Prospective study validating a multidimensional treatment decision score predicting the 24-month outcome in untreated patients with clinically isolated syndrome and early relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, the ProVal-MS study.

INTRODUCTION: In Multiple Sclerosis (MS), patients´ characteristics and (bio)markers that reliably predict the individual disease prognosis at disease onset are lacking. Cohort studies allow a close follow-up of MS histories and a thorough phenotyping of patients. Therefore, a multicenter cohort study was initiated to implement a wide spectrum of data and (bio)markers in newly diagnosed patients. METHODS: ProVal-MS (Prospective study to validate a multidimensional decision score that predicts treatment outcome at 24 months in untreated patients with clinically isolated syndrome or early Relapsing-Remitting-MS) is a prospective cohort study in patients with clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) or Relapsing-Remitting (RR)-MS (McDonald 2017 criteria), diagnosed within the last two years, conducted at five academic centers in Southern Germany. The collection of clinical, laboratory, imaging, and paraclinical data as well as biosamples is harmonized across centers. The primary goal is to validate (discrimination and calibration) the previously published DIFUTURE MS-Treatment Decision score (MS-TDS). The score supports clinical decision-making regarding the options of early (within 6 months after study baseline) platform medication (Interferon beta, glatiramer acetate, dimethyl/diroximel fumarate, teriflunomide), or no immediate treatment (> 6 months after baseline) of patients with early RR-MS and CIS by predicting the probability of new or enlarging lesions in cerebral magnetic resonance images (MRIs) between 6 and 24 months. Further objectives are refining the MS-TDS score and providing data to identify new markers reflecting disease course and severity. The project also provides a technical evaluation of the ProVal-MS cohort within the IT-infrastructure of the DIFUTURE consortium (Data Integration for Future Medicine) and assesses the efficacy of the data sharing techniques developed. PERSPECTIVE: Clinical cohorts provide the infrastructure to discover and to validate relevant disease-specific findings. A successful validation of the MS-TDS will add a new clinical decision tool to the armamentarium of practicing MS neurologists from which newly diagnosed MS patients may take advantage. Trial registration ProVal-MS has been registered in the German Clinical Trials Register, `Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien` (DRKS)-ID: DRKS00014034, date of registration: 21 December 2018; https://drks.de/search/en/trial/DRKS00014034.

[Results of PCR Pool Testing In Primary and Special Needs Schools In Bavaria For The School Year 2021/2022: Sentinel Surveillance In Face-To-Face Teaching During The Sars-CoV-2 Pandemic]. / Ergebnisse von PCR-Pooltestungen an bayerischen Grund- und Förderschulen im Schuljahr 2021/2022 zur Surveillance im Präsenzunterricht während der SARS-CoV-2-Pandemie.

In the school years 2019/20 and 2020/21, children were physically, psychologically, and socially stressed by school closures caused by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. To ensure attendance with optimal infection protection, PCR pool testing was conducted during the 2021/22 school year at Bavarian elementary schools and schools for pupils with special needs for timely detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection. This study analyzes the results of PCR pool testing over time stratified by region, school type, and age of children. The data were obtained from classes in elementary and special needs schools, involving pupils aged 6 to 11 years, who participated in the Bavaria-wide PCR pool testing from 09/20/21 to 04/08/22. Samples were collected twice weekly, consisting of PCR pool samples and individual PCR samples, which were only evaluated in case of a positive pool test. A class was considered positive if at least one individual sample from that class was positive within a calendar week (CW). A school (class) was considered to be infection-prone if three or more classes in that school (students in that class) were positive within a CW. The data included 2,430 elementary schools (339 special needs schools) with 23,021 (2,711) classes and 456,478 (29,200) children. A total of 1,157,617 pools (of which 3.37% were positive) and 724,438 individual samples (6.76% positive) were analyzed. Larger schools exhibited higher PR compared to smaller schools. From January 2022, the Omicron variant led to a massive increase in PR across Bavaria. The incidence rates per 100,000 person-weeks within the individual school samples were significantly lower than the concurrently reported age-specific and general infection incidences in the overall Bavarian population. PCR pool testing revealed relatively few positive pools, with an average of four children per one hundred pools testing positive. Schools and classes were rarely considered infection-prone, even during periods of high incidences outside of schools. The combination of PCR pool testing and hygiene measures allowed for a largely safe in-person education for pupils in primary and special needs schools in the school year 2021/22.

A Bayesian hierarchical approach to account for evidence and uncertainty in the modeling of infectious diseases: An application to COVID-19.

Infectious disease models can serve as critical tools to predict the development of cases and associated healthcare demand and to determine the set of nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) that is most effective in slowing the spread of an infectious agent. Current approaches to estimate NPI effects typically focus on relatively short time periods and either on the number of reported cases, deaths, intensive care occupancy, or hospital occupancy as a single indicator of disease transmission. In this work, we propose a Bayesian hierarchical model that integrates multiple outcomes and complementary sources of information in the estimation of the true and unknown number of infections while accounting for time-varying underreporting and weekday-specific delays in reported cases and deaths, allowing us to estimate the number of infections on a daily basis rather than having to smooth the data. To address dynamic changes occurring over long periods of time, we account for the spread of new variants, seasonality, and time-varying differences in host susceptibility. We implement a Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm to conduct Bayesian inference and illustrate the proposed approach with data on COVID-19 from 20 European countries. The approach shows good performance on simulated data and produces posterior predictions that show a good fit to reported cases, deaths, hospital, and intensive care occupancy.

Endovascular Treatment for Acute Isolated Internal Carotid Artery Occlusion : A Propensity Score Matched Multicenter Study.

PURPOSE: The benefit of endovascular treatment (EVT) in patients with acute symptomatic isolated occlusion of the internal carotid artery (ICA) without involvement of the middle and anterior cerebral arteries is unclear. We aimed to compare clinical and safety outcomes of best medical treatment (BMT) versus EVT + BMT in patients with stroke due to isolated ICA occlusion. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective multicenter study involving patients with isolated ICA occlusion between January 2016 and December 2020. We stratified patients by BMT versus EVT and matched the groups using propensity score matching (PSM). We assessed the effect of treatment strategy on favorable outcome (modified Rankin scale ≤ 2) 90 days after treatment and compared reduction in NIHSS score at discharge, rates of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) and 3­month mortality. RESULTS: In total, we included 149 patients with isolated ICA occlusion. To address imbalances, we matched 45 patients from each group using PSM. The rate of favorable outcomes at 90 days was 56% for EVT and 38% for BMT (odds ratio, OR 1.89, 95% confidence interval, CI 0.84-4.24; p = 0.12). Patients treated with EVT showed a median reduction in NIHSS score at discharge of 6 points compared to 1 point for BMT patients (p = 0.02). Rates of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (7% vs. 4%; p = 0.66) and 3­month mortality (11% vs. 13%; p = 0.74) did not differ between treatment groups. Periprocedural complications of EVT with early neurological deterioration occurred in 7% of cases. CONCLUSION: Although the benefit on functional outcome did not reach statistical significance, the results for NIHSS score improvement, and safety support the use of EVT in patients with stroke due to isolated ICA occlusion.

Long-term benefits and harms of early colorectal cancer screening in German individuals with familial cancer risk.

Individuals with a family history of colorectal cancer (CRC) may benefit from early screening with colonoscopy or immunologic fecal occult blood testing (iFOBT). We systematically evaluated the benefit-harm trade-offs of various screening strategies differing by screening test (colonoscopy or iFOBT), interval (iFOBT: annual/biennial; colonoscopy: 10-yearly) and age at start (30, 35, 40, 45, 50 and 55 years) and end of screening (65, 70 and 75 years) offered to individuals identified with familial CRC risk in Germany. A Markov-state-transition model was developed and used to estimate health benefits (CRC-related deaths avoided, life-years gained [LYG]), potential harms (eg, associated with additional colonoscopies) and incremental harm-benefit ratios (IHBR) for each strategy. Both benefits and harms increased with earlier start and shorter intervals of screening. When screening started before age 50, 32-36 CRC-related deaths per 1000 persons were avoided with colonoscopy and 29-34 with iFOBT screening, compared to 29-31 (colonoscopy) and 28-30 (iFOBT) CRC-related deaths per 1000 persons when starting age 50 or older, respectively. For iFOBT screening, the IHBRs expressed as additional colonoscopies per LYG were one (biennial, age 45-65 vs no screening), four (biennial, age 35-65), six (biennial, age 30-70) and 34 (annual, age 30-54; biennial, age 55-75). Corresponding IHBRs for 10-yearly colonoscopy were four (age 55-65), 10 (age 45-65), 15 (age 35-65) and 29 (age 30-70). Offering screening with colonoscopy or iFOBT to individuals with familial CRC risk before age 50 is expected to be beneficial. Depending on the accepted IHBR threshold, 10-yearly colonoscopy or alternatively biennial iFOBT from age 30 to 70 should be recommended for this target group.

Examination of betahistine bioavailability in combination with the monoamine oxidase B inhibitor, selegiline, in humans-a non-randomized, single-sequence, two-period titration, open label single-center phase 1 study (PK-BeST).

Background: Betahistine was registered in Europe in the 1970s and approved in more than 80 countries as a first-line treatment for Menière's disease. It has been administered to more than 150 million patients. However, according to a Cochrane systematic review of betahistine and recent meta-analyses, there is insufficient evidence to say whether betahistine has any effect in the currently approved dosages of up to 48 mg/d. A combination with the monoamine oxidase B (MAO-B) inhibitor, selegiline, may increase the bioavailability of betahistine to levels similar to the well-established combination of L-DOPA with carbidopa or benserazide in the treatment of Parkinson's disease. We investigated the effect of selegiline on betahistine pharmacokinetics and the safety of the combination in humans. Methods: In an investigator-initiated prospective, non-randomized, single-sequence, two-period titration, open label single-center phase 1 study, 15 healthy volunteers received three single oral dosages of betahistine (24, 48, and 96 mg in this sequence with at least 2 days' washout period) without and with selegiline (5 mg/d with a loading period of 7 days). Betahistine serum concentrations were measured over a period of 240 min at eight time points (area under the curve, AUC0-240 min). This trial is registered with EudraCT (2019-002610-39) and ClinicalTrials.gov. Findings: In all three single betahistine dosages, selegiline increased the betahistine bioavailability about 80- to 100-fold. For instance, the mean (±SD) of the area under curve for betahistine 48 mg alone was 0.64 (+/-0.47) h*ng/mL and for betahistine plus selegiline 53.28 (+/-37.49) h*ng/mL. The half-life time of around 30 min was largely unaffected, except for the 24 mg betahistine dosage. In total, 14 mild adverse events were documented. Interpretation: This phase 1 trial shows that the MAO-B inhibitor selegiline increases betahistine bioavailability by a factor of about 80 to 100. No safety concerns were detected. Whether the increased bioavailability has an impact on the preventive treatment of Menière's disease, acute vestibular syndrome, or post-BPPV residual dizziness has to be evaluated in placebo-controlled trials. Clinical trial registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05938517?intr=betahistine%20and%20selegiline&rank=1, identifier: NCT05938517.

Antibiotic use in pediatric acute care hospitals: an analysis of antibiotic consumption data from Germany, 2013-2020.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programs are effective tools for improving antibiotic prescription quality. Their implementation requires the regular surveillance of antibiotic consumption at the patient and institutional level. Our study captured and analyzed antibiotic consumption density (ACD) for hospitalized pediatric patients. METHOD: We collected antibacterial drug consumption data for 2020 from hospital pharmacies at 113 pediatric departments of acute care hospitals in Germany. ACD was calculated as defined daily dose (DDD, WHO/ATC Index 2019) per 100 patient days (pd). In addition, we analyzed the trends in antibiotic use during 2013-2020. RESULTS: In 2020, median ACD across all participating hospitals was 26.7 DDD/100 pd, (range: 10.1-79.2 DDD/100 pd). It was higher at university vs. non-university hospitals (38.6 vs. 25.2 DDD/100 pd, p < 0.0001). The highest use densities were seen on oncology wards and intensive care units at university hospitals (67.3 vs. 38.4 DDD/100 pd). During 2013-2020, overall ACD declined (- 10%) and cephalosporin prescriptions also decreased (- 36%). In 2020, cephalosporins nevertheless remained the most commonly dispensed class of antibiotics. Interhospital variability in cephalosporin/penicillin ratio was substantial. Antibiotics belonging to WHO AWaRe "Watch" and "Reserve" categories, including broad-spectrum penicillins (+ 31%), linezolid (+ 121%), and glycopeptides (+ 43%), increased over time. CONCLUSION: Significant heterogeneity in ACD and prescription of different antibiotic classes as well as high prescription rates for cephalosporins and an increased use of reserve antibiotics indicate improvable antibiotic prescribing quality. AMS programs should urgently prioritize these issues to reduce antimicrobial resistance.

Colorectal Cancer Screening for Persons With a Positive Family History­Evaluation of the FARKOR Program for the Secondary Prevention of Colorectal Cancer in Persons Aged 25 to 50.

BACKGROUND: Persons with a positive family history of colorectal cancer (CRC) are more likely than others to develop CRC and are also younger at the onset of the disease. Nonetheless, the German Federal Joint Committee (G-BA, Gemeinsamer Bundes - ausschuss) recommends screening all persons aged 50 and above regardless of their family history. FARKOR was a project supported by the Innovation Fund of the G-BA to study the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of a risk-adapted early detection program for CRC among persons aged 25 to 50 without any specific past medical history. METHODS: Physicians in private practice in Bavaria documented their activities relating to FARKOR online. The FARKOR process comprised a declaration of consent, a simplified family history for CRC, an optional, more comprehensive family history, a counseling session for participatory decision-making on further measures, and various modalities of screening (an immunological fecal occult blood test [iFOBT], colonoscopy, or no screening). Related physician activities outside the FARKOR process were assessed by record linkage between study data and data of the patients' health insurance carriers. RESULTS: The simplified family history was documented in 25 847 persons and positive for CRC in 5769 (22.3%). 3232 persons had a more comprehensive family history, among whom 2054 (63.6%) participated in screening measures. 1595 underwent colonoscopy; 278 persons who had already undergone colonoscopy in the preceding five years were excluded from the analysis. Colonoscopy revealed adenoma in 232 persons (17,6 %), advanced adenoma in 78 (5.9%) and carcinoma in 4 (0.3%). There were no serious complications. CONCLUSION: The detection rates in this study corresponded to those of persons aged 55 to 59 in the current early detection program. Despite numerous problems in the performance of the study (inconsistencies in documentation, external performance of screening measures on program participants), the results support the feasibility of a risk-adapted early detection program in the young target population with a family history of CRC.

Effectiveness of an individually tailored complex intervention to improve activities and participation in nursing home residents with joint contractures (JointConEval): a multicentre pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to examine the effects of the individually tailored complex intervention Participation Enabling Care in Nursing (PECAN) on activities and participation of residents with joint contractures. DESIGN: Multicentre pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 35 nursing homes in Germany (August 2018-February 2020). PARTICIPANTS: 562 nursing home residents aged ≥65 years with ≥1 major joint contracture (303 intervention group, 259 control group). INTERVENTIONS: Nursing homes were randomised to PECAN (18 clusters) or optimised standard care (17 clusters) with researcher-concealed cluster allocation by facsimile. The intervention targeted impairments in activities and participation. Implementation included training and support for selected staff. Control group clusters received brief information. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoint PaArticular Scales combined residents' activities and participation at 12 months. The secondary outcome comprised quality of life. Safety measures were falls, fall-related consequences and physical restraints. Residents, staff and researchers were unblinded. Data collection, data entry and statistical analysis were blinded. Primary analyses were intention-to-treat at cluster level and individual level using a generalised mixed-effect regression model and imputation of missing data. RESULTS: Primary outcome analyses included 301 intervention group residents and 259 control group residents. The mean change on the Activities Scale was -1.47 points (SD 12.2) in the intervention group and 0.196 points (SD 12.5) in the control group and -3.87 points (SD 19.7) vs -3.18 points (SD 20.8) on the Participation Scale. The mean differences of changes between the groups were not statistically significant: Activities Scale: -1.72 (97.5% CI -6.05 to 2.61); Participation Scale: -1.24 (97.5% CI -7.02 to 4.45). We found no significant difference in the secondary outcome and no effects on safety measures. CONCLUSION: The complex intervention did not improve the activities and participation of nursing home residents on the PaArticular Scales at 12 months. Current nursing conditions in Germany may hamper implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00015185.

Effect of blood pressure-lowering agents on microvascular function in people with small vessel diseases (TREAT-SVDs): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is the leading risk factor for cerebral small vessel disease. We aimed to determine whether antihypertensive drug classes differentially affect microvascular function in people with small vessel disease. METHODS: We did a multicentre, open-label, randomised crossover trial with blinded endpoint assessment at five specialist centres in Europe. We included participants aged 18 years or older with symptomatic sporadic small vessel disease or cerebral autosomal dominant arteriopathy with subcortical infarcts and leukoencephalopathy (CADASIL) and an indication for antihypertensive treatment. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to one of three sequences of antihypertensive treatment using a computer-generated multiblock randomisation, stratified by study site and patient group. A 2-week washout period was followed by three 4-week periods of oral monotherapy with amlodipine, losartan, or atenolol at approved doses. The primary endpoint was change in cerebrovascular reactivity (CVR) determined by blood oxygen level-dependent MRI response to hypercapnic challenge in normal-appearing white matter from the end of washout to the end of each treatment period. Efficacy analyses were done by intention-to-treat principles in all randomly assigned participants who had at least one valid assessment for the primary endpoint, and analyses were done separately for participants with sporadic small vessel disease and CADASIL. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03082014, and EudraCT, 2016-002920-10, and is terminated. FINDINGS: Between Feb 22, 2018, and April 28, 2022, 75 participants with sporadic small vessel disease (mean age 64·9 years [SD 9·9]) and 26 with CADASIL (53·1 years [7·0]) were enrolled and randomly assigned to treatment. 79 participants (62 with sporadic small vessel disease and 17 with CADASIL) entered the primary efficacy analysis. Change in CVR did not differ between study drugs in participants with sporadic small vessel disease (mean change in CVR 1·8 × 10-4%/mm Hg [SE 20·1; 95% CI -37·6 to 41·2] for amlodipine; 16·7 × 10-4%/mm Hg [20·0; -22·3 to 55·8] for losartan; -7·1 × 10-4%/mm Hg [19·6; -45·5 to 31·1] for atenolol; poverall=0·39) but did differ in patients with CADASIL (15·7 × 10-4%/mm Hg [SE 27·5; 95% CI -38·3 to 69·7] for amlodipine; 19·4 × 10-4%/mm Hg [27·9; -35·3 to 74·2] for losartan; -23·9 × 10-4%/mm Hg [27·5; -77·7 to 30·0] for atenolol; poverall=0·019). In patients with CADASIL, pairwise comparisons showed that CVR improved with amlodipine compared with atenolol (-39·6 × 10-4%/mm Hg [95% CI -72·5 to -6·6; p=0·019) and with losartan compared with atenolol (-43·3 × 10-4%/mm Hg [-74·3 to -12·3]; p=0·0061). No deaths occurred. Two serious adverse events were recorded, one while taking amlodipine (diarrhoea with dehydration) and one while taking atenolol (fall with fracture), neither of which was related to study drug intake. INTERPRETATION: 4 weeks of treatment with amlodipine, losartan, or atenolol did not differ in their effects on cerebrovascular reactivity in people with sporadic small vessel disease but did result in differential treatment effects in patients with CADASIL. Whether antihypertensive drug classes differentially affect clinical outcomes in people with small vessel diseases requires further research. FUNDING: EU Horizon 2020 programme.

[Newborn hearing screening in Germany-results of the 2011/2012 and 2017/2018 evaluations]. / Neugeborenen-Hörscreening in Deutschland ­ Ergebnisse der Evaluationen 2011/2012 und 2017/2018.

BACKGROUND: Newborn hearing screening (NHS) was introduced nationwide by the Federal Joint Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss, G­BA) in 2009. In this process, quality targets were also set in the pediatrics directive. In order to review the quality NHS in Germany, the G­BA commissioned a consortium to conduct an initial evaluation for the years 2011 and 2012 and a follow-up evaluation for 2017 and 2018. METHODS: The evaluations were based on NHS screening parameters (Sammelstatistiken) that must be documented by all obstetrics and neonatology departments as NHS providers and can also be compiled through cooperation with hearing screening centers (HSCs). Additional data were collected through questionnaires and interviews and routine data were used to evaluate the screening process. RESULTS: In 13 federal states, a total of 15 HSCs are involved in the screening process. Across Germany, an NHS screening rate of 86.1% was documented in 2018 (82.4% in 2012), but this differed significantly between the federal states. The specified quality targets could not yet be implemented everywhere. For example, only less than half of the obstetric departments achieved the specified screening rate of over 95%. A comparison of data from the follow-up evaluation and the first evaluation showed that the structural quality of NHS had improved, while the process quality remained the same or had deteriorated. The refer rate (children who were discharged without passing the screening) increased from 5.3% to 6.0%. DISCUSSION: To improve the quality of NHS, HSCs should be established nationwide and a second screening should be carried out more consistently before discharge in the case of a refer result in the initial screening.

Prognostic models for predicting clinical disease progression, worsening and activity in people with multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the central nervous system that affects millions of people worldwide. The disease course varies greatly across individuals and many disease-modifying treatments with different safety and efficacy profiles have been developed recently. Prognostic models evaluated and shown to be valid in different settings have the potential to support people with MS and their physicians during the decision-making process for treatment or disease/life management, allow stratified and more precise interpretation of interventional trials, and provide insights into disease mechanisms. Many researchers have turned to prognostic models to help predict clinical outcomes in people with MS; however, to our knowledge, no widely accepted prognostic model for MS is being used in clinical practice yet. OBJECTIVES: To identify and summarise multivariable prognostic models, and their validation studies for quantifying the risk of clinical disease progression, worsening, and activity in adults with MS. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from January 1996 until July 2021. We also screened the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews, and references citing the included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all statistically developed multivariable prognostic models aiming to predict clinical disease progression, worsening, and activity, as measured by disability, relapse, conversion to definite MS, conversion to progressive MS, or a composite of these in adult individuals with MS. We also included any studies evaluating the performance of (i.e. validating) these models. There were no restrictions based on language, data source, timing of prognostication, or timing of outcome. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors independently screened titles/abstracts and full texts, extracted data using a piloted form based on the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS), assessed risk of bias using the Prediction Model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST), and assessed reporting deficiencies based on the checklist items in Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD). The characteristics of the included models and their validations are described narratively. We planned to meta-analyse the discrimination and calibration of models with at least three external validations outside the model development study but no model met this criterion. We summarised between-study heterogeneity narratively but again could not perform the planned meta-regression. MAIN RESULTS: We included 57 studies, from which we identified 75 model developments, 15 external validations corresponding to only 12 (16%) of the models, and six author-reported validations. Only two models were externally validated multiple times. None of the identified external validations were performed by researchers independent of those that developed the model. The outcome was related to disease progression in 39 (41%), relapses in 8 (8%), conversion to definite MS in 17 (18%), and conversion to progressive MS in 27 (28%) of the 96 models or validations. The disease and treatment-related characteristics of included participants, and definitions of considered predictors and outcome, were highly heterogeneous amongst the studies. Based on the publication year, we observed an increase in the percent of participants on treatment, diversification of the diagnostic criteria used, an increase in consideration of biomarkers or treatment as predictors, and increased use of machine learning methods over time. Usability and reproducibility All identified models contained at least one predictor requiring the skills of a medical specialist for measurement or assessment. Most of the models (44; 59%) contained predictors that require specialist equipment likely to be absent from primary care or standard hospital settings. Over half (52%) of the developed models were not accompanied by model coefficients, tools, or instructions, which hinders their application, independent validation or reproduction. The data used in model developments were made publicly available or reported to be available on request only in a few studies (two and six, respectively). Risk of bias We rated all but one of the model developments or validations as having high overall risk of bias. The main reason for this was the statistical methods used for the development or evaluation of prognostic models; we rated all but two of the included model developments or validations as having high risk of bias in the analysis domain. None of the model developments that were externally validated or these models' external validations had low risk of bias. There were concerns related to applicability of the models to our research question in over one-third (38%) of the models or their validations. Reporting deficiencies Reporting was poor overall and there was no observable increase in the quality of reporting over time. The items that were unclearly reported or not reported at all for most of the included models or validations were related to sample size justification, blinding of outcome assessors, details of the full model or how to obtain predictions from it, amount of missing data, and treatments received by the participants. Reporting of preferred model performance measures of discrimination and calibration was suboptimal. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence is not sufficient for recommending the use of any of the published prognostic prediction models for people with MS in clinical routine today due to lack of independent external validations. The MS prognostic research community should adhere to the current reporting and methodological guidelines and conduct many more state-of-the-art external validation studies for the existing or newly developed models.

Transcranial direct current stimulation as an additional treatment to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in adults with major depressive disorder in Germany (DepressionDC): a triple-blind, randomised, sham-controlled, multicentre trial.

BACKGROUND: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been proposed as a feasible treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD). However, meta-analytic evidence is heterogenous and data from multicentre trials are scarce. We aimed to assess the efficacy of tDCS versus sham stimulation as an additional treatment to a stable dose of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in adults with MDD. METHODS: The DepressionDC trial was triple-blind, randomised, and sham-controlled and conducted at eight hospitals in Germany. Patients being treated at a participating hospital aged 18-65 years were eligible if they had a diagnosis of MDD, a score of at least 15 on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (21-item version), no response to at least one antidepressant trial in their current depressive episode, and treatment with an SSRI at a stable dose for at least 4 weeks before inclusion; the SSRI was continued at the same dose during stimulation. Patients were allocated (1:1) by fixed-blocked randomisation to receive either 30 min of 2 mA bifrontal tDCS every weekday for 4 weeks, then two tDCS sessions per week for 2 weeks, or sham stimulation at the same intervals. Randomisation was stratified by site and baseline Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score (ie, <31 or ≥31). Participants, raters, and operators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was change on the MADRS at week 6, analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one treatment session. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02530164). FINDINGS: Between Jan 19, 2016, and June 15, 2020, 3601 individuals were assessed for eligibility. 160 patients were included and randomly assigned to receive either active tDCS (n=83) or sham tDCS (n=77). Six patients withdrew consent and four patients were found to have been wrongly included, so data from 150 patients were analysed (89 [59%] were female and 61 [41%] were male). No intergroup difference was found in mean improvement on the MADRS at week 6 between the active tDCS group (n=77; -8·2, SD 7·2) and the sham tDCS group (n=73; -8·0, 9·3; difference 0·3 [95% CI -2·4 to 2·9]). Significantly more participants had one or more mild adverse events in the active tDCS group (50 [60%] of 83) than in the sham tDCS group (33 [43%] of 77; p=0·028). INTERPRETATION: Active tDCS was not superior to sham stimulation during a 6-week period. Our trial does not support the efficacy of tDCS as an additional treatment to SSRIs in adults with MDD. FUNDING: German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

Stereotactic radiosurgery versus whole-brain radiotherapy in patients with 4-10 brain metastases: A nonrandomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: There is no randomized evidence comparing whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) and stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) in the treatment of multiple brain metastases. This prospective nonrandomized controlled single arm trial attempts to reduce the gap until prospective randomized controlled trial results are available. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We included patients with 4-10 brain metastases and ECOG performance status ≤ 2 from all histologies except small-cell lung cancer, germ cell tumors, and lymphoma. The retrospective WBRT-cohort was selected 2:1 from consecutive patients treated within 2012-2017. Propensity-score matching was performed to adjust for confounding factors such as sex, age, primary tumor histology, dsGPA score, and systemic therapy. SRS was performed using a LINAC-based single-isocenter technique employing prescription doses from 15-20Gyx1 at the 80% isodose line. The historical control consisted of equivalent WBRT dose regimens of either 3Gyx10 or 2.5Gyx14. RESULTS: Patients were recruited from 2017-2020, end of follow-up was July 1st, 2021. 40 patients were recruited to the SRS-cohort and 70 patients were eligible as controls in the WBRT-cohort. Median OS, and iPFS were 10.4 months (95%-CI 9.3-NA) and 7.1 months (95%-CI 3.9-14.2) for the SRS-cohort, and 6.5 months (95%-CI 4.9-10.4), and 5.9 months (95%-CI 4.1-8.8) for the WBRT-cohort, respectively. Differences were non-significant for OS (HR: 0.65; 95%-CI 0.40-1.05; P =.074) and iPFS (P =.28). No grade III toxicities were observed in the SRS-cohort. CONCLUSION: This trial did not meet its primary endpoint as the OS-improvement of SRS compared to WBRT was non-significant and thus superiority could not be proven. Prospective randomized trials in the era of immunotherapy and targeted therapies are warranted.

The EffecTs of Amlodipine and other Blood PREssure Lowering Agents on Microvascular FuncTion in Small Vessel Diseases (TREAT-SVDs) trial: Study protocol for a randomised crossover trial.

Background: Hypertension is the leading modifiable risk factor for cerebral small vessel diseases (SVDs). Yet, it is unknown whether antihypertensive drug classes differentially affect microvascular function in SVDs. Aims: To test whether amlodipine has a beneficial effect on microvascular function when compared to either losartan or atenolol, and whether losartan has a beneficial effect when compared to atenolol in patients with symptomatic SVDs. Design: TREAT-SVDs is an investigator-led, prospective, open-label, randomised crossover trial with blinded endpoint assessment (PROBE design) conducted at five study sites across Europe. Patients aged 18 years or older with symptomatic SVD who have an indication for antihypertensive treatment and are suffering from either sporadic SVD and a history of lacunar stroke or vascular cognitive impairment (group A) or CADASIL (group B) are randomly allocated 1:1:1 to one of three sequences of antihypertensive treatment. Patients stop their regular antihypertensive medication for a 2-week run-in period followed by 4-week periods of monotherapy with amlodipine, losartan and atenolol in random order as open-label medication in standard dose. Outcomes: The primary outcome measure is cerebrovascular reactivity (CVR) as determined by blood oxygen level dependent brain MRI signal response to hypercapnic challenge with change in CVR in normal appearing white matter as primary endpoint. Secondary outcome measures are mean systolic blood pressure (BP) and BP variability (BPv). Discussion: TREAT-SVDs will provide insights into the effects of different antihypertensive drugs on CVR, BP, and BPv in patients with symptomatic sporadic and hereditary SVDs. Funding: European Union's Horizon 2020 programme. Trial registration: NCT03082014.

Retrospective cohort study to devise a treatment decision score predicting adverse 24-month radiological activity in early multiple sclerosis.

Background: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic neuroinflammatory disease affecting about 2.8 million people worldwide. Disease course after the most common diagnoses of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) and clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) is highly variable and cannot be reliably predicted. This impairs early personalized treatment decisions. Objectives: The main objective of this study was to algorithmically support clinical decision-making regarding the options of early platform medication or no immediate treatment of patients with early RRMS and CIS. Design: Retrospective monocentric cohort study within the Data Integration for Future Medicine (DIFUTURE) Consortium. Methods: Multiple data sources of routine clinical, imaging and laboratory data derived from a large and deeply characterized cohort of patients with MS were integrated to conduct a retrospective study to create and internally validate a treatment decision score [Multiple Sclerosis Treatment Decision Score (MS-TDS)] through model-based random forests (RFs). The MS-TDS predicts the probability of no new or enlarging lesions in cerebral magnetic resonance images (cMRIs) between 6 and 24 months after the first cMRI. Results: Data from 65 predictors collected for 475 patients between 2008 and 2017 were included. No medication and platform medication were administered to 277 (58.3%) and 198 (41.7%) patients. The MS-TDS predicted individual outcomes with a cross-validated area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) of 0.624. The respective RF prediction model provides patient-specific MS-TDS and probabilities of treatment success. The latter may increase by 5-20% for half of the patients if the treatment considered superior by the MS-TDS is used. Conclusion: Routine clinical data from multiple sources can be successfully integrated to build prediction models to support treatment decision-making. In this study, the resulting MS-TDS estimates individualized treatment success probabilities that can identify patients who benefit from early platform medication. External validation of the MS-TDS is required, and a prospective study is currently being conducted. In addition, the clinical relevance of the MS-TDS needs to be established.

Vaccination Intention Following Receipt of Vaccine Information Through Interactive Simulation vs Text Among COVID-19 Vaccine-Hesitant Adults During the Omicron Wave in Germany.

Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, vaccine-hesitant adults presented with an interactive risk ratio simulation were more likely to show positive change in COVID-19 vaccination intention and benefit-to-harm assessment than those presented with a conventional text-based information format. These findings suggest that the interactive risk communication format can be an important tool in addressing vaccination hesitancy and fostering public trust. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional study conducted online with 1255 COVID-19 vaccine-hesitant adult residents of Germany in April and May 2022, surveyed using a probability-based internet panel maintained by respondi, a research and analytics firm. Participants were randomized to 1 of 2 presentations on the benefits and adverse events associated with vaccination. Exposure: Participants were randomized to a text-based description vs an interactive simulation presenting age-adjusted absolute risks of infection, hospitalization, ICU admission, and death after exposure to coronavirus in vaccinated vs unvaccinated individuals relative to the possible adverse effects as well as additional (population-level) benefits of COVID-19 vaccination. Importance: Hesitancy toward COVID-19 vaccination is a major factor in stagnating uptake rates and in the risk of health care systems becoming overwhelmed. Main Outcomes and Measures: Absolute change in respondents' COVID-19 vaccination intention category and benefit-to-harm assessment category. Objective: To compare an interactive risk ratio simulation (intervention) with a conventional text-based risk information format (control) and analyze change in participants' COVID-19 vaccination intention and benefit-to-harm assessment. Results: Participants were 1255 COVID-19 vaccine-hesitant residents of Germany (660 women [52.6%]; mean [SD] age, 43.6 [13.5] years). A total of 651 participants received a text-based description, and 604 participants received an interactive simulation. Relative to the text-based format, the simulation was associated with greater likelihood of positive change in vaccination intentions (19.5% vs 15.3%, respectively; absolute difference, 4.2%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.45; 95% CI, 1.07-1.96; P = .01) and benefit-to-harm assessments (32.6% vs 18.0%; absolute difference, 14.6%; aOR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.64-2.80; P < .001). Both formats were also associated with some negative change. However, the net advantage (positive - negative change) of the interactive simulation over the text-based format was 5.3 percentage points for vaccination intention (9.8% vs 4.5%) and 18.3 percentage points for benefit-to-harm assessment (25.3% vs 7.0%). Positive change in vaccination intention (but not in benefit-to-harm assessment) was associated with some demographic characteristics and attitudes to COVID-19 vaccination; negative changes were not.