Citations

AbstractBackgroundSimultaneous liver kidney (SLK) transplant protects against acute cellular rejection. In 2017, UNOS implemented a “safety net” policy to allow patients with renal recovery to avoid renal transplantation. Whether kidney after liver transplantation (KALT) increases the risk of rejection is unknown.MethodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) database of adult patients who received liver transplant, SLK or KALT between 2010 and 2020. We examined rejection of the liver within 6 months and 1 year of the liver transplant, as well as rejection of the kidney within 6 months and 1 year of receiving the kidney, as well as patient and graft loss.ResultsSixty‐six thousand seventy‐nine patients were transplanted; 60 168 with liver transplant alone, 5627 with SLK, and 284 with KALT. Acute or chronic liver rejection rates within 6 or 12 months were statistically higher in the KALT group (10.0% and 10.9%) compared to the SLK group (6.1% and 7.5%), but comparable to the LTA group (9.3% and 11.1%). Kidney rejection and graft survival rates were not different. Liver graft survival was worse in KALT than SLK or LTA (Kaplan‐Meier estimates .61 vs. .89 and .90), but these patients were more ill at the time of transplantation. KDPI and LDRI scores were notably lower in the SLK than KALT group. Patient survival was not clinically different between the groups.ConclusionKALT does not increase the risk of acute or chronic kidney rejection. SLK has a lower risk of early liver rejection, but this effect diminishes by one year to being not clinically different compared to KALT. Given that KALT is immunologically safe, and potentially avoids unnecessary renal graft use, it should be preferred over SLK.Brief summaryPatients undergoing sequential kidney after liver transplant do not have an increased risk of liver or kidney rejection when compared to liver transplant alone or simultaneous liver and kidney transplant.

The immune system substantially influences age-related cognitive decline and Alzheimer’s disease (AD) progression, affected by genetic and environmental factors. In a Mayo Clinic Study of Aging cohort, we examined how risk factors like APOE genotype, age, and sex affect inflammatory molecules and AD biomarkers in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). Among cognitively unimpaired individuals over 65 ( N = 298), we measured 365 CSF inflammatory molecules, finding age, sex, and diabetes status predominantly influencing their levels. We observed age-related correlations with AD biomarkers such as total tau, phosphorylated tau-181, neurofilament light chain (NfL), and YKL40. APOE4 was associated with lower Aβ42 and higher SNAP25 in CSF. We explored baseline variables predicting cognitive decline risk, finding age, CSF Aβ42, NfL, and REG4 to be independently correlated. Subjects with older age, lower Aβ42, higher NfL, and higher REG4 at baseline had increased cognitive impairment risk during follow-up. This suggests that assessing CSF inflammatory molecules and AD biomarkers could predict cognitive impairment risk in the elderly.

Background Recently, machine learning algorithms have identified preprocedural γ‐glutamyl transferase (GGT) as a significant predictor of long‐term mortality after coronary revascularization in the SYNTAX (Synergy Between PCI [Percutaneous Coronary Intervention] With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) trial. The aim of the present study is to investigate the impact of preprocedural GGT on 10‐year all‐cause mortality in patients with complex coronary artery disease after revascularization. Methods and Results The SYNTAX trial was a randomized trial comparing PCI with coronary artery bypass grafting in 1800 patients with complex coronary artery disease. The present report is a post hoc subanalysis of the SYNTAXES (Synergy Between PCI With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery Extended Survival) trial, an investigator‐driven extended 10‐year follow‐up of the SYNTAX trial. The association between preprocedural GGT and 10‐year all‐cause mortality was investigated. The mean values of GGT for men and women were 43.5 (SD, 48.5) and 36.4 (SD, 46.1) U/L, respectively. In multivariable Cox regression models adjusted by traditional risk factors, GGT was an independent predictor for all‐cause death at 10‐year follow‐up, and each SD increase in log‐GGT was associated with a 1.24‐fold risk of all cause death at 10‐year follow‐up (95% CI, 1.10–1.40). According to previously reported sex‐related GGT thresholds, patients with higher GGT level had a 1.74‐fold risk of all‐cause death at 10‐year follow‐up (95% CI, 1.32–2.29) compared with patients with lower GGT level. Conclusions Preprocedural GGT is an independent predictor of 10‐year mortality after coronary revascularization in patients with complex coronary artery disease. In patients with elevated GGT, strong secondary prevention may be required after revascularization and must be studied prospectively. Registration URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03417050 .

The liver transplantation (LT) evaluation and waitlisting process is subject to variations in care that can impede quality. The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) Practice Metrics Committee (PMC) developed quality measures and patient-reported experience measures along the continuum of pre-LT care to reduce care variation and guide patient-centered care. Following a systematic literature review, candidate pre-LT measures were grouped into 4 phases of care: referral, evaluation and waitlisting, waitlist management, and organ acceptance. A modified Delphi panel with content expertise in hepatology, transplant surgery, psychiatry, transplant infectious disease, palliative care, and social work selected the final set. Candidate patient-reported experience measures spanned domains of cognitive health, emotional health, social well-being, and understanding the LT process. Of the 71 candidate measures, 41 were selected: 9 for referral; 20 for evaluation and waitlisting; 7 for waitlist management; and 5 for organ acceptance. A total of 14 were related to structure, 17 were process measures, and 10 were outcome measures that focused on elements not typically measured in routine care. Among the patient-reported experience measures, candidates of LT rated items from understanding the LT process domain as the most important. The proposed pre-LT measures provide a framework for quality improvement and care standardization among candidates of LT. Select measures apply to various stakeholders such as referring practitioners in the community and LT centers. Clinically meaningful measures that are distinct from those used for regulatory transplant reporting may facilitate local quality improvement initiatives to improve access and quality of care.

Abstract Objective To assess for improvement in comfort in participating in advocacy for migraine and headache disorders and knowledge needed for successful advocacy. Background The Advocacy Connection Team (ACT)‐Now program is an educational program offered through Miles for Migraine, a non‐profit advocacy organization. It is designed to teach headache fellows and patients advocacy skills. Methods In a cross‐sectional pre‐test–post‐test design, the 2021 ACT‐Now cohort of 98 participants were administered a set of 11 pre‐course survey questions identifying their role (healthcare provider/headache fellow or patient/caregiver), baseline knowledge of migraine‐related disability and stigma, and baseline engagement and comfort with advocating. The post‐course survey questions were the same as the pre‐course questions, with the addition of one question assessing knowledge of migraine‐related disability, additional questions addressing comfort levels advocating with insurance and policymakers, as well as creating an advocacy plan. Results For the pre‐course survey, 69 participants responded and for the post‐course survey, 40 participants responded. Compared to the pre‐course survey, participants were able to correctly identify epidemiological data about migraine following the ACT‐Now course (pre‐course 46% correct, post‐course 58% correct, p = 0.263). There was also an increase in the comfort level of participants in advocacy activities, including the creation of an advocacy action plan (pre‐course 23% were “very comfortable” advocating, post‐course 63%, p < 0.05). Conclusion These results demonstrate that ACT‐Now is effective at improving advocacy skills in a mixed cohort of patients and headache fellows, giving them the skills to create advocacy plans and engage with other patients and physicians, payers, and policymakers to create a more understanding, equitable and compassionate world for persons with migraine and other headache diseases.