A multimodal aftercare intervention improves the outcome after kidney transplantation - results of the KTx360° aftercare program using claims data.

Background: The after-care treatment project KTx360° aimed to reduce graft failure and mortality after kidney transplantation (KTx). Methods: The study was conducted in the study centers Hannover, Erlangen and Hannoversch Muenden from May 2017 to October 2020 under the trial registration ISRCTN29416382. The program provided a multimodal aftercare program including specialized case management, telemedicine support, psychological and exercise assessments, and interventions. For the analysis of graft failure, which was defined as death, re-transplantation or start of long-term dialysis, we used longitudinal claims data from participating statutory health insurances (SHI) which enabled us to compare participants with controls. To balance covariate distributions between these nonrandomized groups we used propensity score methodology, in particular the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) approach. Findings: In total, 930 adult participants were recruited at three different transplant centres in Germany, of whom 320 were incident (enrolled within the first year after KTx) and 610 prevalent (enrolled >1 year after KTx) patients. Due to differences in the availability of the claims data, the claims data of 411 participants and 418 controls could be used for the analyses. In the prevalent group we detected a significantly lower risk for graft failure in the study participants compared to the matched controls (HR = 0.13, 95% CI = 0.04-0.39, p = 0.005, n = 389 observations), whereas this difference could not be detected in the incident group (HR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.54-1.56, p = 0.837, n = 440 observations). Interpretation: Our findings suggest that a multimodal and multidisciplinary aftercare intervention can significantly improve outcome after KTx, specifically in patients later after KTx. For evaluation of effects on these outcome parameters in patients enrolled within the first year after transplantation longer observation times are necessary. Funding: The study was funded by the Global Innovation fund of the Joint Federal Committee of the Federal Republic of Germany, grant number 01NVF16009.

The Level of Agreement between Self-Assessments and Examiner Assessments of Melanocytic Nevus Counts: Findings from an Evaluation of 4548 Double Assessments.

Cutaneous melanoma (CM) is a candidate for screening programs because its prognosis is excellent when diagnosed at an early disease stage. Targeted screening of those at high risk for developing CM, a cost-effective alternative to population-wide screening, requires valid procedures to identify the high-risk group. Self-assessment of the number of nevi has been suggested as a component of such procedures, but its validity has not yet been established. We analyzed the level of agreement between self-assessments and examiner assessments of the number of melanocytic nevi in the area between the wrist and the shoulder of both arms based on 4548 study subjects in whom mutually blinded double counting of nevi was performed. Nevus counting followed the IARC protocol. Study subjects received written instructions, photographs, a mirror, and a "nevometer" to support self-assessment of nevi larger than 2 mm. Nevus counts were categorized based on the quintiles of the distribution into five levels, defining a nevus score. Cohen's weighted kappa coefficient (κ) was estimated to measure the level of agreement. In the total sample, the agreement between self-assessments and examiner assessments was moderate (weighted κ = 0.596). Self-assessed nevus counts were higher than those determined by trained examiners (mean difference: 3.33 nevi). The level of agreement was independent of sociodemographic and cutaneous factors; however, participants' eye color had a significant impact on the level of agreement. Our findings show that even with comprehensive guidance, only a moderate level of agreement between self-assessed and examiner-assessed nevus counts can be achieved. Self-assessed nevus information does not appear to be reliable enough to be used in individual risk assessment to target screening activities.

Global Tanning Bed Advertising: A Comparison of Legal Regulations on Three Continents.

Artificial ultraviolet radiation from tanning beds has been classified as carcinogenic by the International Agency for Research on Cancer in 2009. Several countries have subsequently introduced comprehensive legislation regulating commercial indoor tanning. Specific aspects of these regulations address tanning bed advertising and information requirements for tanning bed customers, which have been previously neglected in international comparisons of indoor tanning regulations. We performed a systematic search regarding legislation on these aspects in 131 legislative units across three continents (North America, Australia/New Zealand, Europe). The legal restrictions found varied widely in type and content. In 49 legislative units we identified total (n = 8) or partial legal bans (n = 41) on advertising for indoor tanning, while 64 legislative units enacted 5regulations that necessitate the dissemination of different types of specific health information to tanning bed customers. Nearly 40% of the legislative units of the study region lacked any legislation on these issues altogether. The heterogenous results emphasize the need for an international dialogue between health authorities and governments to harmonize the regulatory framework for tanning bed advertising and information requirements to a level better protecting the public from skin cancer. Our comprehensive international comparison can serve as a starting point for such a harmonization process that may ultimately protect the public worldwide from misleading tanning bed advertising.

Patient-reported reactogenicity and safety of COVID-19 vaccinations vs. comparator vaccinations: a comparative observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In the course of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, multiple vaccines were developed. Little was known about reactogenicity and safety in comparison to established vaccines, e.g. influenza, pneumococcus, or herpes zoster. Therefore, the present study aimed to compare self-reported side effects in persons vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 with the incidence of side effects in persons receiving one of the established vaccines. METHODS: A longitudinal observational study was conducted over a total of 124 days using web-based surveys. Persons receiving either a vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 or one of the established vaccines (comparator group) were included. In the first questionnaire (short-term survey), 2 weeks after vaccination, mainly local and systemic complaints were evaluated. The long-term survey (42 days after vaccination) and follow-up survey (124 weeks after vaccination) focused on medical consultations for any reason. Multivariate analyses were conducted to determine the influence of the vaccine type (SARS-CoV-2 vs. comparator) and demographic factors. RESULTS: In total, data from 16,636 participants were included. Self-reported reactogenicity was lowest in the comparator group (53.2%) and highest in the ChAdOx1 group (85.3%). Local reactions were reported most frequently after mRNA-1273 (73.9%) and systemic reactions mainly after vector-based vaccines (79.8%). Almost all SARS-CoV-2 vaccines showed increased odds of reporting local or systemic reactions. Approximately equal proportions of participants reported medical consultations. None in the comparator group suspected a link to vaccination, while this was true for just over one in 10 in the mRNA-1273 group. The multivariate analysis showed that people with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination were not more likely to report medical consultations; patients who had received a regimen with at least one ChAdOx1 were even less likely to report medical consultations. Younger age, female gender and higher comorbidity were mostly associated with higher odds of medical consultations. CONCLUSION: The rate of adverse reactions after established vaccinations was roughly comparable to previous studies. Two weeks after vaccination, participants in the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination group reported more local and systemic local reactions than participants in the comparator group. In the further course, however, there were no higher odds of medical consultations in either of the two groups. Thus, altogether, we assume comparable safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DRKS-ID DRKS00025881 and DRKS-ID DRKS00025373.

Reactogenicity and safety of COVID-19 primary immunisation and booster vaccination regimens: a comparative observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Since the beginning of the COVID-19 vaccination campaigns, recommendations regarding the vaccination have been very dynamic. Although the safety and efficacy of different vaccines have been analysed, data were scarce for vaccine regimens combining different vaccines. We therefore aimed to evaluate and compare the perceived reactogenicity and need for medical consultation after the most frequently applied homologous and heterologous COVID-19 vaccination regimens. METHODS: In an observational cohort study, reactogenicity and safety were assessed within a maximum follow-up time of 124 days using web-based surveys. Reactogenicity was assessed for different vaccination regimens 2 weeks after a vaccination (short-term survey). The following surveys, long-term and follow-up surveys, focused on the utilisation of medical services, including those that were not suspected to be vaccine-related. RESULTS: Data of 17,269 participants were analysed. The least local reactions were seen after a ChAdOx1 - ChAdOx1 regimen (32.6%, 95% CI [28.2, 37.2]) and the most after the first dose with mRNA-1273 (73.9%, 95% CI [70.5, 77.2]). Systemic reactions were least frequent in participants with a BNT162b2 booster after a homologous primary immunisation with ChAdOx1 (42.9%, 95% CI [32.1, 54.1]) and most frequent after a ChAdOx1 - mRNA-1273 (85.5%, 95% CI [82.9, 87.8]) and mRNA-1273/mRNA-1273 regimen (85.1%, 95% CI [83.2, 87.0]). In the short-term survey, the most common consequences were medication intake and sick leave (after local reactions 0% to 9.9%; after systemic reactions 4.5% to 37.9%). In the long-term and follow-up surveys, between 8.2 and 30.9% of participants reported consulting a doctor and between 0% and 5.4% seeking hospital care. The regression analyses 124 days after the first and after the third dose showed that the odds for reporting medical consultation were comparable between the vaccination regimens. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis revealed differences in reactogenicity between the COVID-19 vaccines and vaccination regimens in Germany. The lowest reactogenicity as reported by participants was seen with BNT162b2, especially in homologous vaccination regimens. However, in all vaccination regimens reactogenicity rarely led to medical consultations. Small differences in seeking any medical consultation after 6 weeks diminished during the follow-up period. In the end, none of the vaccination regimens was associated with a higher risk for medical consultation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DRKS DRKS00025881 ( https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00025373 ). Registered on 14 October 2021. DRKS DRKS00025373 ( https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00025881 ). Registered on 21 May 2021. Registered retrospectively.

Inter-Rater Agreement in Assessing Risk of Bias in Melanoma Prediction Studies Using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST): Results from a Controlled Experiment on the Effect of Specific Rater Training.

Assessing the risk of bias (ROB) of studies is an important part of the conduct of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in clinical medicine. Among the many existing ROB tools, the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) is a rather new instrument specifically designed to assess the ROB of prediction studies. In our study we analyzed the inter-rater reliability (IRR) of PROBAST and the effect of specialized training on the IRR. Six raters independently assessed the risk of bias (ROB) of all melanoma risk prediction studies published until 2021 (n = 42) using the PROBAST instrument. The raters evaluated the ROB of the first 20 studies without any guidance other than the published PROBAST literature. The remaining 22 studies were assessed after receiving customized training and guidance. Gwet's AC1 was used as the primary measure to quantify the pairwise and multi-rater IRR. Depending on the PROBAST domain, results before training showed a slight to moderate IRR (multi-rater AC1 ranging from 0.071 to 0.535). After training, the multi-rater AC1 ranged from 0.294 to 0.780 with a significant improvement for the overall ROB rating and two of the four domains. The largest net gain was achieved in the overall ROB rating (difference in multi-rater AC1: 0.405, 95%-CI 0.149-0.630). In conclusion, without targeted guidance, the IRR of PROBAST is low, questioning its use as an appropriate ROB instrument for prediction studies. Intensive training and guidance manuals with context-specific decision rules are needed to correctly apply and interpret the PROBAST instrument and to ensure consistency of ROB ratings.

Secondary Malignancies after Ewing Sarcoma-Epidemiological and Clinical Analysis of an International Trial Registry.

Ewing sarcoma (EwS) represents highly aggressive bone and soft tissue tumors that require intensive treatment by multi-chemotherapy, surgery and/or radiotherapy. While therapeutic regimens have increased survival rates, EwS survivors face long-term sequelae that include secondary malignant neoplasms (SMNs). Consequently, more knowledge about EwS patients who develop SMNs is needed to identify high-risk patients and adjust follow-up strategies. We retrospectively analyzed data from 4518 EwS patients treated in five consecutive EwS trials from the Cooperative Ewing Sarcoma Study (CESS) group. Ninety-six patients developed SMNs after primary EwS, including 53 (55.2%) with solid tumors. The latency period between EwS and the first SMN was significantly longer for the development of solid SMNs (median: 8.4 years) than for hematologic SMNs (median: 2.4 years) (p < 0.001). The cumulative incidence (CI) of SMNs in general increased over time from 0.04 at 10 years to 0.14 at 30 years; notably, the specific CI for hematologic SMNs remained stable over the different decades, whereas for solid SMNs it gradually increased over time and was higher for metastatic patients than in localized EwS patients (20 years: 0.14 vs. 0.06; p < 0.01). The clinical characteristics of primary EwS did not differ between patients with or without SMNs. All EwS patients received multi-chemotherapy with adjuvant radiotherapy in 77 of 96 (80.2%) patients, and the use of radiation doses ≥ 60 Gy correlated with the occurrence of SMNs. The survival rate after SMNs was 0.49, with a significantly better outcome for solid SMNs compared with hematologic SMNs (3 years: 0.70 vs. 0.24, respectively; p < 0.001). The occurrence of SMNs after EwS remains a rare event but requires a structured follow-up system because it is associated with high morbidity and mortality.

Ewing Sarcoma as Secondary Malignant Neoplasm-Epidemiological and Clinical Analysis of an International Trial Registry.

Ewing sarcoma (EwS) is the second most common bone and soft tissue tumor, affecting primarily adolescents and young adults. Patients with secondary EwS are excluded from risk stratification in several studies and therefore do not benefit from new therapies. More knowledge about patients with EwS as secondary malignant neoplasms (SMN) is needed to identify at-risk patients and adapt follow-up strategies. Epidemiology, clinical characteristics, and survival analyses of EwS as SMN were analyzed in 3844 patients treated in the last three consecutive international EwS trials, EICESS 92, Euro-E.W.I.N.G. 99, and EWING 2008. Forty-two cases of EwS as SMN (approximately 1.1% of all patients) were reported, preceded by a heterogeneous group of malignancies, mainly acute lymphoblastic leukemias (n = 7) and lymphomas (n = 7). Three cases of EwS as SMN occurred in the presumed radiation field of the primary tumor. The median age at diagnosis of EwS as SMN was 19.4 years (range, 5.9-72) compared with 10.8 years (range, 0.9-51.2) for primary EwS. The median interval between first malignancy and EwS diagnosis was 7.4 years. The 3-year overall survival (OS)/event-free survival (EFS) was 0.69 (SE = 0.09)/0.53 (SE = 0.10) for localized patients and 0.36 (SE = 0.13)/0.29 (SE = 0.12) for metastatic patients (OS: p = 0.02; EFS: p = 0.03). Survival in patients with EwS as SMN did not differ between hematologic or solid primary malignancies. EwS as SMN is rare; however, survival is similar to that of primary EwS, and its risk-adjusted treatment should be curative, especially in localized patients.

Reactogenicity after heterologous and homologous COVID-19 prime-boost vaccination regimens: descriptive interim results of a comparative observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Due to safety signals after vaccination with COVID-19 vector vaccines, several states recommended to complete the primary immunization series in individuals having received one dose of ChAdOx1 (AstraZeneca) with an mRNA vaccine. However, data on safety and reactogenicity of this heterologous regimen are still scarce. The aim of this study was therefore to compare the reactogenicity and the frequency of medical consultations after boost vaccination in a heterologous regimen with ChAdOx1 and mRNA-vaccines (BNT162b2, BioNTech/Pfizer or mRNA-1273, Moderna) to homologous regimens with ChAdOx1 or mRNA-vaccines, respectively. METHODS: In an observational cohort study reactogenicity and safety were assessed 14-19 days (short-term) and 40 to 56 days (long-term) after the boost vaccination using web-based surveys. In the short-term survey solicited and unsolicited reactions were assessed, while the long-term survey focussed on health problems leading to medical consultation after the vaccination, including those that were not suspected to be vaccine-related. RESULTS: In total, 9146 participants completed at least one of the surveys (ChAdOx1/ChAdOx1: n = 552, ChAdOx1/mRNA: n = 2382, mRNA/mRNA: n = 6212). In the short-term survey, 86% with ChAdOx1/mRNA regimen reported at least one reaction, in the ChAdOx1/ChAdOx1 and mRNA/mRNA cohorts 58% and 76%, respectively (age and sex adjusted p < 0.0001). In the long-term survey, comparable proportions of individuals reported medical consultation (ChAdOx1/ChAdOx1 vs. ChAdOx1/mRNA vs. mRNA/mRNA: 15% vs. 18% vs. 16%, age and sex adjusted p = 0.398). Female gender was associated with a higher reactogenicity and more medical consultations. Younger age was associated with a higher reactogenicity, whereas elderly people reported more medical consultations. CONCLUSION: Although the short-term reactogenicity was higher with the heterologous regimen than with the homologous regimens, other factors such as higher efficacy and limited resources during the pandemic may prevail in recommending specific regimens.

Using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) to Evaluate Melanoma Prediction Studies.

Rising incidences of cutaneous melanoma have fueled the development of statistical models that predict individual melanoma risk. Our aim was to assess the validity of published prediction models for incident cutaneous melanoma using a standardized procedure based on PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool). We included studies that were identified by a recent systematic review and updated the literature search to ensure that our PROBAST rating included all relevant studies. Six reviewers assessed the risk of bias (ROB) for each study using the published "PROBAST Assessment Form" that consists of four domains and an overall ROB rating. We further examined a temporal effect regarding changes in overall and domain-specific ROB rating distributions. Altogether, 42 studies were assessed, of which the vast majority (n = 34; 81%) was rated as having high ROB. Only one study was judged as having low ROB. The main reasons for high ROB ratings were the use of hospital controls in case-control studies and the omission of any validation of prediction models. However, our temporal analysis results showed a significant reduction in the number of studies with high ROB for the domain "analysis". Nevertheless, the evidence base of high-quality studies that can be used to draw conclusions on the prediction of incident cutaneous melanoma is currently much weaker than the high number of studies on this topic would suggest.

Reporting Quality of Studies Developing and Validating Melanoma Prediction Models: An Assessment Based on the TRIPOD Statement.

Transparent and accurate reporting is essential to evaluate the validity and applicability of risk prediction models. Our aim was to evaluate the reporting quality of studies developing and validating risk prediction models for melanoma according to the TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a multivariate prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis) checklist. We included studies that were identified by a recent systematic review and updated the literature search to ensure that our TRIPOD rating included all relevant studies. Six reviewers assessed compliance with all 37 TRIPOD components for each study using the published "TRIPOD Adherence Assessment Form". We further examined a potential temporal effect of the reporting quality. Altogether 42 studies were assessed including 35 studies reporting the development of a prediction model and seven studies reporting both development and validation. The median adherence to TRIPOD was 57% (range 29% to 78%). Study components that were least likely to be fully reported were related to model specification, title and abstract. Although the reporting quality has slightly increased over the past 35 years, there is still much room for improvement. Adherence to reporting guidelines such as TRIPOD in the publication of study results must be adopted as a matter of course to achieve a sufficient level of reporting quality necessary to foster the use of the prediction models in applications.

Risk Prediction Models for Melanoma: A Systematic Review on the Heterogeneity in Model Development and Validation.

The rising incidence of cutaneous melanoma over the past few decades has prompted substantial efforts to develop risk prediction models identifying people at high risk of developing melanoma to facilitate targeted screening programs. We review these models, regarding study characteristics, differences in risk factor selection and assessment, evaluation, and validation methods. Our systematic literature search revealed 40 studies comprising 46 different risk prediction models eligible for the review. Altogether, 35 different risk factors were part of the models with nevi being the most common one (n = 35, 78%); little consistency in other risk factors was observed. Results of an internal validation were reported for less than half of the studies (n = 18, 45%), and only 6 performed external validation. In terms of model performance, 29 studies assessed the discriminative ability of their models; other performance measures, e.g., regarding calibration or clinical usefulness, were rarely reported. Due to the substantial heterogeneity in risk factor selection and assessment as well as methodologic aspects of model development, direct comparisons between models are hardly possible. Uniform methodologic standards for the development and validation of risk prediction models for melanoma and reporting standards for the accompanying publications are necessary and need to be obligatory for that reason.