Perspectives on the revised Ghent criteria for the diagnosis of Marfan syndrome

Yskert von Kodolitsch,1 Julie De Backer,2 Helke Schüler,1 Peter Bannas,3 Cyrus Behzadi,3 Alexander M Bernhardt,1 Mathias Hillebrand,1 Bettina Fuisting,4 Sara Sheikhzadeh,1 Meike Rybczynski,1 Tilo Kölbel,1 Klaus Püschel,5 Stefan Blankenberg,1 Peter N Robinson61Centre of Cardiology, University Hospital Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; 2Centre for Medical Genetics, University Hospital Ghent, Ghent, Belgium; 3Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology Department and Clinic, 4Department of Ophthalmology, 5Department of Legal Medicine, University Hospital Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; 6Institute of Medical Genetics and Human Genetics, Charité Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany Abstract: Three international nosologies have been proposed for the diagnosis of Marfan syndrome (MFS): the Berlin nosology in 1988; the Ghent nosology in 1996 (Ghent-1); and the revised Ghent nosology in 2010 (Ghent-2). We reviewed the literature and discussed the challenges and concepts of diagnosing MFS in adults. Ghent-1 proposed more stringent clinical criteria, which led to the confirmation of MFS in only 32%–53% of patients formerly diagnosed with MFS according to the Berlin nosology. Conversely, both the Ghent-1 and Ghent-2 nosologies diagnosed MFS, and both yielded similar frequencies of MFS in persons with a causative FBN1 mutation (90% for Ghent-1 versus 92% for Ghent-2) and in persons not having a causative FBN1 mutation (15% versus 13%). Quality criteria for diagnostic methods include objectivity, reliability, and validity. However, the nosology-based diagnosis of MFS lacks a diagnostic reference standard and, hence, quality criteria such as sensitivity, specificity, or accuracy cannot be assessed. Medical utility of diagnosis implies congruency with the historical criteria of MFS, as well as with information about the etiology, pathogenesis, diagnostic triggers, prognostic triggers, and potential complications of MFS. In addition, social and psychological utilities of diagnostic criteria include acceptance by patients, patient organizations, clinicians and scientists, practicability, costs, and the reduction of anxiety. Since the utility of a diagnosis or exclusion of MFS is context-dependent, prioritization of utilities is a strategic decision in the process of nosology development. Screening tests for MFS should be used to identify persons with MFS. To confirm the diagnosis of MFS, Ghent-1 and Ghent-2 perform similarly, but Ghent-2 is easier to use. To maximize the utility of the diagnostic criteria of MFS, a fair and transparent process of nosology development is essential. Keywords: Marfan syndrome, Ghent nosology, diagnosis, FBN1, mutation, aort

Immunotherapy of uveal melanoma: vaccination against cancer. Multicenter adjuvant phase 3 vaccination study using dendritic cells laden with tumor RNA for large newly diagnosed uveal melanoma

Uveal melanomas are the most common malignant tumors of the eye. With modern molecular biological diagnostic methods, such as chromosome 3 typing and gene expression analysis, these tumors can be categorized into highly aggressive (monosomy 3, class II) and less aggressive forms. This molecular biological stratification is primarily important for determining the risk of these tumors as no therapy is currently available that is able to prevent or delay metastases. A randomized study of patients with a poor prognosis (monosomy 3) is currently being carried out in order to determine whether a cancer vaccine prepared from autologous (patient's own) dendritic cells and uveal melanoma RNA can prevent or delay progression and further metastases of this extremely aggressive form of cancer. Inclusion in the uveal melanoma study, which hopes to provide a potential therapeutic option for patients, is only possible if patients are referred to an institution that is able to manufacture and provide this vaccination before the patient is operated on or treated with radiation. Untreated tumor material is necessary for producing the vaccine on an individualized patient basis

The role of the multidisciplinary health care team in the management of patients with Marfan syndrome

Yskert von Kodolitsch,1 Meike Rybczynski,1 Marina Vogler,2 Thomas S Mir,3 Helke Schüler,1 Kerstin Kutsche,4 Georg Rosenberger,4 Christian Detter,5 Alexander M Bernhardt,5 Axel Larena-Avellaneda,6 Tilo Kölbel,6 E Sebastian Debus,6 Malte Schroeder,7,8 Stephan J Linke,9,10 Bettina Fuisting,9 Barbara Napp,1 Anna Lena Kammal,11 Klaus Püschel,11 Peter Bannas,12 Boris A Hoffmann,13 Nele Gessler,13 Eva Vahle-Hinz,14 Bärbel Kahl-Nieke,14 Götz Thomalla,15 Christina Weiler-Normann,16 Gunda Ohm,17 Stefan Neumann,18 Dieter Benninghoven,19 Stefan Blankenberg,1 Reed E Pyeritz20 1Clinic of Cardiology, University Heart Centre, 2Marfan Hilfe Deutschland e.V., Zentrumsehstärke, 3Clinic for Pediatric Cardiology, University Heart Centre, 4Institute of Human Genetics, 5Clinic of Cardiovascular Surgery, University Heart Centre, 6Clinic of Vascular Medicine, University Heart Centre, 7Department of Trauma, Hand, and Reconstructive Surgery, 8Department of Orthopedics, 9Clinic of Ophthalmology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; 10Smilow Center for Translational Research, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA; 11Department of Legal Medicine, 12Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology Department and Clinic, 13Clinic of Electrophysiology, University Heart Centre, 14Department of Orthodontics, Center for Dental and Oral Medicine, 15Clinic of Neurology, 16Martin Zeitz Center for Rare Diseases, 17Strategic Business Development, 18Business Unit Quality Management, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, 19Mühlenberg-Clinic for Rehabilitation, Bad Malente-Gremsmühlen, 20Zentrumsehstärke, Hamburg, Germany Abstract: Marfan syndrome (MFS) is a rare, severe, chronic, life-threatening disease with multiorgan involvement that requires optimal multidisciplinary care to normalize both prognosis and quality of life. In this article, each key team member of all the medical disciplines of a multidisciplinary health care team at the Hamburg Marfan center gives a personal account of his or her contribution in the management of patients with MFS. The authors show how, with the support of health care managers, key team members organize themselves in an organizational structure to create a common meaning, to maximize therapeutic success for patients with MFS. First, we show how the initiative and collaboration of patient representatives, scientists, and physicians resulted in the foundation of Marfan centers, initially in the US and later in Germany, and how and why such centers evolved over time. Then, we elucidate the three main structural elements; a team of coordinators, core disciplines, and auxiliary disciplines of health care. Moreover, we explain how a multidisciplinary health care team integrates into many other health care structures of a university medical center, including external quality assurance; quality management system; clinical risk management; center for rare diseases; aorta center; health care teams for pregnancy, for neonates, and for rehabilitation; and in structures for patient centeredness. We provide accounts of medical goals and standards for each core discipline, including pediatricians, pediatric cardiologists, cardiologists, human geneticists, heart surgeons, vascular surgeons, vascular interventionists, orthopedic surgeons, ophthalmologists, and nurses; and of auxiliary disciplines including forensic pathologists, radiologists, rhythmologists, pulmonologists, sleep specialists, orthodontists, dentists, neurologists, obstetric surgeons, psychiatrist/psychologist, and rehabilitation specialists. We conclude that a multidisciplinary health care team is a means to maximize therapeutic success. Keywords: multidisciplinary, Marfan syndrome, health care, team, profession, sociology, managemen

Effects of the chymase inhibitor fulacimstat on adverse cardiac remodeling after acute myocardial infarction—Results of the Chymase Inhibitor in Adverse Remodeling after Myocardial Infarction (CHIARA MIA) 2 trial

Background: Adverse cardiac remodeling is a major risk factor for the development of post myocardial infarction (MI) heart failure (HF). This study investigates the effects of the chymase inhibitor fulacimstat on adverse cardiac remodeling after acute ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Methods: In this double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial patients with first STEMI were eligible. To preferentially enrich patients at high risk of adverse remodeling, main inclusion criteria were a left-ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤45% and an infarct size >10% on day 5 to 9 post MI as measured by cardiac MRI. Patients were then randomized to 6 months treatment with either 25 mg fulacimstat (n = 54) or placebo (n = 53) twice daily on top of standard of care starting day 6 to 12 post MI. The changes in LVEF, LV end-diastolic volume index (LVEDVI), and LV end-systolic volume index (LVESVI) from baseline to 6 months were analyzed by a central blinded cardiac MRI core laboratory. Results: Fulacimstat was safe and well tolerated and achieved mean total trough concentrations that were approximately tenfold higher than those predicted to be required for minimal therapeutic activity. Comparable changes in LVEF (fulacimstat: 3.5% ± 5.4%, placebo: 4.0% ± 5.0%, P = .69), LVEDVI (fulacimstat: 7.3 ± 13.3 mL/m2, placebo: 5.1 ± 18.9 mL/m2, P = .54), and LVESVI (fulacimstat: 2.3 ± 11.2 mL/m2, placebo: 0.6 ± 14.8 mL/m2, P = .56) were observed in both treatment arms. Conclusion: Fulacimstat was safe and well tolerated in patients with left-ventricular dysfunction (LVD) after first STEMI but had no effect on cardiac remodeling