Serum proteomic biomarkers diagnostic of knee osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To better understand the pathogenesis of knee osteoarthritis (OA) through identification of serum diagnostics. DESIGN: We conducted multiple reaction monitoring mass spectrometry analysis of 107 peptides in baseline sera of two cohorts: the Foundation for National Institutes of Health (NIH) (n = 596 Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) grade 1-3 knee OA participants); and the Johnston County Osteoarthritis Project (n = 127 multi-joint controls free of radiographic OA of the hands, hips, knees (bilateral KL=0), and spine). Data were split into (70%) training and (30%) testing sets. Diagnostic peptide and clinical data predictors were selected by random forest (RF); selection was based on association (p < 0.05) with OA status in multivariable logistic regression models. Model performance was based on area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and precision-recall (PR) curves. RESULTS: RF selected 23 peptides (19 proteins) and body mass index (BMI) as diagnostic of OA. BMI weakly diagnosed OA (ROC-AUC 0.57, PR-AUC 0.812) and only symptomatic OA cases. ACTG was the strongest univariable predictor (ROC-AUC 0.705, PR-AUC 0.897). The final model (8 serum peptides) was highly diagnostic (ROC-AUC 0.833, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.751, 0.905; PR-AUC 0.929, 95% CI 0.876, 0.973) in the testing set and equally diagnostic of non-symptomatic and symptomatic cases (AUCs 0.830-0.835), and not significantly improved with addition of BMI. The STRING database predicted multiple high confidence interactions of the 19 diagnostic OA proteins. CONCLUSIONS: No more than 8 serum protein biomarkers were required to discriminate knee OA from non-OA. These biomarkers lend strong support to the involvement and cross-talk of complement and coagulation pathways in the development of OA.

Extending surgeon response times in tier 2 traumas does not adversely affect patient outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The presence of a trauma surgeon during patient resuscitations is required at most American College of Surgeons-verified trauma centers despite little evidence showing improved patient outcomes in the less-than-critically injured (Tier 2) trauma patients. This study was designed to identify the impact of extending required surgeon response times on outcomes in tier 2 trauma patients. METHODS: An American College of Surgeons-verified level 2 trauma center extended the maximum allowed surgeon response time for tier 2 activations from 60 min to 120 min on November 1, 2011. Surgeon response time and patient outcomes of the retrospective control group (January 1, 2008-October 31, 2011) were then compared with the prospective test group (November 1, 2011-December 31, 2014). Primary outcomes included mortality and hospital length of stay (HLOS). Secondary outcomes were emergency department length of stay, and time from ED arrival to CT scan. A subset analysis of all patients evaluated by a surgeon within 60 min of arrival versus those evaluated by a surgeon after 60 min was also performed. RESULTS: The control and test groups were composed of 757 and 792 patients, and their mean injury severity score was 9.0 and 6.0, respectively. Emergency department length of stay showed a statistically significant increase of 12 min, whereas HLOS was unchanged throughout the study. Mortality was not significantly different between the groups. Subset analysis revealed a median surgeon arrival time of 15 min in the <60-min group and 85 min in the >60-min group, whereas the injury severity score, HLOS, and mortality were not significantly different between these subsets. No correlation existed between these outcomes and surgeon arrival time. CONCLUSIONS: Doubling required surgeon response time in tier 2 trauma patients does not produce negative outcomes in this patient group. Mandatory surgeon response times in similar patient groups can be re-evaluated to allow for greater flexibility of a limited surgeon workforce while still providing safe care.

A systematic review of vasopressor blood pressure targets in critically ill adults with hypotension.

PURPOSE: Clinicians must balance the risks from hypotension with the potential adverse effects of vasopressors. Experts have recommended a mean arterial pressure (MAP) target of at least 65 mmHg, and higher in older patients and in patients with chronic hypertension or atherosclerosis. We conducted a systematic review of randomized-controlled trials comparing higher vs lower blood pressure targets for vasopressor therapy administered to hypotensive critically ill patients. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE®, EMBASE™, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies of higher vs lower blood pressure targets for vasopressor therapy in critically ill hypotensive adult patients. Two reviewers independently assessed trial eligibility based on titles and abstracts, and they then selected full-text reports. Outcomes, subgroups, and analyses were prespecified. We used GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) to rate the overall confidence in the estimates of intervention effects. RESULTS: Of 8001 citations, we retrieved 57 full-text articles and ultimately included two randomized-controlled trials (894 patients). Higher blood pressure targets were not associated with lower mortality (relative risk [RR], 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90 to 1.23; P = 0.54), and neither age (P = 0.17) nor chronic hypertension (P = 0.32) modified the overall effect. Nevertheless, higher blood pressure targets were associated with a greater risk of new-onset supraventricular cardiac arrhythmia (RR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.28 to 3.38; P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Current evidence does not support a MAP target > 70 mmHg in hypotensive critically ill adult patients requiring vasopressor therapy.

Race and Socioeconomic Disparities in Proximal Aortic Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Substantial socioeconomics-based disparities exist in cardiac surgery. Although there are robust data for revascularization and valve procedures, the effect of race and socioeconomic status on proximal aortic surgery is not well studied. This study analyzed the impact of race and socioeconomic status on in-hospital outcomes after proximal aortic surgery. METHODS: All adult patients who underwent proximal aortic surgery for aortic dissection or thoracic aneurysm from the 2016 to 2018 National Inpatient Sample were included. Primary outcomes included in-hospital mortality and in-hospital composite morbidity (stroke, pulmonary embolus, major bleeding, acute kidney injury, or permanent pacemaker insertion). Adjusted outcomes were assessed with multivariable analysis. RESULTS: A weighted total of 32,895 patients were included; 25,461 (77.4%) classified as White, 3224 (9.8%) Black, 2039 (6.2%) Hispanic, and 2171 (6.6%) other. Black and Hispanic patients had significantly lower median household income, higher proportion of self-pay insurance status, younger age, higher comorbidity burden, and a higher proportion of urgent or emergency procedures compared with White patients. There was no significant difference in observed in-hospital mortality by patient race, but non-White patients had significantly higher composite morbidity. On adjusted analysis, there was no difference in in-hospital mortality, but non-White race was an independent predictor of in-hospital morbidity (adjusted odds ratio, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.4-1.8; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients of non-White race who undergo proximal aortic surgery have less insurance coverage, more urgent procedures, and a higher comorbidity burden than White patients, disparities that translate to significantly higher morbidity in non-White. A greater focus on nonfatal outcome differentials and improving access to care likely will improve aortic surgery disparities.

Serum proteomic panel validated for prediction of knee osteoarthritis progression.

Objective: To further validate a serum proteomics panel for predicting radiographic (structural) knee OA progression. Design: Serum peptides were targeted by multiple-reaction-monitoring mass spectrometry in the New York University cohort (n â€‹= â€‹104). Knee OA progression was defined as joint space narrowing ≥1 in the tibiofemoral compartment of one knee per study participant over a 24-month follow-up. The discriminative ability of an 11-peptide panel was evaluated by multivariable logistic regression and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), without and with demographic characteristics of age, sex, and body mass index. The association of each peptide with OA progression was assessed by odds ratios (OR) in multivariable logistic regression models adjusted for demographics. Results: The cohort included 46 (44%) knee OA progressors. The panel of 11 peptides alone yielded AUC â€‹= â€‹0.66 (95% CI [0.55, 0.77]) for discriminating progressors from non-progressors; demographic traits alone yielded AUC â€‹= â€‹0.66 (95% CI [0.55, 0.77]). Together the 11 peptides and demographics yielded AUC â€‹= â€‹0.72 (95% CI [0.62, 0.83]). CRAC1 had the highest odds for predicting OA progression (OR 2.014, 95% CI [0.996, 4.296], p â€‹= â€‹0.058). Conclusions: We evaluated a parsimonious serum proteomic panel and found it to be a good discriminator of knee radiographic OA progression from non-progression. Since these biomarkers are quantifiable in serum, they could be deployed relatively easily to provide a simple, cost-effective strategy for identifying and monitoring individuals at high risk of knee OA progression.

An osteoarthritis pathophysiological continuum revealed by molecular biomarkers.

We aimed to identify serum biomarkers that predict knee osteoarthritis (OA) before the appearance of radiographic abnormalities in a cohort of 200 women. As few as six serum peptides, corresponding to six proteins, reached AUC 77% probability to distinguish those who developed OA from age-matched individuals who did not develop OA up to 8 years later. Prediction based on these blood biomarkers was superior to traditional prediction based on age and BMI (AUC 51%) or knee pain (AUC 57%). These results identify a prolonged molecular derangement of joint tissue before the onset of radiographic OA abnormalities consistent with an unresolved acute phase response. Among all 24 protein biomarkers predicting incident knee OA, the majority (58%) also predicted knee OA progression, revealing the existence of a pathophysiological "OA continuum" based on considerable similarity in the molecular pathophysiology of the progression to incident OA and the progression of established OA.

The Impact of Frailty on Outcomes of Proximal Aortic Aneurysm Surgery: A Nationwide Analysis.

(1) Background: This study examines frailty's impact on proximal aortic surgery outcomes. (2) Methods: All patients with a thoracic aortic aneurysm who underwent aortic root, ascending aorta, or arch surgery from the 2016-2017 National Inpatient Sample were included. Frailty was defined by the Adjusted Clinical Groups Frailty Indicator. Outcomes of interest included in-hospital mortality and a composite of death, stroke, acute kidney injury (AKI), and major bleeding (MACE). (3) Results: Among 5745 patients, 405 (7.0%) met frailty criteria. Frail patients were older, with higher rates of chronic pulmonary disease, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease. There was no difference in in-hospital death (4.9% vs. 2.4%, p = 0.169); however, the frail group exhibited higher rates of stroke and AKI. Frail patients had a longer length of stay (17 vs. 8 days), and higher rates of non-home discharge (74.1% vs. 54.3%) than non-frail patients (both p < 0.001). Sensitivity analysis confirmed increased morbidity and mortality in frail individuals. After adjusting for patient comorbidities and hospital characteristics, frailty independently predicted MACE (OR 4.29 [1.88-9.78], p = 0.001), while age alone did not (OR 1.00 [0.99-1.02], p = 0.568). Urban teaching center status predicted a lower risk of MACE (OR 0.27 [0.08-0.94], p = 0.039). (4) Conclusions: Frailty is associated with increased morbidity in proximal aortic surgery and is a more significant predictor of mortality than age. Coordinated treatment in urban institutions may enhance outcomes for this high-risk group.

Investigation of cannabidiol's potential targets in limbic seizures. In-silico approach.

Even though the vast armamentarium of FDA-approved antiepileptic drugs is currently available, over one-third of patients do not respond to medication, which arises a need for alternative medicine. In clinical and preclinical studies, various investigations have shown the advantage of specific plant-based cannabidiol (CBD) products in treating certain groups of people with limbic epilepsy who have failed to respond to conventional therapies. This work aims to investigate possible mechanisms by which CBD possesses its anticonvulsant properties. Molecular targets for CBD's treatment of limbic epilepsy, including hyperpolarization-activated cyclic nucleotide-gated channel 1 (HCN1), gamma-aminobutyric acid aminotransferase (GABA-AT), and gamma-aminobutyric acid type A receptor (GABAA), were used to evaluate its binding affinity. Interactions with the CB1 receptor were initially modeled as a benchmark, which further proved the efficiency of proposed here approach. Considering the successful benchmark, we further used the same concept for in silico investigation, targeting proteins of interest. As a result of molecular docking, molecular mechanics, and molecular dynamics simulations models of CBD-receptor complexes were proposed and evaluated. While CBD possessed decently high affinity and stability within the binding pockets of GABA-AT and some binding sites of GABAA, the most effective binding was observed in the CBD complex with HCN1 receptor. 100 ns molecular dynamics simulation revealed that CBD binds the open pore of HCN1 receptor, forming a similar pattern of interactions as potent Lamotrigine. Therefore, we can propose that HCN1 can serve as a most potent target for cannabinoid antiepileptic treatment. Communicated by Ramaswamy H. Sarma.

A "best-in-class" systemic biomarker predictor of clinically relevant knee osteoarthritis structural and pain progression.

We aimed to identify markers in blood (serum) to predict clinically relevant knee osteoarthritis (OA) progression defined as the combination of both joint structure and pain worsening over 48 months. A set of 15 serum proteomic markers corresponding to 13 total proteins reached an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 73% for distinguishing progressors from nonprogressors in a cohort of 596 individuals with knee OA. Prediction based on these blood markers was far better than traditional prediction based on baseline structural OA and pain severity (59%) or the current "best-in-class" biomarker for predicting OA progression, urinary carboxyl-terminal cross-linked telopeptide of type II collagen (58%). The generalizability of the marker set was confirmed in a second cohort of 86 individuals that yielded an AUC of 70% for distinguishing joint structural progressors. Blood is a readily accessible biospecimen whose analysis for these biomarkers could facilitate identification of individuals for clinical trial enrollment and those most in need of treatment.

How do network meta-analyses address intransitivity when assessing certainty of evidence: a systematic survey.

OBJECTIVES: To describe how systematic reviews with network meta-analyses (NMAs) that used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) NMA approach addressed intransitivity when assessing certainty of evidence. DESIGN: Systematic survey. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from September 2014 to October 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials with aggregate data NMAs that used the GRADE NMA approach for assessing certainty of evidence. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We documented how reviewers described methods for addressing intransitivity when assessing certainty of evidence, how often they rated down for intransitivity and their explanations for rating down. RESULTS: Of the 268 eligible systematic reviews, 44.8% (120/268) mentioned intransitivity when describing methods for assessing the certainty of evidence. Of these, 28.3% (34/120) considered effect modifiers and from this subset, 67.6% (23/34) specified the effect modifiers; however, no systematic review noted how they chose the effect modifiers. 15.0% (18/120) mentioned looking for differences between the direct comparisons that inform the indirect estimate. No review specified a threshold for difference in effect modifiers between the direct comparisons that would lead to rating down for intransitivity. Reviewers noted rating down indirect evidence for intransitivity in 33.1% of systematic reviews, and noted intransitivity for network estimates in 23.0% of reviews. Authors provided an explanation for rating down for intransitivity in 59.6% (31/52) of the cases in which they rated down. Of the 31 in which they provided an explanation, 74.2% (23/31) noted they detected differences in effect modifiers and 67.7% (21/31) specified in what effect modifiers they detected differences. CONCLUSIONS: A third of systematic reviews with NMAs using the GRADE approach rated down for intransitivity. Limitations in reporting of methods to address intransitivity proved considerable. Whether the problem is that reviewers neglected to address rating down for transitivity at all, or whether they did consider but not report, is not clear. At minimum systematic reviews with NMAs need to improve their reporting practices regarding intransitivity; it may well be that they need to improve their practice in transitivity assessment. How to best address intransitivity may remain unclear for many reviewers thus additional GRADE guidance providing practical instructions for addressing intransitivity may be desirable.

Early Failure of a Bioprosthetic Valve in the Pulmonary Position Causing Panic.

An asymptomatic 26-year-old woman with repaired tetralogy of Fallot and a bioprosthetic pulmonary valve presented with a large thrombosis occluding most of her right ventricular outflow tract and main pulmonary arteries. Our pulmonary embolism response team was emergently consulted, resulting in considerable discussion regarding the treatment modality given the large size and high-risk nature of the thrombosis. Ultimately, she was started on a heparin infusion until she could undergo open thrombectomy and pulmonary valve repeat replacement. The patient's asymptomatic presentation, despite the considerable clot burden, complicated our approach to management but ultimately led to a measured and timely intervention.

Adverse effects of remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir when used for COVID-19: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: To summarise specific adverse effects of remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We searched 32 databases through 27 October 2020. We included randomised trials comparing any of the drugs of interest to placebo or standard care, or against each other. We conducted fixed-effects pairwise meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation approach. RESULTS: We included 16 randomised trials which enrolled 8152 patients. For most interventions and outcomes the certainty of the evidence was very low to low except for gastrointestinal adverse effects from hydroxychloroquine, which was moderate certainty. Compared with standard care or placebo, low certainty evidence suggests that remdesivir may not have an important effect on acute kidney injury (risk difference (RD) 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 27 fewer to 21 more) or cognitive dysfunction/delirium (RD 3 more per 1000, 95% CI 12 fewer to 19 more). Low certainty evidence suggests that hydroxychloroquine may increase the risk of cardiac toxicity (RD 10 more per 1000, 95% CI 0 more to 30 more) and cognitive dysfunction/delirium (RD 33 more per 1000, 95% CI 18 fewer to 84 more), whereas moderate certainty evidence suggests hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of diarrhoea (RD 106 more per 1000, 95% CI 48 more to 175 more) and nausea and/or vomiting (RD 62 more per 1000, 95% CI 23 more to 110 more) compared with standard care or placebo. Low certainty evidence suggests lopinavir/ritonavir may increase the risk of diarrhoea (RD 168 more per 1000, 95% CI 58 more to 330 more) and nausea and/or vomiting (RD 160 more per 1000, 95% CI 100 more to 210 more) compared with standard care or placebo. DISCUSSION: Hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of diarrhoea and nausea and/or vomiting and may increase the risk of cardiac toxicity and cognitive dysfunction/delirium. Lopinavir/ritonavir may increase the risk of diarrhoea and nausea and/or vomiting. Remdesivir may have no important effect on risk of acute kidney injury or cognitive dysfunction/delirium. These findings provide important information to support the development of evidence-based management strategies for patients with COVID-19.

Use of tocilizumab and sarilumab alone or in combination with corticosteroids for covid-19: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Objective: To compare the effects of interleukin 6 receptor blockers, tocilizumab and sarilumab, with or without corticosteroids, on mortality in patients with covid-19. Design: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sources: World Health Organization covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, and two prospective meta-analyses (up to 9 June 2021). Review methods: Trials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 were randomised to interleukin 6 receptor blockers (with or without corticosteroids), corticosteroids, placebo, or standard care. The analysis used a bayesian framework and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Results from the fixed effect meta-analysis were used for the primary analysis. Results: Of 45 eligible trials (20 650 patients) identified, 36 (19 350 patients) could be included in the network meta-analysis. Of 36 trials, 27 were at high risk of bias, primarily due to lack of blinding. Tocilizumab, in combination with corticosteroids, suggested a reduction in the risk of death compared with corticosteroids alone (odds ratio 0.79, 95% credible interval 0.70 to 0.88; 35 fewer deaths per 1000 people, 95% credible interval 52 fewer to 18 fewer per 1000; moderate certainty of evidence), as did sarilumab in combination with corticosteroids, compared with corticosteroids alone (0.73, 0.58 to 0.92; 43 fewer per 1000, 73 fewer to 12 fewer; low certainty). Tocilizumab and sarilumab, each in combination with corticosteroids, appeared to have similar effects on mortality when compared with each other (1.07, 0.86 to 1.34; eight more per 1000, 20 fewer to 35 more; low certainty). The effects of tocilizumab (1.12, 0.91 to 1.38; 20 more per 1000, 16 fewer to 59 more; low certainty) and sarilumab (1.07, 0.81 to 1.40; 11 more per 1000, 38 fewer to 55 more; low certainty), when used alone, suggested an increase in the risk of death. Conclusion: These findings suggest that in patients with severe or critical covid-19, tocilizumab, in combination with corticosteroids, probably reduces mortality, and that sarilumab, in combination with corticosteroids, might also reduce mortality. Tocilizumab and sarilumab, in combination with corticosteroids, could have similar effectiveness. Tocilizumab and sarilumab, when used alone, might not be beneficial.

Consistency of covid-19 trial preprints with published reports and impact for decision making: retrospective review.

Objective: To assess the trustworthiness (ie, complete and consistent reporting of key methods and results between preprint and published trial reports) and impact (ie, effects of preprints on meta-analytic estimates and the certainty of evidence) of preprint trial reports during the covid-19 pandemic. Design: Retrospective review. Data sources: World Health Organization covid-19 database and the Living Overview of the Evidence (L-OVE) covid-19 platform by the Epistemonikos Foundation (up to 3 August 2021). Main outcome measures: Comparison of characteristics of covid-19 trials with and without preprints, estimates of time to publication of covid-19 preprints, and description of differences in reporting of key methods and results between preprints and their later publications. For the effects of eight treatments on mortality and mechanical ventilation, the study comprised meta-analyses including preprints and excluding preprints at one, three, and six months after the first trial addressing the treatment became available either as a preprint or publication (120 meta-analyses in total, 60 of which included preprints and 60 of which excluded preprints) and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE framework. Results: Of 356 trials included in the study, 101 were only available as preprints, 181 as journal publications, and 74 as preprints first and subsequently published in journals. The median time to publication of preprints was about six months. Key methods and results showed few important differences between trial preprints and their subsequent published reports. Apart from two (3.3%) of 60 comparisons, point estimates were consistent between meta-analyses including preprints versus those excluding preprints as to whether they indicated benefit, no appreciable effect, or harm. For nine (15%) of 60 comparisons, the rating of the certainty of evidence was different when preprints were included versus being excluded-the certainty of evidence including preprints was higher in four comparisons and lower in five comparisons. Conclusion: No compelling evidence indicates that preprints provide results that are inconsistent with published papers. Preprints remain the only source of findings of many trials for several months-an unsuitable length of time in a health emergency that is not conducive to treating patients with timely evidence. The inclusion of preprints could affect the results of meta-analyses and the certainty of evidence. Evidence users should be encouraged to consider data from preprints.

A Review of Clinical and Laboratory Predictors of Severe COVID-19 Disease.

INTRODUCTION: In late December 2019, the coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in Wuhan, China. It quickly spread and emerged as a global pandemic with far-reaching impacts on society. As clinical research on this novel virus emerges, there is a limited amount of data that review clinical and laboratory predictors of severe disease. We present a case of a patient with severely elevated inflammatory markers who remained clinically stable during his hospital course. CASE DISCUSSION: A 53-year-old male presented to the emergency room with 11 days of persistent fevers and new-onset anterior chest tightness. He was admitted to the hospital due to a reported oxygen desaturation at home to 87% (taken by his spouse, a healthcare professional) and ambulatory oxygen desaturation down to 87%. He was noted to have severely elevated inflammatory markers, lymphopenia, and computed tomography pulmonary angiograph findings consistent with COVID-19. He remained on room air and clinically stable throughout his 3-day hospital course. While his C-reactive protein levels improved, his ferritin and erythrocyte sedimentation rate continued to elevate. He was discharged home and was symptom-free within 4 days of hospital discharge. DISCUSSION: COVID-19 has proven to be a viral disease with a high transmission rate, that has caused over 100,000 deaths in the United States, thus far. The decision to admit a patient must balance the risks of transmission with the benefit of being readily available to provide urgent supportive care should the patient develop complications. Thus, there is a significant benefit to being able to predict poor outcomes. We performed a targeted review of the literature, focusing on clinical and laboratory predictors of poor outcomes in COVID-19. Our case report and narrative review outline these findings within the context of our case.

Increase in Free and Total Plasma TGF-ß1 Following Physical Activity.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate effects of physical activity and food consumption on plasma concentrations of free and total transforming growth factor beta-1 (TGF-ß1), beta-2 (TGF-ß2), and beta-3 (TGF-ß3) in individuals with knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: Participants (n = 40 in 2 cohorts of 20; mean age 70 years) with radiographic knee OA were admitted overnight for serial blood sampling. Cohorts 1 and 2 assessed the impacts of food intake and activity, respectively, on TGF-ß concentrations. Cohort 1 blood draws included 2 hours postprandial the evening of day 1 (T3), fasting before rising on day 2 (T0), nonfasting 1 hour after rising (T1B), and 4 hours after rising (T2). Cohort 2 blood draws included T3, T0, fasting 1 hour after rising and performing activities of daily living (T1A), and nonfasting 2 hours after rising (T1B). By sandwich ELISAs, we quantified plasma free and total TGF-ß1 concentrations in all samples, and plasma total TGF-ß2 and TGF-ß3 in cohort 2. RESULTS: Free TGF-ß1 represented a small fraction of the total systemic concentration (mean 0.026%). In cohort 2, free and total TGF-ß1 and total TGF-ß2 concentration significantly increased in fasting samples collected after an hour (T1A) of activities of daily living (free TGF-ß1: P = 0.006; total TGF-ß1: P < 0.001; total TGF-ß2: P = 0.001). Total TGF-ß3 increased nonsignificantly following activity (P = 0.590) and decreased (P = 0.035) after food consumption while resting (T1B). CONCLUSIONS: Increased plasma concentrations of TGF-ß with physical activity suggests activity should be standardized prior to TGF-ß1 analyses.

Patient values and preferences on valve replacement for aortic stenosis: a systematic review.

The review aims to summarise evidence addressing patients' values, preferences and practical issues on deciding between transcatheter aortic valve insertion (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for aortic stenosis. We searched databases and grey literature until June 2020. We included studies of adults with aortic stenosis eliciting values and preferences about treatment, excluding medical management or palliative care. Qualitative findings were synthesised using thematic analysis, and quantitative findings were narratively described. Evidence certainty was assessed using CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research) and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). We included eight studies. Findings ranged from low to very low certainty. Most studies only addressed TAVI. Studies addressing both TAVI and SAVR reported on factors affecting patients' decision-making along with treatment effectiveness, instead of trade-offs between procedures. Willingness to accept risk varied considerably. To improve their health status, participants were willing to accept higher mortality risk than current evidence suggests for either procedure. No study explicitly addressed valve reintervention, and one study reported variability in willingness to accept shorter duration of known effectiveness of TAVI compared with SAVR. The most common themes were desire for symptom relief and improved function. Participants preferred minimally invasive procedures with shorter hospital stay and recovery. The current body of evidence on patients' values, preferences and practical issues related to aortic stenosis management is of suboptimal rigour and reports widely disparate results regarding patients' perceptions. These findings emphasise the need for higher quality studies to inform clinical practice guidelines and the central importance of shared decision-making to individualise care fitted to each patient.

Establishing thresholds for important benefits considering the harms of screening interventions.

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Standards for clinical practice guidelines require explicit statements regarding how values and preferences influence recommendations. However, no cancer screening guideline has addressed the key question of what magnitude of benefit people require to undergo screening, given its harms and burdens. This article describes the development of a new method for guideline developers to address this key question in the absence of high-quality evidence from published literature. SUMMARY OF METHOD: The new method was developed and applied in the context of a recent BMJ Rapid Recommendation clinical practice guideline for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. First, we presented the guideline panel with harms and burdens (derived from a systematic review) associated with the CRC screening tests under consideration. Second, each panel member completed surveys documenting their views of expected benefits on CRC incidence and mortality that people would require to accept the harms and burdens of screening. Third, the panel discussed results of the surveys and agreed on thresholds for benefits at which the majority of people would choose screening. During these three steps, the panel had no access to the actual benefits of the screening tests. In step four, the panel was presented with screening test benefits derived from a systematic review of clinical trials and microsimulation modelling. The thresholds derived through steps one to three were applied to these benefits, and directly informed the panel's recommendations. CONCLUSION: We present the development and application of a new, four-step method enabling incorporation of explicit and transparent judgements of values and preferences in a screening guideline. Guideline panels should establish their view regarding the magnitude of required benefit, given burdens and harms, before they review screening benefits and make their recommendations accordingly. Making informed screening decisions requires transparency in values and preferences judgements that our new method greatly facilitates.

How do cancer screening guidelines trade off benefits versus harms and burdens of screening? A systematic survey.

OBJECTIVES: Cancer screening guidelines differ in their recommendations for or against screening. To be able to provide explicit recommendations, guidelines need to specify thresholds for the magnitude of benefits of screening, given its harms and burdens. We evaluated how current cancer screening guidelines address the relative importance of benefits versus harms and burdens of screening. DATA SOURCE: We searched the Guidelines International Network, International Guideline Library, ECRI Institute and Medline. Two pairs of reviewers independently performed guideline selection and data abstraction. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included all cancer screening guidelines published in English between January 2014 and April 2019. RESULTS: Of 68 eligible guidelines, 25 included a statement regarding the trade-off between screening benefits versus harms and burdens (14 guidelines), or a statement of direction of the net effect (defined as benefits minus harms or burdens) (13 guidelines). None of these 25 guidelines defined how large a screening benefit should be to recommend screening, given its harms and burdens. 11 guidelines performed an economic evaluation of screening. Of these, six identified a key benefit outcome; two specified a cost-effectiveness threshold for recommending a screening option. Eight guidelines commented on people's values and preferences regarding the trade-off between benefits versus harms and burdens. CONCLUSIONS: Current cancer screening guidelines fail to specify the values and preferences underlying their recommendations. No guidelines provide a threshold at which they believe the benefits of screening outweigh its harms and burdens. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019138590.