Citations

This article is the work product of the Continuous Glucose Monitor and Automated Insulin Dosing Systems in the Hospital Consensus Guideline Panel, which was organized by Diabetes Technology Society and met virtually on April 23, 2020. The guideline panel consisted of 24 international experts in the use of continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) and automated insulin dosing (AID) systems representing adult endocrinology, pediatric endocrinology, obstetrics and gynecology, advanced practice nursing, diabetes care and education, clinical chemistry, bioengineering, and product liability law. The panelists reviewed the medical literature pertaining to five topics: (1) continuation of home CGMs after hospitalization, (2) initiation of CGMs in the hospital, (3) continuation of AID systems in the hospital, (4) logistics and hands-on care of hospitalized patients using CGMs and AID systems, and (5) data management of CGMs and AID systems in the hospital. The panelists then developed three types of recommendations for each topic, including clinical practice (to use the technology optimally), research (to improve the safety and effectiveness of the technology), and hospital policies (to build an environment for facilitating use of these devices) for each of the five topics. The panelists voted on 78 proposed recommendations. Based on the panel vote, 77 recommendations were classified as either strong or mild. One recommendation failed to reach consensus. Additional research is needed on CGMs and AID systems in the hospital setting regarding device accuracy, practices for deployment, data management, and achievable outcomes. This guideline is intended to support these technologies for the management of hospitalized patients with diabetes.

Purpose To explore what influences clinicians in selecting continuing medical education (CME) activities in the United States. Method In August 2018, the authors conducted an Internet-based national survey, sampling 100 respondents from each of 5 groups: family medicine physicians, internal medicine and hospitalist physicians, medicine specialist physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants. In total, 1,895 clinicians were invited and 500 (26%) responded. Questions addressed the selection and anticipated use of CME delivery modalities and perceived characteristics of specific CME providers. Response formats used best–worst scaling or 5-point ordinal response options. Results The factors identified as most important in selecting CME activities were topic (best–worst scaling net positivity 0.54), quality of content (0.51), availability of CME credit (0.43), and clinical practice focus (0.41), while referral frequency (−0.57) ranked lowest. The activities that the respondents anticipated using most in the future were live (mean 3.8 [1 = not likely, 5 = very likely]), online (mean 3.5), point-of-care (mean 3.5), and print-based (mean 3.5) activities. For online CME, the features of greatest appeal were that learning could be done when clinicians had time (mean 4.4), at their own pace (mean 4.2), and at lower cost (mean 4.2). For live CME, the features of greatest appeal were that the subject was best taught using this modality (mean 4.0), or the activity was located in a destination spot (mean 4.0) or a regional location (mean 3.9). When rating specific CME providers, most academic institutions received relatively high ratings for research focus and clinical practice focus, whereas commercial providers had slightly higher ratings for ease of access. Responses were generally similar across clinician types and age groups. Conclusions Physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants are interested in using a variety of CME delivery modalities. Appealing features of online and live CME were different.

G 4 C 2 repeat–derived poly(GR) plays a key role in mediating TDP-43 mislocalization and aggregation in vitro and in vivo.

Background: Representation trends of women, older adults, and ethnic/racial minorities in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of atrial fibrillation (AF) are uncertain. Methods: We systematically reviewed 134 AF related RCTs (phase II and III) encompassing 149,162 participants using Medline and ClinicalTrials.gov through April 2019 to determine representation trends of women, older patients (≥ 75 years), and ethnic/racial minorities. Weighted data on the prevalence of AF from epidemiological studies were used to compare the representation of the studied groups of interest in AF RCTs to their expected burden of the disease. Results: Only 18.7% of the RCTs reported proportion of older patients, and 12.7% RCTs reported ethnic/racial minorities. In RCTs, proportions of women, Hispanics, Blacks, American Indian/Alaskan patients, Asians, native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders and non-Whites were 35.2%, 11.9%, 1.2%, 0.2%, 14.2%, 0.05%, and 19.5%, respectively. The corresponding proportions in general population were 35.1%, 5.2%, 5.7%, 0.2%, 2.4%, 0.1%, and 22.5%, respectively. The weighted mean age (SD) across the trials was 65.3 (3.2) years which was less than the corresponding weighted mean age of 71.1 (4.5) years in the comparative epidemiological data. Conclusion: The reporting of older patients and ethnic/racial minorities was poor in RCTs of AF. The representation of women and American Indian/Alaskan natives matched their expected population share of disease burden. Hispanics and Asians were over-represented and Blacks, native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders and non-Whites were under-represented in RCTs of AF. In nearly all studied RCTs, the reporting of racial demographics did not start until later part of last decade.

AbstractVenetoclax and hypomethylating agent (HMA) combination therapy is FDA‐approved for elderly or unfit acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients unable to withstand intensive chemotherapy. The primary objective of the current study was to impart our institutional experience with the above regimen, outlining response, survival outcomes, and its determinants amongst 86 treatment‐ naïve and relapsed/refractory AML patients. A total of 44 treatment‐naïve AML patients, median age 73.5 years, enriched with secondary, therapy related and ELN adverse risk disease (n = 27) were studied. The CR/CRi rates of 50% (22 of 44 patients) were superior to 23% in a matched AML cohort treated with HMA alone (P = .005). Response rates were similar with TP53, FLT3, NPM1 and IDH mutations (P = .31). Moreover, CEPBA mutations (P = .03) and neutropenia (P = .05) emerged as predictors of complete response. Survivalwas prolonged in patients achieving CR/CRi (17 vs 3 months without CR/CRi, P < .001; conversely adverse ELN risk portended inferior survival. Amongst 42 relapsed/refractory AML patients, half received ≥2 prior therapies excluding transplant, and 15 (35.7%) had received HMA. A group of 14 patients (33.3%) attained CR/CRi; age > 65 years, AML with myelodysplasia, JAK2, DNMT3A, and BCOR mutations predicted complete response. Survival distinctions were based on CR/CRi (median survival 15 vs 3 months with/without CR/CRi; P < .001), and TP53 mutation status (P = .04). In summary, we corroborate existing reports demonstrating superior response and prolonged survival with venetoclax and HMA in treatment ‐naïve and relapsed/refractory AML patients regardless of genotype. Additionally, we identify unique predictors of response to therapy which require validation.

Background While there is a long history of measuring death and disability from injuries, modern research methods must account for the wide spectrum of disability that can occur in an injury, and must provide estimates with sufficient demographic, geographical and temporal detail to be useful for policy makers. The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2017 study used methods to provide highly detailed estimates of global injury burden that meet these criteria. Methods In this study, we report and discuss the methods used in GBD 2017 for injury morbidity and mortality burden estimation. In summary, these methods included estimating cause-specific mortality for every cause of injury, and then estimating incidence for every cause of injury. Non-fatal disability for each cause is then calculated based on the probabilities of suffering from different types of bodily injury experienced. Results GBD 2017 produced morbidity and mortality estimates for 38 causes of injury. Estimates were produced in terms of incidence, prevalence, years lived with disability, cause-specific mortality, years of life lost and disability-adjusted life-years for a 28-year period for 22 age groups, 195 countries and both sexes. Conclusions GBD 2017 demonstrated a complex and sophisticated series of analytical steps using the largest known database of morbidity and mortality data on injuries. GBD 2017 results should be used to help inform injury prevention policy making and resource allocation. We also identify important avenues for improving injury burden estimation in the future.

Background: Patients with cholangiocarcinoma often have indwelling biliary stents or catheters which are prone to obstructions and/or infections; studies show that 20–40% present with fever and/or jaundice requiring urgent treatment in the outpatient setting for which there are no uniform guidelines. The goal was to develop an expert panel consensus on this topic using the modified RAND/UCLA Delphi process to rate treatment appropriateness. Methods: Thirteen expert physicians from relevant specialties, geography, and practice settings were recruited for the panel. Patient scenarios were developed and panelists rated the therapies before and after a face-to-face discussion. The appropriateness of various therapies was rated on a scale from 1–9 and classified as appropriate, inappropriate, or uncertain. Scenarios with greater than 2 (>2) ratings of 1–3 (inappropriate) and greater than 2 (>2) ratings of 7–9 (appropriate) were considered to have disagreement and were not assigned an appropriateness rating. Results: Panelists were from all US regions and the UK (8%) and had practiced for a mean 16.5 years (4–33 years). Panelists rated 480 scenarios before the meeting and re-rated 288 of the clinical scenarios after the meeting. The panelists agreed that ongoing treatment with chemotherapy did not influence decision-making and, therefore, 192 scenarios were excluded from the final list. Disagreement decreased from 37.5% before to 10.4% after the meeting. Consensus on stent/tube manipulation and inpatient antibiotic therapy was obtained and summarized in patients as “appropriate” or “maybe appropriate” based on a patient’s bilirubin level at presentation. Conclusions: The Delphi process produced consensus guidelines to fill an unmet need in the urgent management of ascending cholangitis in patients with cholangiocarcinoma.