Citations

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND Increasing evidence suggests that accurate prediction of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) symptom onset requires more than amyloid- and tau-centric biomarkers such as cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) Aβ42/40, total tau and p-tau181 and plasma p-tau217. Autosomal dominant AD (ADAD), caused by pathogenic PSEN1, PSEN2 and APP mutations with predictable age at symptom onset, presents a unique opportunity to characterize the chronological changes in proteins beyond amyloid and tau and clarify them as early biomarkers of disease onset or as biomarkers related to disease staging and progression monitoring. METHODS We measured 972 CSF samples corresponding to 484 participants of the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Disease Network (DIAN) using the NULISASeq 120 CNS Disease Panel. We first benchmarked the technology against gold-standard measurements followed by the identification of proteins that were differentially abundant in relation to mutation status and symptomatology. Next, we determined the chronological emergence of protein changes in relation to the estimated years to onset (EYO). Finally, we assessed whether specific protein measures improved the prediction of EYO in the ADAD. FINDINGS NULISA measurements were comparable to those previously published. We demonstrated that known early alterations in CSF amyloid and tau were followed by inflammatory and neurodegenerative responses suggesting that clinical manifestation of AD happens before the inflammatory processes is fully developed. Finally, we found a multi-protein composite approach for predicting EYO that outperformed single biomarker values. INTERPRETATION Our results suggest that the main CSF proteomic landscape changes in ADAD are due to the presence of a pathogenic mutation and occur prior to symptom onset. Improved performance of multi-protein composite to predict EYO compared to single biomarker values highlights the added value of multiplex proteomic signatures for biomarker panel development. FUNDING National Institute on Aging, Alzheimer’s Association, German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases, Raul Carrea Institute for Neurological Research, Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development, Ministry of Health & Welfare and Ministry of Science and ICT, Republic of Korea, Spanish Institute of Health Carlos III.

Abstract Background DDX3X- syndrome is a rare neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by varying degrees of intellectual disability, predominantly affecting females. We present an institutional cohort supplemented by a systematic literature review, expanding the cardiovascular phenotype of DDX3X- syndrome. Methods We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients diagnosed with DDX3X -syndrome at Mayo Clinic. Additionally, we performed a systematic literature review to identify studies reporting cardiovascular abnormalities in patients with DDX3X -syndrome. Results A total of 200 patients with DDX3X -syndrome were analyzed, comprising 14 patients from our institutional cohort and 186 patients identified through a systematic review of 9 published studies. Our institutional cohort included 14 patients (12 females and 2 males) from 13 unrelated families diagnosed with DDX3X -syndrome, at a median age of 4.5 years (IQR 1.2–9.5). Echocardiogram was performed on nine patients, and cardiovascular abnormalities were found in 7 out of 9 patients who underwent echocardiography (78%), two of whom had major congenital heart defect (CHD) requiring surgical intervention. At the time of assessment, 13 individuals were still alive, while one had died at age six due to extracardiac complications. The systematic review included 9 studies involving 186 patients, of whom 32 (17.4%, 25 females and 7 males) had reported cardiovascular abnormalities, ranging from simple CHDs to more complex defects. Conclusion DDX3X -syndrome carries a significant cardiovascular burden, which is possibly higher than previously reported, including complex congenital heart disease requiring surgical repair. A thorough cardiovascular assessment, including an electrocardiogram and echocardiogram, should be universally recommended for all patients at the time of diagnosis.

Background: Hepatorenal syndrome–acute kidney injury (HRS-AKI) is associated with high mortality in cirrhosis. Recent FDA approval of terlipressin and updated clinical guidance have expanded management options, but real-world practice patterns remain unknown. Methods: We conducted a nationwide survey of U.S. hepatology providers regarding HRS-AKI management practices. The 33-question survey assessed provider demographics, vasoconstrictor selection, treatment timing, and adherence to guideline recommendations. Results: Among 162 respondents, most were hepatologists (94%) at academic centers (83%). Only 11% obtained a nephrology consultation at AKI detection, with 44% waiting until worsening renal function. Terlipressin was available at 80% of institutions but more commonly at academic centers (84% vs. 53%, p =0.003). Consistent with guideline recommendations, 77% of providers initiate vasoconstrictors only after completing a trial of volume expansion (if no renal improvement), particularly in academic centers (80% vs. 60% non-academic, p =0.03). Terlipressin (49%) and midodrine/octreotide (44%) were preferred first-line treatments, with providers at academic centers more likely to use midodrine/octreotide (46% vs. 30%, p =0.008). Mean arterial pressure was used by 62% of providers to guide vasoconstrictor dosing. Most providers (73%) discontinued vasoconstrictor treatment after 4 days if no improvement. Conclusions: Significant variations exist between guideline recommendations and real-world HRS-AKI management, especially first-line treatment choice, treatment monitoring, and nephrology consultation. These findings highlight opportunities to improve guideline implementation and identify areas where practice patterns might inform provider education and future guidance updates.

Background: A 2-stage approach is most commonly used to treat periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Some successful studies of the 1-stage approach were underpowered, lacked a 2-stage comparative group, and excluded patients with draining sinuses, comorbidities, and/or antibiotic-resistant organisms. Given the morbidity and expense associated with 2-stage treatment, we conducted a prospective, multicenter, randomized trial to compare the results of 1- and 2-stage PJI treatment, specifically including patients with draining sinuses, comorbidities, and resistant organisms. Methods: Patients presenting for surgical treatment of a chronic PJI with a known organism following primary total hip or knee arthroplasty were included (with infection defined by Musculoskeletal Infection Society [MSIS] criteria). Patients with prior revision, culture-negative infection, or fungal infection, or who were immunosuppressed or had soft-tissue involvement precluding wound closure, were excluded. Patients were classified according to the McPherson host staging system. Clinical success was defined as (1) no clinical failure or reinfection with the same or new organism; (2) no reoperation for PJI; and (3) no PJI-related death. A double-instrument setup was used for all patients, as were similar irrigation and antibiotic protocols. A total of 323 patients (166 one-stage; 157 two-stage) were randomized. Groups were similar with respect to demographics and host classification. After excluding patients who died or were lost to follow-up, 258 of the 323 patients had 2-year follow-up (135 one-stage and 123 two-stage). The rate of patient loss to follow-up was similar between the treatment groups. Results: Sixteen patients in the 1-stage group and 9 patients in the 2-stage group died prior to 2-year follow-up. Overall, the 2-year success rate of 1-stage treatment was 97% (131 of 135), while the success of 2-stage treatment was 91% (112 of 123) (p = 0.04). Compared with the 2-stage group, the 1-stage group had 3-times the odds of overall success in a regression analysis (unadjusted odds ratio = 3.22 [95% confidence interval = 1.0 to 10.38]). After adjusting for specific variables (McPherson host grade, resistant organism, and draining sinuses), 1-stage treatment also had 3-times the odds of success. Conclusions: The results of this prospective randomized trial indicated that 1-stage treatment (97% success) was statistically noninferior to 2-stage treatment (91% success) when treating chronic PJI following primary total hip or knee arthroplasty, provided the protocols described here are explicitly followed. Extrapolation to other patient cohorts and clinical situations should be avoided. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level I . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

The underlying immunopathogenesis of inflammatory arthritis (IA) immune-related adverse event (irAE) remains obscure. Unlike rheumatoid arthritis (RA), where autoantibodies and B cell dysfunction are central features, the contribution of humoral immunity to IA-irAE is unclear. Here, we performed immunophenotyping of peripheral blood from patients with IA-irAE and compared them with patients with seronegative RA, immune checkpoint inhibition–treated patients without irAE, and healthy controls. IA-irAE was marked with increased cytotoxic gene expression and metabolic activation in T cells and reduced CXCR3 and CCR6 expression in CD4 + T cells. Contrary to seronegative RA, patients with IA-irAE displayed no substantial elevation in autoantibody levels or atypical CD11c + CD21 − B cells. IA-irAE was further characterized by elevated levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6), IL-12, and type I interferon, which correlated with the T cell activation phenotypes. Together, our findings define IA-irAE as a disease with certain immunological features distinctive from RA, representing a potentially T cell–driven, autoantibody-independent autoimmunity. These results offer insights into immune tolerance breakdown and therapeutic targeting in irAEs.

Abstract Purpose Consensus recommendations and guidelines for reporting quantitative research in health professions education (HPE) research are lacking. This study synthesizes available quantitative reporting recommendations and guidelines to present a harmonized framework and derive quantitative standards for reporting HPE research. Method The authors identified existing standards, recommendations, and guidelines from peer-reviewed scientific journals in medicine, education, and social sciences by searching PubMed, Web of Science, and Google from August 2006 through April 2025. The authors also requested input from experts in HPE (scholars and journal editors) via electronic communication over 6 months (November 2024 to April 2025). The articles identified were then used to synthesize and generate an initial list of standards for reporting quantitative research in HPE. Two authors reviewed each article to rate its alignment with HPE research. All authors independently evaluated the full list of standards and discussed them as a group for their relevance and alignment for reporting in HPE; all authors also made recommendations for each standard (to report as is, report but modify, or drop). The group subsequently reviewed and collectively reached consensus on the final set of quantitative reporting standards. Results The authors reviewed a total of 34 articles, with 19 identified as having alignment with HPE quantitative research standards. Mean interrater agreement among author pairs was 98% (kappa = .96). Authors initially generated 40 reporting standards, of which 18 (45%) were modified and 1 (3%) was identified to be dropped. The final set of quantitative guidelines consisted of 39 standards, with each standard nested in one of 28 topic areas. Conclusions The quantitative reporting standards identified in this study provide guidance to ensure rigor in reporting expectations for HPE research. These standards may also facilitate critical appraisal of articles and enhance the quality and impact of quantitative HPE research.