Citations

IMPORTANCE: Protein binding of valproate varies among ICU patients, altering the biologically active free valproate concentration (VPAC). Free VPAC is measured at few laboratories and is often discordant with total VPAC. Existing equations to predict free VPAC are either not validated or are inaccurate in ICU patients. OBJECTIVES: We designed this study to derive and validate a novel equation to predict free VPAC using data from ICU patients and to compare its performance to published equations. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Two academic medical centers. PARTICIPANTS: Patients older than 18 years old with concomitant free and total VPACs measured in the ICU were included in the derivation cohort if admitted from 2014 to 2018, and the validation cohort if admitted from 2019 to 2022. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Multivariable linear regression was used to derive an equation to predict free VPAC. Modified Bland-Altman plots and the rate of therapeutic concordance between the measured and predicted free VPAC were compared. RESULTS: Demographics, median free and total VPACs, and valproate free fractions were similar among 115 patients in the derivation cohort and 147 patients in the validation cohort. The Bland-Altman plots showed the new equation performed better (bias, 0.3 [95% limits of agreement, –13.6 to 14.2]) than the Nasreddine (–9.2 [–26.5 to 8.2]), Kodama (–9.7 [–30.0 to 10.7]), Conde Giner (–7.9 [–24.9 to 9.1]), and Parent (–9.9 [–30.7 to 11.0]) equations, and similar to Doré (–2.0 [–16.0 to 11.9]). The Doré and new equations had the highest therapeutic concordance rate (73%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: For patients at risk of altered protein binding such as ICU patients, existing equations to predict free VPAC are discordant with measured free VPAC. A new equation had low bias but was imprecise. External validation should be performed to improve its precision and generalizability. Until then, monitoring free valproate is recommended during critical illness.

Abstract Approximately 5% of Alzheimer’s disease cases have an early age at onset (<65 years), with 5–10% of these cases attributed to dominantly inherited mutations and the remainder considered as sporadic. The extent to which dominantly inherited and sporadic early-onset Alzheimer’s disease overlap is unknown. In this study, we explored the clinical, cognitive and biomarker profiles of early-onset Alzheimer’s disease, focusing on commonalities and distinctions between dominantly inherited and sporadic cases. Our analysis included 117 participants with dominantly inherited Alzheimer’s disease enrolled in the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network and 118 individuals with sporadic early-onset Alzheimer’s disease enrolled at the University of California San Francisco Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center. Baseline differences in clinical and biomarker profiles between both groups were compared using t-tests. Differences in the rates of decline were compared using linear mixed-effects models. Individuals with dominantly inherited Alzheimer’s disease exhibited an earlier age-at-symptom onset compared with the sporadic group [43.4 (SD ± 8.5) years versus 54.8 (SD ± 5.0) years, respectively, P < 0.001]. Sporadic cases showed a higher frequency of atypical clinical presentations relative to dominantly inherited (56.8% versus 8.5%, respectively) and a higher frequency of APOE-ε4 (50.0% versus 28.2%, P = 0.001). Compared with sporadic early onset, motor manifestations were higher in the dominantly inherited cohort [32.5% versus 16.9% at baseline (P = 0.006) and 46.1% versus 25.4% at last visit (P = 0.001)]. At baseline, the sporadic early-onset group performed worse on category fluency (P < 0.001), Trail Making Test Part B (P < 0.001) and digit span (P < 0.001). Longitudinally, both groups demonstrated similar rates of cognitive and functional decline in the early stages. After 10 years from symptom onset, dominantly inherited participants experienced a greater decline as measured by Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes [3.63 versus 1.82 points (P = 0.035)]. CSF amyloid beta-42 levels were comparable [244 (SD ± 39.3) pg/ml dominantly inherited versus 296 (SD ± 24.8) pg/ml sporadic early onset, P = 0.06]. CSF phosphorylated tau at threonine 181 levels were higher in the dominantly inherited Alzheimer’s disease cohort (87.3 versus 59.7 pg/ml, P = 0.005), but no significant differences were found for t-tau levels (P = 0.35). In summary, sporadic and inherited Alzheimer’s disease differed in baseline profiles; sporadic early onset is best distinguished from dominantly inherited by later age at onset, high frequency of atypical clinical presentations and worse executive performance at baseline. Despite these differences, shared pathways in longitudinal clinical decline and CSF biomarkers suggest potential common therapeutic targets for both populations, offering valuable insights for future research and clinical trial design.

Context.— Next-generation sequencing (NGS)–based assays are used for diagnosis of diverse inherited disorders. Limited data are available pertaining to interlaboratory analytical performance of these assays. Objective.— To report on the College of American Pathologists (CAP) NGS Germline Program, which is methods based, and explore the evolution in laboratory testing practices. Design.— Results from the NGS Germline Program from 2016–2020 were analyzed for interlaboratory analytical performance. Self-reported laboratory testing practices were also evaluated. Results.— From 2016–2020, a total of 297 laboratories participated in at least 1 program mailing. Of the 289 laboratories that provided information on tests offered, 138 (47.8%) offered only panel testing throughout their enrollment, while 35 (12.1%) offered panels and exome testing, 30 (10.4%) offered only exomes, 9 (3.1%) offered only genomes, and 15 (5.2%) offered panels, exomes, and genomes. The remainder (62 laboratories, 21.4%) changed their test offerings during the 2016–2020 timeframe. Considering each genomic position/interval, the median detection percentage at variant positions across the 2016–2020 mailings ranged from 94.3% to 100%, while at reference positions (no variant detected), the median correct response percentage was 100% across all mailings. When considering performance of individual laboratories, 89.5% (136 of 152) to 98.0% (149 of 152) of laboratories successfully met the detection threshold (≥90% of the variants present), while 94.6% (87 of 92) to 100% (163 of 163) of laboratories met the 95% specificity threshold across mailings. Conclusions.— Since the inception of this program, laboratories have consistently performed well. The median sensitivity and specificity of detection of sequence variants included in this program (eg, single nucleotide variants, insertions, and deletions) were 100.0%.

Background: Nerve transfer from the masseteric branch of the trigeminal nerve is a widely performed procedure for facial reanimation. Despite achieving powerful muscle force, clinical and aesthetic results leave room for improvement. Preclinical animal models are invaluable to establishing new therapeutic approaches. This anatomical study aimed to establish a masseteric-to-zygomatic nerve transfer model in rats and pigs. Methods: The masseteric branch of the trigeminal nerve and the zygomatic branch of the facial nerve were dissected in 30 swine and 40 rat hemifaces. Both nerves were mobilized and approximated to achieve an overlap between the nerve ends. Over the course of dissecting both nerves, their anatomy, length, and branching pattern were documented. At the coaptation point, diameters of both nerves were measured, and samples were taken for neuromorphometric analysis. Results: Anatomic details and landmarks were described. Tension-free coaptation was possible in all rat and pig dissections. In rats, the masseteric branch had an average diameter of 0.36 mm (±0.06), and the zygomatic branch average diameter was 0.46 mm (±0.13). In pigs, the masseteric branch measured 0.52 (±0.16) mm and the zygomatic branch, 0.59 (±0.16) mm. No significant differences were found between the diameters and axon counts of both nerves in pigs. In rats, however, their diameters, axon counts, and fascicular areas were significantly different. Conclusion: Our study demonstrated the feasibility of direct masseteric-to-zygomatic nerve transfer in rats and pigs and provided general anatomic knowledge of both nerves.

Background: New-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) in COVID-19 raises significant clinical and public health issues. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compile and analyze the current literature on NOAF in COVID-19 and give a more comprehensive understanding of the prevalence and outcomes of NOAF in COVID-19. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was carried out using several databases. The random effect model using inverse variance method and DerSimonian and Laird estimator of Tua2 was used to calculate the pooled prevalence and associated 95% confidence interval (CI). Results for outcome analysis were presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CI and pooled using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model. Results: The pooled prevalence of NOAF in COVID-19 was 7.8% (95% CI, 6.54% to 9.32%), pooled estimate from 30 articles (81,929 COVID-19 patients). Furthermore, our analysis reported that COVID-19 patients with NOAF had a higher risk of developing severe disease compared with COVID–19 patients without a history of atrial fibrillation (OR= 4.78, 95% CI 3.75 to 6.09) and COVID-19 patients with a history of pre-existing atrial fibrillation (OR= 2.75, 95% CI 2.10 to 3.59) . Similarly, our analysis also indicated that COVID–19 patients with NOAF had a higher risk of all-cause mortality compared with, COVID–19 patients without a history of atrial fibrillation (OOR= 3.83, 95% CI 2.99 to 4.92) and COVID-19 patients with a history of pre-existing atrial fibrillation (OR= 2.32, 95% CI 1.35 to 3.96). The meta-analysis did not reveal any significant publication bias. Conclusion: The results of the current meta-analysis a high prevalence rate of NOAF among COVID-19 patients. Further the study reported higher disease severity with NOAF compared with COVID-19 patients without a history of atrial fibrillation and with a history of atrial fibrillation.

Since the first approval for immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for the treatment of cutaneous melanoma more than a decade ago, immunotherapy has completely transformed the treatment landscape of this chemotherapy-resistant disease. Combination regimens including ICIs directed against programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) with anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) agents or, more recently, anti-lymphocyte-activation gene 3 (LAG-3) agents, have gained regulatory approvals for the treatment of metastatic cutaneous melanoma, with long-term follow-up data suggesting the possibility of cure for some patients with advanced disease. In the resectable setting, adjuvant ICIs prolong recurrence-free survival and several are FDA-approved. Although not yet approved, neoadjuvant ICIs have also shown to improve event-free survival and remains an ongoing area of investigation. Other immunotherapy strategies, such as oncolytic virotherapy for injectable cutaneous melanoma, bispecific T-cell engager therapy for HLA-A*02:01 genotype-positive uveal melanoma, and lifileucel, an autologous tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte therapy, for unresectable or metastatic melanoma are also available to patients. Despite the remarkable efficacy of these regimens for many patients with cutaneous melanoma, traditional immunotherapy biomarkers (ie, programmed death-ligand 1 expression, tumor mutational burden, T-cell infiltrate and/or microsatellite stability) have failed to reliably predict response. Furthermore, ICIs are associated with unique toxicity profiles, particularly for the highly active combination of anti-PD-1 plus anti-CTLA-4 agents. The Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) convened a panel of experts to develop this clinical practice guideline on immunotherapy for the treatment of melanoma, including rare subtypes of the disease (eg, uveal, mucosal), with the goal of improving patient care by providing guidance to the oncology community. Drawing from published data and clinical experience, the Expert Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based recommendations for healthcare professionals using immunotherapy to treat melanoma, with topics including therapy selection in the advanced and perioperative settings, intratumoral immunotherapy, when to use immunotherapy for patients with BRAF V600-mutated disease, management of patients with brain metastases, evaluation of treatment response, special patient populations, patient education, quality of life, and survivorship, among others.