Citations

ObjectiveTo develop a new evidence‐based, pharmacologic treatment guideline for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodsWe conducted systematic reviews to synthesize the evidence for the benefits and harms of various treatment options. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to rate the quality of evidence. We employed a group consensus process to grade the strength of recommendations (either strong or conditional). A strong recommendation indicates that clinicians are certain that the benefits of an intervention far outweigh the harms (or vice versa). A conditional recommendation denotes uncertainty over the balance of benefits and harms and/or more significant variability in patient values and preferences.ResultsThe guideline covers the use of traditional disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologic agents, tofacitinib, and glucocorticoids in early (<6 months) and established (≥6 months) RA. In addition, it provides recommendations on using a treat‐to‐target approach, tapering and discontinuing medications, and the use of biologic agents and DMARDs in patients with hepatitis, congestive heart failure, malignancy, and serious infections. The guideline addresses the use of vaccines in patients starting/receiving DMARDs or biologic agents, screening for tuberculosis in patients starting/receiving biologic agents or tofacitinib, and laboratory monitoring for traditional DMARDs. The guideline includes 74 recommendations: 23% are strong and 77% are conditional.ConclusionThis RA guideline should serve as a tool for clinicians and patients (our two target audiences) for pharmacologic treatment decisions in commonly encountered clinical situations. These recommendations are not prescriptive, and the treatment decisions should be made by physicians and patients through a shared decision‐making process taking into account patients’ values, preferences, and comorbidities. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies.

Objective To develop a new evidence‐based, pharmacologic treatment guideline for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods We conducted systematic reviews to synthesize the evidence for the benefits and harms of various treatment options. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to rate the quality of evidence. We employed a group consensus process to grade the strength of recommendations (either strong or conditional). A strong recommendation indicates that clinicians are certain that the benefits of an intervention far outweigh the harms (or vice versa). A conditional recommendation denotes uncertainty over the balance of benefits and harms and/or more significant variability in patient values and preferences. Results The guideline covers the use of traditional disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologic agents, tofacitinib, and glucocorticoids in early (<6 months) and established (≥6 months) RA. In addition, it provides recommendations on using a treat‐to‐target approach, tapering and discontinuing medications, and the use of biologic agents and DMARDs in patients with hepatitis, congestive heart failure, malignancy, and serious infections. The guideline addresses the use of vaccines in patients starting/receiving DMARDs or biologic agents, screening for tuberculosis in patients starting/receiving biologic agents or tofacitinib, and laboratory monitoring for traditional DMARDs. The guideline includes 74 recommendations: 23% are strong and 77% are conditional. Conclusion This RA guideline should serve as a tool for clinicians and patients (our two target audiences) for pharmacologic treatment decisions in commonly encountered clinical situations. These recommendations are not prescriptive, and the treatment decisions should be made by physicians and patients through a shared decision‐making process taking into account patients’ values, preferences, and comorbidities. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies.

OBJECT Surgical procedures and/or adjuvant therapies are effective modalities for the treatment of symptomatic spinal metastases. However, clinical results specific to the skin cancer spinal metastasis cohort are generally lacking. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature for treatments, clinical outcomes, and survival following the diagnosis of a skin cancer spinal metastasis and evaluate prognostic factors in the context of spinal skin cancer metastases stratified by tumor subtype. METHODS The authors performed a literature review using PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science to identify articles since 1950 that reported survival, clinical outcomes, and/or prognostic factors for the skin cancer patient population with spinal metastases. The methodological quality of reviews was assessed using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) tool. RESULTS Sixty-five studies met the preset criteria and were included in the analysis. Of these studies, a total of 25, 40, 25, and 12 studies included patients who underwent some form of surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, or observation alone, respectively. Sixty-three of the 65 included studies were retrospective in nature (Class of Evidence [CoE] IV), and the 2 prospective studies were CoE II. Based on the studies analyzed, the median overall survival for a patient with a spinal metastasis from a primary skin malignancy is 4.0 months; survival by tumor subtype is 12.5 months for patients with basal cell carcinoma (BCC), 4.0 months for those with melanoma, 4.0 months for those with squamous cell carcinoma, 3.0 months for those with pilomatrix carcinoma, and 1.5 months for those with Merkel cell carcinoma (p < 0.0001). The overall percentage of known continued disease progression after spine metastasis diagnosis was 40.1% (n = 244/608, range 25.0%–88.9%), the rate of known recurrence of the primary skin cancer lesion was 3.5% (n = 21/608, range 0.2%–100.0%), and the rate of known spine metastasis recurrence despite treatment for all skin malignancies was 2.8% (n = 17/608, range 0.0%–33.3%). Age greater than 65 years, sacral spinal involvement, presence of a neurological deficit, and nonambulatory status were associated with decreased survival in patients diagnosed with a primary skin cancer spinal metastasis. All other clinical or prognostic parameters were of low or insufficient strength. CONCLUSIONS Patients diagnosed with a primary skin cancer metastasis to the spine have poor overall survival with the exception of those with BCC. The median duration of survival for patients who received surgical intervention alone, medical management (chemotherapy and/or radiation) alone, or the combination of therapies was similar across interventions. Age, spinal region, and neurological status may be associated with poor survival following surgery.

Objectives/Hypothesis Idiopathic subglottic stenosis (iSGS) is a rare and potentially life‐threatening disease marked by recurrent and progressive airway obstruction frequently requiring repeated surgery to stabilize the airway. Unknown etiology and low disease prevalence have limited the ability to characterize the natural history of iSGS and resulted in variability in surgical management. It is uncertain how this variation relates to clinical outcomes. Study Design Medical record abstraction. Methods Utilizing an international, multi‐institutional collaborative, we collected retrospective data on patient characteristics, treatment, and clinical outcomes. We investigated variation between and within open and endoscopic treatment approaches and assessed therapeutic outcomes; specifically, disease recurrence and need for tracheostomy at last follow‐up. Results Strikingly, 479 iSGS patients across 10 participating centers were nearly exclusively female (98%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 96.1–99.6), Caucasian (95%, 95% CI, 92.2–98.8), and otherwise healthy (mean age‐adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index 1.5; 95% CI, 1.44–1.69). The patients presented at a mean age of 50 years (95% CI, 48.8–51.1). A total of 80.2% were managed endoscopically, whereas 19.8% underwent open reconstruction. Endoscopic surgery had a significantly higher rate of disease recurrence than the open approach (chi 2 = 4.09, P = 0.043). Tracheostomy was avoided in 97% of patients irrespective of surgical approach (95% CI, 94.5–99.8). Interestingly, there were outliers in rates of disease recurrence between centers using similar treatment approaches. Conclusion Idiopathic subglottic stenosis patients are surprisingly homogeneous. The heterogeneity of treatment approaches and the observed outliers in disease recurrence rates between centers raises the potential for improved clinical outcomes through a detailed understanding of the processes of care. Level of Evidence 4. Laryngoscope , 126:1390–1396, 2016

OBJECT In this clinically based systematic review of cervical facet fractures, the authors’ aim was to determine the optimal clinical care for patients with isolated fractures of the cervical facets through a systematic review. METHODS A systematic review of nonoperative and operative treatment methods of cervical facet fractures was performed. Reduction and stabilization treatments were compared, and analysis of postoperative outcomes was performed. MEDLINE and Scopus databases were used. This work was supported through support received from the Association for Collaborative Spine Research and AOSpine North America. RESULTS Eleven studies with 368 patients met the inclusion criteria. Forty-six patients had bilateral isolated cervical facet fractures and 322 had unilateral isolated cervical facet fractures. Closed reduction was successful in 56.4% (39 patients) and 63.8% (94 patients) of patients using a halo vest and Gardner-Wells tongs, respectively. Comparatively, open reduction was successful in 94.9% of patients (successful reduction of open to closed reduction OR 12.8 [95% CI 6.1–26.9], p < 0.0001); 183 patients underwent internal fixation, with an 87.2% success rate in maintaining anatomical alignment. When comparing the success of patients who underwent anterior versus posterior procedures, anterior approaches showed a 90.5% rate of maintenance of reduction, compared with a 75.6% rate for the posterior approach (anterior vs posterior OR 3.1 [95% CI 1.0–9.4], p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS In comparison with nonoperative treatments, operative treatments provided a more successful outcome in terms of failure of treatment to maintain reduction for patients with cervical facet fractures. Operative treatment appears to provide superior results to the nonoperative treatments assessed.

Surgical trainees undergo demanding training to achieve high surgical task proficiency. Abounding clinical and educational responsibilities mandate efficient and effective training. This research measured resident workload during laparoscopic skills training to identify excessive workload and how workload impacted task performance. Twenty-eight surgical trainees performed a standardized surgical training task and completed a workload questionnaire while observers measured physiological stress, posture risk assessment, and task performance. Participants self-reported mental demands, physical demands, temporal demands, performance, effort, and frustration. Effort (12±4) and frustration (12±5) were the highest subscales while physical demand (8±4) was the lowest. All participants were observed performing the task in at-risk postures, with 21% exhibiting risk levels requiring immediate intervention. Physical demand was associated with posture risk assessment scores (p<0.05). Mental demand was positively (R 2 =0.20, p<0.05) and frustration was negatively (R 2 =0.18, p<0.05) associated with skin conductance range. A point increase in physical demand was associated with a six second increase in performance time (β=6.0, p=0.01). These results support the fact that human factors and ergonomic tools can be used to relate surgical skills performance with workload, stress, and posture risks.

Objectives To determine the proportion of nursing home ( NH ) residents ( NHR ) with overactive bladder ( OAB ) or urinary incontinence ( UI ) with potential pharmacodynamic contraindications to antimuscarinic treatment because of concomitant anticholinergic medications or acetylcholinesterase inhibitors ( AC h EI s) and nonpharmacological limitations to antimuscarinic treatment. Design Cross‐sectional retrospective analysis. Setting U.S. skilled nursing facilities. Participants Nursing home residents with a diagnosis of OAB or UI . Measurements Linked and deidentified pharmacy claims and Minimum Data Set ( MDS ) 3.0 records (October 1, 2010 to September 30, 2012). Results Of NHR s, 71.3% received at least one anticholinergic medication. Medications that can cause or worsen UI were used commonly. AC h EI s and antimuscarinic treatment were prescribed concurrently in 24% of NHR s with OAB or UI . NHR s with OAB or UI were more likely to have concurrent moderate to severe cognitive impairment ( MSCI ) (70.1%) than those without (29.9%) ( P < .001). NHR s with or without OAB or UI and with MSCI were more likely to be treated with an anticholinergic medication than those without MSCI ( P = .001). When NHR s with MSCI , severe mobility impairment ( SMI ), and anticholinergic medication and AC h EI use were excluded, only a small proportion of NHR s were potential candidates for antimuscarinic treatment (6.6% with OAB or UI , 6.2% with UI ). Conclusions This study advances understanding of the challenges in prescribing antimuscarinic treatment safely and appropriately in elderly NHR s with a high prevalence of drug interactions, underlying MSCI , and SMI .

Purpose In recent retrospective analyses of early-stage colorectal cancer (CRC), low and high body mass index (BMI) scores were associated with worsened outcomes. Whether BMI is a prognostic or predictive factor in metastatic CRC (mCRC) is unclear. Patients and Methods Individual data from 21,149 patients enrolled onto 25 first-line mCRC trials during 1997 to 2012 were pooled. We assessed both prognostic and predictive effects of BMI on overall survival and progression-free survival, and we accounted for patient and tumor characteristics and therapy type (targeted v nontargeted). Results BMI was prognostic for overall survival (P < .001) and progression-free survival (P < .001), with an L-shaped pattern. That is, risk of progression and/or death was greatest for low BMI; risk decreased as BMI increased to approximately 28 kg/m 2 , and then it plateaued. Relative to obese patients, patients with a BMI of 18.5 kg/m 2 had a 27% increased risk of having a PFS event (95% CI, 20% to 34%) and a 50% increased risk of death (95% CI, 43% to 56%). Low BMI was associated with poorer survival for men than women (interaction P < .001). BMI was not predictive of treatment effect. Conclusion Low BMI is associated with an increased risk of progression and death among the patients enrolled on the mCRC trials, with no increased risk for elevated BMI, in contrast to the adjuvant setting. Possible explanations include negative effects related to cancer cachexia in patients with low BMI, increased drug delivery or selection bias in patients with high BMI, and potential for an interaction between BMI and molecular signaling pathways.