AOP report: Development of an adverse outcome pathway for deposition of energy leading to cataracts.

Cataracts are one of the leading causes of blindness, with an estimated 95 million people affected worldwide. A hallmark of cataract development is lens opacification, typically associated not only with aging but also radiation exposure as encountered by interventional radiologists and astronauts during the long-term space mission. To better understand radiation-induced cataracts, the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) framework was used to structure and evaluate knowledge across biological levels of organization (e.g., macromolecular, cell, tissue, organ, organism and population). AOPs identify a sequence of key events (KEs) causally connected by key event relationships (KERs) beginning with a molecular initiating event to an adverse outcome (AO) of relevance to regulatory decision-making. To construct the cataract AO and retrieve evidence to support it, a scoping review methodology was used to filter, screen, and review studies based on the modified Bradford Hill criteria. Eight KEs were identified that were moderately supported by empirical evidence (e.g., dose-, time-, incidence-concordance) across the adjacent (directly linked) relationships using well-established endpoints. Over half of the evidence to justify the KER linkages was derived from the evidence stream of biological plausibility. Early KEs of oxidative stress and protein modifications had strong linkages to downstream KEs and could be the focus of countermeasure development. Several identified knowledge gaps and inconsistencies related to the quantitative understanding of KERs which could be the basis of future research, most notably directed to experiments in the range of low or moderate doses and dose-rates, relevant to radiation workers and other occupational exposures.

Evaluation of Optic Disc Edema in Long-Duration Spaceflight Crewmembers Using Retinal Photography.

BACKGROUND: Long-duration spaceflight crewmembers are at risk for spaceflight-associated neuro-ocular syndrome (SANS). One of the earliest manifestations of SANS is optic disc edema (ODE), which could be missed using the subjective Frisén scale. The primary objective of this study is to determine the inter-rater and intrarater reliability of Frisén grade for SANS-induced ODE among a trained observer cohort. The secondary objective is to propose a standardized evaluation process for SANS-induced ODE across International Space Station Partner Agencies. METHODS: Retrospective, double-blinded diagnostic study. Preflight and postflight fundus photographs were presented to subject matter experts who identified and graded ODE. Pairs of images were also compared side-by-side for disc ranking. Grader concordance was assessed for Frisén grading and disc ranking. RESULTS: Expert graders identified Grade 1 ODE in 17.35% of images from 62 crewmembers (9 female, mean [SD] age, 47.81 [5.19] years). Grades 2 and 3 were identified less than 2% of the time. Concordance in Frisén grades among pairs of graders was 70.99%. Graders identified a difference in preflight and postflight fundus photographs 17.21% of the time when using disc ranking. Pairs of graders had complete concordance in disc ranking 79.79% of the time. Perfect intrarater agreement between Frisén grade and disc ranking occurred 77.7% of the time. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate intergrader and intragrader variability when using the Frisén scale to identify SANS-induced ODE, which is typically milder in presentation than terrestrial cases of idiopathic intracranial hypertension. It is possible to miss early ODE on fundoscopy alone, making it insufficient as a sole criterion for the diagnosis of SANS. A more sensitive and objective method of surveillance is necessary to monitor international crewmembers for ODE, perhaps using a multimodal approach that includes technology such as optical coherence tomography.

Vision and creation of the American Heart Association pharmaceutical roundtable outcomes research centers.

BACKGROUND: The field of outcomes research seeks to define optimal treatment in practice and to promote the rapid full adoption of efficacious therapies into routine clinical care. The American Heart Association (AHA) formed the AHA Pharmaceutical Roundtable (PRT) Outcomes Research Centers Network to accelerate attainment of these goals. Participating centers were intended to carry out state-of-the-art outcomes research in cardiovascular disease and stroke, to train the next generation of investigators, and to support the formation of a collaborative research network. PROGRAM: After a competitive application process, 4 AHA PRT Outcomes Research Centers were selected: Duke Clinical Research Institute; Saint Luke's Mid America Heart Institute; Stanford University-Kaiser Permanente of Northern California; and University of California, Los Angeles. Each center proposed between 1 and 3 projects organized around a single theme in cardiovascular disease or stroke. Additionally, each center will select and train up to 6 postdoctoral fellows over the next 4 years, and will participate in cross-collaborative activities among the centers. CONCLUSIONS: The AHA PRT Outcomes Research Centers Network is designed to further strengthen the field of cardiovascular disease and stroke outcomes research by fostering innovative research, supporting high quality training, and encouraging center-to-center collaborations.

Translating research into practice for healthcare providers: the American Heart Association's strategy for building healthier lives, free of cardiovascular diseases and stroke.

The American Heart Association's (AHA's) mission is "to build healthier lives, free of cardiovascular diseases and stroke." This first article in a 2-part series will serve to present an overview of the work the AHA has undertaken to translate evidence into practice for healthcare professionals. It describes the extensive work of the AHA to support and further the delivery of evidence-based medicine, which includes the following: (1) supporting scientific discovery and the next generation of healthcare professionals and researchers; (2) disseminating scientific information; (3) developing evidence-based guidelines and statements; (4) creating and advocating for the implementation of performance indicators/measures; (5) developing clinical decision support and quality improvement tools; and (6) developing directed-cause campaigns, all of which can lead to improved patient care. This article also discusses the need for novel approaches and some of the AHA's evolving strategies to help address gaps in care. The second article, which will be published shortly after this one, will examine the AHA's efforts to engage and empower healthcare consumers to become more involved with their own health and health care.