2024
After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Surgery, Variables Associated With Returning to the Same Surgeon If a Subsequent Antrior Cruciate Ligament Surgery Is Needed?
Halperin S, Dhodapkar M, McLaughlin W, Santos E, Medvecky M, Grauer J. After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Surgery, Variables Associated With Returning to the Same Surgeon If a Subsequent Antrior Cruciate Ligament Surgery Is Needed? JAAOS Global Research And Reviews 2024, 9: e24.00349. PMID: 39761541, PMCID: PMC11692955, DOI: 10.5435/jaaosglobal-d-24-00349.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchConceptsCruciate ligament surgeryIndex surgeryAdverse eventsLigament surgeryAnterior cruciate ligament surgeryAssociated with adverse eventsAnterior cruciate ligament reconstructionCruciate ligament reconstructionIpsilateral revisionsRevision ACLRSame surgeonPatient agePearlDiver databaseSurgical factorsACLR patientsSurgeryPatient factorsLigament reconstructionIpsilateral kneePatientsSurgeonsAssess factorsORPearlDiverACLRPreoperative Anxiety: An Important Risk Factor of Postoperative Adverse Events and Increased Reoperation Rates in Patients Undergoing Single-Level Anterior Cervical Diskectomy and Fusion
Katsnelson B, Rancu A, Winter A, Grauer J. Preoperative Anxiety: An Important Risk Factor of Postoperative Adverse Events and Increased Reoperation Rates in Patients Undergoing Single-Level Anterior Cervical Diskectomy and Fusion. JAAOS Global Research And Reviews 2024, 8: e24.00204. PMCID: PMC11473058, DOI: 10.5435/jaaosglobal-d-24-00204.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchRevision surgery ratesAnterior cervical diskectomyAdverse eventsACDF patientsCervical diskectomySurgery ratesSingle-level anterior cervical diskectomyAdverse outcomesPreoperative anxietyCervical spine surgeryIncreased reoperation rateAssociated with adverse eventsFusion (ACDFSingle-level ACDFPostoperative adverse eventsPrevalence of mental health disordersImportant risk factorsMultivariate regression analysisReoperation rateMental health disordersSpine surgerySurgical outcomesElixhauser Comorbidity IndexHistory of anxietySurgical proceduresSuccessful management of pre-existing psoriatic arthritis through targeting the IL-23/IL-17 axis in cancer patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy: a case series
Li Y, Msaouel P, Campbell M, Hwu P, Diab A, Kim S. Successful management of pre-existing psoriatic arthritis through targeting the IL-23/IL-17 axis in cancer patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy: a case series. RMD Open 2024, 10: e004308. PMID: 39214611, PMCID: PMC11367333, DOI: 10.1136/rmdopen-2024-004308.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchConceptsImmune checkpoint inhibitorsImmune checkpoint inhibitor therapyAnti-IL-17A antibodyAdverse eventsAnti-PD-1 antibody monotherapyInterleukin (IL)-17/IL-23 axisPsoriatic arthritisImmune checkpoint inhibitor treatmentPD-1 antibody therapyResponse to ICI therapyImmune-related adverse eventsIL-23/IL-17 axisImmune checkpoint inhibitor exposureIL-17/23 axisAnti-CTLA-4Checkpoint inhibitor therapyCell renal cell carcinomaAnti-IL-17AAnti-IL-23 antibodyAssociated with adverse eventsPre-existing psoriasisAnti-tumor efficacyIL-23/IL-17Renal cell carcinomaICI therapyUse of Mitotic Activity and the Size of Any Dedifferentiated Component for Risk Assessment in MDM2-Amplified Liposarcoma.
Wu H, Sukhanova M, Tang H, Lu X, Zhong M, Deshpande H, Pollack S, Laskin W, Alexiev B. Use of Mitotic Activity and the Size of Any Dedifferentiated Component for Risk Assessment in MDM2-Amplified Liposarcoma. Archives Of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine 2024, 149: 422-430. PMID: 39164013, DOI: 10.5858/arpa.2024-0098-oa.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchAtypical lipomatous tumor/well-differentiated liposarcomaMDM2-amplified liposarcomasDedifferentiated componentDedifferentiated liposarcomaAdverse eventsMitotic countLocal recurrence statusMDM2 copy numberAssociated with adverse eventsLog-rank testOverall tumor volumeUnivariate logistic regressionChromosome 12q13-15Statistically significant associationPercentage of cellsTumor dimensionTumor volumeTumor sizeMDM2 proto-oncogeneClinicopathological characteristicsPathology reportsGrade 3Recurrence statusUnivariate analysisMultivariate regression modelPamrevlumab for Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis
Raghu G, Richeldi L, Fernández Pérez E, De Salvo M, Silva R, Song J, Ogura T, Xu Z, Belloli E, Zhang X, Seid L, Poole L, Bowler S, Corte T, Holmes M, Thien F, Wheatley J, Choi S, Chung M, Jeong S, Kim Y, Lee E, Lee H, Park C, Park J, Park J, Chi-Leung Lam D, Chan M, Lee K, Cao J, Chen J, Chen R, Dai H, Fu X, Liang Z, Luo Q, Shi G, Tong Z, Wang L, Yang S, Yu H, Zhang H, Zhang J, Zhao H, Wang W, Meng Y, Peng H, Ramaswamy M, Hamblin M, Fitzgerald J, Gupta N, Dematte J, Veeraraghavan S, O’Brien T, Luckhardt T, Lancaster L, Kokoszynska M, Ettinger N, Kaelin T, Siddiqi A, Collins B, Scholand M, Antin-Ozerkis D, Hyun K, Harden C, Averill F, Mallea J, Bascom R, Seeram V, Hajari Case A, Britt E, Shea B, Criner G, Gotfried M, Mageto Y, El Bayadi S, Reichner C, Mooney J, Hotchkin D, Abrencillo R, Boente R, Lee J, Betensley A, Jeganathan N, Walia R, Albertson T, Rosas I, Puppala D, Abraham L, Enelow R, Bhatt N, Bandyopadhyay D, Elias P, Bergna M, Garcia G, De Stefano G, Wehbe L, Chirino A, Rojas R, Otaola M, Miranda G, Florenzano M, Silva Orellana R, Glasinovich V, Shangina O, Nikishenkov A, Kuzubova N. Pamrevlumab for Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis. JAMA 2024, 332: 380-389. PMID: 38762797, PMCID: PMC11304118, DOI: 10.1001/jama.2024.8693.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchIdiopathic pulmonary fibrosisBaseline to weekPulmonary fibrosisAdverse eventsBetween-group differencesPrimary outcomePhase 3 randomized clinical trialSecondary outcomesTreatment-related adverse eventsProgression of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosisPhase 2 trialAssociated with adverse eventsRate of lung function declineSubstantial adverse eventsAbsolute changeStatistically significant between-group differencesPatient-reported symptomsLung function declineSignificant between-group differencesFollow-up encountersPatient-reported outcomesPlacebo groupAntifibrotic treatmentPamrevlumabClinical trials
2019
Mixed‐methods approach to exploring patients’ perspectives on the acceptability of a urinary biomarker test in replacing cystoscopy for bladder cancer surveillance
Tan W, Teo C, Chan D, Heinrich M, Feber A, Sarpong R, Allan J, Williams N, Brew‐Graves C, Ng C, Kelly J, Khetrapal P, ridhar A, Baker H, Ocampo F, Whotton N, Dent K, Pearson S, Hatton J, Newton M, Heeney E, Green K, Evans S, Rogers M, Dann A, Cook J, Cornwell M, Mills R, Knight H, Maher S, Rane A, Thomas S, Reyner S, Vallejera G, Adeniran P, Masood S, Ridgway S, Coulding M, Savill H, Mccormick J, Clark M, Collins G, Jewers K, Keith S, Bowen G, Hargreaves J, Riley K, Srirangam S, Mistry R, Chadwick J, Cocks S, Hull R, Loftus A, Dawson L, Roberts H, Main C, Jain S, Waymont C, Rogers J, Grant A, Carter V, Heap H, Lomas C, Cooke P, Baird Y, Moore S, Greenslade S, Margalef J, Chadbourn I, Harris M, Hicks J, Clitheroe P, Connolly S, Hodgkinson S, Haydock H, inclair A, Storr E, Cogley L, Natale S, Lovegrove W, Smith S, Smith K, Hewitt D, Sriram R, Atkinson K, Royle L, Madine J, MacLean K, Walsh J, Guerdette M, Hill M, Payne D, Power A, Cannon J, Devereaux L, Thompson A, Scarratt L, Hodgkiss T, Johnstone D, Johnson J, Allsop J, Rothwell J, Connolly K, Cherian J, Wardle H, Wilson D, Bayles A, Pelluri S, Pati J, Gherman A, Scott C, Madaan S, Taylor A, Edmunds E, Moore J, Rees A, Williams S, Caddy S, Dukes S, Goffe A, Buckhorn K, Nichols L, Acher P, Baillie K, Middleton K, Proctor C, Cresswell J, Chilvers A, Cain M, Vaux A, Watson D, Bradfield S, Gregory H, Mostafid H, Kehoe L, Drakeley S, Davies A, Williamson L, Krishnan R, Lunt N, Hill P, Burns H, Townley B, Wilkinson L, Wassall H, Hunt J, Holbrook B, Stancombe L, Morrison J, Vankoutrik L, Misra S, Fossey G, Richards A, Mcdonald K, Henderson A, Fennelly R, Tribbeck M, Ames K, Borwell J, Kotze M, Beesley K, Rennie K, Porter T, Gipson A, Piper L, Bailey L, Chrisopoulou A, Slevin K, McCartin F, Warburton H, Hathaway‐Lees S, Whetton K, Delves G, Day A, Bankole T, Broadhead S, Malde S, Oblak M, Ellis D, Bishara S, Barias‐Lara T, Donkov I, Thatcher H, Morris M, Culmsee C, Menzies H, Bartlett C, Cutting C, O'Brien N, Jannapureddy R, Kelkar A, Fitzgerald J, Longhurst S, Worth C, Peracha M, Mzazi S, Poile C, Griffiths L, Cook A, Barber N, Brar N, lty A, Zelhof B, Blades R. Mixed‐methods approach to exploring patients’ perspectives on the acceptability of a urinary biomarker test in replacing cystoscopy for bladder cancer surveillance. BJU International 2019, 124: 408-417. PMID: 30694612, PMCID: PMC6767410, DOI: 10.1111/bju.14690.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchConceptsMinimally acceptable sensitivityAdverse eventsMixed-methods approachUrine biomarkersUrinary biomarkersProspective multicentre observational studyUrinary biomarker testsUrinary tract symptomsHome to hospitalAssociated with adverse eventsUrinary tract infectionHigh-risk patientsMulticentre observational studySensitivity of cystoscopyBladder cancer surveillanceDiagnosis of cancerSemi-structured interviewsPrevalence of haematuriaPatient experiencePatient perspectivePatients' viewsCancer surveillanceTract infectionsUrine biomarker studiesPatient demographics
This site is protected by hCaptcha and its Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply