Identifying carers in general practice (STATUS QUO): a multicentre, cross-sectional study in England.

OBJECTIVES: To determine General Practice (GP) recording of carer status and the number of patients self-identifying as carers, while self-completing an automated check-in screen prior to a GP consultation. DESIGN: A descriptive cross-sectional study. SETTING: 11 GPs in the West Midlands, England. Recruitment commenced in September 2019 and concluded in January 2020. PARTICIPANTS: All patients aged 10 years and over, self-completing an automated check-in screen, were invited to participate during a 3-week recruitment period. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The current coding of carers at participating GPs and the number of patients identifying themselves as a carer were primary outcome measures. Secondary outcome measures included the number of responses attained from automated check-in screens as a research data collection tool and whether carers felt supported in their carer role. RESULTS: 80.3% (n=9301) of patients self-completing an automated check-in screen participated in QUantifying the identification Of carers in general practice (STATUS QUO Study) (62.6% (n=5822) female, mean age 52.9 years (10-98 years, SD=20.3)). Prior to recruitment, the clinical code used to denote a carer was identified in 2.7% (n=2739) of medical records across the participating GPs.10.1% (n=936) of participants identified themselves as a carer. They reported feeling supported with their own health and social care needs: always 19.3% (n=150), a lot of the time 13.2% (n=102), some of the time 40.8% (n=317) and never 26.7% (n=207). CONCLUSIONS: Many more participants self-identified as a carer than were recorded on participating GP lists. Improvements in the recording of the population's caring status need to be actioned, to ensure that supportive implementation strategies for carers are effectively received. Using automated check-in facilities for research continues to provide high participation rates.

Risk of adverse outcomes during gabapentinoid therapy and factors associated with increased risk in UK primary care using the clinical practice research datalink: a cohort study.

ABSTRACT: Growing evidence from pharmacovigilance data and postmortem toxicology reports highlights the misuse potential of gabapentinoids. This study aimed to investigate the risk of serious adverse outcomes (drug misuse, overdose, major trauma), and their risk factors, in primary care patients who are prescribed gabapentinoids. Using the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a matched cohort study calculated adverse event rates separately for gabapentinoid-exposed and unexposed cohorts. In the exposed cohort, event rates for exposure to a range of potential risk factors were calculated. Event rates were compared using Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for age, sex, deprivation, previous mental health diagnosis, and coprescribing with potentially interacting medicines. Substance misuse (gabapentin adjusted hazard ratio [95% CI]: 2.40 [2.25-2.55]), overdose (2.99 [2.56-3.49]), and major trauma (0-2.5 years: 1.35 [1.28-1.42]; 2.5 to 10 years: 1.73 [1.56-1.95]) were more common among patients prescribed gabapentinoids than matched individuals who were not. The association with overdose was stronger for pregabalin than gabapentin. All adverse outcomes were significantly associated with smoking, history of substance misuse, overdose, or a mental health condition and prescription of opioids, benzodiazepines, antidepressants, and Z-drug hypnotics (eg, gabapentin hazard ratios for association of concurrent opioid use: misuse 1.49 [1.47-1.51]; overdose 1.87 [1.78-1.96]; major trauma 1.28 [1.26-1.30]). Our findings highlight the importance of careful patient selection when prescribing gabapentinoids and the need to educate prescribers about the risks of these drugs, particularly in combination with other central nervous system depressants.

Prognostic factors for colchicine prophylaxis-related adverse events when initiating allopurinol for gout: retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Colchicine is commonly used to prevent flares when starting urate-lowering therapy for gout. Patients with gout are frequently concurrently prescribed other medications (such as statins) that may interact with colchicine, increasing the risk of adverse events. The aim of this study was to describe potential prognostic factors for adverse events in patients prescribed colchicine when initiating allopurinol. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study in linked UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink and Hospital Episode Statistics datasets. Adults initiating allopurinol for gout with colchicine (01/04/1997-30/11/2016) were included. Potential prognostic factors were defined, and the likelihood of adverse events, including diarrhoea, nausea or vomiting, myocardial infarction (MI), neuropathy, myalgia, myopathy, rhabdomyolysis, and bone marrow suppression, were estimated. RESULTS: From 01/04/1997-30/11/2016, 13 945 people with gout initiated allopurinol with colchicine prophylaxis (mean age 63.9 (SD 14.7) years, 78.2% male). One quarter (26%, 95% CI 25% to 27%) were prescribed ≥1 potentially interacting medicines, most commonly statins (21%, 95% CI 20% to 22%). Statins were not associated with increased adverse events, although other drugs were associated with some adverse outcomes. Diarrhoea and MI were associated with more comorbidities and more severe CKD. CONCLUSION: People were given colchicine prophylaxis despite commonly having preexisting prescriptions for medications with potential to interact with colchicine. Adverse events were more common in people who had more comorbidities and certain potentially interacting medications. Our findings will provide much-needed information about prognostic factors for colchicine-related adverse events that can inform treatment decisions about prophylaxis when initiating allopurinol.

Cardiac markers in left-sided breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant radiotherapy: a prospective study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the association between radiotherapy (RT) and cardiac biomarkers in women with left-sided breast cancer. METHODS: This prospective observational study recruited patients with stage I-III left-sided breast cancer without coronary heart disease who required adjuvant RT. High-sensitivity troponin I(hsTnI), N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide(NT-proBNP), and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein(hsCRP) levels were measured pre-RT, immediately after RT, and 3 months post-RT. Cardiac-sparing RT techniques were utilized (Field-in-Field IMRT/VMAT ± voluntary deep inspiration breath-hold). Statistical analyses were performed using non-parametric tests and multivariable quantile regression (QR). RESULTS: One hundred five patients completed the study, with 63 evaluable at three months post-RT. Pre- and post-RT biomarkers showed no significant differences. Median pre-RT and post-RT values were: hsTnI (0.012ng/mL; 0.012ng/mL), hsCRP (3.1 mg/L; 2.8 mg/L), and NT-proBNP (59pg/mL; 45pg/mL). Three months post-RT, hsTnI, hsCRP and NT-proBNP levels also showed no significant differences. Multivariable QR revealed no association between heart Dmean [median(IQR): 2.87 Gy (2.05-3.94)] and post-RT biomarkers. Age and BMI were associated with hsCRP and NT-proBNP, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: hsTnI, NT-proBNP, and hsCRP are not correlated with contemporary low cardiac exposure in left-sided breast cancer patients treated with contemporary RT techniques.

Is it too early to recommend local treatment in oligometastatic non-small cell lung cancer: a plea for equipoise.

Oligometastatic non-small cell lung cancer (OMD NSCLC) has been proposed to bridge the spectrum between non-metastatic and widely metastatic states and is perceived as an opportunity for potential cure if removed. Twelve clinical trials on local treatment have been reported, yet none are conclusive. These trials informed the development of a joint clinical practice guideline by the American & European Societies for Radiation Oncology, which endorses local treatment for OMD NSCLC. However, the heterogeneity between prognostic factors within these trials likely influenced outcomes and can only support guidance at this time. Caution against an uncritical acceptance of the guideline is discussed, as strong recommendations are offered based on expert opinion and inconclusive evidence. The guideline is also examined by a patient's caregiver, who emphasizes that uncertain evidence impedes shared decision making.

Community based complex interventions to sustain independence in older people: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To synthesise evidence of the effectiveness of community based complex interventions, grouped according to their intervention components, to sustain independence for older people. DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, clinicaltrials.gov, and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to 9 August 2021 and reference lists of included studies. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials or cluster randomised controlled trials with ≥24 weeks' follow-up studying community based complex interventions for sustaining independence in older people (mean age ≥65 years) living at home, with usual care, placebo, or another complex intervention as comparators. MAIN OUTCOMES: Living at home, activities of daily living (personal/instrumental), care home placement, and service/economic outcomes at 12 months. DATA SYNTHESIS: Interventions were grouped according to a specifically developed typology. Random effects network meta-analysis estimated comparative effects; Cochrane's revised tool (RoB 2) structured risk of bias assessment. Grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) network meta-analysis structured certainty assessment. RESULTS: The review included 129 studies (74 946 participants). Nineteen intervention components, including "multifactorial action from individualised care planning" (a process of multidomain assessment and management leading to tailored actions), were identified in 63 combinations. For living at home, compared with no intervention/placebo, evidence favoured multifactorial action from individualised care planning including medication review and regular follow-ups (routine review) (odds ratio 1.22, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.59; moderate certainty); multifactorial action from individualised care planning including medication review without regular follow-ups (2.55, 0.61 to 10.60; low certainty); combined cognitive training, medication review, nutritional support, and exercise (1.93, 0.79 to 4.77; low certainty); and combined activities of daily living training, nutritional support, and exercise (1.79, 0.67 to 4.76; low certainty). Risk screening or the addition of education and self-management strategies to multifactorial action from individualised care planning and routine review with medication review may reduce odds of living at home. For instrumental activities of daily living, evidence favoured multifactorial action from individualised care planning and routine review with medication review (standardised mean difference 0.11, 95% confidence interval 0.00 to 0.21; moderate certainty). Two interventions may reduce instrumental activities of daily living: combined activities of daily living training, aids, and exercise; and combined activities of daily living training, aids, education, exercise, and multifactorial action from individualised care planning and routine review with medication review and self-management strategies. For personal activities of daily living, evidence favoured combined exercise, multifactorial action from individualised care planning, and routine review with medication review and self-management strategies (0.16, -0.51 to 0.82; low certainty). For homecare recipients, evidence favoured addition of multifactorial action from individualised care planning and routine review with medication review (0.60, 0.32 to 0.88; low certainty). High risk of bias and imprecise estimates meant that most evidence was low or very low certainty. Few studies contributed to each comparison, impeding evaluation of inconsistency and frailty. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention most likely to sustain independence is individualised care planning including medicines optimisation and regular follow-up reviews resulting in multifactorial action. Homecare recipients may particularly benefit from this intervention. Unexpectedly, some combinations may reduce independence. Further research is needed to investigate which combinations of interventions work best for different participants and contexts. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019162195.

The relationship between pain and depression and anxiety in patients with inflammatory arthritis: a systematic review protocol.

Pain is a major challenge for patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA). Depression and anxiety are common comorbidities in IA, associating with worse outcomes. How they relate to pain is uncertain, with existing systematic reviews (a) mainly considering cross-sectional studies, (b) focusing on the relationship between pain and mental health in the context of disease activity/quality of life, and (c) not specifically considering the impact of treating depression/anxiety on pain. This PROSPERO-registered (CRD42023411823) systematic review will address this knowledge-gap by synthesizing evidence to summarise the associations (and potential mediators) between pain and depression/anxiety and evaluate the impact of treating co-morbid depression/anxiety on pain in IA. Relevant databases will be searched, articles screened and their quality appraised (using Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools) by two reviewers. Eligible studies will include adults with rheumatoid arthritis or spondyloarthritis, be a clinical trial or observational study, and either (a) report the relationship between pain and depression/anxiety (observational studies/baseline trials), or (b) randomise participants to a pharmacological or psychological treatment to manage depression/anxiety with a pain outcome as an endpoint (trials). To synthesise data on the association between pain and depression/anxiety, where available adjusted coefficients from regression models will be pooled in a random-effects meta-analysis. A synthesis without meta-analysis will summarise mediators. To evaluate the impact of treating depression/anxiety on pain, endpoint mean differences between treatment arms will be combined in a random-effects meta-analysis. Through understanding how depression/anxiety contribute to pain in IA, our review has the potential to help optimise approaches to IA pain.

Musculoskeletal disorders and pain in agricultural workers in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Agricultural workers constitute two-thirds of the population of Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMIC) and are at increased risk of developing musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) due to high-risk activities. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to synthesise the prevalence, predictors, and outcomes of musculoskeletal pain amongst agricultural workers to identify priority areas for prevention and development of early interventions. This systematic review and meta-analysis included Studies published from the inception of global electronic databases until 30 September 2022 were included. Prevalence estimates for MSDs among agricultural workers aged over 18 years in LMIC were extracted. Narrative synthesis summarized study findings and pooled estimates for 12-month pain prevalence were calculated. 7502 potential studies were identified. 64 studies (68,684 participants from 23 countries) were included in the systematic review; 33 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Low back pain was the most widely investigated symptom. The 12-month pooled prevalence of low back pain was highest in Africa [61.96% (45.69-76.22)] compared to Asia [54.16% (47.76-60.50)] and South/Central America [28.52%(10.91-50.33)]. Narrative synthesis found associations between MSDs, particular activities including heavy lifting and repetitive movements, and outcomes including reduced productivity. MSDs are common in agriculture workers in LMIC. Global prevalence of low back pain in farmers, particularly in Africa, is greater than in previously reported global prevalence in the general population. This may be attributed to environmental factors and high-risk activities which could be targeted for prevention and early intervention strategies to support individuals, prevent disability, and reduce loss of productivity.

Safety of colchicine and NSAID prophylaxis when initiating urate-lowering therapy for gout: propensity score-matched cohort studies in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the risk of adverse events associated with colchicine or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) prophylaxis when initiating allopurinol for gout. METHODS: We conducted two matched retrospective cohort studies in linked UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink and Hospital Episode Statistics datasets. Adults initiating allopurinol for gout with (1) colchicine or (2) NSAID prophylaxis were compared with those initiating without prophylaxis, individually matched by age, sex and propensity to receive the relevant prophylaxis. Weighted Cox proportional hazards models investigated associations between colchicine/NSAID and specified adverse events. RESULTS: 13 945 individuals prescribed colchicine were matched to 13 945 with no prophylaxis and 25 980 prescribed NSAID to 25 980 with no prophylaxis. Adverse event incidence rates were <200/10 000 patient-years except diarrhoea (784.4; 95% CI 694.0 to 886.5) and nausea (208.1; 95% CI 165.4 to 261.7) for colchicine and angina for NSAID (466.6; 95% CI 417.2 to 521.8). Diarrhoea (HR 2.22; 95% CI 1.83 to 2.69), myocardial infarction (MI) (1.55; 95% CI 1.10, 2.17), neuropathy (4.75; 95% CI 1.20 to 18.76), myalgia (2.64; 95% CI 1.45 to 4.81), bone marrow suppression (3.29; 95% CI 1.43 to 7.58) and any adverse event (1.91, 95% CI 1.65 to 2.20) were more common with colchicine than no prophylaxis, but not nausea/vomiting (1.34; 95% CI 0.97 to 1.85). Angina (1.60; 95% CI 1.37 to 1.86), acute kidney injury (1.56; 95% CI 1.20 to 2.03), MI (1.89; 95% CI 1.44 to 2.48), peptic ulcer disease (1.67; 95% CI 1.14 to 2.44) and any adverse event (1.63; 95% CI 1.44 to 1.85) were more common with NSAID than without. CONCLUSIONS: Adverse events were more common when allopurinol was initiated with prophylaxis, particularly diarrhoea with colchicine. Other events were uncommon, providing reassurance for patients and clinicians to enable shared decision-making.

Trends in consultations and prescribing for rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: an electronic primary care records study.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) are common and generally managed in primary care through supported self-care, physiotherapy, analgesia, and specialist referral where indicated. The COVID-19 pandemic led to abrupt changes in primary care delivery, including moves to remote consulting, pauses on group-based self-care, and restricted referrals. AIM: To describe how patterns of UK primary healthcare consultations and analgesic prescribing relating to RMDs changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN AND SETTING: Observational study using routinely collected national primary care electronic health record data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink between 1 April 2017 and 1 October 2021. METHOD: RMD and analgesic SNOMED-CT codes were derived through consensus and published work. Prevalent and incident RMD-related consultations were determined, and RMD consultations matched to prevalent and incident analgesia prescriptions. Joinpoint regression was used to describe trends over time. RESULTS: Prevalent and incident RMD consultations steadily increased until March 2020 when a substantial drop occurred as pandemic- related restrictions were introduced; levels had not recovered to pre-pandemic highs by October 2021. While incident and prevalent analgesic prescribing also reduced around March 2020, the proportion of patients with an RMD consultation prescribed any analgesic increased from 27.72% in February 2020 to 38.15% in April 2020, with increases across all analgesic groups. A higher proportion of strong opioid prescriptions was seen in the most deprived areas. CONCLUSION: Pandemic-associated restrictions led to fewer primary care consultations and relative increases in analgesic prescribing, including strong opioids, for RMDs in the UK. Policymakers must consider the impact of these changes in future healthcare resource planning.

Effect of Conventional Lifestyle Interventions on Type 2 Diabetes Incidence by Glucose-Defined Prediabetes Phenotype: An Individual Participant Data Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the effect of conventional lifestyle interventions on type 2 diabetes incidence differs by glucose-defined prediabetes phenotype. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We searched multiple databases until 1 April 2023 for randomized controlled trials that recruited people with isolated impaired fasting glucose (i-IFG), isolated impaired glucose tolerance (i-IGT), and impaired fasting glucose plus impaired glucose tolerance (IFG+IGT). Individual participant data were pooled from relevant trials and analyzed through random-effects models with use of the within-trial interactions approach. RESULTS: Four trials with 2,794 participants (mean age 53.0 years, 60.7% men) were included: 1,240 (44.4%), 796 (28.5%), and 758 (27.1%) had i-IFG, i-IGT, and IFG+IGT, respectively. After a median of 2.5 years, the pooled hazard ratio for diabetes incidence in i-IFG was 0.97 (95% CI 0.66, 1.44), i-IGT 0.65 (0.44, 0.96), and IFG+IGT 0.51 (0.38, 0.68; Pinteraction = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Conventional lifestyle interventions reduced diabetes incidence in people with IGT (with or without IFG) but not in those with i-IFG.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on referrals to musculoskeletal services from primary care and subsequent incidence of inflammatory rheumatic musculoskeletal disease: an observational study.

Objective: The aim was to describe the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic upon referral patterns and incident diagnosis of inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (iRMDs). Methods: UK primary care data were used to describe referral patterns for patients with musculoskeletal conditions. Trends in referrals to musculoskeletal services and incident diagnoses of iRMDs (specifically, RA and JIA) were described using Joinpoint Regression and comparisons made between key pandemic time periods. Results: The incidence of RA and JIA reduced by -13.3 and -17.4% per month, respectively, between January 2020 and April 2020, then increased by 1.9 and 3.7% per month, respectively, between April 2020 and October 2021. The incidence of all diagnosed iRMDs was stable until October 2021. Referrals decreased between February 2020 and May 2020 by -16.8% per month from 4.8 to 2.4% in patients presenting with a musculoskeletal condition. After May 2020, referrals increased significantly (16.8% per month) to 4.5% in July 2020. The time from first musculoskeletal consultation to RA diagnosis and from referral to RA diagnosis increased in the early pandemic period [rate ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% CI 1.07, 1.15 and RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.17, 1.30, respectively] and remained consistently higher in the late pandemic period (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.11, 1.16 and RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.23, 1.32, respectively), compared with the pre-COVID-19 pandemic period. Conclusion: Patients with underlying RA and JIA that developed during the pandemic might be yet to present or might be in the referral and/or diagnostic process. Clinicians should remain alert to this possibility, and commissioners should be aware of these findings, enabling the appropriate planning and commissioning of services.

Systematic review finds "spin" practices and poor reporting standards in studies on machine learning-based prediction models.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the presence and frequency of spin practices and poor reporting standards in studies that developed and/or validated clinical prediction models using supervised machine learning techniques. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We systematically searched PubMed from 01/2018 to 12/2019 to identify diagnostic and prognostic prediction model studies using supervised machine learning. No restrictions were placed on data source, outcome, or clinical specialty. RESULTS: We included 152 studies: 38% reported diagnostic models and 62% prognostic models. When reported, discrimination was described without precision estimates in 53/71 abstracts (74.6% [95% CI 63.4-83.3]) and 53/81 main texts (65.4% [95% CI 54.6-74.9]). Of the 21 abstracts that recommended the model to be used in daily practice, 20 (95.2% [95% CI 77.3-99.8]) lacked any external validation of the developed models. Likewise, 74/133 (55.6% [95% CI 47.2-63.8]) studies made recommendations for clinical use in their main text without any external validation. Reporting guidelines were cited in 13/152 (8.6% [95% CI 5.1-14.1]) studies. CONCLUSION: Spin practices and poor reporting standards are also present in studies on prediction models using machine learning techniques. A tailored framework for the identification of spin will enhance the sound reporting of prediction model studies.

Trends in gabapentinoid prescribing in UK primary care using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink: an observational study.

Background: The UK government reclassified gabapentin and pregabalin as 'controlled drugs' from April 2019. This study aimed to describe the trends in gabapentinoid prescribing before and immediately after reclassification, in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink, an electronic primary care health record broadly representative of the UK. Methods: Separately for gabapentin and pregabalin, we calculated annual incident and prevalent prescribing rates from year of UK approval (April 1997 and 2004 respectively) to September 2019, and monthly incident and prevalent prescribing rates (October 2017-September 2019). Significant changes in temporal trends were determined using joinpoint regression. We also described potential prescribing indications, prior pain-related prescribing, and co-prescribing with potentially interacting medicines. Findings: Incident gabapentin prescribing increased annually, peaking in 2016-17, at 625/100,000 patient years before falling steadily to 2019. Incident pregabalin prescribing peaked at 329/100,000 patient years in 2017-18 and did not fall significantly until 2019. Prevalent gabapentin and pregabalin prescribing increased annually to 2017-18 and 2018-19 respectively, before plateauing. Gabapentinoids were commonly co-prescribed with opioids (60%), antidepressants (52%), benzodiazepines (19%), and Z-drugs (10%). Interpretation: Following a dramatic rise, incident gabapentinoid prescribing has started to fall but the specific impact of reclassification on prescribing rates remains unclear. Limited change in prevalent gabapentinoid prescribing during the 6 months following their reclassification as controlled drugs suggests little immediate impact on continued gabapentinoid prescribing for existing users. Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Research for Patient Benefit Programme. NIHR Applied Research Collaboration West Midlands. NIHR School for Primary Care Research.

Expression of Angiopoetin-Like Protein-4 and Kidney Injury Molecule-1 as Preliminary Diagnostic Markers for Diabetes-Related Kidney Disease: A Single Center-Based Cross-Sectional Study.

The purpose of the study was to examine the urinary levels of kidney injury molecule-1 (KIM-1) and angiopoietin-like protein-4 (ANGPTL-4) in individuals with diabetic kidney disease (DKD) and their association with established DKD diagnostic markers such as albuminuria and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Levels of ANGPTL-4 and KIM-1 were estimated in urine samples. A total of 135 participants were recruited into three groups: 45 diabetes type 2 patients in the control group and 90 DKD patients in two disease groups. Concentrations of ANGPTL-4 and KIM-1 were conclusively related to the urinary albumin-creatinine ratio (UACR). Also, the levels of both ANGPTL-4 and KIM-1 were negatively associated with the eGFR. Multivariable Poisson regression analysis showed that urinary ANGPTL-4 (PR: 3.40; 95% CI: 2.32 to 4.98; p < 0.001) and KIM-1 (PR: 1.25; 95% CI: 1.14 to 1.38; p < 0.001) were prevalent in DKD patients. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis of urinary ANGPTL-4 and KIM-1 in the combined form resulted in an area under curve (AUC) of 0.967 (95%CI: 0.932-1.000; p < 0.0001) in the microalbuminuria group and 1 (95%CI: 1.000-1.000; p < 0.0001) in the macroalbuminuria group. The association of urinary levels of ANGPTL-4 and KIM-1 with UACR and eGFR and significant prevalence in the diabetic kidney disease population illustrates the diagnostic potential of these biomarkers.

Risk-Adapted Target Delineation for Breast Cancer: Controversies and Considerations.

The advent of computed tomography-based planning coupled with modern tools for target delineation and hypofractionated treatment schedules has increased efficiency and throughput for patients with breast cancer. While the benefit of adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) in reducing locoregional recurrences is established, disentangling local versus regional recurrence risks with modern treatment protocols has become an area of active research to de-escalate treatment. Delineation guidelines for nodal regions either attempt to replicate results of conventional RT techniques by translating bony landmarks to clinical target volumes or use landmarks based on the fact that lymphatic channels run along the vasculature. Because direct comparisons of both approaches are implausible, mapping studies of nodal recurrences have reported on the proportion of nodes included in these delineation guidelines, and larger, bony, landmark-based guidelines appear intuitively appealing for patients with unfavorable risk factors. A pooled analysis of these studies is reported here, along with literature supporting the exclusion of the true chest wall from postmastectomy/breast-conserving surgery clinical target volumes and the selective (versus routine) use of bolus during postmastectomy RT. The risk-adapted approach suggested here accounts for the risk of recurrence as well as toxicity and endorses nuanced target volume delineation rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.

Systematic review identifies the design and methodological conduct of studies on machine learning-based prediction models.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We sought to summarize the study design, modelling strategies, and performance measures reported in studies on clinical prediction models developed using machine learning techniques. METHODS: We search PubMed for articles published between 01/01/2018 and 31/12/2019, describing the development or the development with external validation of a multivariable prediction model using any supervised machine learning technique. No restrictions were made based on study design, data source, or predicted patient-related health outcomes. RESULTS: We included 152 studies, 58 (38.2% [95% CI 30.8-46.1]) were diagnostic and 94 (61.8% [95% CI 53.9-69.2]) prognostic studies. Most studies reported only the development of prediction models (n = 133, 87.5% [95% CI 81.3-91.8]), focused on binary outcomes (n = 131, 86.2% [95% CI 79.8-90.8), and did not report a sample size calculation (n = 125, 82.2% [95% CI 75.4-87.5]). The most common algorithms used were support vector machine (n = 86/522, 16.5% [95% CI 13.5-19.9]) and random forest (n = 73/522, 14% [95% CI 11.3-17.2]). Values for area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve ranged from 0.45 to 1.00. Calibration metrics were often missed (n = 494/522, 94.6% [95% CI 92.4-96.3]). CONCLUSION: Our review revealed that focus is required on handling of missing values, methods for internal validation, and reporting of calibration to improve the methodological conduct of studies on machine learning-based prediction models. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42019161764.

Tri-modality therapy in advanced esophageal carcinoma: long-term results and insights from a developing world, institutional cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate treatment outcomes in patients from a low-middle income country (LMIC) with esophageal carcinoma who underwent esophagectomy after neoadjuvant chemoradiation (NACRT/S). METHODS: Between 2010 and 2020, 254 patients (median follow-up: 53 months) met our inclusion criteria. Out-of-field nodal regions were determined by reviewing individual radiotherapy plans. Cox regression modelling was performed to analyze overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS), while pathological complete response (pCR) prediction utilized Poisson regression. RESULTS: The median OS was 71.4 months (interquartile range: 19.6-∞), RFS did not reach the median and pCR rate was 46%. On multivariable Cox regression, BMI [0.93 (0.89-0.98); 0.94 (0.89-0.99)] and absence of out-of-field node with extranodal extension (ENE)[0.22 (0.09-0.53); 0.30 (0.12-0.75)] influenced OS and RFS, respectively. Age [1.03 (1.01-1.06)], nodal stage [cN2-3 vs cN0: 2.67 (1.08-6.57)] and adventitial involvement [2.54 (1.36-4.72)] also influenced OS, while involved margins [3.12 (1.24-7.81)] influenced RFS. On multivariable Poisson regression, non-CROSS-chemotherapy regimens [0.65 (0.44-0.95)] and residual primary disease on pre-surgical imaging [0.73 (0.57-0.93)] were significantly associated with pCR. The most frequently involved in-field and out-of-field nodal regions were the periesophageal and perigastric (greater and lesser curvature) regions, respectively. CONCLUSION: NACRT/S is feasible and effective in patients from LMIC. Out-of-field ENE merits further investigation as a prognostic factor since it significantly influenced both OS and RFS. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The results of clinical trials are replicable in LMICs. Out-of-field ENE is an independent prognostic factor for OS and RFS.

Effects of participatory 'A'rt-Based Activity On 'Health' of Older Community-Dwellers: results from a randomized control trial of the Singapore A-Health Intervention.

Introduction: The practice of participatory art has been found to support the promotion, prevention, and management of health across the lifespan. However, clinical trials investigating the benefits of creative activities curated with and conducted in museums among older adults in East Asia remains limited. Methods: The current research utilized a single-site, open-label randomized control trial (RCT) to evaluate a standardized Participatory 'A'rt-Based Activity On 'Health' of Older Community-Dwellers - the Singapore A-Health Intervention. Outcome measures include frailty as assessed by the Centre of Excellence on Longevity Self-administered Questionnaire, wellbeing as assessed by the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scales, and quality of life as assessed by the EuroQol-5D. 112 participants aged 60 and above were randomized into the intervention group (n = 56) or an inactive control group (n = 56). Participants completed four standardized online self-administered assessments at baseline, 5-week, 9-week and 12-week follow-up during the intervention period. Results: Linear mixed model analyses revealed no statistically significant differences between the intervention group and control group for all outcome measures. However, within the intervention group, a consistent significant reduction in frailty was observed across time from baseline to 9 weeks (MD -0.44, 95% CI -0.85 to -0.039, p = 0.032), 5-weeks to 9-weeks (MD -0.64, 95% CI -1.03 to -0.24, p = 0.002), and 5-weeks to 12-weeks (MD -0.51, 95% CI -0.91 to -0.10, p = 0.014). Moreover, the post-test mean wellbeing score in the intervention group significantly improved over time at 9-weeks (MD 1.65, 95% CI 0.09 to 3.22, p = 0.039) and 12-week (MD 2.42, 95% CI 0.67 to 4.16, p = 0.006) as compared to baseline scores. Discussion: The findings demonstrate the potential of a structured art and museum-based intervention as a resource for promoting health among aging populations. Such benefits transcend social, cultural, and societal contexts. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrial.gov, NCT05945589.