Citations

Importance Lensectomy with primary intraocular lens (IOL) implantation is often used in the management of nontraumatic pediatric cataract, but long-term data evaluating the association of age and IOL location with the incidence of complications are limited. Objective To describe the incidence of complications and additional eye surgeries through 5 years following pediatric lensectomy with primary IOL implantation and association with age at surgery and IOL location. Design, Setting, and Participants This prospective cohort study used Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group cataract registry data from 61 institution- and community-based practices over 3 years (June 2012 to July 2015). Participants were children younger than 13 years without baseline glaucoma who had primary IOL implantation (345 bilateral and 264 unilateral) for nontraumatic cataract. Data analysis was performed between September 2021 and January 2023. Exposures Lensectomy with primary IOL implantation. Main Outcome and Measures Five-year cumulative incidence of complications by age at surgery (<2 years, 2 to <4 years, 4 to <7 years, and 7 to <13 years) and by IOL location (sulcus vs capsular bag) were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models. Results The cohort included 609 eyes from 491 children (mean [SD] age, 5.6 [3.3] years; 261 [53%] male and 230 [47%] female). Following cataract extraction with primary IOL implantation, a frequent complication was surgery for visual axis opacification (VAO) (cumulative incidence, 32%; 95% CI, 27%-36%). Cumulative incidence was lower with anterior vitrectomy at the time of IOL placement (12%; 95% CI, 8%-16%) vs without (58%; 95% CI, 50%-65%), and the risk of undergoing surgery for VAO was associated with not performing anterior vitrectomy (hazard ratio [HR], 6.19; 95% CI, 3.70-10.34; P < .001). After adjusting for anterior vitrectomy at lens surgery, there were no differences in incidence of surgery for VAO by age at surgery (<2 years, HR, 1.35 [95% CI, 0.63-2.87], 2 to <4 years, HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.44-1.68], 4 to <7 years, HR, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.72-1.56]; P = .74) or by capsular bag vs sulcus IOL fixation (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.36-4.17; P = .75). Cumulative incidence of glaucoma plus glaucoma suspect by 5 years was 7% (95% CI, 4%-9%), which did not differ by age after controlling for IOL location and laterality. Conclusions and Relevance In this cohort study, a frequent complication following pediatric lensectomy with primary IOL was surgery for VAO, which was associated with primary anterior vitrectomy not being performed but was not associated with age at surgery or IOL location. The risk of glaucoma development across all ages at surgery suggests a need for long-term monitoring.

Purpose: To describe the characteristics and outcomes of eyes with idiopathic full-thickness macular holes that underwent initial medical management. Methods: This retrospective study included eyes with full-thickness macular holes that were initially managed with 1 month of topical therapy. Eligible subjects were treated with dorzolamide 2% three times a day, nepafenac 0.1% twice a day, and prednisolone acetate 1% four times a day. The primary end points was hole closure at one month and secondary end point was change in best-corrected visual acuity. Results: Ten subjects (mean age: 62.80 years; female: 50%) with unilateral full-thickness macular holes were studied. The mean basal diameter of the entire cohort at baseline was 824.1 µm (median 828 µm). Four (40%) of the smaller holes (mean 698 µm; median 698.50 µm) closed after 1 month of topical therapy, whereas larger holes (mean 908.17 µm; median 889.50 µm) did not close. In one eye, the hole reopened 4 months after stopping the medication but closed again at 1 month after restarting the topical treatment. Median best-corrected visual acuity improved from 0.35 logMAR at baseline to 0.05 logMAR in eyes that closed but remained at 0.70 logMAR at 1 month in eyes that did not close. Conclusion: Topical corticosteroid, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory, and carbonic anhydrase inhibitor therapy may promote closure of small full-thickness macular holes, but large holes are less likely to respond. One month of topical therapy might avoid subjecting some patients to complex vitreoretinal surgery without compromising visual outcomes. Macular hole may reopen after stopping the topical therapy.

PURPOSEThere are numerous barriers to enrollment in oncology biomarker-driven studies.METHODSThe ELAINE 2 study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04432454 ) is an open-label phase 2 study of lasofoxifene combined with abemaciclib in patients with advanced or metastatic estrogen receptor–positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative breast cancer with an ESR1 mutation. ELAINE 2 opened clinical sites by using a Traditional approach, which activated a site before patient identification, and the Tempus TIME Trial network, which opened a site only after identifying an eligible patient. This manuscript presents the operational metrics comparing the Traditional and TIME Trial site data.RESULTSThe study enrolled patients over 34 weeks and 16 sites (six Traditional and 10 TIME Trial) participated. Duration for full clinical trial agreement execution for Traditional sites and TIME Trial sites averaged 200.5 (range, 142-257) and 7.6 days (range, 2-14), respectively. Institutional review board approval time for Traditional sites and TIME Trial sites was 27.5 (range, 12-71) and 3.0 days (range, 1-12), respectively. Duration from study activation to first consent was 33.3 (range, 18-58) and 8.8 days (range, 1-35) for Traditional and TIME Trial sites, respectively. The first patient on study was at a TIME Trial site 115 days before a Traditional site and the first seven patients enrolled were at TIME Trial sites. Traditional sites consented 23 and enrolled 16 patients, while TIME Trial sites consented 16 and enrolled 13. The trial enrolled 29 patients in 8.5 months with the anticipated enrollment duration being 12-18 months.CONCLUSIONThe TIME Trial network opened earlier and enrolled the first study patients. These results demonstrate that the Just-in-TIME model, along with a Traditional model, can improve enrollment in biomarker-driven studies.

Importance Patient withdrawal of consent from a cancer clinical trial is defined as a patient’s volitional cessation of participation in all matters related to a trial. It can undermine the trial’s purpose, make the original sample size and power calculations irrelevant, introduce bias between trial arms, and prolong the time to trial completion. Objective To report rates of and baseline factors associated with withdrawal of consent among patients in cancer clinical trials. Design, Setting, and Participants This multisite observational cohort study was conducted through the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology. Patient withdrawal was defined as a patient’s voluntary termination of consent to participate anytime during trial conduct. Baseline patient- and trial-based factors were investigated for their associations with patient withdrawal within the first 2 years using logistic regression models. All patients who participated in cancer therapeutic clinical trials conducted within the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology from 2013 through 2019 were included. The data lock date was January 23, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures The percentage of patients who withdrew consent in 2 years and factors associated with withdrawal of consent. Results A total of 11 993 patients (median age, 62 years; 67% female) from 58 trials were included. Within 2 years, 1060 patients (9%) withdrew from their respective trials. Two-year rates of withdrawal were 5.7%, 7.6%, 8.5%, 7.8%, 8.4%, 9.5%, and 9.8% for each of the respective years from 2013 through 2019. In multivariable analyses, Hispanic ethnicity (odds ratio [OR], 1.67; 95% CI, 1.30-2.15; P < .001), randomized design with placebo (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.38-1.94; P < .001), and patient age 75 years and older (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.12-1.72; P = .003) were associated with higher likelihood of withdrawal by 2 years. Use of radiation was associated with patient retention (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.54-0.86; P = .001). Conclusions and Relevance In this cohort study, rates of withdrawal of consent were less than 10% and appeared consistent over time. Factors that are associated with withdrawal of consent should be considered when designing trials and should be further studied to learn how they can be favorably modified.

BACKGROUND: The rate of stroke in patients with heart failure (HF) and preserved ejection fraction but without atrial fibrillation (AF), is uncertain as is whether it is possible to reliably predict the risk of stroke in these patients. METHODS: We validated a previously developed simple risk model for stroke among patients enrolled in the I-Preserve trial (Irbesartan in Heart Failure With Preserved Systolic Function) and PARAGON-HF trial (Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Valsartan, on Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Failure Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction). The risk model consisted of 3 variables: history of previous stroke, insulin-treated diabetes, and plasma N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level. RESULTS: Of the 8924 patients included in the pooled trial dataset, 5126 patients did not have AF at baseline. Among patients without AF, 190 (3.7%) experienced a stroke over a median follow-up of 3.6 years (rate 10.5 per 1000 patient-years). The risk for stroke increased with increasing risk score: second tertile hazard ratio, 1.78 (95% CI, 1.17–2.71); third tertile hazard ratio, 3.03 (95% CI, 2.06–4.47), with the first tertile as reference. For patients in the third tertile, the occurrence rate of stroke was 17.7 per 1000 patient-years, similar to that in patients with AF not receiving anticoagulation (20.7 per 1000 patient-years), and those with AF who were receiving anticoagulation (14.5 per 1000 patient-years). Model discrimination was good with a C index of 0.81 (0.68–0.91) and a simple score could be created from the model. CONCLUSIONS: A simple risk model can detect a subset of HF and preserved ejection fraction patients without AF who have a higher risk for stroke. The balance of risk-to-benefit in these individuals may justify the use of prophylactic anticoagulation, but this hypothesis needs to be prospectively evaluated. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifiers: NCT00095238 and NCT01920711.

Abstract Pulmonary embolization in donor lungs is a common finding and found in up to 38% of cases. To expand the pool of organs, transplant centers now utilize lungs, from increased risk donors, that may have pulmonary embolic disease. Modalities of clearing pulmonary artery embolisms are critical to reduce the prevalence of primary graft dysfunction post transplantation. There have been anecdotal cases of pulmonary embolectomy pre and post organ procurement or in vivo and ex vivo thrombolytic therapy performed in donors with massive pulmonary emboli. We report for the first time therapeutic ex vivo thrombolysis on the back table without Ex Vivo Lung Perfusion (EVLP), followed by successful transplantation.

Macrolides are a mainstay of therapy for infections due to nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM). Among rapidly growing mycobacteria (RGM), inducible macrolide resistance is associated with four chromosomal 23S rRNA methylase ( erm ) genes.

Introduction Decision aids (DAs) are helpful instruments used to support shared decision making (SDM). Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) face complex decisions regarding stroke prevention strategies. While a few DAs have been made for AF stroke prevention, an encounter DA (EDA) and patient DA (PDA) have not been created to be used in conjunction with each other before. Design Using iterative user-centered design, we developed 2 DAs for anticoagulation choice and stroke prevention in AF. Prototypes were created, and we elicited feedback from patients and experts via observations of encounters, usability testing, and semistructured interviews. Results User testing was done with 33 experts (in AF and SDM) and 51 patients from 6 institutions. The EDA and PDA underwent 1 and 4 major iterations, respectively. Major differences between the DAs included AF pathophysiology and a preparation to meet with the clinician in the PDA as well as different language throughout. Content areas included personalized stroke risk, differences between anticoagulants, and risks of bleeding. Based on user feedback, developers 1) addressed feelings of isolation with AF, 2) improved navigation options, 3) modified content and flow for users new to AF and those experienced with AF, 4) updated stroke risk pictographs, and 5) added structure to the preparation for decision making in the PDA. Limitations These DAs focus only on anticoagulation for stroke prevention and are online, which may limit participation for those less comfortable with technology. Conclusions Designing complementary DAs for use in tandem or separately is a new method to support SDM between patients and clinicians. Extensive user testing is essential to creating high-quality tools that best meet the needs of those using them. Highlights First-time complementary encounter and patient decision aids have been designed to work together or separately. User feedback led to greater structure and different experiences for patients naïve or experienced with anticoagulants in patient decision aids. Online tools allow for easier dissemination, use in telehealth visits, and updating as new evidence comes out.