Citations

ABSTRACT Background Driving supports independence and quality of life in later life but is vulnerable to age‐related and/or disease‐related decline. While cognitive impairment is a well‐recognized risk for unsafe mobility, the contribution of sensorimotor function is less understood. Methods We studied 374 cognitively normal older adults (Clinical Dementia Rating = 0 at baseline) enrolled in the DRIVES Project. A SensoryMotor Impairment Index (SMI) was constructed from six domains (grip strength, gait speed, reaction time, hearing, vision, olfaction) and categorized as 0, 1, 2, or ≥ 3 impairments. Naturalistic driving was continuously monitored using in‐vehicle GPS dataloggers between 2019 and 2025. Linear mixed‐effects models tested whether longitudinal driving trajectories differed by baseline SMI, adjusting for age, sex, race, education, body mass index, and cognition (Preclinical Alzheimer's Cognitive Composite). Results At baseline, participants with higher SMI burden were older and had lower cognitive scores (both p < 0.01). Over time, greater sensorymotor impairment was associated with faster declines in driving exposure and spatial range. Compared with SMI = 0, participants with SMI ≥ 3 showed steeper reductions in nighttime trips (−0.050 vs. −0.037 trips/month), long‐distance trips (> 20 miles; p < 0.001), and maximum trip distance ( p = 0.009), and greater contraction of driving space (entropy and radius of gyration; p < 0.001). Self‐reported driving behaviors showed that participants with higher SMI drove fewer days per‐week and were more likely to avoid night driving ( p < 0.01). Rates of self‐reported adverse driving events (e.g., crashes or citations) did not differ significantly across SMI groups, consistent with compensatory self‐regulatory behaviors. Conclusion Greater sensorymotor impairment predicts accelerated decline in naturalistic driving among cognitively normal older adults, independent of cognition. A composite SMI may provide a feasible, low‐cost approach to identify older drivers at risk for declining mobility and support timely interventions to prolong safe driving.

Abstract Objective To measure the relative levels of signal and noise in expert diagnosis of epilepsy. Methods Twenty multinational epileptologists independently reviewed 50 vignettes of adult and pediatric patients presenting with suspected seizure(s) on two separate occasions with a ≥30‐day washout period. Experts provided a diagnosis of epilepsy or non‐epilepsy based on clinical information and, if requested, routine EEG and neuroimaging data. Cases had an established clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or non‐epilepsy based on capture of habitual paroxysmal events on video‐EEG or long‐term clinical follow‐up. Experts' judgments were analyzed to decompose variability into different sources: signal (objective differences between cases), level noise (experts' bias toward over/under‐diagnosis), pattern noise (experts' idiosyncratic reactions to specific case features), and occasion noise (inconsistency across occasions). Results The probability of an expert making a different diagnosis for a given case on two different occasions was 16%. The probability of two different experts making a different diagnosis for the same case was 26%. Signal (case “difficulty”) accounted for 66–69% of total variation, with 31–34% attributable to noise. Level noise was the largest contributor in the absence of EEG/neuroimaging results (23%), while pattern noise dominated when test results were available (24%). Occasion noise contributed relatively little (1%) but was still sufficient to cause diagnostic reversals in 16–22% between occasions. Significance The degree of noise in expert diagnosis of epilepsy is substantial, stemming primarily from physicians' idiosyncratic interpretations of case features and variable dispositions toward over‐ or under‐diagnosis. Strategies to improve reliability are needed, including standardized data collection protocols and structured decision algorithms. For “difficult cases,” where expert reliability and accuracy are lowest, our findings support current clinical practice which favors early referral for video‐EEG monitoring over reliance on diagnostic anchoring. This diagnostic pathway may become more accessible with advances in EEG technology (e.g., wearable devices) and artificial intelligence.

Abstract Introduction: Teclistamab is the first FDA approved BCMA-directed bispecific antibody for the treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). With BCMA-targeting CAR-T therapies, cytokine release syndrome (CRS) is a risk factor for cardiotoxicity. Teclistamab was associated with fatal cardiovascular adverse events (CVAEs) in a recent US pharmacovigilance database analysis, but this analysis was limited by reporting bias. Therefore, the aim of our study is to conduct a multicenter study to define the real-world incidence of CVAEs in RRMM patients treated with teclistamab. Method We performed a retrospective multi-center cohort study of patients receiving teclistamab at 5 medical centers. Baseline oncologic and cardiovascular characteristics (including vital sign and echocardiographic data) were collected. Baseline cardiovascular disease (CVD) was defined as presence of coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, severe or symptomatic valvular heart disease, or stroke at baseline. CVAE was collected and categorized based on CTCAE v5.0 by each institution. Major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) was a composite outcome with any of the following: congestive heart failure, asymptomatic cardiomyopathy (interval LVEF drop &gt;10% to resultant LVEF less than 50%), coronary artery disease requiring intervention, stroke or cardiovascular death. Arrhythmia was a composite outcome with any of the following: atrial tachyarrhythmia, ventricular tachyarrhythmia or bradyarrhythmia. Median follow-up was calculated through reverse Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to define the relation between MACE and survival. Cause of death was categorized as myeloma-related death or non-myeloma-related deaths (i.e. CRS, infection or cardiovascular death). Cause-specific Cox regression was performed to define relationship between MACE and cause of death. Results In a cohort of 219 patients treated with teclistamab with median follow-up of 20.1 months, 7.3% (N=16) developed MACE, 7.3% (N=16) developed arrhythmia and 12.8% (N=28) developing any MACE or arrhythmia. MACE occurred at a median of 4.5 days (IQR 2.25-15.75 days) after teclistamab step-up. The incidence of MACE was 16.4% in patients with baseline CVD versus 2.7% in those without baseline CVD (p&lt;0.001). Patients who developed MACE had inferior ECOG performance status (PS) (PS &gt;=2: 62.5% vs. 27.7%; p=0.008). Additionally, baseline hemoglobin level (9 vs 10g/dL; p=0.072) was numerically lower in MACE, compared to no MACE. There was no difference in age, sex, bone marrow (BM) plasma cell burden, ferritin, C-reactive protein or LDH levels between MACE vs. no MACE group. Patients who developed MACE had lower baseline diastolic blood pressure (67.7 vs 73.8mmHg; p=0.041) and numerically lower LVEF (51.4 vs 59.3%; p=0.059; baseline echocardiogram performed in 86% of all cohort). Patients who developed MACE had similar incidences of CRS (Grade &gt;=2: 25.0 vs 16.7%; p=0.620) and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity (ICANS) grade 2 or higher (12.5 vs 7.5%; p=0.812). In multivariable Cox regression analysis, MACE was independently associated with inferior overall survival (HR 2.72; 95% CI 1.41-5.25; p=0.003), after adjusting for baseline CVD, age, high BM burden, extramedullary disease, and plasma cell leukemia. In cause-specific multivariable Cox regression analysis, MACE was independently associated with non-myeloma-related death (HR: 10.77 95% CI 4.39- 26.41; p&lt;0.001) but not with myeloma-related death (1.54; 95% CI 0.64- 3.70; p=0.336). Conclusion In conclusion, in this large, real-world multicenter study, we observed that MACE occurred in over 7% of patients following teclistamab for RRMM, typically within 2 weeks of initiation. MACE was significantly associated with increased non-myeloma-related mortality. In contrast to CAR-T therapy, CRS or ICANS were not associated with MACE, whereas majority of patients who developed MACE had ECOG PS &gt;=2 or baseline cardiovascular disease. More studies are necessary to define mechanisms and strategies to reduce these MACE and improve survival. Patients with baseline cardiovascular disease or poor performance status may benefit from cardiovascular optimization before and during teclistamab therapy.

Abstract Introduction The monoclonal gammopathies of renal significance (MGRS) are defined by the presence of a nephrotoxic monoclonal protein in the absence of a well-defined malignant entity. Mechanistically it has been postulated that, across the varied subtypes of MGRS, abnormal plasma cell or B-cell clones in the marrow produce nephrotoxic proteins; however, in many cases, no paraprotein is detected by conventional laboratory methods and the bone marrow can be morphologically normal. The genomic underpinnings of MGRS are unexplored and, due to the rarity of this disease, clinicians are often left to unable to determine the exact nature of the clonal cell populations. We carried out a pilot study to characterize ctDNA in MGRS patients (pts). The first phase of the protocol sought to collect peripheral blood samples and, when possible, matched bone marrow aspirates, from MGRS pts to evaluate the feasibility of ultra-low pass whole genome sequencing (ULP-WGS) from peripheral blood to identify and characterize ctDNA. Methods We report ULP-WGS results from peripheral blood samples in the initial phase of the study. Peripheral blood samples were collected from renal biopsy proven non-amyloidosis MGRS pts prior to the initiation of treatment. Cell free DNA (cfDNA) was extracted and quantified. A total of 5-20 ng of cfDNA input was used for ULP-WGS. Libraries were pooled and sequenced using 100-bp paired-end runs to an average genome-wide coverage of 0.5x. After deconvolution and alignment, fragments with size 90-150bp were extracted using samtools. IchorCNA was utilized to calculate tumor fraction based on a panel of normals derived from three plasma samples from healthy controls. Model parameters were optimized for low tumor fraction and a threshold of 3% ctDNA was used to identify positive samples. Renal responses were assessed based on International Kidney and Monoclonal Gammopathy (IKMG) group criteria. Results Nine pts and were consented and gave samples for the study along with 3 healthy controls. Seven pts were sequenced, 4 of which were females and 3 were males. Median age was 58 years. Among sequenced pts, 5 presented with proliferative glomerulonephritis with monoclonal immune deposition (PGNMID) and 2 with light chain deposition disease (LCDD). Both patients with LCDD were kappa predominant and showed detectable plasma clones (8% and 3%). One of these pts displayed t(11:14) on bone marrow FISH testing. Among the 5 pts with PGNMID, 3 had IgG kappa deposition and only one had a detectable plasma clone (5%), which harbored trisomy 9 by FISH. Bone marrow flow cytometry was positive in 2 pts. Median 24-hour urine protein content was 7.11g (0.92 – 10.58), median serum albumin 3.20 g/dL (2.90 – 4.90) and median serum creatinine at the time of diagnosis was 2.15 mg/dL (1.30-6.40). CKD was present in 6 of 7 pts at the time of diagnosis. Four pts had known hypertension. One exhibited a history of malignancy and one had a history of autoimmune disease. ctDNA was detectable at a threshold of &gt; 3.0% of cfDNA in 5 of 7 pts. Median ctDNA content was 4.0% (3.18% - 14.97%) of cfDNA. Four of the 5 samples containing ctDNA were hyperdiploid. Chromosome 19 was the most common site of copy number increase whereas chromosomes 6, 10, and 18 exhibited the most frequent decreases in copy number. Two pts with PGNMID had detectable ctDNA without evidence of a serological or marrow-based clone. All pts received daratumumab, cyclophosphamide, bortezomib and dexamethasone as initial treatment. Five pts responded to therapy. Two patients ultimately underwent autologous stem cell transplant and a single patient received venetoclax as second line therapy. Of the patients exhibiting detectable ctDNA, three did not exhibit renal response to initial treatment. Both pts without ctDNA had PGNMID and responded to frontline treatment. Mass spectrometry analysis and deep targeted sequencing of bone marrow aspirates and peripheral blood will be presented. Conclusions To our knowledge, this is the first study to detect ctDNA in MGRS. ULP-WGS, when combined with targeted sequencing and diagnostic modalities such as mass spectrometry, has the potential to not only to aid in diagnosis and treatment selection on a practical basis, but also to begin to unravel the underlying genomics of this rare disease. This approach has potential to serve as a platform for further genomic exploration and biomarker development in MGRS.

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.

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.

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.

Abstract INTRODUCTION This ongoing, prospective study examines the effectiveness of methods used to successfully recruit and retain 238 Black older adults in a longitudinal, observational Alzheimer's disease (AD) study. METHODS Recruitment strategies included traditional media, established research registries, speaking engagements, community events, and snowball sampling. Participants were asked to complete an annual office testing session, blood‐based biomarker collection, optional one‐time magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan, and community workshop. RESULTS Within the first 22 months of active recruitment, 629 individuals expressed interest in participating, and 238 enrolled in the ongoing study. Of the recruitment methods used, snowball sampling, community events, and speaking engagements were the most effective. DISCUSSION The systemic underrepresentation of Black participants in AD research impacts the ability to generalize research findings and determine the effectiveness and safety of disease‐modifying treatments. Research to slow, stop, or prevent AD remains a top priority but requires diversity in sample representation. Highlights Provide flexible appointments in the evening or weekends, offering transportation assistance, and allowing participants to complete study visits at alternative locations, such as senior centers or community centers. Continuously monitor and analyze recruitment data to identify trends, challenges, and opportunities for improvement. Implement targeted strategies to recruit participants who are underrepresented based on sex, gender, or education to increase representation. Diversify the research team to include members who reflect the racial and cultural backgrounds of the target population, to enhance trust and rapport with prospective participants.