The use of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) in patients undergoing peripheral vascular interventions (PVIs) decreases the risk of death and amputation and may decrease hospital readmissions. The variability of GDMT prescription across sites and operators and the proportionality of risk is not well understood. We aimed to study the association between variability of GDMT prescription at the site and operator level and outcomes (including 90-day readmissions and 24-month all-cause mortality and major amputation).
We examined GDMT discharge rates in PVIs performed between 2017 and 2018 using Medicare-linked Vascular Quality Initiative registry. GDMT included a statin, antiplatelet therapy, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (ACE-i/ARB) if hypertensive. Quartiles (Q1-4) of GDMT rates were documented by operators and sites and variability was quantified using median odds ratios (MOR) and intraclass correlation (ICC). The association between lower GDMT rates (per 10%) by sites and operators with 90-day readmission were calculated using logistic regression, and with 24-month mortality and major amputation using parametric survival model. Models were adjusted for patient-level factors and included sites and operators nested within sites as 2 random effects.
GDMT rates for 17,147 patients across 223 sites and 1,263 operators ranged from 0% to 38% (Q1, MOR 1.43, 95%CI 1.39-1.47, P ≤ .001) to 57%-100% (Q4, MOR 1.48, 95%CI 1.44-1.51, P ≤ .001). Four percent of variance in GDMT use was explained by sites (ICC 3.9, 95%CI 2.9-5.3) and operators (ICC 4.1, 95%CI 3.1-5.4). A dose-response relationship was noted between lower GDMT rates and increased risk of 90-day readmission risk by sites (P = .021) and operators (P < .001). Lower GDMT prescription by site was associated with higher risk of 24-month mortality (HR = 1.07, 95%CI 1.02-1.13) and major amputation (HR = 1.08, 95%CI 1.01-1.15). Similar associations were found for GDMT use by provider (mortality HR = 1.05, 95%CI 1.02-1.08 and amputation HR = 1.04, 95%CI 1.00-1.08).
Both at the operator and health system level, there was significant variability in GDMT prescription following PVI, proportionally translating into risk for readmission, mortality, and major amputation. Targeted quality efforts should prioritize both operator and site levels to improve GDMT use and outcomes for patients undergoing PVI.

To characterize treatment decision-making processes and formalize consensus regarding key factors headache specialists consider in treatment decisions for patients with migraine, considering novel therapies.
Migraine therapies have long been subject to binary classification, acute versus preventive, due to limitations of available drugs. The emergence of novel therapies that can be used more flexibly creates an opportunity to rethink this binary classification. To determine the role of these novel therapies in treatment, it is critical to understand whether existing guidelines reflect clinical practice and to establish consensus around factors driving management.
A three-round modified Delphi process was conducted with migraine clinical experts. Round 1 consisted of an online questionnaire; Round 2 involved an online discussion of aggregated Round 1 results; and Round 3 allowed participants to revise Round 1 responses, incorporating Round 2 insights. Questions elicited likelihood ratings (0 = highly unlikely to 100 = highly likely), rankings, and estimates on treatment decision-making.
Nineteen experts completed three Delphi rounds. Experts strongly agreed on definitions for \"acute\" (median = 100, inter-quartile range [IQR] = 5) and \"preventive\" treatment (median = 90, IQR = 15), but noted a need for treatment customization for patients (median = 100, IQR = 6). Experts noted certain aspects of guidelines may no longer apply based on established tolerability and efficacy of newer acute and preventive agents (median = 91, IQR = 17). Further, experts agreed on a treatment category referred to as \"situational prevention\" (or \"short-term prevention\") for patients with reliable and predictable migraine triggers (median = 100, IQR = 10) or time-limited periods when headache avoidance is important (median = 100, IQR = 12).
Using the modified Delphi method, a panel of migraine experts identified the importance of customizing treatment for people with migraine and the utility of \"situational prevention,\" given the ability of new treatment options to meet this need and the potential to clinically identify patients and time periods when this approach would add value.

UNASSIGNED: This study aimed to identify distinct clusters of very elderly kidney transplant recipients aged ≥80 and assess clinical outcomes among these unique clusters.
UNASSIGNED: Cohort study with machine learning (ML) consensus clustering approach.
UNASSIGNED: All very elderly (age ≥80 at time of transplant) kidney transplant recipients in the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network/United Network for Organ Sharing database database from 2010 to 2019.
UNASSIGNED: Distinct clusters of very elderly kidney transplant recipients and their post-transplant outcomes including death-censored graft failure, overall mortality and acute allograft rejection among the assigned clusters.
UNASSIGNED: Consensus cluster analysis was performed in 419 very elderly kidney transplant and identified three distinct clusters that best represented the clinical characteristics of very elderly kidney transplant recipients. Recipients in cluster 1 received standard Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) non-extended criteria donor (ECD) kidneys from deceased donors. Recipients in cluster 2 received kidneys from older, hypertensive ECD deceased donors with a KDPI score ≥85%. Kidneys for cluster 2 patients had longer cold ischaemia time and the highest use of machine perfusion. Recipients in clusters 1 and 2 were more likely to be on dialysis at the time of transplant (88.3%, 89.4%). Recipients in cluster 3 were more likely to be preemptive (39%) or had a dialysis duration less than 1 year (24%). These recipients received living donor kidney transplants. Cluster 3 had the most favourable post-transplant outcomes. Compared with cluster 3, cluster 1 had comparable survival but higher death-censored graft failure, while cluster 2 had lower patient survival, higher death-censored graft failure and more acute rejection.
UNASSIGNED: Our study used an unsupervised ML approach to cluster very elderly kidney transplant recipients into three clinically unique clusters with distinct post-transplant outcomes. These findings from an ML clustering approach provide additional understanding towards individualised medicine and opportunities to improve care for very elderly kidney transplant recipients.

Lack of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) in patients undergoing peripheral vascular interventions (PVIs) may increase mortality and amputation risk.
The authors sought to study the association between GDMT and mortality/amputation and to examine GDMT variability among providers and health systems.
We performed an observational study using patients in the Vascular Quality Initiative registry undergoing PVI between 2017 and 2018. Two-year all-cause mortality and major amputation data were derived from Medicare claims data. Compliance with GDMT was defined as receiving a statin, antiplatelet therapy, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker if hypertensive. Propensity 1:1 matching was applied for GDMT vs no GDMT and survival analyses were performed to compare outcomes between groups.
Of 15,891 patients undergoing PVIs, 48.8% received GDMT and 6,120 patients in each group were matched. Median follow-up was 9.6 (IQR: 4.5-16.2) months for mortality and 8.4 (IQR: 3.5-15.4) for amputation. Mean age was 72.0 ± 9.9 years. Mortality risk was higher among patients who did not receive GDMT versus those on GDMT (31.2% vs 24.5%; HR: 1.37, 95% CI: 1.25-1.50; P < 0.001), as well as, risk of amputation (16.0% vs 13.2%; HR: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.08-1.35; P < 0.001). GDMT rates across sites and providers ranging from 0% to 100%, with lower performance translating into higher risk.
Almost one-half of the patients receiving PVI in this national quality registry were not on GDMT, and this was associated with increased risk of mortality and major amputation. Quality improvement efforts in vascular care should focus on GDMT in patients undergoing PVI.

In 2015 the Esophagectomy Complication Consensus Group (ECCG) reported consensus definitions for complications after esophagectomy. This aimed to reduce variation in complication reporting, attributed to heterogeneous definitions. This systematic review aimed to describe the implementation of this definition set, including the effect on complication frequency and variation. A systematic literature review was performed, identifying all observational and randomized studies reporting complication frequencies after esophagectomy since the ECCG publication. Recruitment periods before and subsequent to the index ECCG publication date were included. Coefficients of variance were calculated to assess outcome heterogeneity. Of 144 studies which met inclusion criteria, 70 (48.6%) used ECCG definitions. The median number of separately reported complication types was five per study; only one study reported all ECCG complications. The coefficients of variance of the reported frequencies of eight of the 10 most common complications were reduced in studies which used the ECCG definitions compared with those that did not (P = 0.036). Among ECCG studies, the frequencies of postoperative pneumothorax, reintubation, and pulmonary emboli were significantly reduced in 2020-2021, compared with 2015-2019 (P = 0.006, 0.034, and 0.037 respectively). The ECCG definition set has reduced variation in esophagectomy morbidity reporting. This adds greater confidence to the observed gradual improvement in outcomes with time, and its ongoing use and wider dissemination should be encouraged. However, only a handful of outcomes are widely reported, and only rarely is it used in its entirety.

Normative approaches have been developed with the aim of providing high-quality methods and strict criteria that, when applied correctly, lead to reliable results. Standards, specifications, and guidelines are needed to facilitate exchange of goods or information and secure comparability of data derived from different laboratories and sources. They are available along the whole flow from study development to test selection, study conduct, and reporting and are widely used for the evaluation of medical devices, market approval, and harmonization of terms and devices. Standards are developed by specific national and international organizations or by dedicated interest groups, mainly scientists in their respective fields. ISO (International Organization for Standardization) standards are developed following stringent regulations, and groups of experts formulate such standards. They should come from different areas (multistakeholder approach) to have as much and as broad input as possible and to avoid single-interest dominance. However, the presence of academia in such groups has been comparatively low. There is a clear need and responsibility of the oral health community to participate in the development of normative documents to provide methodological knowledge and experience, balance the interests of other stakeholders, and finally improve oral health. This will help to ensure that rapidly advancing fields of research, such as the oral health impacts of COVID-19 or the application of artificial intelligence in dentistry, benefit from standardization of approaches and reporting.

UNASSIGNED: Guidelines for routine antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) before dental procedures to prevent periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) have been hampered by the lack of prospective clinical trials.
UNASSIGNED: To apply value-of-information (VOI) analysis to quantify the value of conducting further clinical research to reduce decision uncertainty regarding the cost-effectiveness of AP strategies for dental patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA).
UNASSIGNED: An updated decision model and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) evaluated the cost-effectiveness of AP and decision uncertainty for 3 AP strategies: no AP, 2-y AP, and lifetime AP. VOI analyses estimated the value and cost of conducting a randomized controlled trial (RCT) or observational study. We used a linear regression meta-modeling approach to calculate the population expected value of partial perfect information and a Gaussian approximation to calculate population expected value of sample information, and we subtracted the cost for research to obtain the expected net benefit of sampling (ENBS). We determined the optimal trial sample sizes that maximized ENBS.
UNASSIGNED: Using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, the PSA found that a no-AP strategy had the highest expected net benefit, with a 60% probability of being cost-effective, and 2-y AP had a 37% probability. The optimal sample size for an RCT to determine AP efficacy and dental-related PJI risk would require approximately 421 patients per arm with an estimated cost of $14.7 million. The optimal sample size for an observational study to inform quality-of-life parameters would require 2,211 patients with an estimated cost of $1.2 million. The 2 trial designs had an ENBS of approximately $25 to $26 million.
UNASSIGNED: Given the uncertainties associated with AP guidelines for dental patients after TKA, we conclude there is value in conducting further research to inform the risk of PJI, effectiveness of AP, and quality-of-life values.
UNASSIGNED: The results of this value-of-information analysis demonstrate that there is substantial uncertainty around clinical, health status, and economic parameters that may influence the antibiotic prophylaxis guidance for dental patients with total knee arthroplasty. The analysis supports the contention that conducting additional clinical research to reduce decision uncertainty is worth pursuing and will inform the antibiotic prophylaxis debate for clinicians and dental patients with prosthetic joints.

The American Academy of Ophthalmology recommends a maximum hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) dose of ≤5.0 mg/kg/day to reduce the risk of HCQ-induced retinopathy. To determine if this dose adjustment would have an impact on the clinical course of SLE, we compared outcome measures in a cohort of patients with SLE before and after adjusting HCQ dose.
Sixty Puerto Ricans with SLE (per 1997 American College of Rheumatology criteria) treated with HCQ who were changed to HCQ ≤5.0 mg/kg/day were studied. Visits were ascertained every 6 months for 2 years before and 2 years after HCQ dose adjustment (baseline visit). Disease activity (per Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI)), SLE exacerbations, emergency room visits, hospitalisations, disease damage (per Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index), corticosteroids exposure, prednisone dose and immunosuppressive drugs exposure were determined before and after HCQ dose change.
At baseline visit, the mean age was 43.8±15.1 years. All patients were women. The mean disease duration was 13.8±9.1 years. After HCQ dose adjustment, patients required a lower prednisone dose when compared with visits before HCQ dose reduction. No significant differences were observed for mean SLEDAI scores, lupus exacerbations, emergency room visits, hospitalisations, disease damage and exposure to immunosuppressive drugs before and after HCQ dose adjustment.
This study suggests that adjustment of daily HCQ dose to ≤5.0 mg/kg/day of actual body weight does not have a significant impact on the short-term and mid-term outcomes in this group of patients with SLE.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) affects more than two-thirds of patients receiving hemodialysis and is the leading cause of death in this population, yet CVD outcomes are infrequently and inconsistently reported in trials in patients receiving hemodialysis. As part of the Standardised Outcomes in Nephrology-Haemodialysis (SONG-HD) initiative, we convened a consensus workshop to discuss the potential use of myocardial infarction and sudden cardiac death as core outcome measures for CVD for use in all trials in people receiving hemodialysis. Eight patients or caregivers and 46 health professionals from 15 countries discussed selection and implementation of the proposed core outcome measures. Five main themes were identified: capturing specific relevance to the hemodialysis population (acknowledging prevalence, risk, severity, unique symptomology, and pathophysiology), the dilemmas in using composite outcomes, addressing challenges in outcome definitions (establishing a common definition and addressing uncertainty in the utility of biomarkers in hemodialysis), selecting a meaningful metric for decision making (to facilitate comparison across trials), and enabling and incentivizing implementation (by ensuring that cardiologists are involved in the development and integration of the outcome measure into registries, trial design, and reporting guidelines). Based on these themes, participants supported the use of myocardial infarction and sudden cardiac death as core outcome measures of CVD to be reported in all hemodialysis trials.

暂无摘要。