Citations

Background High-impact pathogenic variants in more than a thousand genes are involved in Mendelian forms of neurodevelopmental disorders (NDD). Methods This study describes the molecular and clinical characterisation of 28 probands with NDD harbouring heterozygous AGO1 coding variants, occurring de novo for all those whose transmission could have been verified (26/28). Results A total of 15 unique variants leading to amino acid changes or deletions were identified: 12 missense variants, two in-frame deletions of one codon, and one canonical splice variant leading to a deletion of two amino acid residues. Recurrently identified variants were present in several unrelated individuals: p.(Phe180del), p.(Leu190Pro), p.(Leu190Arg), p.(Gly199Ser), p.(Val254Ile) and p.(Glu376del). AGO1 encodes the Argonaute 1 protein, which functions in gene-silencing pathways mediated by small non-coding RNAs. Three-dimensional protein structure predictions suggest that these variants might alter the flexibility of the AGO1 linker domains, which likely would impair its function in mRNA processing. Affected individuals present with intellectual disability of varying severity, as well as speech and motor delay, autistic behaviour and additional behavioural manifestations. Conclusion Our study establishes that de novo coding variants in AGO1 are involved in a novel monogenic form of NDD, highly similar to the recently reported AGO2 -related NDD.

Background: Coronary endothelial dysfunction (CED) causes angina/ischemia in patients with nonobstructive coronary artery disease (NOCAD). Patients with CED have decreased number and function of CD34+ cells involved in normal vascular repair with microcirculatory regenerative potential and paracrine anti-inflammatory effects. We evaluated safety and potential efficacy of intracoronary autologous CD34+ cell therapy for CED. Methods: Twenty NOCAD patients with invasively diagnosed CED and persistent angina despite maximally tolerated medical therapy underwent baseline exercise stress test, GCSF (granulocyte colony stimulating factor)-mediated CD34+ cell mobilization, leukapheresis, and selective 1×10 5 CD34+ cells/kg infusion into left anterior descending. Invasive CED evaluation and exercise stress test were repeated 6 months after cell infusion. Primary end points were safety and effect of intracoronary autologous CD34+ cell therapy on CED at 6 months of follow-up. Secondary end points were change in Canadian Cardiovascular Society angina class, as-needed sublingual nitroglycerin use/day, Seattle Angina Questionnaire scores, and exercise time at 6 months. Change in CED was compared with that of 51 historic control NOCAD patients treated with maximally tolerated medical therapy alone. Results: Mean age was 52±13 years; 75% were women. No death, myocardial infarction, or stroke occurred. Intracoronary CD34+ cell infusion improved microvascular CED (%acetylcholine-mediated coronary blood flow increased from 7.2 [−18.0 to 32.4] to 57.6 [16.3–98.3]%; P =0.014), decreased Canadian Cardiovascular Society angina class (3.7±0.5 to 1.7±0.9, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, P =0.00018), and sublingual nitroglycerin use/day (1 [0.4–3.5] to 0 [0–1], Wilcoxon signed-rank test, P =0.00047), and improved all Seattle Angina Questionnaire scores with no significant change in exercise time at 6 months of follow-up. Historic control patients had no significant change in CED. Conclusions: A single intracoronary autologous CD34+ cell infusion was safe and may potentially be an effective disease-modifying therapy for microvascular CED in humans. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03471611.

Abstract Recognizing that race is a social and not a biological construct, healthcare professionals and the public have called for removal of race in clinical algorithms. In response, the National Kidney Foundation and the American Society of Nephrology created the Task Force on Reassessing the Inclusion of Race in Diagnosing Kidney Diseases to examine the issue and provide recommendations. The final report from the Task Force recommends calculating estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) without a race coefficient using the recently published CKD-EPI 2021 creatinine (cr) and creatinine-cystatin C (cr-cys) equations. The Task Force recommends immediately replacing older eGFRcr equations (MDRD Study and CKD-EPI 2009) with the new CKD-EPI 2021 equation. In a 2019 survey by the College of American Pathologists, 23% of 6200 laboratories reporting eGFRcr used an incorrect equation that is not suitable for use with standardized creatinine measurements, 34% used the CKD-EPI 2009 equation and 43% used the MDRD Study 2006 equation re-expressed for standardized creatinine measurement. Rapid transition to using the CKD-EPI 2021 equation is an opportunity for laboratories to standardize to a single equation to eliminate differences in eGFRcr due to different equations used by different laboratories, and to report eGFR without use of race. We provide guidance to laboratories for implementing the CKD-EPI 2021 equations for both eGFRcr and eGFRcr-cys.

Abstract Introduction/Aims Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a fatal neurodegenerative illness with great unmet patient need. We aimed to evaluate whether mesenchymal stem cells induced to secrete high levels of neurotrophic factors (MSC‐NTF), a novel autologous cell‐therapy capable of targeting multiple pathways, could safely slow ALS disease progression. Methods This randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study enrolled ALS participants meeting revised El Escorial criteria, revised ALS Functional Rating Scale (ALSFRS‐R) ≥25 (screening) and ≥3 ALSFRS‐R points decline prior to randomization. Participants received three treatments of MSC‐NTF or placebo intrathecally. The primary endpoint evaluated efficacy of MSC‐NTF through a responder analysis and safety. A change in disease progression post‐treatment of ≥1.25 points/mo defines a clinical response. A pre‐specified analysis leveraged baseline ALSFRS‐R of 35 as a subgroup threshold. Results Overall, MSC‐NTF treatment was well tolerated; there were no safety concerns. Thirty‐three percent of MSC‐NTF and 28% of placebo participants met clinical response criteria at 28 wk (odds ratio [OR] = 1.33, P = .45); thus, the primary endpoint was not met. A pre‐specified analysis of participants with baseline ALSFRS‐R ≥ 35 (n = 58) showed a clinical response rate at 28 wk of 35% MSC‐NTF and 16% placebo (OR = 2.6, P = .29). Significant improvements in cerebrospinal biomarkers of neuroinflammation, neurodegeneration, and neurotrophic factor support were observed with MSC‐NTF, with placebo unchanged. Discussion The study did not reach statistical significance on the primary endpoint. However, a pre‐specified subgroup suggests that MSC‐NTF participants with less severe disease may have retained more function compared to placebo. Given the unmet patient need, the results of this trial warrant further investigation.

Shared decision making (SDM) has been advocated to improve patient care, patient decision acceptance, patient-provider communication, patient motivation, adherence, and patient reported outcomes. Documentation of SDM is endorsed in several society guidelines and is a condition of reimbursement for selected cardiovascular and cardiac arrhythmia procedures. However, many clinicians argue that SDM already occurs with clinical encounter discussions or the process of obtaining informed consent and note the additional imposed workload of using and documenting decision aids without validated tools or evidence that they improve clinical outcomes. In reality, SDM is a process and can be done without decision tools, although the process may be variable. Also, SDM advocates counter that the low-risk process of SDM need not be held to the high bar of demonstrating clinical benefit and that increasing the quality of decision making should be sufficient. Our review leverages a multidisciplinary group of experts in cardiology, cardiac electrophysiology, epidemiology, and SDM, as well as a patient advocate. Our goal is to examine and assess SDM methodology, tools, and available evidence on outcomes in patients with heart rhythm disorders to help determine the value of SDM, assess its possible impact on electrophysiological procedures and cardiac arrhythmia management, better inform regulatory requirements, and identify gaps in knowledge and future needs.

Background Acute changes in GFR can occur after initiation of interventions targeting progression of CKD. These acute changes complicate the interpretation of long-term treatment effects. Methods To assess the magnitude and consistency of acute effects in randomized clinical trials and explore factors that might affect them, we performed a meta-analysis of 53 randomized clinical trials for CKD progression, enrolling 56,413 participants with at least one estimated GFR measurement by 6 months after randomization. We defined acute treatment effects as the mean difference in GFR slope from baseline to 3 months between randomized groups. We performed univariable and multivariable metaregression to assess the effect of intervention type, disease state, baseline GFR, and albuminuria on the magnitude of acute effects. Results The mean acute effect across all studies was −0.21 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 (95% confidence interval, −0.63 to 0.22) over 3 months, with substantial heterogeneity across interventions (95% coverage interval across studies, −2.50 to +2.08 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 ). We observed negative average acute effects in renin angiotensin system blockade, BP lowering, and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor trials, and positive acute effects in trials of immunosuppressive agents. Larger negative acute effects were observed in trials with a higher mean baseline GFR. Conclusion The magnitude and consistency of acute GFR effects vary across different interventions, and are larger at higher baseline GFR. Understanding the nature and magnitude of acute effects can help inform the optimal design of randomized clinical trials evaluating disease progression in CKD.

Background: Transbronchial lung forceps biopsy (TBLF) is of limited value for the diagnosis of interstitial lung disease (ILD). However, in cases with predominantly peribronchial pathology, such as sarcoidosis, TBLF is considered to be diagnostic in most cases. The present study examines whether transbronchial lung cryobiopsy (TBLC) is superior to TBLF in terms of diagnostic yield in cases of sarcoidosis. Methods: In this post hoc analysis of a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicentre study, 359 patients with ILD requiring diagnostic bronchoscopic tissue sampling were included. TBLF and TBLC were both used for each patient in a randomized order. Histological assessment was undertaken on each biopsy and determined whether sarcoid was a consideration. Results: A histological diagnosis of sarcoidosis was established in 17 of 272 cases for which histopathology was available. In 6 out of 17 patients, compatible findings were seen with both TBLC and TBLF. In 10 patients, where the diagnosis of sarcoidosis was confirmed by TBLC, TBLF did not provide a diagnosis. In one patient, TBLF but not TBLC confirmed the diagnosis of sarcoidosis. Conclusions: In this post hoc analysis, the histological diagnosis of sarcoidosis was made significantly more often by TBLC than by TBLF. As in other idiopathic interstitial pneumonias (IIPs), the use of TBLC should be considered when sarcoidosis is suspected.

Abstract Introduction Central nervous system relapse (secondary central nervous system lymphoma -SCNS) is an uncommon but devastating complication of aggressive B-cell lymphoma. Patients (Pts) with CNS-IPI 4-6 are at greatest risk (10.2% at 2 years). Intravenous high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) is widely used to mitigate SCNS risk but data supporting this practice are limited. Methods We performed a multicentre, retrospective study at 21 sites in Australia, Asia, North America and Europe. Chart or registry review was performed for consecutively diagnosed pts with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and CNS-IPI 4-6, high grade B-cell lymphoma (HGBL) with rearrangements of MYC+BCL2 and/or BCL6 and primary breast/testicular DLBCL irrespective of CNS-IPI. Pts were diagnosed between 2000-2020, 18-80 years at diagnosis, and treated with curative intent anti-CD20 based chemo-immunotherapy. Pts with CNS involvement at diagnosis were excluded. HD-MTX was defined as at least one cycle of intravenous MTX at any dose. Time to SCNS was calculated from date of diagnosis (all-pts), and from the end of frontline systemic lymphoma therapy, defined as 6x21 days from diagnosis (complete response (CR-pts)), until SCNS, systemic relapse, death, or censoring, whichever came first. Cumulative risk of SCNS was computed using the Aalen-Johansen estimator treating death and systemic relapses as competing events. Adjusted cumulative risks were obtained by using an inverse probability of treatment weighting approach. The average treatment effect was computed as the difference in adjusted 5-year risk of SCNS. Results - 2300 and 1455 pts were included in the all-pts and CR-pts analyses, respectively. Baseline demographics and details of therapy are summarised in Table 1. Except for a predominance of males, pts ≤60 years and pts with ECOG 0-1 in the HD-MTX vs no HD-MTX groups, the demographics and treatments were well balanced. At a median follow up of 5.9 years (range 0.0-19.1) and 5.5 years from diagnosis (range 0.0-18.7), 201/2300 and 84/1455 pts experienced CNS events in the all-pts and CR-pts analyses respectively. For all-pts(n=2300), CNS-IPI was 4-6 in 2052(89.2%), with R-CHOP-like therapy given to 93.8%. 410 pts (17.8%) received HD-MTX (265 HD-MTX alone, 145 in combination with intrathecal methotrexate (IT-MTX);435 received IT-MTX alone;1455 received neither. There were 32/410 and 169/1890 SCNS events, with median time from diagnosis to SCNS of 8.8 and 6.7 months in the HD-MTX and no HD-MTX groups respectively. 5-year OS was 70% (95% CI, 65-76%) and 55% (95% CI 53-57%) in HD-MTX and no HD-MTX groups respectively. There was no difference in the adjusted 5-year risk of SCNS between the HD-MTX and no HD-MTX groups (8.4% vs 9.1%, adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.71, p=0.100) (Figure 1). For CR-pts(n=1455), CNS-IPI was 4-6 in 1267(87.0%), with R-CHOP-like therapy given to 93.3%. 284 pts (19.5%) received HD-MTX (170 HD-MTX alone, 114 with IT-MTX);298 received IT-MTX alone;873 received neither. There were 16/284 and 68/1171 SCNS events, with median time from diagnosis to SCNS of 11.0 and 10.3 months in the HD-MTX and no HD-MTX groups respectively. 5-year OS was 74%(95% CI 67-81%) and 75%(95% CI 72-78%) in the HD-MTX groups and no HD-MTX groups respectively (adjusted HR 1.08, p=0.622). There was no difference in the 5-year risk of CNS relapse between the HD-MTX and no HD-MTX groups 5.0% vs 6.0% (adjusted HR 1.03, p=0.903) (Figure 2). Exploratory analysis of the impact of HD-MTX among the highest risk groups CNS IPI 5 (n=368), CNS-IPI 6 (n=59) and CNS-IPI 6 plus all pts with testicular, renal or adrenal involvement (n=349) did not reveal differences in SCNS rates in HD-MTX treated pts. Additional subgroup analyses will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions To our knowledge, this is the largest study of the efficacy of HD-MTX in reducing SCNS events focusing exclusively on high-risk pts. The overall incidence of CNS relapse observed was consistent with previous reports in similar patient cohorts at 9%. The use of HD-MTX did not lower SCNS rates overall or when analysis was confined to CR pts at completion of curative intent therapy to compensate for potential immortal bias associated with HD-MTX therapy. Despite the limitations of the non-randomized and retrospective design, it appears unlikely that HD-MTX is associated with a clinically meaningful reduction in SCNS rates in pts with high risk for SCNS. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Lewis: AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Patents & Royalties: Conference attendance; Janssen: Honoraria, Patents & Royalties: Conference attendance; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria. Villa: Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; NanoString Technologies: Honoraria. Bobillo: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau. Ekstroem Smedby: Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen Cilag: Research Funding. Savage: Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Beigene: Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Eyre: Beigene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Secura Bio: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead/KITE: Honoraria, Other: Travel support for conferences, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel to conferences; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria. Cwynarski: Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Atara: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences, Speakers Bureau; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences; Roche: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences, Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene: Other: travel to scientific conferences. Stewart: Teva: Honoraria; Sandoz: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Bishton: Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria, Other: travel grants; Celltrion: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Takeda.: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants . Fox: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Joffe: Epizyme: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy. Eloranta: Janssen Pharmaceutical NV: Other: NV. Sehn: Genmab: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Debiopharm: Consultancy. Manos: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Travel and meetings. Hawkes: Specialised Therapeutics: Consultancy; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck Sharpe Dohme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Antigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Regeneron: Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squib/Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck KgA: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel and accommodation expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Minson: Novartis: Research Funding; Hoffman La Roche: Research Funding. Dickinson: Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodation, expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Øvlisen: Abbvie: Other: Travel expenses. Gregory: Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel fees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Ku: Roche: Consultancy; Antegene: Consultancy; Genor Biopharma: Consultancy. Talaulikar: Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jansenn: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; EUSA Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding. Maurer: Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding. El-Galaly: Abbvie: Other: Speakers fee; ROCHE Ltd: Ended employment in the past 24 months. Cheah: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory and travel expenses, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Ascentage pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; AbbVie: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Loxo/Lilly: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory.

ObjectiveThe relative risk of SARS–CoV‐2 infection and COVID‐19 disease severity among people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) compared to those without RMDs is unclear. This study was undertaken to quantify the risk of SARS–CoV‐2 infection in those with RMDs and describe clinical outcomes of COVID‐19 in these patients.MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature review using 14 databases from January 1, 2019 to February 13, 2021. We included observational studies and experimental trials in RMD patients that described comparative rates of SARS–CoV‐2 infection, hospitalization, oxygen supplementation/intensive care unit (ICU) admission/mechanical ventilation, or death attributed to COVID‐19. Methodologic quality was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools or the Newcastle‐Ottawa scale. Risk ratios (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated, as applicable for each outcome, using the Mantel‐Haenszel formula with random effects models.ResultsOf the 5,799 abstracts screened, 100 studies met the criteria for inclusion in the systematic review, and 54 of 100 had a low risk of bias. Among the studies included in the meta‐analyses, we identified an increased prevalence of SARS–CoV‐2 infection in patients with an RMD (RR 1.53 [95% CI 1.16–2.01]) compared to the general population. The odds of hospitalization, ICU admission, and mechanical ventilation were similar in patients with and those without an RMD, whereas the mortality rate was increased in patients with RMDs (OR 1.74 [95% CI 1.08–2.80]). In a smaller number of studies, the adjusted risk of outcomes related to COVID‐19 was assessed, and the results varied; some studies demonstrated an increased risk while other studies showed no difference in risk in patients with an RMD compared to those without an RMD.ConclusionPatients with RMDs have higher rates of SARS–CoV‐2 infection and an increased mortality rate.