US Food and Drug Administration Approval Summary: Talazoparib in Combination With Enzalutamide for Treatment of Patients With Homologous Recombination Repair Gene-Mutated Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved talazoparib with enzalutamide for first-line treatment of patients with homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene-mutated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The approval was based on the HRR gene-mutated (HRRm) population of TALAPRO-2, a randomized, double-blind trial that randomly assigned 1,035 patients with mCRPC to receive enzalutamide with either talazoparib or placebo. Two cohorts enrolled sequentially: an all-comer population (Cohort 1), followed by an HRRm-only population (Cohort 2). The independent primary end points were radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) per blinded independent central review (BICR) in Cohort 1 (all-comers) and in the combined HRRm population (all HRRm patients from Cohorts 1 and 2). Overall survival (OS) was a key secondary end point. RESULTS: A statistically significant improvement in rPFS by BICR was demonstrated in both the all-comers cohort and the combined HRRm population, with hazard ratio (HR) of 0.63 (95% CI, 0.51 to 0.78; P < .0001) and 0.45 (95% CI, 0.33 to 0.61; P < .0001), respectively. In an exploratory analysis of the 155 patients with BRCA-mutated (BRCAm) mCRPC, rPFS HR was 0.20 (95% CI, 0.11 to 0.36). In the non-HRRm/unknown stratum of Cohort 1 (n = 636), the rPFS HR was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.54 to 0.89). OS was immature. CONCLUSION: Despite a statistically significant rPFS improvement in the all-comer cohort, FDA did not consider the magnitude of rPFS clinically meaningful in the context of the broad indication, combination treatment, and safety profile. Approval was therefore limited to patients with HRRm mCRPC, for whom there was a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in rPFS and favorable OS results. This represents the first approval for the first-line treatment of patients with HRRm mCRPC.

Do Saliva-Saturated Spit Hoods Interfere With Ventilation?

ABSTRACT: Spit hoods are used by law enforcement, officers in correctional facilities, and medical personnel during the restraint of agitated subjects that are actively spitting to prevent the transmission of droplet-transmitted pathogens. We could find no studies reporting on the time course of normal breathing to clear saliva from such a saturated spit hood. We purchased samples of 3 popular spit hood models and applied a section over the output of a pneumatic test system. We used a digital anemometer, digital manometer, and an inline controllable fan for back pressure and flow. The pressure was 3 mm Hg to match quiet breathing. The tested area was saturated with artificial saliva, and air pressure was applied while we recorded the pressure and airflow. Within 5 seconds, the spit hoods all cleared sufficient artificial saliva to allow 1 m/s of airflow, which exceeds that of an N95 mask with similar pressure. Commonly used spit hoods offer very low resistance to breathing even after being initially saturated with artificial saliva. Our results do not support the hypothesis that a saliva-filled spit hood might contribute to death.

FDA Approval Summary: Olaparib in Combination With Abiraterone for Treatment of Patients With BRCA-Mutated Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: This article summarizes the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) review of the data leading to approval of olaparib plus abiraterone for the treatment of patients with deleterious or suspected deleterious BRCA-mutated (BRCAm) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), as determined by an FDA-approved companion diagnostic test. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Approval was based on the results from PROpel, a double-blind trial that randomly assigned 796 patients with mCRPC to abiraterone plus prednisone or prednisolone with either olaparib or placebo. The primary end point was radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) per investigator assessment. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant improvement in rPFS for olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone, with a median rPFS of 25 versus 17 months and a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.66 (95% CI, 0.54 to 0.81) in the intention-to-treat population. In an exploratory analysis of the subgroup of 85 patients with BRCAm mCRPC, the HR for rPFS was 0.24 (95% CI, 0.12 to 0.45) and the HR for overall survival (OS) was 0.30 (95% CI, 0.15 to 0.59). In an exploratory analysis of the subgroup of 711 patients without an identified BRCA mutation, the HR for rPFS was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.63 to 0.96) and the HR for OS was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.74 to 1.14). Adding olaparib to abiraterone resulted in increased toxicity, including anemia requiring transfusion in 18% of patients. CONCLUSION: In patients with mCRPC, efficacy of the combination of olaparib plus abiraterone was primarily attributed to the treatment effect in the BRCAm subgroup, the indicated population for the approval. For patients without BRCAm, the FDA determined that the modest rPFS improvement, combined with clinically significant toxicities, did not demonstrate a favorable risk/benefit assessment.

A U.S. Food and Drug Administration-pooled Analysis of Frontline Combination Treatment Survival Benefits by Risk Groups in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: While frontline immuno-oncology/tyrosine kinase inhibitor (IO/TKI) combination therapy has established a benefit in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), this may differ by International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk grouping. Looking at individual trials, we noted an apparently smaller magnitude of benefit for favorable-risk disease. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess treatment benefit by risk groupings, especially in favorable-risk, augmenting patient numbers via a pooled analysis. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We pooled four frontline mRCC trials of IO/TKI combinations including 3,098 patients (839 favorable-risk) with approvals from 2019 to 2021. INTERVENTION: All trials used IO/TKI combinations as the treatment option and sunitinib as the control. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We analyzed progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) by IMDC groupings. To specifically address the favorable-risk group, we combined all others into an intermediate/poor-risk group. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: In this exploratory analysis adjusted for baseline covariates, IO/TKI combinations have yet to demonstrate an OS benefit in favorable-risk (hazard ratio [HR] 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.86, 1.78) despite demonstrating an OS benefit in the intermediate/poor-risk group (HR 0.64; 95% CI: 0.55, 0.75). In contrast, IO/TKI demonstrated a PFS benefit for both the favorable-risk (HR 0.63; 95% CI: 0.50, 0.79) and the intermediate/poor-risk (HR 0.52; 95% CI: 0.45, 0.60) group. For objective response rate, a smaller difference was observed between the combination and sunitinib arms in favorable-risk (68.2% vs 49.9%) versus intermediate/poor-risk (59.9% vs 36.5%) groups, while the difference in complete response rate was larger for favorable-risk (15.3% vs 6.0%) versus intermediate/poor-risk (9.1% vs 3.4%) groups. CONCLUSIONS: The frontline IO/TKI combination therapy benefit was shown to be greater in the intermediate/poor-risk group than in the favorable-risk group. The OS benefit observed with IO/TKI for mRCC has yet to be demonstrated for favorable-risk patients; longer follow-up is needed. PATIENT SUMMARY: Patients with intermediate/poor-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma derive an overall survival benefit from immuno-oncology/tyrosine kinase inhibitor combinations, while data for favorable-risk remain immature.

FDA Approval Summary: Belzutifan for von Hippel-Lindau Disease-Associated Tumors.

On August 13, 2021, the FDA approved belzutifan (WELIREG, Merck), a first-in-class hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF) inhibitor for adult patients with von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) disease who require therapy for associated renal cell carcinoma (RCC), central nervous system (CNS) hemangioblastomas, or pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNET), not requiring immediate surgery. The FDA granted approval based on the clinically meaningful effects on overall response rate (ORR) observed in patients enrolled in Study MK-6482-004. All 61 patients had VHL-associated RCC; some also had CNS hemangioblastomas and/or pNET. For VHL disease-associated RCC, ORR was 49% [95% confidence interval (CI), 36-62], median duration of response (DoR) was not reached, 56% of responders had DoR ≥12 months, and median time to response was 8 months. Twenty-four patients had measurable CNS hemangioblastomas with an ORR of 63% (95% CI, 41-81), and 12 patients had measurable pNET with an ORR of 83% (95% CI, 52-98). For these tumors, median DoR was not reached, with 73% and 50% of patients having response durations ≥12 months for CNS hemangioblastomas and pNET, respectively. The most common adverse reactions, including laboratory abnormalities, reported in ≥20% were anemia, fatigue, increased creatinine, headache, dizziness, increased glucose, and nausea. Belzutifan can render some hormonal contraceptives ineffective and can cause embryo-fetal harm during pregnancy. This article summarizes the data and the FDA thought process supporting traditional approval of belzutifan for this indication.

Confusion between firearms and electrical weapons as a factor in police shootings.

Conducted electrical weapons (CEW) have risks including trauma associated with uncontrolled falls, probes penetrating the eye, and fume ignition. A lesser-known risk is weapon-confusion error with officers mistakenly discharging their firearm when they intended to deploy their electrical weapon. We searched for incidents of possible weapon confusion with the TASER® brand CEWs via open-source media, litigation filings, and a survey of CEW law enforcement master instructors. We found 19 incidents of possible CEW weapon confusion in law enforcement field uses from January 2001 to April 2021. We eliminated a case as not meeting our criteria for probable weapons confusion leaving 18 cases, thus giving a demonstrated CEW discharge risk of 3.9 per million with confidence limits (2.4-6.2 per million) by Wilson score interval. Ipsilateral carry of the weapons was historically correlated with increased risk vs. contralateral carry. Officer gender was not a predictor of weapon confusion. The psychological issues behind weapon confusion under stress are discussed. The concurrent carry of electrical weapons and firearms presents a very small but real risk of injury and death from confusion between an electrical weapon and a firearm.

Pneumatic Impedance of Spit Socks and N95 Masks: The Applicability to Death Investigation.

INTRODUCTION: Restrained subjects often spit on law enforcement and corrections officers and medical responders. Based on the droplet-transmitted risk of COVID-19, such spitting could be considered a potentially life-threatening assault. Officers commonly use "spit socks" over the head and neck of spitting subjects to reduce this risk. The pneumatic impedance of such socks has not been published, so this remains an open issue for arrest-related death investigation. METHODS: We purchased samples of 3 popular spit sock models, 3 insect-protecting "bug" socks and hats, 3 N95 masks, a standard 3-ply surgical mask, and a common dust mask. We used a BTmeter model BTN8468 digital anemometer, an HTI model HT-1890 digital manometer, and an AC Infinity Cloudline model S6 inline controllable fan to measure air flow versus pressure drop. We compared the curves graphically and also calculated a pneumatic pseudo-impedance by dividing the pressure drop by the air velocity. RESULTS: The spit and bug socks allowed nearly maximum airflow with minimal pressure (≤1 mm Hg), whereas none of the masks allowed greater than 2 m/s of airflow at maximum pressure of 3 mm Hg. All of the spit and bug masks were grouped together with the lowest pneumatic impedances, whereas all of the N95 masks were grouped together with the highest values. The dust mask and surgical mask were in between with the dust mask closer to the spit and bug masks, whereas the surgical mask was closer to the N95 masks in impedance. CONCLUSIONS: Commonly used spit socks offer nearly zero resistance to breathing. The highest resistance spit sock was still 100 times better than the best N95 mask for airflow during inhalation. Our results do not support the occasional hypothesis that spit socks might contribute to an arrest-related death.

Estimation of Physiological Impedance from Neuromuscular Pulse Data.

INTRODUCTION: A Conducted Electrical Weapon (CEW) deploys 2, or more, probes to conduct current via the body to induce motor-nerve mediated muscle contractions, but the inter-probe resistances can vary and this can affect charge delivery. For this reason, newer generation CEWs such as the TASER® X3, X2 and X26P models have feed-forward control circuits to keep the delivered charge constant regardless of impedance. Our main goal was to explore the load limits for this "charge metering" system. A secondary goal was to evaluate the reliability of the "Pulse Log" stored data to estimate the load resistance. METHODS: We tested 10 units each of the X2 (double shot), X26P, and X26P+ (single-shot) CEW models. We used non-inductive high-voltage resistor assemblies of 50, 200, 400, 600, 1k, 2.5k, 3.5k, 5k, and 10k Ω, a shorted output (nominal 0 Ω), and arcing open-circuits. The Pulse Log data were downloaded to provide the charge value and stimulation and arc voltages for each of the pulses in a 5 s standard discharge cycle. RESULTS: The average reported raw charge was 65.4 ± 0.2 µC for load resistances < 1 kΩ consistent with specifications for the operation of the feed-forward design. At load resistances ≥ 1 kΩ, the raw charge decreased with increasing load values. Analyses of the Pulse Logs, using a 2-piece multiple regression model, were used to predict all resistances. For the resistance range of 0 - 1 kΩ the average error was 53 Ω; for 1 kΩ - 10 kΩ it was 16%. Muzzle arcing can be detected with a model combining parameter variability and arcing voltage. CONCLUSIONS: The X2, X26P, and X26P+ electrical weapons deliver an average charge of 65 µC with a load resistance < 1 kΩ. For loads ≥ 1 kΩ, the metered charge decreased with increasing loads. The stored pulse-log data for the delivered charge and arc voltage allowed for methodologically-reliable forensic analysis of the load resistance with useful accuracy.

Detection of Arcing and High Impedance with Electrical Weapons.

INTRODUCTION: Conducted electrical weapons are primarily designed to stop subjects from endangering themselves or others by deploying 2, or more, probes to conduct current via the body to induce motor-nerve mediated muscle contractions, but probe impedance can vary significantly including open circuits from probes failing to complete or maintain a circuit. METHODS: We tested 10 units of the TASER® 7 model with a range of impedances and open circuit conditions. Pulse data (stored in the device's memory) were used to predict the load resistances and detect arcing conditions. Acoustical data (recorded externally) was evaluated on an exploratory basis as a secondary goal. RESULTS: The average error of predicted resistance, over the physiological load range of 400-1000 Ω, was 8%. Arcing conditions was predicted with an accuracy of 97%. An arcing condition increases the duration of the sound generation. CONCLUSIONS: The TASER 7 electronic control device stored pulse-log data for charge and arc voltage yielded forensic analysis of the load resistance with reliable accuracy.

Output of Electronic Muscle Stimulators: Physical Therapy and Police Models Compared.

INTRODUCTION: Both physical therapists and police officers use electrical muscle stimulation. The typical physical therapist unit is attached with adhesive patches while the police models use needle-based electrodes to penetrate clothing. There have been very few papers describing the outputs of these physical therapy EMS (electrical muscle stimulator) units. METHODS: We purchased 6 TENS/EMS units at retail and tested them with loads of 500 Ω, 2 kΩ, and 10 kΩ. RESULTS: For the typical impedance of 500 Ω, the EMS units delivered the most current followed by the electrical weapons; TENS units delivered the least current. At higher im-pedances (> 2 kΩ) the electrical weapons delivered more current than the EMS units, which is explained by the higher voltage-compliance of their circuits. Some multi channel EMS units deliver more calculated muscle stimula tion than the multi-channel weapons. CONCLUSION: Present therapeutic electrical muscle stimula-tors can deliver more current than present law-enforcement muscle stimulators.

Police shootings after electrical weapon seizure: homicide or suicide-by-cop.

PURPOSE: Risks of handheld electrical weapons include head impact trauma associated with uncontrolled falls, ocular probe penetration injuries, thermal injuries from the ignition of volatile fumes, and weapon confusion police-involved shooting. There is also an uncommon but critical risk of a shooting after a subject gained control of an officer's electrical weapons. METHODS: The authors searched for police shooting incidents involving loss of control of TASER® weapons via open-source media reports, crowd-sourced internet sites, litigation filings, and a survey of Axon law-enforcement master instructors. RESULTS: The authors report 131 incidents of subjects attempting to or gaining control of an officer's electrical weapon from 2004 to 2020, 53 of which resulting in a shooting. These incidents demonstrated a risk of 11.8 shootings per million electrical weapon discharges (95% confidence limits of 9.0 to 15.1 per million by Wilson score interval). CONCLUSIONS: The use of electrical weapons presents a rare but real risk of injury and death from a shooting following a subject's attempts to gain control of the weapon.

Survival outcomes in older men with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with androgen receptor inhibitors: a US Food and Drug Administration pooled analysis of patient-level data from three randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the benefit-risk profile of second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors in older men with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. We aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors in men aged 80 years or older with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. METHODS: We searched for all randomised controlled clinical trials evaluating second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors in patients with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration before Aug 15, 2020, and pooled data from three trials that met the selection criteria. All three trials enrolled patients who were aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, castration-resistant prostate cancer, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) 2·0 µg/L or greater, PSA doubling time of 10 months or less, and no evidence of distant metastatic disease on conventional imaging per the investigator's assessment at the time of screening. All patients had histologically or cytologically confirmed adenocarcinoma of the prostate without neuroendocrine differentiation or small-cell features. All patients who were randomly assigned to androgen receptor inhibitor or placebo groups in these trials were considered assessable and were included in this pooled analysis. We evaluated the effect of age on metastasis-free survival and overall survival across age groups (<80 years vs ≥80 years) in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. FINDINGS: Between Oct 14, 2013, and March 9, 2018, 4117 patients were assigned to androgen receptor inhibitor (apalutamide, enzalutamide, or daralutamide; n=2694) or placebo (n=1423) across three randomised trials. The median follow-up duration for metastasis-free survival was 18 months (IQR 11-26) and for overall survival was 44 months (32-55). In patients aged 80 years or older (n=1023), the estimated median metastasis-free survival was 40 months (95% CI 36-41) in the androgen receptor inhibitor groups and 22 months (18-29) in the placebo groups (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·37 [95% CI 0·28-0·47]), and the median overall survival was 54 months (50-61) versus 49 months (43-58), respectively (adjusted HR 0·79 [0·64-0·98]). In patients younger than 80 years of age (n=3094), the estimated median metastasis-free survival was 41 months (95% CI 36-not estimable [NE]) in the androgen receptor inhibitor groups and 16 months (15-18) in the placebo groups (adjusted HR 0·31 [95% CI 0·27-0·35]), and the median overall survival was 74 months (74-NE) versus 61 months (56-NE), respectively (adjusted HR 0·69 [0·60-0·80]). In patients aged 80 years or older, grade 3 or worse adverse events were reported in 371 (55%) of 672 patients in the androgen receptor inhibitor groups and 140 (41%) of 344 patients in the placebo groups, compared with 878 (44%) of 2015 patients in the androgen receptor inhibitor groups and 321 (30%) of 1073 patients in the placebo groups among patients younger than 80 years. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were hypertension (168 [8%] of 2015 patients aged <80 years and 51 [8%] of 672 patients aged ≥80 years in the androgen receptor inhibitor groups vs 53 [5%] of 1073 patients aged <80 years and 22 [6%] of 344 patients aged ≥80 years in the placebo groups) and fracture (61 [3%] and 36 [5%] in the androgen receptor inhibitor groups vs 15 [1%] and 11 [3%] in the placebo groups). INTERPRETATION: The findings of this pooled analysis support the use of androgen receptor inhibitors in older men with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Incorporating geriatric assessment tools in the care of older adults with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer might help clinicians to offer individualised treatment to each patient. FUNDING: None.

Arterial aneurysm and dissection with systemic vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors: A review of cases reported to the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System and published in the literature.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved multiple systemic vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors since 2004 to treat various malignancies. Inhibition of the VEGF signaling pathway can result in impairment of vascular wall integrity through medial degeneration and endothelial dysfunction, potentially resulting in arterial (including aortic) aneurysm/dissection. We performed a postmarketing review to evaluate arterial aneurysm/dissection as a potential safety risk for patients with cancer treated with VEGF inhibitors. We searched the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database and literature for reports of arterial (including aortic) aneurysm/dissection with VEGF inhibitors currently approved by the FDA for a cancer indication. We identified 240 cases of arterial aneurysm/dissection associated with VEGF inhibitors. The median time to onset of an arterial aneurysm/dissection event from the initiation of a VEGF inhibitor was 94 days (range 1-1955 days). Notably, 22% (53/240) of cases reported fatal outcomes related to arterial aneurysm/dissection. We determined the drug-event association as probable in 15 cases that lacked relevant confounding factors for arterial aneurysm/dissection, which is supported by unremarkable computed tomography (CT) findings prior to starting VEGF inhibitor therapy, despite nondrug-associated background arterial aneurysm/dissection generally demonstrating preexisting arterial abnormalities. FAERS and literature case-level evidence suggests that VEGF inhibitors may have contributed to arterial aneurysm/dissection, as a class effect, based on short onset relative to natural history of disease and biologic plausibility. Cardiovascular and oncology healthcare professionals should be aware of this rare, but life-threatening safety risk associated with VEGF inhibitors.

An FDA Review of Drug Development in Nonmetastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer.

The FDA has approved three androgen receptor inhibitors-enzalutamide, apalutamide, and darolutamide-for the treatment of patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC). These approvals were all based on randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled trials demonstrating large improvements in metastasis-free survival (MFS) and internally consistent evidence of benefit seen across secondary endpoints. In this article, we summarize the FDA regulatory history of MFS and we describe the design, conduct, and results of the three pivotal trials supporting these important treatment options for patients with nmCRPC.

Analysis of the Association Between Adverse Events and Outcome in Patients Receiving a Programmed Death Protein 1 or Programmed Death Ligand 1 Antibody.

PURPOSE: To assess the relationship among tumor response rate, overall survival, and the development of related adverse events of special interest (AESIs) or related immune-mediated adverse events (imAEs) in patients with urothelial cancer treated with anti-programmed death protein 1 or ligand 1 (anti-PD-1/L1) antibodies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We examined seven trials in 1,747 patients with metastatic or locally advanced urothelial cancer that led to approval of an anti-PD-1/L1 antibody. Five trials enrolled patients who had received prior platinum-based therapy, and two enrolled patients who were cisplatin ineligible. The data sets were searched for AESIs, related AESIs, imAEs, and related imAEs. The relationship to study drug was determined by the investigator. ImAEs were defined as AESIs treated with topical or systemic corticosteroids. RESULTS: In these exploratory analyses, a related AESI was reported in 64% of responding patients and in 34% of patients who did not respond to the anti-PD-1/L1 antibody, whereas a related imAE occurred in 28% and 12% of patients who did and did not respond to study drug, respectively. In a responder analysis, an increase in overall survival was seen in patients with related AESIs compared with those with no related AESIs (hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.52). Fifty-seven percent of responding patients with a related AESI reported the AESI before documentation of response. CONCLUSION: Patients who responded to treatment with an anti-PD-1/L1 antibody were more likely to report a related AESI or related imAE. This relationship did not seem to be due to the increased duration of exposure in responding patients. Systemic corticosteroid use did not appear to affect the duration of response.

Eye injury from electrical weapon probes: Mechanisms and treatment.

PURPOSE: While generally reducing morbidity and mortality, TASER® electrical weapons have risks associated with their usage, including burn injuries and head and cervical trauma associated with uncontrolled falls. The primary non-fatal complications appear to be significant eye injury but no analysis of the mechanisms or suggested treatments has been published. METHODS: We used a biomechanical model to predict the risk of eye injury as a function of distance from the weapon muzzle to the eye. We compared our model results to recently published epidemiological findings. We also describe the typical presentation and suggest treatment options. RESULTS: The globe rupture model predicted that a globe rupture can be expected (50% risk) when the eye is within 6 m of the muzzle and decreases rapidly beyond that. This critical distance is 9 m for lens and retinal damage which is approximately the range of the most common probe cartridges. Beyond 9 m, hyphema is expected along with a perforation by the dart portion of the probe. Our prediction of globe rupture out to 6 m (out of a typical range of 9 m) is consistent with the published risk of enucleation or unilateral blindness being 69 ±â€¯18%, with an eye penetration. CONCLUSIONS: Significant eye injury is expected from a penetration by an electrical weapon probe at close range. The risk decreases rapidly at extended distances from the muzzle. Not all penetrating globe injuries from electrical weapon probes will result in blindness.

Applied Force During Prone Restraint: Is Officer Weight a Factor?

INTRODUCTION: It has been suggested that law enforcement officer (LEO) weight on the backs of prone subjects may cause asphyxia. METHODS: Law enforcement officers used their agency-trained "local" single- and double-knee techniques, the "Wisconsin" 3-Point Ground Stabilization, and the Human Factor Research Group Inc single-knee tactical handcuffing techniques, and the weight force was measured. RESULTS: Forty-one LEOs (36 men, 5 women) participated, aged 38.4 ± 8.3 years, and weighing 96.2 ± 19.4 kg. The double-knee technique transmitted more weight than single knee (P < 0.0001). Wisconsin technique force was lower than other single-knee techniques (P < 0.0001). Double-knee weight was 23.3 kg plus 24% of LEO's body weight. Mean values for local and Human Factor Research Group Inc single-knee were 30.9 and 32.9 kg, respectively. The Wisconsin single knee weight force was given by 15.4 kg plus 9.5 kg for a male. CONCLUSIONS: A double-knee technique applies more weight force than single-knee techniques. The Wisconsin single-knee technique provides the least weight force of single-knee techniques. Law enforcement officer body weight is irrelevant to prone-force weight with single-knee techniques. With double-knee restraint, it has a modest influence. Our data do not support the hypothesis of restraint asphyxia.