Citations

Noncirrhotic portal hypertension has historically been described using heterogeneous and region-specific terminology—such as idiopathic portal hypertension (IPH), noncirrhotic portal fibrosis (NCPF), obliterative portal venopathy, and nodular regenerative hyperplasia—leading to substantial variability in diagnosis, reporting, and international research collaboration. Differences in guideline definitions from major societies (AASLD, EASL, and APASL), together with the presence of characteristic histologic lesions in patients without clinically overt portal hypertension, have further complicated disease classification. To address these challenges, a large, multisociety, international initiative was convened to harmonize nomenclature and diagnostic criteria. Representatives from liver, pathology, and pediatric hepatology societies across the Americas, Europe, and Asia participated in a structured consensus process that included specialized working groups and external Delphi validation. The initiative produced a globally harmonized and implementable diagnostic framework. Consensus was reached that the terms porto-sinusoidal vascular disorder (PSVD) and NCPF may be used interchangeably when identical diagnostic criteria are applied, and that they should be written as PSVD or NCPF . The diagnosis was defined as fundamentally clinicopathological, requiring integrated assessment. Core principles include the need for a high-quality liver biopsy (≥10 mm), mandatory exclusion of cirrhosis, and systematic exclusion of specific alternative conditions. Importantly, the consensus recognizes that PSVD or NCPF may be diagnosed even without clinical portal hypertension and may coexist with other liver diseases, provided cirrhosis is excluded. Standardized major and minor histologic criteria were developed collaboratively by expert pathologists and externally validated. Features of portal hypertension were harmonized into specific and nonspecific categories applicable to routine clinical practice. An integrated diagnostic scoring system incorporating histology, clinical features, associated conditions, and concommitant etiologies was developed and validated using the Delphi method. This consensus provides the first internationally endorsed, unified framework for the diagnosis of PSVD or NCPF. Its global implementation is expected to reduce diagnostic variability, improve comparability across regions, and facilitate the development of robust, internationally harmonized clinical and translational research cohorts.

Abstract Objectives The aim of this work was to develop an American Headache Society position statement addressing diagnostic screening for migraine among girls and women. Background Despite its high prevalence and substantial negative impacts, migraine is underdiagnosed and undertreated. Diagnostic screening for migraine enables more patients to receive timely, appropriate, and effective management. Methods Development of this position statement followed the rules established by the American Headache Society Guidelines Committee. The published literature was reviewed to determine if migraine meets criteria for when disease screening is justified, to guide recommendations for screening tools, and to determine subpopulation(s) for which migraine screening is indicated. After author consensus was reached, the position statement was reviewed and approved by the American Headache Society Board of Directors. Results Migraine fulfills established criteria for conditions in which screening is appropriate since it is highly prevalent, results in significant morbidity, and exerts substantial economic and social costs. Migraine incidence and prevalence are exceptionally high among girls and women during adolescence and through menopause. Furthermore, there are valid and reliable diagnostic screening methods (e.g., ID Migraine) and effective treatments that reduce migraine symptoms and disease impact. Conclusion Yearly diagnostic screening for migraine should be included as part of women's preventive healthcare services, particularly from adolescence to menopause.

Abstract Immune checkpoint inhibitor–associated immune thrombocytopenia (ICI-ITP) has been described in case reports and small case series, but comprehensive data on its incidence, risk factors, clinical features, treatment, and outcomes are lacking. We reviewed medical records of all adults initiating ICI therapy between 2016 and 2023 at 29 US hospitals across 7 major cancer centers to identify patients with ICI-ITP. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify risk factors, and Cox modeling was performed to assess the association between ICI-ITP, its severity, and mortality. Among 86 467 patients, ICI-ITP occurred in 214 (0.25%). Independent risk factors included lower baseline platelet count, combination ICI therapy, stage IV cancer, and additional immune-related adverse events. ICI-ITP occurred at a median of 8 weeks (interquartile range [IQR], 4-18) after ICI initiation, with a median nadir platelet count of 41 × 109/L (IQR, 17 × 109/L to 64 × 109/L). Patients were treated with glucocorticoids (n = 106 [49.5%]), immune globulin (n = 39 [18.2%]), and thrombopoietin receptor agonists (n = 29 [13.6%]). Recovery occurred in 161 patients (75.2%) at a median of 2.3 weeks (IQR, 1.0-5.3). Of 76 patients rechallenged with ICIs, 23 (30.3%) developed recurrent ICI-ITP. ICI-ITP and its severity were associated with higher all-cause mortality, with a nearly threefold increase in risk among patients with severe ICI-ITP than those without ICI-ITP (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.96 [95% confidence interval, 2.14-4.08]). These findings establish ICI-ITP as a rare but clinically significant complication of ICI therapy, provide, to our knowledge, the first large-scale description of its risk factors and clinical course, and underscore the importance of timely recognition and management.

PURPOSE Patients with cancer take different types of medications with varying schedules and settings. They are also sometimes instructed to stop medications due to toxicity. To measure self-reported nonadherence in this heterogeneous population, we modified and evaluated a measure originally developed to assess nonadherence to daily oral antihypertensives, the Domains of Subjective Extent of Nonadherence (DOSE-Nonadherence). METHODS The measure was refined in an iterative process incorporating feedback from patient investigators and participant interviews in English and Spanish. Branching logic was added for participant selection of medication administration setting: (1) only home, (2) only clinic, or (3) partly home/partly clinic. Participants reported their adherence to medications taken over a setting-specific reference period (1 week for home, 1 month for clinic medications). Participants who missed medications then reported on reasons for nonadherence. Adherence was dichotomized for analysis (complete adherence v any nonadherence). For participants who received clinic-administered medications, concordance between chart-abstracted and self-reported adherence was evaluated. RESULTS Seventy-three participants completed the measure (68% English; 32% Spanish; 86% female; 44% age ≥60 years). The majority had breast cancer; 64% had metastatic disease. Twenty-six percent (15/58) of participants who received medication in clinic and 24% (11/46) of those who took medication at home reported nonadherence. Participants felt able to respond accurately to both reference periods and perceived all reasons for nonadherence to be relevant. Among participants who completed the final version of the measure for clinic-administered medication, 96% (26/27) accurately reported their adherence compared with chart-abstracted data. CONCLUSION Our results support the validity of the DOSE-Nonadherence-Cancer for assessing cancer treatment nonadherence. This measure can be used to assess nonadherence in patients with cancer receiving a broad array of systemic therapies.

ImportanceIdentifying factors associated with resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic can inform targeted interventions and resource allocation for groups disproportionately affected by systemic inequities.ObjectiveTo examine factors associated with self-reported resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic in racially and ethnically diverse, community-dwelling US adults.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cross-sectional study was conducted as part of the Collaborative Cohort of Cohorts for COVID-19 Research (C4R) study, which assessed the associations of the pandemic with self-reported resilience of participants from 14 established US prospective cohorts since January 2021. This report includes participants who responded to the self-reported resilience question on C4R questionnaires. Data was initially analyzed from October 2023 to May 2024, with updated analyses performed from August 2024 to April 2025.ExposureRace and ethnicity, behavior factors, health conditions, and social determinants of health measurements accessed before and during the COVID-19 pandemic through cohort visits and C4R questionnaires.Main Outcomes and MeasuresSelf-reported resilience was collected via 1 question (from the Brief Resilience Scale) in C4R questionnaires, “I tend to bounce back quickly after hard times.” Participants who answered agree or strongly agree were classified as resilient, and those who reported neutral, disagree, or strongly disagree were classified as not resilient. Modified Poisson regression was performed to estimate prevalence ratios (PRs) and access multivariable-adjusted associations with resilience.ResultsOf 31 045 participants (18 672 [60%] women; 10 746 [34.6%] aged <65 years), 1185 (3.8%) identified as American Indian, 6728 (21.7%) as Black, 293 (0.9%) as East Asian, 6311 (20.3%) as Hispanic, 565 (1.8%) as South Asian, and 15 961 (51.3%) as White; a total of 23 103 participants (74.4%) self-identified as resilient. Compared with White participants, Black and Hispanic participants had higher prevalence of self-reported resilience (adjusted PR [aPR], 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.06; aPR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.06-1.11; respectively) and American Indian and East Asian participants had lower prevalence (aPR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.86-0.94; aPR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.68-0.84; respectively). Higher education, being married or living as married, higher income, and overweight were also associated with higher prevalence of resilience. Being female, having diabetes, and being unemployed were associated with lower prevalence of self-reported resilience. Compared with participants with public insurance only, participants with private insurance had higher prevalence of resilience (aPR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.03-1.10). COVID-19 vaccination and infection statuses were not significantly associated with resilience. Modification analyses showed important racial and ethnic differences in how factors such as hypertension, marital status, and insurance status were associated with resilience.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cross-sectional study of 31 045 adults, self-reported resilience varied by race, ethnicity, and sociodemographic factors. These findings highlight the complex interplay of individual and social factors in shaping the perception of resilience.

Importance SARS-CoV-2 infection has been linked to neurotoxic effects and cognitive deficits. Objective To determine whether decreases in cognitive function were accelerated after SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with individuals not infected. Design, Setting, and Participants Multicenter, prospective cohort study from 2016 to 2022 among 3525 participants alive on March 1, 2020, and enrolled in The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study and the Collaborative Cohort of Cohorts for COVID-19 Research study who completed a prepandemic cognitive assessment and a pandemic-era assessment of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Final analyses performed in November 2024. Exposure SARS-CoV-2 infection determined via self-report of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test or health care professional diagnosis of COVID-19, a positive SARS-CoV-2 antinucleocapsid antibody response, or presence of an administrative code for COVID-19 on medical records. Main outcomes and measures A neuropsychological battery assessed multiple cognitive domains, and a cocalibrated confirmatory factor analysis generated factor scores for global cognitive function. The primary outcome was the rate of excess change in cognitive function. Results The 3525 eligible participants had a mean (SD) age of 80.8 (4.7) years, 2085 (59.1%) were female, 752 (21.4%) were Black, and 2773 (78.6%) were White. SARS-CoV-2 infection was detected among 307 participants (8.7%), 103 of whom (33.6%) were hospitalized. Among uninfected participants, the mean annualized change in cognitive function was −0.09 (95% CI, −0.13 to −0.04). Compared with this rate, change was faster (β = −0.06; 95% CI, −0.09 to −0.02) among participants hospitalized for infection, but not different from participants who were infected but not hospitalized (β = 0.00; 95% CI, −0.02 to 0.03). The association among participants hospitalized for infection was evident in the cognitive domains of memory and executive function, but not language. Conclusions and relevance This cohort study of older participants found accelerated decreases in cognition among individuals hospitalized for SARS-CoV-2 infection, but not nonhospitalized infection, in comparison with individuals not yet infected.

11106 Background: Patients with cancer take different types of medication (e.g., enteral, parenteral), with varying treatment schedules, in various settings. They are also sometimes instructed to stop medication in response to toxicity. To measure medication nonadherence in this heterogenous population, we modified and pilot-tested a self-report measure originally developed to assess nonadherence to daily oral medication, the Domains of Subjective Extent of Nonadherence (DOSE-Nonadherence), in adults with cancer. Methods: Participants were ≥21 years, on active cancer treatment at Memorial Sloan Kettering, and spoke English and/or Spanish. A branching logic was added to allow participants to select the setting where they take cancer medication: 1) only at home, 2) only in clinic, or 3) partly at home/partly in clinic. Based on administration setting, participants reported nonadherence to medications their clinician expected them to take over a given reference period (1 week for home and 1 month for clinic medications). Participants then reported on setting-relevant reasons for nonadherence. Survey instructions/items were refined in an iterative process using feedback from a patient investigator committee and participant cognitive interviews. During interviews, we asked participants about the interpretation of instructions/items, recall period, and comprehensiveness of reasons for nonadherence, regardless of their own adherence. After initial testing in English, a Spanish version was developed through transcreation. Adherence was dichotomized for analysis (complete adherence vs. any nonadherence). For all participants who received clinic medications, concordance between chart abstracted and self-reported adherence was evaluated. Results: Of 55 participants who completed the surveys and interviews (67% in English; 33% in Spanish), 87% were female and 44% identified as Latino. The majority (73%) had breast cancer; 60% had metastatic disease. 12 of 45 who received medication in clinic reported nonadherence as did 8 of 35 who took medication at home. Participants felt able to respond accurately to both recall periods. All reasons for nonadherence were perceived as relevant to themselves or other patients. There was 89% concordance between self-reported and chart abstracted adherence for clinic-administered medication. To improve concordance, changes were made to the formatting and instructions. Of 12 participants who completed the final version of the survey for clinic-administered medication, there was 100% concordance between self-reported and chart abstracted nonadherence. Conclusions: Our results support the reliability and validity of modified DOSE-Nonadherence for cancer patients. This instrument can be used to better identify nonadherence to cancer medications in a population of adult patients with cancer receiving various treatment regimens.

Abstract RATIONALE: Susceptibility to severe COVID-19 and long COVID may be influenced by pre-existing lung structure. ECG-gated, non-contrast cardiac CT scans, originally acquired for assessing coronary artery calcium, are available in multiple longitudinal cohort studies and have been previously validated against lung CT scans for densitometry; however, protocol variation across cohorts may hinder direct comparison. To address this, we developed a quality control (QC) rubric to grade cardiac CT scans for standardized quantitative lung measures across cohorts. METHODS: C4R assessed SARS-CoV-2 infection and outcomes in 14 NHLBI cohorts, of which 10 (six community-based and four longitudinal case-control studies) included CT scans (12,459 participants with lung and 13,752 with cardiac CTs). Logic rules were applied to categorize scans (Table): Grade “A-B” scans had 2-3.5mm slice thickness, at least 20 axial slices, no lung cropping in axial view and lung and airway volumes greater than the cohort-specific 1st percentile. “C-D” scans had one lung obscured by cropping around the heart, so quantitative measures were restricted to the lung in complete view. “F-H” scans were deemed unusable, suffering from low slice count (<20), severe image cropping, low lung or airway volumes (< 1st%ile). Visual inspection was performed on a sample from each category to ensure accuracy. Percent of lung voxels in low attenuation areas < -950 HU (LAA950), high attenuation areas (-600 to -250 HU, HAA) and 15th percentile HU value (perc15) were measured. Within-participant variability was quantified using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: We performed QC on cardiac CT scans from an initial sample of 6,275 participants from three C4R cohorts (ARIC, CARDIA, MASALA), imaged with GE or Siemens scanners. Of these, 5,125 (81.7%) were graded “A-B”, 496 (7.9%) were “C-D” and 654 (10.4%) were “F-H”. The percentage of “F-H” scans varied widely across cohorts [<1% to 26%] due to image cropping. Among the 5,621 cardiac CT scans graded A-D, the mean±SD for LAA950, HAA and perc15 respectively were 1.1±2.1%, 7.2±4.7% and -887±33 HU. Repeated imaging was available for 107 participants (time interval 5.1±0.7y). For paired scans in grades A-B (n=101/107), the within-participant correlation for LAA950, HAA and perc15 were 0.91, 0.38 and 0.74 respectively. CONCLUSION: Initial application of QC to cardiac CT scans identified scans with high reproducibility, with the aim to provide valid quantitative lung metrics on over 20,000 highly characterized participants in C4R.

Abstract RATIONALE: Chronic lower respiratory diseases (CLRD) confer higher risks from respiratory viral infections, hence CLRD patients are prioritized for influenza, pneumococcal, and COVID-19 vaccination. Nonetheless, vaccine deferral and declination remain common. Given that COVID-19 vaccination is particularly polarizing, and attitudes toward it may differ from other vaccines, we assessed COVID-19 vaccination behaviors and attitudes in adults with versus without CLRD and/or smoking history, which is strongly associated with CLRD risk. METHODS: We pooled data from 10 cohorts participating in the Collaborative Cohort of Cohorts for COVID-19 Research (C4R) that collected pre-pandemic data on self-reported physician diagnosis of asthma or COPD. C4R assessed COVID-19 vaccination status through three waves of standardized questionnaires (2020-2022, 2021-2023, 2023-2024). Prompt COVID-19 vaccination was defined as self-report of receiving at least one COVID-19 vaccine by May 1, 2021. Cumulative COVID-19 vaccine count was self-reported on the Wave 3 Questionnaire. Vaccine attitudes and receipt of influenza and/or pneumococcal vaccines were self-reported on the Wave 1 or 2 Questionnaire. Age-adjusted Poisson regression was used to test associations of vaccination behaviors with CLRD and smoking status at the most recent pre-pandemic exam. RESULTS: Of 20,034 participants (pre-pandemic COPD, 9.3%; asthma, 11.7%; current smoking, 13.4%; former smoking, 36.3%), 64.2% reported prompt COVID-19 vaccination. Among the subset of 10,626 participants completing the Wave 3 Questionnaire in 2023-24, the median COVID-19 vaccine count was 3 (Q1:2, Q3:4). Compared to participants without CLRD, prompt vaccination was more likely in those with asthma (RR=1.04, 95%CI:1.01-1.07, p=0.008) and less likely with COPD (RR=0.94, 95%CI:0.91-0.98, p=0.001), but there were no differences in doses for asthma and COPD. Compared to never smokers, former smoking participants were more likely to receive prompt vaccination (RR=1.11, 95%CI:1.08-1.13, p<0.0001) and more vaccine doses (RR=1.03, 95%CI:1.01-1.05, p=0.015); conversely, current smoking was inversely associated with prompt vaccination (RR=0.94, 95%CI:0.91-0.97, p=0.001) and was associated with fewer doses (RR=0.93, 95%CI:0.89-0.96, p<0.0001). Participants with CLRD versus without CLRD were more likely to report receiving influenza and pneumococcal vaccines, but they were more likely to believe that vaccines are unsafe or ineffective (figure). CONCLUSIONS: COPD was associated with lower likelihood of prompt COVID-19 vaccination. Current smoking was associated with both lower likelihood of prompt COVID-19 vaccination and a lower number of COVID-19 vaccine doses by 2023-24. These associations may be partly attributed to negative vaccine attitudes and beliefs. How the COVID-19 pandemic may have influenced vaccine behaviors and attitudes merits additional study.