A proposal for a revision of the phlebographic classification of congenital venous malformations.

Background: Venous malformation (VM) is the most frequent type of congenital vascular malformation. In terms of functional outcome local sclerotherapy remains the most important therapeutic tool. For planning and correct estimation and prevention of complications, an exact anatomical classification of the VM is crucial. Not only the drainage, as assessed in the established classification, but also the phlebographic aspect of the internal VM structure itself plays a decisive role. In order to integrate this aspect, we aim to validate a proposal for a revised phlebographic VM classification distinguishing non-lacunar (a) and lacunar (b) types. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed all patients with VM in whom a direct puncture phlebography was performed in our clinic between 2009 and 2018 to assess morphology and flow characteristics. Phlebographic assessment included: (I) differentiation of non-lacunar vs. lacunar type; (II) drainage assignment according to the existing classification; (III) adjusted classification combining both. Inter-reader agreement was measured in percentage as well as by the Cohen's kappa coefficient (κ). Results: Overall 26 patients were classified as non-lacunar (a) and 41 patients as lacunar (b) VM. For this categorization, inter-reader agreement was 96% (κ=0.91). Classical Puig classification into types I, II, III and IV showed 87% inter-reader agreement (κ=0.78). For the adjusted classification adding the non-lacunar or lacunar characteristic to type I-IV an agreement of 82% (κ=0.77) was achieved. Conclusions: Phlebographic differentiation into non-lacunar and lacunar VM is feasible and reliable to distinguish phenotypic subgroups of patients with VM. We therefore propose to integrate this parameter of the internal VM structure into the existing classification.

Development and validation of a score to assess complexity of general internal medicine patients at hospital discharge: a prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop and validate a score to assess inpatient complexity and compare its performance with two currently used but not validated tools to estimate complexity (ie, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), patient clinical complexity level (PCCL)). METHODS: Consecutive patients discharged from the department of medicine of a tertiary care hospital were prospectively included into a derivation cohort from 1 October 2016 to 16 February 2017 (n=1407), and a temporal validation cohort from 17 February 2017 to 31 March 2017 (n=482). The physician in charge assessed complexity. Potential predictors comprised 52 parameters from the electronic health record such as health factors and hospital care usage. We fit a logistic regression model with backward selection to develop a prediction model and derive a score. We assessed and compared performance of model and score in internal and external validation using measures of discrimination and calibration. RESULTS: Overall, 447 of 1407 patients (32%) in the derivation cohort, and 116 of 482 patients (24%) in the validation cohort were identified as complex. Eleven variables independently associated with complexity were included in the score. Using a cut-off of ≥24 score points to define high-risk patients, specificity was 81% and sensitivity 57% in the validation cohort. The score's area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve was 0.78 in both the derivation and validation cohort. In comparison, the CCI had an AUROC between 0.58 and 0.61, and the PCCL between 0.64 and 0.69, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We derived and internally and externally validated a score that reflects patient complexity in the hospital setting, performed better than other tools and could help monitoring complex patients.

Randomised clinical trial: the safety and tolerability of fluticasone propionate orally disintegrating tablets versus placebo for eosinophilic oesophagitis.

BACKGROUND: APT-1011, a fluticasone propionate orally disintegrating tablet formulation, is under investigation for the treatment of eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE). AIMS: To evaluate the safety and tolerability of APT-1011 administered to patients with EoE and to assess the effect on clinical symptoms of EoE, endoscopic appearance and oesophageal eosinophilia. METHODS: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre, phase 1b/2a study was conducted at seven medical centres in the US to evaluate the safety and tolerability of APT-1011 over 8 weeks in adults and adolescents with EoE. Participants were randomised to placebo (n = 8), 1.5 mg APT-1011 BID (n = 8) or 3.0 mg APT-1011 QD (n = 8). Safety and tolerability were assessed as the primary outcome; histologic and endoscopic measures were assessed as exploratory outcomes. RESULTS: There were no deaths, serious treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), severe TEAEs or discontinuations from the study related to a TEAE. In one participant randomised to 1.5 mg APT-1011 BID, a reduction in cortisol was observed, but without evidence of adrenal insufficiency. Compared with placebo, treatment with APT-1011 resulted in greater reductions in oesophageal eosinophil counts, EoE Endoscopic Reference Score, patient global assessment and symptom-based EoE activity index from baseline to end of treatment (Week 8). CONCLUSIONS: APT-1011 was safe and well tolerated in adolescents and adults with EoE. Exploratory efficacy outcomes demonstrated improvement in histologic and endoscopic findings as well evidence of symptom improvement. The results of this study support the continued development of APT-1011 for the treatment of EoE (NCT-01386112).

Variation in Endoscopic Activity Assessment and Endoscopy Score Validation in Adults With Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is assessed endoscopically (endoscopic activity), based on grades of edema, rings, exudates, furrows, and strictures (EREFS). We examined variations in endoscopic assessments of severity, developed and validated 3 EREFS-based scoring systems, and assessed responsiveness of these systems using data from a randomized placebo-controlled trial of patients with EoE. METHODS: For the development set, 5 gastroenterologists reviewed EREFS findings from 266 adults with EoE and provided endoscopist global assessment scores (EndoGA, scale of 0 to 10); variation (ΔEndoGA) was assessed using linear regression. We evaluated simple scores (features given arbitrary values from 0 to 3) and developed 2 scoring systems (adjusted score range, 0-100). We then fitted our linear regression model with mean EndoGA to data from 146 adults recruited in centers in Switzerland and the United States between April 2011 and December 2012. For the validation set, we collected data from 120 separate adults (recruited in centers in Switzerland and the United States between May 2013 and July 2014), assessing regression coefficient-based scores using Bland-Altman method. We assessed the responsiveness of our scoring systems using data from a randomized trial of patients with EoE given fluticasone (n=16) or placebo (n=8). RESULTS: The distribution of EndoGA values differed among endoscopists (mean ΔEndoGA, 2.6±1.8; range 0-6.6). We developed 2 regression-based scoring systems to assess overall and proximal and distal esophageal findings; variation in endoscopic features accounted for more than 90% of the mean EndoGA variation. In the validation group, differences between mean EndoGA and regression-based scores were small (ranging from -4.70 to 2.03), indicating good agreement. In analyses of data from the randomized trial, the baseline to end of study change in patients given fluticasone was a reduction of 24.3 in simple score (reduction of 4.6 in patients given placebo, P=.052); a reduction of 23.5 in regression-based overall score (reduction of 6.56 in patients given placebo, P=.12), and a reduction of 23.8 (reduction of 8.44 in patients given placebo, P=.11). CONCLUSION: Assessments of endoscopic activity in patients with EoE vary among endoscopists. In an analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial, we found that newly developed scoring systems are no better than simple scoring system in detecting changes in endoscopic activity. These results support the use of a simple scoring system in evaluation of endoscopic activity in patients with EoE. clinicaltrials.gov no: NCT00939263 and NCT01386112.