Machine and deep learning models for accurate detection of ischemia and scar with myocardial blood flow positron emission tomography imaging.

BACKGROUND: Quantification of myocardial blood flow (MBF) is used for the noninvasive diagnosis of patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). This study compared traditional statistics, machine learning, and deep learning techniques in their ability to diagnose disease using only the rest and stress MBF values. METHODS: This study included 3245 rest and stress rubidium-82 positron emission tomography (PET) studies and matching diagnostic labels from perfusion reports. Standard logistic regression, lasso logistic regression, support vector machine, random forest, multilayer perceptron, and dense U-Net were compared for per-patient detection and per-vessel localization of scars and ischemia. RESULTS: Receiver-operator characteristic area under the curve (AUC) of machine learning models was significantly higher than those of traditional statistics models for per-patient detection of disease (0.92-0.95 vs. 0.87) but not for per-vessel localization of ischemia or scar. Random forest showed the highest AUC = 0.95 among the different models compared. On the final hold-out set for generalizability, random forest showed an AUC of 0.92 for detection and 0.89 for localization of perfusion abnormalities. CONCLUSIONS: For per-vessel localization, simple models trained on segmental data performed similarly to a convolutional neural network trained on polar-map data, highlighting the need to justify the use of complex predictive algorithms through comparison with simpler methods.

The role of WhatsApp™ in pediatric difficult airway management: A study from the PeDI Collaborative.

BACKGROUND: Management of the pediatric difficult airway can present unique clinical challenges. The Pediatric Difficult Intubation Collaborative (PeDI-C) is an international collaborative group engaging in quality improvement and research in children with difficult airways. The PeDI-C established a WhatsApp™ group to facilitate real-time discussions around the management of the difficult airway in pediatric patients. The goals of this study were to evaluate the patterns of use of the WhatsApp™ group, themes on messages posted on pediatric difficult airway management and to assess the perceived usefulness of the WhatsApp™ group by the PeDI-C members. METHOD: Following research ethics approval, we performed a database analysis on the archived discussion of the PeDI-C WhatsApp™ group from 2014 to 2019 and surveyed members to assess the perceived usefulness of the PeDI-C WhatsApp™ group. RESULTS: 5781 messages were reviewed with 350 (6.0%) original stems. The three most common original stem types were advice seeking 98 (28%), announcements 85 (24.2%), and clinical case-sharing 78 (22.2%). The median number of responses to original stems was 9 [2-21.3]. Post types associated with increased responses included those seeking advice on medication/equipment (regression coefficient 0.78, 95% CI [0.41-1.16]; p < .0001); seeking advice on patient care (regression coefficient 1.16, 95% CI [0.86-1.45]; p < .0001), sharing advice on medication/equipment availability (regression coefficient 0.87, 95% CI [0.33-1.40], p < .0016), and clinical case-sharing (regression coefficient 1.2547, 95% CI [0.9401-1.5693] p < .0001). 46/64 members of the group responded to the survey. Replies offering advice regarding patient management scenarios were found to be of most interest and 77% of surveyed members found the discussion translatable into their own clinical practice. DISCUSSION: The PeDI-C WhatsApp™ group has facilitated timely knowledge exchange on pediatric difficult airway management across the world. Participants are satisfied with the role the Whatsapp™ group is playing.

Behavioural interventions delivered through interactive social media for health behaviour change, health outcomes, and health equity in the adult population.

BACKGROUND: Social networking platforms offer a wide reach for public health interventions allowing communication with broad audiences using tools that are generally free and straightforward to use and may be combined with other components, such as public health policies. We define interactive social media as activities, practices, or behaviours among communities of people who have gathered online to interactively share information, knowledge, and opinions. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the effectiveness of interactive social media interventions, in which adults are able to communicate directly with each other, on changing health behaviours, body functions, psychological health, well-being, and adverse effects. Our secondary objective was to assess the effects of these interventions on the health of populations who experience health inequity as defined by PROGRESS-Plus. We assessed whether there is evidence about PROGRESS-Plus populations being included in studies and whether results are analysed across any of these characteristics. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE (including trial registries) and PsycINFO. We used Google, Web of Science, and relevant web sites to identify additional studies and searched reference lists of included studies. We searched for published and unpublished studies from 2001 until June 1, 2020. We did not limit results by language. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled before-and-after (CBAs) and interrupted time series studies (ITSs). We included studies in which the intervention website, app, or social media platform described a goal of changing a health behaviour, or included a behaviour change technique. The social media intervention had to be delivered to adults via a commonly-used social media platform or one that mimicked a commonly-used platform. We included studies comparing an interactive social media intervention alone or as a component of a multi-component intervention with either a non-interactive social media control or an active but less-interactive social media comparator (e.g. a moderated versus an unmoderated discussion group). Our main outcomes were health behaviours (e.g. physical activity), body function outcomes (e.g. blood glucose), psychological health outcomes (e.g. depression), well-being, and adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were process outcomes important for behaviour change and included knowledge, attitudes, intention and motivation, perceived susceptibility, self-efficacy, and social support. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used a pre-tested data extraction form and collected data independently, in duplicate. Because we aimed to assess broad outcomes, we extracted only one outcome per main and secondary outcome categories prioritised by those that were the primary outcome as reported by the study authors, used in a sample size calculation, and patient-important. MAIN RESULTS: We included 88 studies (871,378 participants), of which 84 were RCTs, three were CBAs and one was an ITS. The majority of the studies were conducted in the USA (54%). In total, 86% were conducted in high-income countries and the remaining 14% in upper middle-income countries. The most commonly used social media platform was Facebook (39%) with few studies utilising other platforms such as WeChat, Twitter, WhatsApp, and Google Hangouts. Many studies (48%) used web-based communities or apps that mimic functions of these well-known social media platforms. We compared studies assessing interactive social media interventions with non-interactive social media interventions, which included paper-based or in-person interventions or no intervention. We only reported the RCT results in our 'Summary of findings' table. We found a range of effects on health behaviours, such as breastfeeding, condom use, diet quality, medication adherence, medical screening and testing, physical activity, tobacco use, and vaccination. For example, these interventions may increase physical activity and medical screening tests but there was little to no effect for other health behaviours, such as improved diet or reduced tobacco use (20,139 participants in 54 RCTs). For body function outcomes, interactive social media interventions may result in small but important positive effects, such as a small but important positive effect on weight loss and a small but important reduction in resting heart rate (4521 participants in 30 RCTs). Interactive social media may improve overall well-being (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.79, moderate effect, low-certainty evidence) demonstrated by an increase of 3.77 points on a general well-being scale (from 1.15 to 6.48 points higher) where scores range from 14 to 70 (3792 participants in 16 studies). We found no difference in effect on psychological outcomes (depression and distress) representing a difference of 0.1 points on a standard scale in which scores range from 0 to 63 points (SMD -0.01, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.12, low-certainty evidence, 2070 participants in 12 RCTs). We also compared studies assessing interactive social media interventions with those with an active but less interactive social media control (11 studies). Four RCTs (1523 participants) that reported on physical activity found an improvement demonstrated by an increase of 28 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity per week (from 10 to 47 minutes more, SMD 0.35, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.59, small effect, very low-certainty evidence). Two studies found little to no difference in well-being for those in the intervention and control groups (SMD 0.02, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.13, small effect, low-certainty evidence), demonstrated by a mean change of 0.4 points on a scale with a range of 0 to 100. Adverse events related to the social media component of the interventions, such as privacy issues, were not reported in any of our included studies. We were unable to conduct planned subgroup analyses related to health equity as only four studies reported relevant data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review combined data for a variety of outcomes and found that social media interventions that aim to increase physical activity may be effective and social media interventions may improve well-being. While we assessed many other outcomes, there were too few studies to compare or, where there were studies, the evidence was uncertain. None of our included studies reported adverse effects related to the social media component of the intervention. Future studies should assess adverse events related to the interactive social media component and should report on population characteristics to increase our understanding of the potential effect of these interventions on reducing health inequities.

Effect of proton pump inhibitors on Rubidium-82 gastric uptake using positron emission tomography myocardial perfusion imaging.

BACKGROUND: Rb-82 positron emission tomography (PET) myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) is a robust tool for the evaluation of coronary artery disease (CAD). However, gastric uptake and spillover can be seen in 10% of Rb-82 PET MPI studies, commonly affecting the inferior wall, and can preclude the accurate identification of myocardial ischemia. We sought to understand the relationship between Rb-82 gastric uptake and the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPI). METHODS: 600 consecutive patients who presented for a clinically indicated Rb-82 PET MPI study were prospectively enrolled. In addition to the clinical history, PPI use was ascertained (medication, dose, frequency and duration of use, and time of last dose). Patients were categorized as PPI and non-PPI users. Rb-82 uptake in the gastrium, myocardium, and liver were measured at rest. Absolute uptake values and gastric:hepatic ratios were compared in PPI and non-PPI users. RESULT: Of 600 enrolled patients, 181 (30.2%) patients were using PPI. The gastric Rb-82 uptake in PPI users was 23% higher than non-PPI users (146 ± 52 kBq/cc vs 119 ± 40 kBq/cc, respectively; P < 0.001). The resting gastric:hepatic Rb-82 uptake ratio was also 23% higher in PPI vs non-PPI users (2.7 ± 1.0 vs 2.2 ± 0.8, respectively; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The gastric uptake of Rb-82 appears to be greater in patients actively using PPI and may identify a group who might be at greater risk of non-diagnostic Rb-82 PET MPI.

Impact of trainee involvement on patient radiation exposure and contrast volumes during invasive cardiac procedures.

PURPOSE: The impact of cardiology fellows (CFs) and interventional cardiology fellows (ICFs) on patient radiation and contrast exposure during diagnostic coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention is unknown. METHODS: Between 2011 and 2014, 16,175 cases were retrospectively assessed involving 27 CFs, 22 ICFs and 24 staff as primary operators. RESULTS: During diagnostic coronary angiography, ICFs administered the lowest radiation dose (5,648±5,523 cGy*cm2; 1.30 ± 1.27 mSv)-achieving 22% less radiation than the staff (6,889±4,294 cGy*cm2; 1.58 ± 0.99 mSv) and 36% less than CFs (7,700±6,751 cGy*cm2; 1.77 ± 1.55 mSv) (p<0.01). When adjusted for access site, CFs administered more radiation than either the ICFs or staff. However, differences between ICFs and staff were exclusively observed during transradial procedures (p<0.01). With regards to contrast administration, ICFs administered less contrast (126.3 ± 57.6 mL) than either CFs (130±52.4 mL) or staff (132.7±47.6 mL) (p<0.01)-again, a finding isolated to the transradial cohort. Of the 6,751 percutaneous coronary intervention cases, no significant differences existed between the ICFs or staff cardiologists in patient radiation exposure-but a CF as the primary operator resulted in an 18% increase in radiation exposure. Notably, contrast use was not different amongst the types of operators (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, having a cardiology fellow as primary operator during invasive cardiac procedures increases patient radiation exposure and minimally increases contrast administration. Strategies to minimize patient radiation exposure while maintaining trainee involvement should be evaluated.

Prognostic utility of splenic response ratio in dipyridamole PET myocardial perfusion imaging.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac magnetic resonance perfusion studies with adenosine stress have shown that splenic response can identify patients with inadequate pharmacologic stress. We investigate the incremental prognostic impact of splenic response ratio (SRR) in patients with normal Rubidium (Rb)-82 PET myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI). METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing dipyridamole Rb-82 PET MPI for the evaluation of coronary artery disease were screened. Spleen and liver Rb-82 activity was measured and the SRR was calculated: SRR = (Spleen stress/Liver stress)/(Spleen rest/Liver rest). Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were determined at 1 year of follow-up in patients with normal summed stress score and normal summed difference score. RESULTS: Of the 839 patients screened, the spleen was visualized in 703 (84%) of scans. There was significantly higher MACE observed in splenic non-responders vs splenic responders in both the normal SSS (7.8% vs 2.9%, P = .027) and the normal SDS groups (7.4% vs 2.2%, P = .014). In multivariate analysis in patients with normal SDS, splenic response was a significant, independent predictor of MACE (HR 2.97, 95% CI 1.10 to 8.04, P = .033). CONCLUSIONS: SRR is a novel imaging metric to identify patients with sub-maximal vasodilator stress and an incremental prognostic marker in patients with normal SDS and SSS (Clinical Trial Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01128023).

Prognostic value of age adjusted segment involvement score as measured by coronary computed tomography: a potential marker of vascular age.

Extent of coronary atherosclerotic disease (CAD) burden on coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) as measured by segment involvement score (SIS) has a prognostic value. We sought to investigate the incremental prognostic value of 'age adjusted SIS' (aSIS), which may be a marker of premature atherosclerosis and vascular age. Consecutive patients were prospectively enrolled into the CONFIRM (Coronary CT Angiography EvaluatioN For Clinical Outcomes: An InteRnational Multicentre) multinational observational study. Patients were followed for the outcome of all-cause death. aSIS was calculated on CCTA for each patient, and its incremental prognostic value was evaluated. A total of 22,211 patients [mean age 58.5 ± 12.7 years, 55.8% male) with a median follow-up of 27.3 months (IQR 17.8, 35.4)] were identified. After adjustment for clinical factors and presence of obstructive CAD, higher aSIS was associated with increased death on multivariable analysis, with hazard ratio (HR) 2.40 (1.83-3.16, p < 0.001), C-statistic 0.723 (0.700-0.756), net reclassification improvement (NRI) 0.36 (0.26-0.47, p < 0.001), and relative integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) 0.33 (p = 0.009). aSIS had HR 3.48 (2.33-5.18, p < 0.001) for mortality in those without obstructive CAD, compared to HR 1.79 (1.25-2.58, p = 0.02) in those with obstructive CAD. In conclusion, aSIS has an incremental prognostic value to traditional risk factors and obstructive CAD, and may enhance CCTA risk stratification.

Appropriate Use Criteria for Cardiac Computed Tomography: Impact on Diagnostic Utility.

BACKGROUND: Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) guidelines for cardiac computed tomography (CCT) were developed to limit testing to reasonable clinical settings. However, significant testing is still done for inappropriate indications. This study investigates the impact of AUC on evaluability of CCT to determine if inappropriate tests result in a greater proportion of nondiagnostic results. METHODS: Investigators reviewed the medical records of 2417 consecutive patients who underwent CCT at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute. We applied the 2010 AUC and classified them as appropriate, inappropriate, or uncertain. Unclassifiable tests, as well as those with uncertain appropriateness, were excluded from the final analysis. Cardiac computed tomography results were classified as diagnostic if (1) all coronary segments were visualized, evaluable, and without obstructive stenosis; or (2) obstructive coronary artery disease with greater than 50% diameter stenosis in at least 1 coronary artery. All other test results were considered nondiagnostic. RESULTS: Of the 1984 patients included in the final analysis, 1522 patients (76.7%) had indications that were appropriate, whereas the remaining 462 (23.3%) were inappropriate. Inappropriate tests resulted in a higher rate of nondiagnostic results compared with appropriate CCT (9.0% vs 6.2%, P = 0.034). Inappropriate tests also had significantly more studies with nonevaluable segments than appropriate tests (24.5% vs 16.4%, P < 0.001) and were more likely to reveal obstructive coronary disease than appropriate CCT (50.5% vs 32.7%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac computed tomography done for inappropriate indications may be associated with lower diagnostic yield and could impact future downstream resource utilization and health care costs.

Biologics or tofacitinib for people with rheumatoid arthritis naive to methotrexate: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (biologics) are highly effective in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), however there are few head-to-head biologic comparison studies. We performed a systematic review, a standard meta-analysis and a network meta-analysis (NMA) to update the 2009 Cochrane Overview. This review is focused on the adults with RA who are naive to methotrexate (MTX) that is, receiving their first disease-modifying agent. OBJECTIVES: To compare the benefits and harms of biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) and small molecule tofacitinib versus comparator (methotrexate (MTX)/other DMARDs) in people with RA who are naive to methotrexate. METHODS: In June 2015 we searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase; and trials registers. We used standard Cochrane methods. We calculated odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) along with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for traditional meta-analyses and 95% credible intervals (CrI) using a Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons approach for network meta-analysis (NMA). We converted OR to risk ratios (RR) for ease of interpretation. We also present results in absolute measures as risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial or harmful outcome (NNTB/H). MAIN RESULTS: Nineteen RCTs with 6485 participants met inclusion criteria (including five studies from the original 2009 review), and data were available for four TNF biologics (adalimumab (six studies; 1851 participants), etanercept (three studies; 678 participants), golimumab (one study; 637 participants) and infliximab (seven studies; 1363 participants)) and two non-TNF biologics (abatacept (one study; 509 participants) and rituximab (one study; 748 participants)).Less than 50% of the studies were judged to be at low risk of bias for allocation sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding, 21% were at low risk for selective reporting, 53% had low risk of bias for attrition and 89% had low risk of bias for major baseline imbalance. Three trials used biologic monotherapy, that is, without MTX. There were no trials with placebo-only comparators and no trials of tofacitinib. Trial duration ranged from 6 to 24 months. Half of the trials contained participants with early RA (less than two years' duration) and the other half included participants with established RA (2 to 10 years). Biologic + MTX versus active comparator (MTX (17 trials (6344 participants)/MTX + methylprednisolone 2 trials (141 participants))In traditional meta-analyses, there was moderate-quality evidence downgraded for inconsistency that biologics with MTX were associated with statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit versus comparator as demonstrated by ACR50 (American College of Rheumatology scale) and RA remission rates. For ACR50, biologics with MTX showed a risk ratio (RR) of 1.40 (95% CI 1.30 to 1.49), absolute difference of 16% (95% CI 13% to 20%) and NNTB = 7 (95% CI 6 to 8). For RA remission rates, biologics with MTX showed a RR of 1.62 (95% CI 1.33 to 1.98), absolute difference of 15% (95% CI 11% to 19%) and NNTB = 5 (95% CI 6 to 7). Biologics with MTX were also associated with a statistically significant, but not clinically meaningful, benefit in physical function (moderate-quality evidence downgraded for inconsistency), with an improvement of HAQ scores of -0.10 (95% CI -0.16 to -0.04 on a 0 to 3 scale), absolute difference -3.3% (95% CI -5.3% to -1.3%) and NNTB = 4 (95% CI 2 to 15).We did not observe evidence of differences between biologics with MTX compared to MTX for radiographic progression (low-quality evidence, downgraded for imprecision and inconsistency) or serious adverse events (moderate-quality evidence, downgraded for imprecision). Based on low-quality evidence, results were inconclusive for withdrawals due to adverse events (RR of 1.32, but 95% confidence interval included possibility of important harm, 0.89 to 1.97). Results for cancer were also inconclusive (Peto OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.33) and downgraded to low-quality evidence for serious imprecision. Biologic without MTX versus active comparator (MTX 3 trials (866 participants)There was no evidence of statistically significant or clinically important differences for ACR50, HAQ, remission, (moderate-quality evidence for these benefits, downgraded for imprecision), withdrawals due to adverse events,and serious adverse events (low-quality evidence for these harms, downgraded for serious imprecision). All studies were for TNF biologic monotherapy and none for non-TNF biologic monotherapy. Radiographic progression was not measured. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In MTX-naive RA participants, there was moderate-quality evidence that, compared with MTX alone, biologics with MTX was associated with absolute and relative clinically meaningful benefits in three of the efficacy outcomes (ACR50, HAQ scores, and RA remission rates). A benefit regarding less radiographic progression with biologics with MTX was not evident (low-quality evidence). We found moderate- to low-quality evidence that biologic therapy with MTX was not associated with any higher risk of serious adverse events compared with MTX, but results were inconclusive for withdrawals due to adverse events and cancer to 24 months.TNF biologic monotherapy did not differ statistically significantly or clinically meaningfully from MTX for any of the outcomes (moderate-quality evidence), and no data were available for non-TNF biologic monotherapy.We conclude that biologic with MTX use in MTX-naive populations is beneficial and that there is little/inconclusive evidence of harms. More data are needed for tofacitinib, radiographic progression and harms in this patient population to fully assess comparative efficacy and safety.

Biologics or tofacitinib for people with rheumatoid arthritis unsuccessfully treated with biologics: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs: referred to as biologics) are effective in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), however there are few head-to-head comparison studies. Our systematic review, standard meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) updates the 2009 Cochrane overview, 'Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA)' and adds new data. This review is focused on biologic or tofacitinib therapy in people with RA who had previously been treated unsuccessfully with biologics. OBJECTIVES: To compare the benefits and harms of biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) and small molecule tofacitinib versus comparator (placebo or methotrexate (MTX)/other DMARDs) in people with RA, previously unsuccessfully treated with biologics. METHODS: On 22 June 2015 we searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase; and trials registries (WHO trials register, Clinicaltrials.gov). We carried out article selection, data extraction, and risk of bias and GRADE assessments in duplicate. We calculated direct estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using standard meta-analysis. We used a Bayesian mixed treatment comparison (MTC) approach for NMA estimates with 95% credible intervals (CrI). We converted odds ratios (OR) to risk ratios (RR) for ease of understanding. We have also presented results in absolute measures as risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB). Outcomes measured included four benefits (ACR50, function measured by Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score, remission defined as DAS < 1.6 or DAS28 < 2.6, slowing of radiographic progression) and three harms (withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events, and cancer). MAIN RESULTS: This update includes nine new RCTs for a total of 12 RCTs that included 3364 participants. The comparator was placebo only in three RCTs (548 participants), MTX or other traditional DMARD in six RCTs (2468 participants), and another biologic in three RCTs (348 participants). Data were available for four tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-biologics: (certolizumab pegol (1 study; 37 participants), etanercept (3 studies; 348 participants), golimumab (1 study; 461 participants), infliximab (1 study; 27 participants)), three non-TNF biologics (abatacept (3 studies; 632 participants), rituximab (2 studies; 1019 participants), and tocilizumab (2 studies; 589 participants)); there was only one study for tofacitinib (399 participants). The majority of the trials (10/12) lasted less than 12 months.We judged 33% of the studies at low risk of bias for allocation sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding, 25% had low risk of bias for attrition, 92% were at unclear risk for selective reporting; and 92% had low risk of bias for major baseline imbalance. We downgraded the quality of the evidence for most outcomes to moderate or low due to study limitations, heterogeneity, or rarity of direct comparator trials. Biologic monotherapy versus placeboCompared to placebo, biologics were associated with clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in RA as demonstrated by higher ACR50 and RA remission rates. RR was 4.10 for ACR50 (95% CI 1.97 to 8.55; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 14% (95% CI 6% to 21%); and NNTB = 8 (95% CI 4 to 23). RR for RA remission was 13.51 (95% CI 1.85 to 98.45, one study available; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 9% (95% CI 5% to 13%); and NNTB = 11 (95% CI 3 to 136). Results for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events did not show any statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences. There were no studies available for analysis for function measured by HAQ, radiographic progression, or cancer outcomes. There were not enough data for any of the outcomes to look at subgroups. Biologic + MTX versus active comparator (MTX/other traditional DMARDs)Compared to MTX/other traditional DMARDs, biologic + MTX was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50, function measured by HAQ, and RA remission rates in direct comparisons. RR for ACR50 was 4.07 (95% CI 2.76 to 5.99; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 16% (10% to 21%); NNTB = 7 (95% CI 5 to 11). HAQ scores showed an improvement with a mean difference (MD) of 0.29 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.36; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 9.7% improvement (95% CI 7% to 12%); and NNTB = 5 (95% CI 4 to 7). Remission rates showed an improved RR of 20.73 (95% CI 4.13 to 104.16; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 10% (95% CI 8% to 13%); and NNTB = 17 (95% CI 4 to 96), among the biologic + MTX group compared to MTX/other DMARDs. There were no studies for radiographic progression. Results were not clinically meaningful or statistically significantly different for withdrawals due to adverse events or serious adverse events, and were inconclusive for cancer. Tofacitinib monotherapy versus placeboThere were no published data. Tofacitinib + MTX versus active comparator (MTX)In one study, compared to MTX, tofacitinib + MTX was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50 (RR 3.24; 95% CI 1.78 to 5.89; absolute benefit RD 19% (95% CI 12% to 26%); NNTB = 6 (95% CI 3 to 14); moderate-quality evidence), and function measured by HAQ, MD 0.27 improvement (95% CI 0.14 to 0.39); absolute benefit RD 9% (95% CI 4.7% to 13%), NNTB = 5 (95% CI 4 to 10); high-quality evidence). RA remission rates were not statistically significantly different but the observed difference may be clinically meaningful (RR 15.44 (95% CI 0.93 to 256.1; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 6% (95% CI 3% to 9%); NNTB could not be calculated. There were no studies for radiographic progression. There were no statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events, and results were inconclusive for cancer. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Biologic (with or without MTX) or tofacitinib (with MTX) use was associated with clinically meaningful and statistically significant benefits (ACR50, HAQ, remission) compared to placebo or an active comparator (MTX/other traditional DMARDs) among people with RA previously unsuccessfully treated with biologics.No studies examined radiographic progression. Results were not clinically meaningful or statistically significant for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events, and were inconclusive for cancer.

Risk of serious infections with immunosuppressive drugs and glucocorticoids for lupus nephritis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: To perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the risk of serious infections with immunosuppressive medications and glucocorticoids in lupus nephritis. METHODS: A trained librarian performed two searches: (1) PubMed for all lupus nephritis trials from the end dates for the systematic review for the 2012 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) lupus nephritis treatment guidelines and the 2012 Cochrane Systematic Review on treatments for lupus nephritis, to September 2013; and (2) PubMed and SCOPUS for all lupus trials (excluding lupus nephritis) from inception to February 2014, to obtain additional trials for harms data in any lupus patient. The search was updated to May 2016. Duplicate title/abstract review and duplicate data abstractions by two abstractors independently was performed for all eligible studies, including those studies abstracted for the 2012 ACR lupus nephritis treatment guidelines and the 2012 Cochrane Systematic Review on lupus nephritis treatments. We performed a systematic review and a Bayesian NMA, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of immunosuppressive drugs or glucocorticoids in patients with lupus nephritis assessing serious infection risk. Markov chain Monte Carlo methods were used to model 95 % credible intervals (CrI). Sensitivity analyses examined the robustness of estimates. RESULTS: A total of 32 RCTs with 2611 patients provided data. There were 26 two-arm, five three-arm, and one four-arm trials. We found that tacrolimus was associated with significantly lower risk of serious infections compared to glucocorticoids, cyclophosphamide (CYC), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), and azathioprine (AZA) with odds ratios (95 % CrI) of 0.33 (0.12-0.88), 0.37 (0.15-0.87), 0.340 (0.18-0.81), and 0.32 (0.12-0.81), respectively. Conversely, CYC low dose (LD), CYC high dose (HD), and HD glucocorticoids were associated with higher odds of serious infections compared to tacrolimus, ranging from 4.84 to 12.83. We also found that MMF followed by AZA (MMF-AZA) was associated with significantly lower risk of serious infections as compared to CYC LD, CYC HD, CYC-AZA, or HD glucocorticoids with odds ratios (95 % CrI) of 0.09 (0.01-0.76), 0.07 (0.01-0.54), 0.14 (0.02-0.71), and 0.03 (0.00-0.56), respectively. Estimates were similar to pair-wise meta-analyses. Sensitivity analyses that varied estimate (odds ratio vs. Peto's odds ratio), method (random vs. fixed effects model), data (sepsis vs. serious infection data; exclusion of observational studies), treatment grouping (CYC and CYC HD as a combined treatment group vs. separate), made little/no difference to these estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Tacrolimus and MMF-AZA combination were associated with lower risk of serious infections compared to other immunosuppressive drugs or glucocorticoids for lupus nephritis. In conjunction with comparative efficacy data, these data can help patients make informed decisions about treatment options for lupus nephritis. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42016032965.

Biologic or tofacitinib monotherapy for rheumatoid arthritis in people with traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) failure: a Cochrane Systematic Review and network meta-analysis (NMA).

BACKGROUND: We performed a systematic review, a standard meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA), which updates the 2009 Cochrane Overview, 'Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA)'. This review is focused on biologic monotherapy in people with RA in whom treatment with traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) including methotrexate (MTX) had failed (MTX/other DMARD-experienced). OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of biologic monotherapy (includes anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab) or non-TNF (abatacept, anakinra, rituximab, tocilizumab)) or tofacitinib monotherapy (oral small molecule) versus comparator (placebo or MTX/other DMARDs) in adults with RA who were MTX/other DMARD-experienced. METHODS: We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 6, June), MEDLINE (via OVID 1946 to June 2015), and Embase (via OVID 1947 to June 2015). Article selection, data extraction and risk of bias and GRADE assessments were done in duplicate. We calculated direct estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using standard meta-analysis. We used a Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons (MTC) approach for NMA estimates with 95% credible intervals (CrI). We converted odds ratios (OR) to risk ratios (RR) for ease of understanding. We calculated absolute measures as risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB). MAIN RESULTS: This update includes 40 new RCTs for a total of 46 RCTs, of which 41 studies with 14,049 participants provided data. The comparator was placebo in 16 RCTs (4,532 patients), MTX or other DMARD in 13 RCTs (5,602 patients), and another biologic in 12 RCTs (3,915 patients). Monotherapy versus placeboBased on moderate-quality direct evidence, biologic monotherapy (without concurrent MTX/other DMARDs) was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in American College of Rheumatology score (ACR50) and physical function, as measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) versus placebo. RR was 4.68 for ACR50 (95% CI, 2.93 to 7.48); absolute benefit RD 23% (95% CI, 18% to 29%); and NNTB = 5 (95% CI, 3 to 8). The mean difference (MD) was -0.32 for HAQ (95% CI, -0.42 to -0.23; a negative sign represents greater HAQ improvement); absolute benefit of -10.7% (95% CI, -14% to -7.7%); and NNTB = 4 (95% CI, 3 to 5). Direct and NMA estimates for TNF biologic, non-TNF biologic or tofacitinib monotherapy showed similar results for ACR50 , downgraded to moderate-quality evidence. Direct and NMA estimates for TNF biologic, anakinra or tofacitinib monotherapy showed a similar results for HAQ versus placebo with mostly moderate quality evidence.Based on moderate-quality direct evidence, biologic monotherapy was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant greater proportion of disease remission versus placebo with RR 1.12 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.22); absolute benefit 10% (95% CI, 3% to 17%; NNTB = 10 (95% CI, 8 to 21)).Based on low-quality direct evidence, results for biologic monotherapy for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events were inconclusive, with wide confidence intervals encompassing the null effect and evidence of an important increase. The direct estimate for TNF monotherapy for withdrawals due to adverse events showed a clinically meaningful and statistically significant result with RR 2.02 (95% CI, 1.08 to 3.78), absolute benefit RD 3% (95% CI,1% to 4%), based on moderate-quality evidence. The NMA estimates for TNF biologic, non-TNF biologic, anakinra, or tofacitinib monotherapy for withdrawals due to adverse events and for serious adverse events were all inconclusive and downgraded to low-quality evidence. Monotherapy versus active comparator (MTX/other DMARDs)Based on direct evidence of moderate quality, biologic monotherapy (without concurrent MTX/other DMARDs) was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50 and HAQ scores versus MTX/other DMARDs with a RR of 1.54 (95% CI, 1.14 to 2.08); absolute benefit 13% (95% CI, 2% to 23%), NNTB = 7 (95% CI, 4 to 26) and a mean difference in HAQ of -0.27 (95% CI, -0.40 to -0.14); absolute benefit of -9% (95% CI, -13.3% to -4.7%), NNTB = 2 (95% CI, 2 to 4). Direct and NMA estimates for TNF monotherapy and NMA estimate for non-TNF biologic monotherapy for ACR50 showed similar results, based on moderate-quality evidence. Direct and NMA estimates for non-TNF biologic monotherapy, but not TNF monotherapy, showed similar HAQ improvements , based on mostly moderate-quality evidence.There were no statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences for direct estimates of biologic monotherapy versus active comparator for RA disease remission. NMA estimates showed a statistically significant and clinically meaningful difference versus active comparator for TNF monotherapy (absolute improvement 7% (95% CI, 2% to 14%)) and non-TNF monotherapy (absolute improvement 19% (95% CrI, 7% to 36%)), both downgraded to moderate quality.Based on moderate-quality direct evidence from a single study, radiographic progression (scale 0 to 448) was statistically significantly reduced in those on biologic monotherapy versus active comparator, MD -4.34 (95% CI, -7.56 to -1.12), though the absolute reduction was small, -0.97% (95% CI, -1.69% to -0.25%). We are not sure of the clinical relevance of this reduction.Direct and NMA evidence (downgraded to low quality), showed inconclusive results for withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events and cancer, with wide confidence intervals encompassing the null effect and evidence of an important increase. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based mostly on RCTs of six to 12-month duration in people with RA who had previously experienced and failed treatment with MTX/other DMARDs, biologic monotherapy improved ACR50, function and RA remission rates compared to placebo or MTX/other DMARDs.Radiographic progression was reduced versus active comparator, although the clinical significance was unclear.Results were inconclusive for whether biologic monotherapy was associated with an increased risk of withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events or cancer, versus placebo (no data on cancer) or MTX/other DMARDs.

Biologics or tofacitinib for rheumatoid arthritis in incomplete responders to methotrexate or other traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This is an update of the 2009 Cochrane overview and network meta-analysis (NMA) of biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of nine biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) and small molecule tofacitinib, versus comparator (MTX, DMARD, placebo (PL), or a combination) in adults with rheumatoid arthritis who have failed to respond to methotrexate (MTX) or other disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), i.e., MTX/DMARD incomplete responders (MTX/DMARD-IR). METHODS: We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (via The Cochrane Library Issue 6, June 2015), MEDLINE (via OVID 1946 to June 2015), and EMBASE (via OVID 1947 to June 2015). Data extraction, risk of bias and GRADE assessments were done in duplicate. We calculated both direct estimates using standard meta-analysis and used Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons approach for NMA estimates to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% credible intervals (CrI). We converted OR to risk ratios (RR) which are reported in the abstract for the ease of interpretation. MAIN RESULTS: This update included 73 new RCTs for a total of 90 RCTs; 79 RCTs with 32,874 participants provided usable data. Few trials were at high risk of bias for blinding of assessors/participants (13% to 21%), selective reporting (4%) or major baseline imbalance (8%); a large number had unclear risk of bias for random sequence generation (68%) or allocation concealment (74%).Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in ACR50 versus comparator (RR 2.71 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.36 to 3.10); absolute benefit 24% more patients (95% CI 19% to 29%), number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 5 (4 to 6). NMA estimates for ACR50 in tumor necrosis factor (TNF) biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 3.23 (95% credible interval (Crl) 2.75 to 3.79), non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 2.99; 95% Crl 2.36 to 3.74), and anakinra + MTX/DMARD (RR 2.37 (95% Crl 1.00 to 4.70) were similar to the direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with a clinically and statistically important improvement in function measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire (0 to 3 scale, higher = worse function) with a mean difference (MD) based on direct evidence of -0.25 (95% CI -0.28 to -0.22); absolute benefit of -8.3% (95% CI -9.3% to -7.3%), NNTB = 3 (95% CI 2 to 4). NMA estimates for TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute benefit, -10.3% (95% Crl -14% to -6.7%) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute benefit, -7.3% (95% Crl -13.6% to -0.67%) were similar to respective direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with clinically and statistically significantly greater proportion of participants achieving remission in RA (defined by disease activity score DAS < 1.6 or DAS28 < 2.6) versus comparator (RR 2.81 (95% CI, 2.23 to 3.53); absolute benefit 18% more patients (95% CI 12% to 25%), NNTB = 6 (4 to 9)). NMA estimates for TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute improvement 17% (95% Crl 11% to 23%)) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute improvement 19% (95% Crl 12% to 28%) were similar to respective direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), radiographic progression (scale 0 to 448) was statistically significantly reduced in those on biologics + MTX/DMARDs versus comparator, MD -2.61 (95% CI -4.08 to -1.14). The absolute reduction was small, -0.58% (95% CI -0.91% to -0.25%) and we are unsure of the clinical relevance of this reduction. NMA estimates of TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute reduction -0.67% (95% Crl -1.4% to -0.12%) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute reduction, -0.68% (95% Crl -2.36% to 0.92%)) were similar to respective direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for imprecision), results for withdrawals due to adverse events were inconclusive, with wide confidence intervals encompassing the null effect and evidence of an important increase in withdrawals, RR 1.11 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.30). The NMA estimates of TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 1.24 (95% Crl 0.99 to 1.57)) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 1.20 (95% Crl 0.87 to 1.67)) were similarly inconclusive and downgraded to low for both imprecision and indirectness.Based on direct evidence of high quality, biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with clinically significantly increased risk (statistically borderline significant) of serious adverse events on biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR [can be interpreted as RR due to low event rate] 1.12 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.27); absolute risk 1% (0% to 2%), As well, the NMA estimate for TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR 1.20 (95% Crl 1.01 to 1.43)) showed moderate quality evidence of an increase in the risk of serious adverse events. The other two NMA estimates were downgraded to low quality due to imprecision and indirectness and had wide confidence intervals resulting in uncertainty around the estimates: non-TNF biologics + MTX/DMARD: 1.07 (95% Crl 0.89 to 1.29) and anakinra: RR 1.06 (95% Crl 0.65 to 1.75).Based on direct evidence of low quality (downgraded for serious imprecision), results were inconclusive for cancer (Peto OR 1.07 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.68) for all biologic+MTX/DMARD combinations. The NMA estimates of TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR 1.21 (95% Crl 0.63 to 2.38) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR 0.99 (95% Crl 0.58 to 1.78)) were similarly inconclusive and downgraded to low quality for both imprecision and indirectness.Main results text shows the results for tofacitinib and differences between medications. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based primarily on RCTs of 6 months' to 12 months' duration, there is moderate quality evidence that the use of biologic+MTX/DMARD in people with rheumatoid arthritis who have failed to respond to MTX or other DMARDs results in clinically important improvement in function and higher ACR50 and remission rates, and increased risk of serious adverse events than the comparator (MTX/DMARD/PL; high quality evidence). Radiographic progression is slowed but its clinical relevance is uncertain. Results were inconclusive for whether biologics + MTX/DMARDs are associated with an increased risk of cancer or withdrawals due to adverse events.

Asthma incidence and risk factors in a national longitudinal sample of adolescent Canadians: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Estimates of asthma incidence and its possible determinants in adolescent populations have rarely been obtained using prospective designs. We sought to identify socio-demographic and other patterns in the incidence of asthma among Canadian adolescents and to examine possible behavioural and environmental determinants of asthma incidence using longitudinal analyses. METHODS: We used data from the National Population Health Survey (NPHS), a nationally representative longitudinal survey of Canadians. All persons aged 12-18 years without asthma at baseline were followed up to a maximum of 12 years. The outcome was a reported diagnosis of asthma during the follow-up period. Analyses were weighted to the population and bootstrapping procedures were used to estimate variances. RESULTS: Participants (n = 956) represented 2,038,890 adolescents of whom 293,450 (14.4%) developed asthma over the 21,274,890 person-years of follow-up. Overall, the incidence of asthma was 10.2 per 1000 person-years. In adjusted Cox regression analysis, being female (HR = 2.13, 95% CI = 1.26-3.62, p = 0.005) and being exposed to passive smoking (HR = 2.06, 95% CI = 1.27-3.34, p = 0.003) were associated with the development of asthma while no statistically significant associations were identified for rural residence, being overweight, and other health behaviours. There was also an apparent cohort effect among girls where girls who were older at baseline reported being diagnosed with asthma more over the follow-up than their younger counterparts. This was not observed among males. CONCLUSIONS: Asthma prevention initiatives for adolescents should target girls and focus on smoking exposures. The role that differential diagnostic patterns play in these observations should be investigated to more accurately assess the incidence of asthma.

Management and Outcomes of Very Long-Chain Acyl-CoA Dehydrogenase Deficiency (VLCAD Deficiency): A Retrospective Chart Review.

Very long-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase (VLCAD) deficiency is a rare genetic condition affecting the mitochondrial beta-oxidation of long-chain fatty acids. This study reports on the clinical outcomes of patients diagnosed by newborn screening with VLCAD deficiency comparing metabolic parameters, enzyme activities, molecular results, and clinical management. It is a single-center retrospective chart review of VLCAD deficiency patients who met the inclusion criteria between January 2002 and February 2020. The study included 12 patients, 7 of whom had an enzyme activity of more than 10%, and 5 patients had an enzyme activity of less than 10%. The Pearson correlation between enzyme activity and the C14:1 level at newborn screening showed a p-value of 0.0003, and the correlation between enzyme activity and the C14:1 level at diagnosis had a p-value of 0.0295. There was no clear correlation between the number of documented admissions and the enzyme activity level. Patients who had a high C14:1 value at diagnosis were started on a diet with a lower percentage of energy from long-chain triglycerides. The C14:1 result at diagnosis is the value that has been guiding our initial clinical management in asymptomatic diagnosed newborns. However, the newborn screening C14:1 value is the most sensitive predictor of low enzyme activity and may help guide dietary management.

Characterization of Plant-Derived Natural Inhibitors of Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 as Potential Antidiabetic Agents: A Computational Study.

Diabetes, characterized by elevated blood sugar levels, poses significant health and economic risks, correlating with complications like cardiovascular disease, kidney failure, and blindness. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4), also referred to as T-cell activation antigen CD26 (EC 3.4.14.5.), plays a crucial role in glucose metabolism and immune function. Inhibiting DPP-4 was anticipated as a potential new therapy for diabetes. Therefore, identification of plant-based natural inhibitors of DPP-4 would help in eradicating diabetes worldwide. Here, for the identification of the potential natural inhibitors of DPP-4, we developed a phytochemicals library consisting of over 6000 phytochemicals detected in 81 medicinal plants that exhibited anti-diabetic potency. The library has been docked against the target proteins, where isorhamnetin, Benzyl 5-Amino-5-deoxy-2,3-O-isopropyl-alpha-D-mannofuranoside (DTXSID90724586), and 5-Oxo-7-[4-(trifluoromethyl) phenyl]-4H,6H,7H-[1,2]thiazolo[4,5-b]pyridine 3-carboxylic acid (CHEMBL3446108) showed binding affinities of -8.5, -8.3, and -8.3 kcal/mol, respectively. These compounds exhibiting strong interactions with DPP-4 active sites (Glu205, Glu206, Tyr547, Trp629, Ser630, Tyr662, His740) were identified. ADME/T and bioactivity predictions affirmed their pharmacological safety. Density functional theory calculations assessed stability and reactivity, while molecular dynamics simulations demonstrated persistent stability. Analyzing parameters like RMSD, RG, RMSF, SASA, H-bonds, MM-PBSA, and FEL confirmed stable protein-ligand compound formation. Principal component analysis provided structural variation insights. Our findings suggest that those compounds might be possible candidates for developing novel inhibitors targeting DPP-4 for treating diabetes.

Prevalence and Risk Factors for Moral Distress in Pediatric Oncology Health Care Professionals.

PURPOSE: Moral distress (MoD) is prevalent among health care professionals (HCPs) in oncology and is associated with burnout. The objectives of this study were to quantify MoD among pediatric oncology healthcare professionals (HCPs) at a Canadian quaternary care hospital, identify root causes, and evaluate change over time. METHODS: Eligible pediatric oncology HCPs were identified, and consenting participants completed the Measure of Moral Distress-Healthcare Professionals (MMD-HP) and MoD Thermometer (MDT) at baseline, followed by biweekly MDTs over 12 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 139 HCPs participated. The mean MMD-HP score was 123 ± 57.0, range 9-288. Demographic risk factors identified for elevated MMD-HP scores were female sex (female 127.1 and male 83.6, P = .01) and nursing role (nurse 136.3 and most responsible physician 85.3, P = .02). Higher MMD-HP scores were found in HCPs who were currently considering resigning because of MoD compared with those who were not (169.9 v 115.4, P < .001). Situations involving administration of treatment to children with poor prognosis cancers that was perceived to be overly aggressive were ranked as the greatest environmental contributor to MoD. Baseline and mean MDT scores over time strongly correlated with MMD-HP scores (P < .0001 and P = .0003, respectively), with mean MDT scores showing no significant fluctuation over the 12-week period. CONCLUSION: MoD was common among pediatric oncology HCPs. Risk factors for elevated levels of MoD included both demographic and environmental factors. Implementation of systems to improve team communication and decision making, especially in the care of patients with poor prognosis cancers, may affect HCP MoD.

Assessing the Performance of the Clinician-reported Genetic Testing Utility InDEx (C-GUIDE): Further Evidence of Inter-rater Reliability.

PURPOSE: Advanced genomic and genetic testing technologies are quickly diffusing into clinical practice, but standardized approaches to assessing their clinical utility are limited. Previous work developed and generated preliminary evidence of validity for a novel outcome measure, the Clinician-reported Genetic testing Utility InDEx (C-GUIDE). C-GUIDE is a 17-item measure that captures the utility of genetic testing from the providers' perspective. Preliminary evidence of its inter-rater reliability was obtained through a clinical vignette study. The purpose of this study was to further assess its inter-rater reliability using actual clinical cases. METHODS: One genetic counselor and one medical geneticist independently completed C-GUIDE Version 1.1 after genetic test results were disclosed to a shared set of 42 patients. Raters also completed a case description questionnaire, including information about the patient's age, indication for testing, and type of test performed. Inter-rater reliability was assessed by comparing the raters' C-GUIDE scores using ANOVA to generate intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs), absolute agreement, and mixed repeated measures ANOVA. FINDINGS: Of the 42 patients studied, the most common indications for testing were hearing loss (n = 18) and craniosynostosis (n = 11), and the most common tests ordered were gene panels (n = 20) and microarrays (n = 10). Test results were diagnostic or partially diagnostic for 11 patients, potentially diagnostic for 14 patients, or nondiagnostic for 17 patients. The overall ICC was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.89-0.97) and absolute agreement was acceptable (>70%) for 15 individual items. Inter-rater agreement was excellent (ICC > 0.90) for 8 items, good (ICC = 0.75-0.89) for 3 items, moderate (ICC = 0.50-0.74) for 4 items and poor (ICC < 0.50) for 2 items. Absolute agreement was unacceptable (<70%), and rater agreement was fair (ICC = 0.40-0.59) for 2 items. For the global rating, the ICC was 0.62 (95% CI, 0.39-0.77), and the absolute agreement was 61.9%. IMPLICATIONS: Rater instructions for item completion have been modified to improve consistency of item interpretation. Although further assessments of reliability are warranted after modifications, these findings provide additional tentative evidence of C-GUIDE's inter-rater reliability and suggest that it may be useful as a strategy for measuring the value of genetic testing, as perceived by genetics providers.

Identification of medicinal plant-based phytochemicals as a potential inhibitor for SARS-CoV-2 main protease (Mpro) using molecular docking and deep learning methods.

Highly transmissive and rapidly evolving Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), a viral disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), triggered a global pandemic, which is one of the most researched viruses in the academia. Effective drugs to treat people with COVID-19 have yet to be developed to reduce mortality and transmission. Studies on the SARS-CoV-2 virus identified that its main protease (Mpro) might be a potential therapeutic target for drug development, as this enzyme plays a key role in viral replication. In search of potential inhibitors of Mpro, we developed a phytochemical library consisting of 2431 phytochemicals from 104 Korean medicinal plants that exhibited medicinal and antioxidant properties. The library was screened by molecular docking, followed by revalidation by re-screening with a deep learning method. Recurrent Neural Networks (RNN) computing system was used to develop an inhibitory predictive model using SARS coronavirus Mpro dataset. It was deployed to screen the top 12 compounds based on their docked binding affinity that ranged from -8.0 to -8.9 kcal/mol. The top two lead compounds, Catechin gallate and Quercetin 3-O-malonylglucoside, were selected depending on inhibitory potency against Mpro. Interactions with the target protein active sites, including His41, Met49, Cys145, Met165, and Thr190 were also examined. Molecular dynamics simulation was performed to analyze root mean square deviation (RMSD), root mean square fluctuation (RMSF), radius of gyration (RG), solvent accessible surface area (SASA), and number of hydrogen bonds. Results confirmed the inflexible nature of the docked complexes. Absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and toxicity (ADMET), as well as bioactivity prediction confirmed the pharmaceutical activities of the lead compound. Findings of this research might help scientists to optimize compatible drugs for the treatment of COVID-19 patients.