E. , Bancos, Irina , Calabrese, Cassandra M. , Ferreira, Michelle , Kheterpal, Meenal , Khouri, Michel G. , Lechner, Melissa G , Markova, Alina , Meara, Alexa Simon , Overton, Laura, Sharon, Elad , Yarchoan, Mark

Mayo Clinic

Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer | October 15, 2025 | Volume: 13 | Issue: 10 | Pages: e011865

10.1136/jitc-2025-011865 | PMID 41093625 Get It

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are an important class of cancer treatment. Endocrine immune-related adverse events (E-irAEs) account for a significant proportion of irAEs in ICI-treated patients. Diagnosing E-irAEs accurately and timely can be challenging in the absence of clear categorization and standardization across oncology, endocrinology and other specialties. While existing guidelines provide some broad directions to diagnosis and management, they lack clarity on irAE-specific symptom evaluation and work-up, as well as assessment of severity. These limitations can then impact triage, time-sensitive management and care escalation to specialists such as oncoendocrinologists. The objective of this study was to develop consensus-based statements on disease definitions for E-irAEs. A core working group of endocrinologists with expertise in the oncoendocrinology field drafted a survey with statements outlining the general approach to E-irAEs, disease definition and management approach of six specific diagnoses: ir-thyroiditis thyrotoxic phase, ir-thyroiditis hypothyroidism, ir-Graves’ disease, ir-hypophysitis, ir-adrenalitis and ir-type 1 diabetes mellitus. Severity grading tables were drafted for three disease categories—“thyroid”, “pituitary and adrenal”, and “diabetes mellitus”. A two-round modified Delphi process, using the RAND/University of California Los Angeles (RAND/UCLA) Appropriateness Method, was employed. In this process, a 25-member voting panel consisting of endocrinologists, oncologists and other specialists and healthcare providers with experience in management of ICI-treated patients and irAEs was recruited. The panel rated anonymously on usability, accuracy, appropriateness or agreement of 41 items on a 9-point scale in Survey 1, after which a meeting was convened. Statements were modified based on voting results from Survey 1 and Meeting 1, and the process was repeated in Survey 2 and Meeting 2. At the end of this process, consensus was achieved for all statements. Our study findings address the gap in standardized nomenclature, clinical, laboratory and radiological evaluations, and management principles of E-irAEs. With consensus achieved from a panel of experts from a variety of disciplines, we anticipate that the statements can form the basis for standardization of the diagnostic process and improvement of patient care.
Incarceration and Quality of Cancer Care
Aminawung, Jenerius A. , Weinstein, Jason , Puglisi, Lisa B. , Mehta, Rajni , Lin, Hsiu‐Ju , Wang, Emily A. , Gross, Cary P. , Oladeru, Oluwadamilola T. , Richman, Ilana B.

Mayo Clinic

JAMA Network Open | October 14, 2025 | Volume: 8 | Issue: 10 | Pages: e2537400

10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.37400 | PMID 41085984 Get It

ImportanceAlthough incarceration is associated with worse cancer outcomes, little is known about quality of cancer care among people with a history of incarceration.ObjectiveTo describe quality of cancer care among those diagnosed with cancer during or immediately after incarceration.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis longitudinal cohort study used Connecticut Tumor Registry data linked to Department of Correction rosters from 2005 through 2016. Patients diagnosed with cancer while incarcerated were matched to those diagnosed within 12 months after incarceration and to those with no history of incarceration. Analysis was performed between March 2024 and January 2025.ExposuresIncarceration status at time of cancer diagnosis.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe main outcomes were treatment initiation within 60 days and receipt of recommended pretreatment and therapeutic care, ascertained from medical records and tumor registries. Logistic regression was used to evaluate odds of treatment initiation by 60 days. The proportion of recommended elements of pretreatment and therapeutic care received was calculated, and group differences were assessed using χ2 tests.ResultsThe sample included 690 individuals (233 diagnosed during incarceration, 221 diagnosed within 12 months after incarceration, and 236 with no incarceration history). The mean (SD) age was 49.7 (12.1) years, and 611 (88.6%) were male. Compared with those with no history of incarceration, those diagnosed with cancer during incarceration were less likely to initiate treatment within 60 days (169 of 209 [80.9%] vs 131 of 189 [69.3%]; OR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.31-0.79]). Initiation of treatment within 60 days was not statistically different for those diagnosed after incarceration vs those with no history of incarceration (144 of 187 [77.0%]; OR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.49-1.34]). Those diagnosed with local and regional cancers during incarceration received 49.2% of recommended treatment-related care (31 of 63 measures), while those diagnosed after incarceration received 45.3% (34 of 75 measures), compared with 66.7% (36 of 54 measures) among those with no history of incarceration (P &amp;lt; .001). People diagnosed with local and regional cancers during incarceration received 80.6% of recommended pretreatment evaluation (54 of 67 measures), and those diagnosed after received 96.8% (59 of 68 measures), compared with 78.1% (50 of 64 measures) among those with no history of incarceration (P = .01).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study of people with a history of incarceration, incarceration was associated with lower likelihood of receiving timely, high-quality cancer treatment. Along with other published literature, this work suggests that gaps in quality of care may contribute to observed disparities in outcomes.
Posttreatment Amyloid Levels and Clinical Outcomes Following Donanemab for Early Symptomatic Alzheimer Disease
Lu, Ming , Collins, Emily C. , Shcherbinin, Sergey, Ellinwood, Amy K., Brooks, Dawn A. , Knopman, David S., Sims, John R. , Mintun, Mark A., Kim, Min Jung , Ellinwood, Amy K. , Yokoi, Yuma , Hansson, Oskar

Mayo Clinic

JAMA Neurology | October 13, 2025 | Volume: 82 | Issue: 12 | Pages: 1251

10.1001/jamaneurol.2025.3869 | PMID 41082199 Get It

Importance Accumulation of amyloid plaque drives pathogenesis of Alzheimer disease (AD). Reduction of amyloid via amyloid-targeting therapies may result in clinical benefit. Objective To assess the correlation of posttreatment amyloid levels with clinical outcomes and biomarkers in AD. Design, Setting, and Participants This was a post hoc exploratory analysis from the randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial, TRAILBLAZER-ALZ 2, conducted June 2020 through April 2023 at 277 medical research centers/hospitals in 8 countries. A total of 8240 participants aged 60 to 85 years with early symptomatic AD with amyloid and tau pathology based on positron emission tomography (PET) imaging were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 6504 participants were excluded predominantly due to inadequate amyloid or tau pathology. The current analysis included 1582 participants (766 in the donanemab group and 816 in the placebo group) with baseline and at least 1 posttreatment assessment. Data analysis took place from July 2024 to March 2025. Interventions Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive donanemab (700 mg for the first 3 doses and 1400 mg thereafter) or placebo intravenously every 4 weeks for up to 72 weeks, with outcomes assessed through 76 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures Participants were categorized into 1 of 10 groups (deciles) based on their lowest amyloid value observed posttreatment. Clinical progression was assessed via changes in integrated Alzheimer’s Disease Rating Scale (iADRS) and Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) scores. Plasma biomarkers measured included phosphorylated tau 217 (p-tau217), p-tau181, glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), and neurofilament light chain (NfL). Correlations between the median amyloid level in each decile were assessed with 76-week least-squares mean changes in each outcome and biomarker. Results Analyses included 1582 participants, including 766 treated with donanemab and 816 with placebo. The mean (SD) age was 72.9 (6.2) years, and 900 participants (56.9%) were female. Participants who received donanemab had lower posttreatment amyloid values than those in the placebo group. Across the trial population, lower posttreatment amyloid levels were correlated with slower clinical progression as measured by iADRS score ( R 2 , 0.73 [95% CI, 0.37-0.97]) and CDR-SB score ( R 2 , 0.87 [95% CI, 0.70-0.97]) and with decreases in p-tau217 ( R 2 , 0.86 [95% CI, 0.73-0.97]), p-tau181 ( R 2 , 0.88 [95% CI, 0.77-0.97]), and GFAP ( R 2 , 0.87 [95% CI, 0.76-0.97]). There was no correlation between posttreatment amyloid value and NfL ( R 2 , 0.03 [95% CI, 0.00-0.54]). Conclusions and Relevance The findings in this secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial demonstrating a correlation between posttreatment amyloid plaque level and clinical benefit support amyloid plaque removal as the mechanism of action for donanemab treatment and the level of amyloid plaque as a potential surrogate biomarker in amyloid-targeting therapies. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04437511
Factors Associated With More Medication Trials Before Surgical Evaluation and Postsurgical Outcomes in Pediatric Drug-Resistant Epilepsy
Samanta, Debopam , Newell, Grace, Caraway, Avery Robert, Brock, Emily, Albert, Gregory W. , Novotny, Edward J. , Cabacar, Dewi Frances Depositario, Gaillard, William D. , Tatachar, Priyamvada , Bolton, Jeffrey , Romanowski, Erin Fedak , Alexander, Allyson , Auguste, Kurtis I. , Bernardo, Danilo , Ostendorf, Adam P. , Karia, Samir , Karakas, Cemal , Pichon, P, Olaya, Joffre , Shrey, Daniel W. , Reddy, Shilpa B. , Ganesh, Abhinaya, Hauptman, Jason S. , Singh, Rani K. , Ciliberto, Michael A. , Marashly, Ahmad , Nangia, Srishti, Arredondo, Kristen H. , Miller, D. , Sattar, Shifteh , Montenegro, Maria Augusta , Agarwal, Nitin , Galán, Fernando , Wagner, Janelle L. , Knox, Andrew , Perry, Μ. Scott , Caraway, Avery R. , Caraway, Avery Robert , Novotny, Edward J , Depositario Cabacar, Dewi Frances , Oluigbo, Chima O , Gaillard, William D , Tatachar, Priyamvada , Bolton, Jeffrey Brian , Wong-Kisiel, Lily C. , Fedak Romanowski, Erin , McNamara, Nancy A , Eschbach, Krista , Alexander, Allyson L , Auguste, Kurtis I , Gonzalez-Giraldo, Ernesto , Bernardo, Danilo , Ostendorf, Adam P , Coryell, Jason , Karia, Samir , Karakas, Cemal , Javarayee, Pradeep K , Pichon, Pilar D , Shrey, Daniel W , Reddy, Shilpa B , Ganesh, Abhinaya , Hauptman, Jason , Singh, Rani K , Ciliberto, Michael A , Marashly, Ahmad , Grinspan, Zachary , Arredondo, Kristen H , Miller, Derryl J , Montenegro, Maria , Agarwal, Nitin , Galan, Fernando N , Abel, Taylor J , Knox, Andrew T , Perry, Michael Scott , Newell, Grace, Brock, Emily, Oluigbo, Chima , Wong‐Kisiel, Lily C. , McNamara, Nancy , Eschbach, Krista , Gonzalez‐Giraldo, Ernesto , Coryell, Jason , Javarayee, Pradeep , Grinspan, Zachary M. , Abel, Taylor J.

Mayo Clinic

Neurology | October 7, 2025 | Volume: 105 | Issue: 9 | Pages: No page available

10.1212/wnl.0000000000214198 | PMID 41056528 Get It

Impact of prior authorization for oncology medications on practices with majority rural patient populations.
McGovern, Emily , Troy, Jeanie, Hughes, Heidi, Nelson, Lisa , Yuan, R., Nelson, Kristina R., Perschke, Grant, Ticku, Jonathan, Kamboj, Jasmine , Pritchett, Joshua C. , Schroeder, Zachary, Troy, Jeanie, Hughes, Heidi, Nelson, Lisa, Nelson, Kristina R., Kelly, Benjamin, Soefje, Scott A. , Swenson, Wade T.

Mayo Clinic

JCO Oncology Practice | October 7, 2025 | Volume: 21 | Issue: 10_suppl | Pages: 55-55

10.1200/op.2025.21.10_suppl.55 Get It

55 Background: Prior authorization (PA) processes are known to create administrative burdens and delays in care, but little is known about how these challenges impact rural oncology patients and practice settings. Methods: To understand the broad impact of prior authorization on rural oncology patients and practices, we conducted this study across three community oncology practices serving majority rural patient populations with distinct geography, healthcare infrastructure, and models of care. Sites included one critical access hospital system located in a highly-rural community (Lakewood Health System; Staples, Minnesota), a community-based hub-and-spoke hospital system-based practice located in a mid-sized community (Mayo Clinic Health System – Northfield; Northfield, Minnesota), and a standalone referral level III trauma center serving a highly rural patient base (Self Regional Healthcare; Greenwood, South Carolina). This retrospective cohort study examined all intravenous and subcutaneous cancer-directed therapy plans (no oral therapy) that required PA submission at these locations over a three-month period from October 1, 2024 to December 31, 2024. Results: 129 PA submissions were required during the study period. 82 were due to cancer-directed therapy agents (of which 14 were immunotherapy agents), and 47 were due to adjunctive therapies (of which 22, 16, and 9 were due to granulocyte stimulation, bone preservation, and anti-emesis agents, respectively). All 129 PA submissions ultimately resulted in approval of the desired medication or formulary-approved biosimilar. Delays from PA submission to approval ranged from 0 to 18 days. A total of 209 patient-days were delayed due to PA during the study period, which did not ultimately result in change of care or denial of care in any instance. Conclusions: At all sites included in this study, all PA submissions were eventually authorized. The PA process was found to introduce inconsistent and potentially avoidable delays for hundreds of patients and their care teams. These findings highlight the inefficiency of current PA processes among rural cancer populations and the practices that care for them, underscoring the need for ongoing efforts directed at state and federal PA reform.
Practical considerations for job application, interview, and negotiation in clinical neuropsychology
Ming, Shelby, Ranum, Rylea, Hermann, Greta, Murriel, Emily C. , Watkins, Kimberly, Kiselica, Andrew M. , Block, Cady, Maietta, Julia E. , Block, Cady K.

Mayo Clinic

Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology | October 6, 2025 | Volume: 47 | Issue: 9-10 | Pages: 1062-1080

10.1080/13803395.2025.2565213 | PMID 41047703 Get It