Citations

Abstract Rationale Postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) importantly contribute to postoperative morbidity and mortality, particularly for American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status III patients. It remains unclear whether risk factors for PPCs depend on sex. We hypothesised that sex modifies the relationship between perioperative risk factors and PPCs in ASA III patients undergoing noncardiothoracic surgery with general anesthesia. Methods We performed a secondary analysis of prospective data from 1,202 ASA III patients undergoing non-cardiothoracic surgery. Data consisted of preoperative demographics, comorbidities, intraoperative physiology, medications, and procedure information. The primary outcome was a composite of PPCs by postoperative day 7. Mixed-effects linear models incorporated sex as main effect and interaction with covariates. Results Age, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, upper abdominal surgery, surgical duration, and emergency surgery significantly increased the odds of ≥ 1 PPC by postoperative day 7. Male patients presented a higher rate of ≥ 3 PPCs, and mechanical ventilation was less protective in female patients. Yet, sex did not significantly modify the relationship between perioperative factors and the primary outcome (no p<0.05 for the interaction effect with sex). In the secondary analysis, gastroesophageal reflux disease affected atelectasis more strongly in male than female patients (relative odds-ratios for female versus male =0.27; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.57). Conclusions In ASA III patients undergoing non-cardiothoracic surgery with general anesthesia, perioperative factors are predominantly not significantly modified by sex in their relationship to PPCs. GERD’s association with atelectasis in male patients could be explored in future prospective studies as a target for reducing pulmonary complications. This abstract is funded by: NHLBI - UH3 HL140177

ABSTRACT Objective To evaluate intracochlear electrocochleography (ECochG) amplitude parameters during cochlear implantation (CI) using a novel multi‐frequency ECochG algorithm. Methods A multi‐institutional, prospective cohort study was performed at 18 high‐volume CI centers. The inclusion criteria were adults with sensorineural hearing loss and audiometric thresholds of ≤ 90 dB hearing level at 500 Hz undergoing CI with Advanced Bionics (Valencia, CA) Ultra 3D devices between 2024 and 2025. ECochG recordings were performed with simultaneous multi‐frequency stimulation of four frequencies between 125 and 4000 Hz during cochlear implant insertion. Concurrent multi‐frequency recording allowed extraction of amplitude and phase of each frequency individually. Post hoc analysis was performed to determine the difference in the number of drop alarms between single‐ and multi‐frequency ECochG. An ECochG amplitude drop of 6 dB was defined as a drop alarm. Insertion track patterns were compared between single‐ and multi‐frequency ECochG. Results One hundred ninety‐five ears were included. Mean number of drop alarms for the single‐frequency algorithm was 1.72 (95% CI: 1.52, 1.92; median 1) compared to 0.42 (95% CI: 0.31, 0.53; median 0) for multi‐frequency; p < 0.001. The number of Type C patterns (rise in amplitude during insertion followed by a drop) decreased with the multi‐frequency ECochG algorithm compared to the single‐frequency ECochG algorithm. The number of Type D patterns (no‐response) decreased, indicating that multi‐frequency ECochG generated more responses across the cochlea than single‐frequency ECochG. Conclusions A novel multi‐frequency ECochG algorithm during CI is associated with fewer drop alarms and altered insertion track patterns, which may provide a more accurate assessment of the cochlear microenvironment. Level of Evidence 3.

Abstract Response Assessment in Pediatric Neuro-Oncology (RAPNO) is an international working group dedicated to developing standardized recommendations for response assessment in children with central nervous system tumors enrolled on clinical trials. This standardization facilitates easier and more reliable comparison of responses across trials. Since the first RAPNO publication in 2013, response guidelines have been issued for medulloblastoma (MB), low-grade glioma (LGG), high-grade glioma (HGG), diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma, ependymoma, and craniopharyngioma. Many of these guidelines have already been incorporated into clinical trials to evaluate their effectiveness and accuracy. RAPNO has always been predicated on the idea that these consensus recommendations will require updates over time as they are applied in practice given technological advancements, evolving treatment approaches, and growing knowledge of disease pathology. A half-day RAPNO symposium sponsored by the Society of Neuro-Oncology was held in San Diego, California, United States, on May 15, 2025. This event coincided with the 8th Biennial Pediatric Society of Neuro-Oncology meeting. The main objectives were to identify ongoing RAPNO challenges, discuss potential updates, and plan future initiatives across 3 specific groups: (1) LGG/Craniopharyngioma, (2) HGG/diffuse midline glioma (DMG)/Ependymoma, and (3) MB and other seeding tumors. This manuscript reviews the symposium proceedings and highlights key topics and challenges discussed, as well as outlining future RAPNO initiatives.

Objective To assess the impact of renal replacement therapy in people with lupus nephritis (LN)–associated end‐stage kidney disease (ESKD) and support the development of the 2024 American College of Rheumatology LN treatment guidelines. Methods We conducted a systematic literature review and meta‐analysis to address three Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) questions related to renal replacement therapy for ESKD due to LN, including comparisons of kidney transplant versus dialysis, hemodialysis versus peritoneal dialysis, and preemptive kidney transplant versus no preemptive kidney transplant. Outcomes of interest included mortality, cardiovascular (CV) events, infections, lupus flares, disease‐related damage, graft failure, and quality of life. We conducted a meta‐analysis and analyzed hazard ratios for time‐to‐event analyses and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes, as well as absolute risk estimates. Results Sixteen comparative observational studies addressed at least one of the three PICO questions. Kidney transplant was found to reduce the risks of all‐cause mortality, CV mortality, infection‐related mortality, and CV events compared with dialysis (high certainty). Dialysis modality (peritoneal vs hemodialysis) was not associated with mortality (high certainty) or with other outcomes of infection, CV complications, and systemic lupus erythematosus flares (low certainty). Preemptive kidney transplant was associated with lower risks of graft failure and mortality (low certainty). Conclusion This systematic review identified improved outcomes with kidney transplant versus dialysis for people with LN‐associated ESKD and potential benefits of preemptive kidney transplant. This evidence supports the use of kidney transplant as a preferred renal replacement therapy for people with LN‐ESKD.

Objective To provide evidence‐based and expert guidance for the treatment and management of non‐renal systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE); treatment and management of lupus nephritis are addressed in a separate guideline. Methods Clinical questions for treatment and management of SLE were developed in the PICO format (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome). Systematic literature reviews were developed for each PICO question, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess evidence quality and formulate recommendations. The Voting Panel achieved a consensus of ≥70% agreement on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of each recommendation. Results We present recommendations and ungraded, consensus‐based good practice statements for the treatment and management of SLE that are applicable to pediatric and adult patients. Recommendations emphasize uniform treatment with hydroxychloroquine, limiting duration of glucocorticoid use, and early introduction of conventional and/or biologic immunosuppressive therapies to achieve and maintain control of SLE inflammation (remission or a low level of disease activity), reduce SLE‐related morbidity and mortality, and minimize medication‐related toxicities. Conclusion This guideline presents direction regarding treatment and management of SLE and provides a foundation for well‐informed, shared clinician–patient decision‐making. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies, as treatment decisions may vary due to the unique clinical situation and personal preferences of each person with SLE.

Objective To provide evidence‐based and expert guidance for the treatment and management of non‐renal systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE); treatment and management of lupus nephritis are addressed in a separate guideline. Methods Clinical questions for treatment and management of SLE were developed in the PICO format (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome). Systematic literature reviews were developed for each PICO question, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess evidence quality and formulate recommendations. The Voting Panel achieved a consensus of ≥70% agreement on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of each recommendation. Results We present recommendations and ungraded, consensus‐based good practice statements for the treatment and management of SLE that are applicable to pediatric and adult patients. Recommendations emphasize uniform treatment with hydroxychloroquine, limiting duration of glucocorticoid use, and early introduction of conventional and/or biologic immunosuppressive therapies to achieve and maintain control of SLE inflammation (remission or a low level of disease activity), reduce SLE‐related morbidity and mortality, and minimize medication‐related toxicities. Conclusion This guideline presents direction regarding treatment and management of SLE and provides a foundation for well‐informed, shared clinician–patient decision‐making. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies, as treatment decisions may vary due to the unique clinical situation and personal preferences of each person with SLE.

Abstract Anti-IgLON5 disease is an autoimmune encephalitis that presents with a heterogenous clinical phenotype, including sleep disorders, movement abnormalities and bulbar involvement. It is characterized by autoantibodies against IgLON5, 85% association with HLA-DQB1*05:∼ and a brainstem-dominant tauopathy. Cellular and murine models report pathogenic effects of the autoantibodies, and neurodegenerative factors suggest progressive atrophy as a common sequela. However, evidence from in vivo patient data and long-term follow-up is limited, and the degree of progression remains elusive. In this multicentre study, clinical and brain MRI data were collected from 127 patients across 12 countries to investigate the relationships between clinical presentations and the development of distinct brain atrophy patterns. Our data show that most patients develop a complex multisystem phenotype as the disease progresses; however, neuromuscular manifestations rarely emerge at later disease stages. By comparison to healthy controls, this disease presents with severe substructure-specific atrophy, especially affecting the hypothalamus, brainstem, accumbens and basal ganglia, which, in age-independent analyses, show significant ventricular enlargement and also suggest progression of brainstem atrophy over the disease course. Moreover, the focality of atrophy was functionally linked to specific symptoms, with more severe involvement of the basal ganglia in patients with movement disorders, and greater atrophy in the hippocampus and thalamus in patients with cognitive impairment. Taken together, our results provide evidence of distinct atrophy patterns in anti-IgLON5 disease, which closely mirror sites of pathophysiologic processes, including autoantibody binding and tau deposition. Our data emphasize the brainstem as the pathophysiological hub of the disease and provide normative data for the incorporation of atrophy measurements into routine clinical assessments and future treatment studies to monitor disease trajectory and evaluate future treatment strategies.

ObjectiveThe objective is to provide evidence‐based and expert guidance for the screening, treatment, and management of lupus nephritis.MethodsThe Core Team developed clinical questions for screening, treatment, and management of lupus nephritis using the PICO format (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome). Systematic literature reviews were completed for each PICO question, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the quality of evidence and to formulate recommendations. The Voting Panel achieved a consensus ≥70% on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of each recommendation.ResultsWe present 28 graded recommendations (7 strong, 21 conditional) and 13 ungraded, consensus‐based good practice statements for the screening and management of lupus nephritis. Our recommendations focus on the unifying principle that lupus nephritis therapy is continuous and ongoing, rather than consisting of discrete induction/initial and maintenance/subsequent therapies. Therapy should include pulse glucocorticoids followed by oral glucocorticoid taper and two additional immunosuppressive agents for 3–5 years for those achieving complete renal response.ConclusionThis guideline provides direction for clinicians regarding screening and treatment decisions for management of lupus nephritis. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies, as treatment decisions may vary due to the unique clinical situation and personal preferences of each individual patient.

Abstract Background In 2021, the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation established the Multi‐Disciplinary Post‐Acute Sequelae of SARS‐CoV‐2 Infection Collaborative to provide guidance from established Long COVID clinics for the evaluation and management of Long COVID. The collaborative previously published eight Long COVID consensus guidance statements using a primarily symptom‐based approach. However, Long COVID symptoms most often do not occur in isolation. Aims This compendium aims to equip clinicians with an efficient, up‐to‐date clinical resource for evaluating and managing adults experiencing Long COVID symptoms. The primary intended audience includes physiatrists, primary care physicians, and other clinicians who provide first‐line assessment and management of Long COVID symptoms, especially in settings where subspecialty care is not readily available. This compendium provides a holistic framework for assessment and management, symptom‐specific considerations, and updates on prevalence, health equity, disability considerations, pathophysiology, and emerging evidence regarding treatments under investigation. Because Long COVID closely resembles other infection‐associated chronic conditions (IACCs) such as myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome, the guidance in this compendium may also be helpful for clinicians managing these related conditions. Methods Guidance in this compendium was developed by the collaborative's established modified Delphi approach. The collaborative is a multidisciplinary group whose members include physiatrists, primary care physicians, pulmonologists, cardiologists, psychiatrists, neuropsychologists, neurologists, occupational therapists, physical therapists, speech and language pathologists, patients, and government representatives. Over 40 Long COVID centers are represented in the collaborative. Results Long COVID is defined by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine as “an IACC that occurs after SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and is present for at least 3 months as a continuous, relapsing and remitting, or progressive disease state that affects one or more organ systems.” The current global prevalence of Long COVID is estimated to be 6%. Higher prevalence has been identified among female gender, certain racial and ethnic groups, and individuals who live in nonurban areas. However, anyone can develop Long COVID after being infected with the SARS‐CoV‐2 virus. Long COVID can present as a wide variety of symptom clusters. The most common symptoms include exaggerated fatigue and diminished energy windows, postexertional malaise (PEM)/postexertional symptom exacerbation (PESE), cognitive impairment (brain fog), dysautonomia, pain/myalgias, and smell and taste alterations. Holistic assessment should include a traditional history, physical examination, and additional diagnostic testing, as indicated. A positive COVID‐19 test during acute SARS‐CoV‐2 infection is not required to diagnose Long COVID, and currently, there is no single laboratory finding that is definitively diagnostic for confirming or ruling out the diagnosis of Long COVID. A basic laboratory assessment is recommended for all patients with possible Long COVID, and consideration for additional labs and diagnostic procedures is guided by the patient's specific symptoms. Current management strategies focus on symptom‐based supportive care. Critical considerations include energy conservation strategies and addressing comorbidities and modifiable risk factors. Additionally, (1) it is essential to validate the patient's experience and provide reassurance that their symptoms are being taken seriously because many patients have had their symptoms dismissed by loved ones and clinicians; (2) physical activity recommendations must be carefully tailored to the patient's current activity tolerance because overly intense activity can trigger PEM/PESE and worsened muscle damage; and (3) treatment recommendations should be delivered with humility because there are many persistent unknowns related to Long COVID. To date, there are limited data to guide medication management specifically in the context of Long COVID. As such, medication use generally follows standard practice regarding indications and dosing, with extra attention to prioritize (1) patient preference via shared decision‐making and (2) cautious use of medications that may improve some symptoms (eg, cognitive/attention impairment) but may worsen other symptoms (eg, PEM/PESE). Numerous clinical trials are investigating additional treatments. The return‐to‐work process for individuals with Long COVID can be challenging because symptoms can fluctuate, vary in nature, affect multiple functional areas (eg, physical and cognitive), and often manifest as an “invisible disability” that may not be readily acknowledged by employers or coworkers. Clinicians can help patients return to work by identifying suitable workplace accommodations and resources, providing necessary documentation, and recommending occupational or vocational therapy when needed. If these efforts are unsuccessful and work significantly worsens Long COVID symptoms or impedes recovery, applying for disability may be warranted. Long COVID is recognized as a potential disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Conclusion To contribute to the overall health and well‐being for all patients, Long COVID care should be delivered in a holistic manner that acknowledges challenges faced by the patient and uncertainties in the field. For more detailed information on assessment and management of specific Long COVID symptoms, readers can reference the collaborative's symptom‐specific consensus guidance statements.

Objective The objective is to provide evidence‐based and expert guidance for the screening, treatment, and management of lupus nephritis. Methods The Core Team developed clinical questions for screening, treatment, and management of lupus nephritis using the PICO format (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome). Systematic literature reviews were completed for each PICO question, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the quality of evidence and to formulate recommendations. The Voting Panel achieved a consensus ≥70% on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of each recommendation. Results We present 28 graded recommendations (7 strong, 21 conditional) and 13 ungraded, consensus‐based good practice statements for the screening and management of lupus nephritis. Our recommendations focus on the unifying principle that lupus nephritis therapy is continuous and ongoing, rather than consisting of discrete induction/initial and maintenance/subsequent therapies. Therapy should include pulse glucocorticoids followed by oral glucocorticoid taper and two additional immunosuppressive agents for 3–5 years for those achieving complete renal response. Conclusion This guideline provides direction for clinicians regarding screening and treatment decisions for management of lupus nephritis. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies, as treatment decisions may vary due to the unique clinical situation and personal preferences of each individual patient.