Emergent Endotracheal Intubation and Mortality in Traumatic Brain Injury

Objective: To determine the relationship between emergent intubation (emergency department and field intubation cases combined) and mortality in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) while controlling for injury severity.Methods: Retrospective observational study of 981 (35.2% intubated, 64.8% not intubated) patients with TBI evaluating the association between intubation status and mortality. Logistic regression was used to analyze the data. Injury severity measures included Head/Neck Abbreviated Injury Scale (H-AIS), systolic blood pressure, type of head injury (blunt vs. penetrating), and a propensity score combining the effects of several other potential confounding variables. Age was also included in the model.Results: The simple association of emergent endotracheal intubation with death had an odds ratio (OR) of 14.3 (95% CI = 9.4 – 21.9). The logistic regression model including relevant covariates and a propensity score that adjusted for injury severity and age yielded an OR of 5.9 (95% CI = 3.2 – 10.9).Conclusions: This study indicates that emergent intubation is associated with increased risk of death after controlling for a number of injury severity indicators. We discuss the need for optimal paramedic training, and an understanding of the factors that guide patient selection and the decision to intubate in the field. [WestJEM.2008;9:184-189

The six most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis: A pluralogue part 2: Issues of conservatism and pragmatism in psychiatric diagnosis

In face of the multiple controversies surrounding the DSM process in general and the development of DSM-5 in particular, we have organized a discussion around what we consider six essential questions in further work on the DSM. The six questions involve: 1) the nature of a mental disorder; 2) the definition of mental disorder; 3) the issue of whether, in the current state of psychiatric science, DSM-5 should assume a cautious, conservative posture or an assertive, transformative posture; 4) the role of pragmatic considerations in the construction of DSM-5; 5) the issue of utility of the DSM – whether DSM-III and IV have been designed more for clinicians or researchers, and how this conflict should be dealt with in the new manual; and 6) the possibility and advisability, given all the problems with DSM-III and IV, of designing a different diagnostic system. Part I of this article took up the first two questions. Part II will take up the second two questions. Question 3 deals with the question as to whether DSM-V should assume a conservative or assertive posture in making changes from DSM-IV. That question in turn breaks down into discussion of diagnoses that depend on, and aim toward, empirical, scientific validation, and diagnoses that are more value-laden and less amenable to scientific validation. Question 4 takes up the role of pragmatic consideration in a psychiatric nosology, whether the purely empirical considerations need to be tempered by considerations of practical consequence. As in Part 1 of this article, the general introduction, as well as the introductions and conclusions for the specific questions, are written by James Phillips, and the responses to commentaries are written by Allen Frances

The six most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis: a pluralogue part 1: conceptual and definitional issues in psychiatric diagnosis

In face of the multiple controversies surrounding the DSM process in general and the development of DSM-5 in particular, we have organized a discussion around what we consider six essential questions in further work on the DSM. The six questions involve: 1) the nature of a mental disorder; 2) the definition of mental disorder; 3) the issue of whether, in the current state of psychiatric science, DSM-5 should assume a cautious, conservative posture or an assertive, transformative posture; 4) the role of pragmatic considerations in the construction of DSM-5; 5) the issue of utility of the DSM - whether DSM-III and IV have been designed more for clinicians or researchers, and how this conflict should be dealt with in the new manual; and 6) the possibility and advisability, given all the problems with DSM-III and IV, of designing a different diagnostic system. Part I of this article will take up the first two questions. With the first question, invited commentators express a range of opinion regarding the nature of psychiatric disorders, loosely divided into a realist position that the diagnostic categories represent real diseases that we can accurately name and know with our perceptual abilities, a middle, nominalist position that psychiatric disorders do exist in the real world but that our diagnostic categories are constructs that may or may not accurately represent the disorders out there, and finally a purely constructivist position that the diagnostic categories are simply constructs with no evidence of psychiatric disorders in the real world. The second question again offers a range of opinion as to how we should define a mental or psychiatric disorder, including the possibility that we should not try to formulate a definition. The general introduction, as well as the introductions and conclusions for the specific questions, are written by James Phillips, and the responses to commentaries are written by Allen Frances

The six most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis: a pluralogue. Part 4: general conclusion

In the conclusion to this multi-part article I first review the discussions carried out around the six essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis – the position taken by Allen Frances on each question, the commentaries on the respective question along with Frances’ responses to the commentaries, and my own view of the multiple discussions. In this review I emphasize that the core question is the first – what is the nature of psychiatric illness – and that in some manner all further questions follow from the first. Following this review I attempt to move the discussion forward, addressing the first question from the perspectives of natural kind analysis and complexity analysis. This reflection leads toward a view of psychiatric disorders – and future nosologies – as far more complex and uncertain than we have imagined

Comprehensive Pan-Genomic Characterization of Adrenocortical Carcinoma

SummaryWe describe a comprehensive genomic characterization of adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC). Using this dataset, we expand the catalogue of known ACC driver genes to include PRKAR1A, RPL22, TERF2, CCNE1, and NF1. Genome wide DNA copy-number analysis revealed frequent occurrence of massive DNA loss followed by whole-genome doubling (WGD), which was associated with aggressive clinical course, suggesting WGD is a hallmark of disease progression. Corroborating this hypothesis were increased TERT expression, decreased telomere length, and activation of cell-cycle programs. Integrated subtype analysis identified three ACC subtypes with distinct clinical outcome and molecular alterations which could be captured by a 68-CpG probe DNA-methylation signature, proposing a strategy for clinical stratification of patients based on molecular markers

Primary Mucosal Melanoma Presenting with a Unilateral Nasal Obstruction of the Left Inferior Turbinate

We report the case of a primitive nasal melanoma in an 82-year-old patient, showing how this rare malignancy, with non-specific signs and symptoms, can represent a challenging diagnosis for the physician. A 82-year-old Caucasian patient presented for unilateral nasal obstruction and occasional epistaxis. Computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the facial massif revealed turbinate hypertrophy and a polypoid phlogistic tissue isointense in T1 with an intermediate signal in T2 and Short-TI Inversion Recovery (STIR)-T2, occupying the middle meatus and the anterior upper and lower left meatus with partial obliteration of the ostium and the infundibulum of the maxillary sinus. The Positron emission tomography (PET) exam was negative for metastases. Conservatory surgery in the left anterior video rhinoscopy was performed, allowing a radical 4-cm tumor excision. Histology reported epithelioid cell melanoma, PanK−, CD45−, and PanMelanoma+. Adjuvant radiotherapy was suggested, even considering a complete resection as the result of surgery. No local or systemic relapse was noticed at the 2-month follow-up visit. Although mucosal melanoma is a rare and aggressive malignancy characterized by a poor prognosis, early diagnosis allows a more conservative approach, with little surgical difficulty and no aesthetic effect. Our case raises awareness of the importance of early intervention even in those cases where the clinic symptoms and diagnostic images show uncertain severity

A comparative clinical study of PF-06410293, a candidate adalimumab biosimilar, and adalimumab reference product (Humira®) in the treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis

Abstract Background This double-blind, randomized, 78-week study evaluated the efficacy, safety, immunogenicity, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of PF-06410293, a candidate adalimumab biosimilar, versus adalimumab reference product (Humira®) sourced from the EU (adalimumab-EU) in biologic-naïve patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite methotrexate (MTX) (10–25 mg/week). We report results for the first 26 weeks of treatment. Methods Patients with active RA (N = 597) were randomly assigned (1:1) to PF-06410293 or adalimumab-EU, while continuing with MTX treatment. The primary endpoint was American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement (ACR20) at week 12. Therapeutic equivalence was concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ACR20 difference between the two arms was entirely contained within the symmetric equivalence margin (±14%). Additionally, a two-sided 90% CI was calculated by using an asymmetric equivalence margin (−12%, 15%). Secondary efficacy endpoints to week 26 included ACR20/50/70, change from baseline Disease Activity Score based on high-sensitivity C-reactive protein [DAS28–4(CRP)], European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response, DAS28–4(CRP) of less than 2.6, and ACR/EULAR remission. QuantiFERON-TB testing was performed at screening and week 26. Results Patients (78.7% of whom were female and whose mean age was 52.5 years) had a mean baseline RA duration of 6.8 years. The mean baseline DAS28–4(CRP) values were 5.9 (PF-06410293) and 6.1 (adalimumab-EU). The observed week-12 ACR20 values were 68.7% (PF-06410293) and 72.7% (adalimumab-EU) in the intention-to-treat population. With non-responder imputation, the treatment difference in week-12 ACR20 was −2.98% and corresponding CIs—95% CI (−10.38%, 4.44%) and 90% CI (−9.25%, 3.28%)—were entirely contained within the equivalence margins (symmetric and asymmetric, respectively). The secondary efficacy endpoints were similar between arms. Over 26 weeks, injection-site reactions occurred in 1.7% versus 2.0%, hypersensitivity events in 4.4% versus 8.4%, pneumonia in 0.7% versus 2.0%, and opportunistic infections in 2.4% versus 1.7% in the PF-06410293 and adalimumab-EU arms, respectively. One death due to myocardial infarction occurred (adalimumab-EU arm). Rates of anti-drug antibody incidence were 44.4% (PF-06410293) and 50.5% (adalimumab-EU). Conclusions The study results demonstrate that efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of PF-06410293 and adalimumab-EU were similar during the first 26 weeks of treatment in patients with active RA on background MTX. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02480153. First posted on June 24, 2015; EU Clinical Trials Register EudraCT number: 2014-000352-29. Start date: October 27, 2014

The six most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis: a pluralogue part 3: issues of utility and alternative approaches in psychiatric diagnosis

Abstract In face of the multiple controversies surrounding the DSM process in general and the development of DSM-5 in particular, we have organized a discussion around what we consider six essential questions in further work on the DSM. The six questions involve: 1) the nature of a mental disorder; 2) the definition of mental disorder; 3) the issue of whether, in the current state of psychiatric science, DSM-5 should assume a cautious, conservative posture or an assertive, transformative posture; 4) the role of pragmatic considerations in the construction of DSM-5; 5) the issue of utility of the DSM – whether DSM-III and IV have been designed more for clinicians or researchers, and how this conflict should be dealt with in the new manual; and 6) the possibility and advisability, given all the problems with DSM-III and IV, of designing a different diagnostic system. Part 1 of this article took up the first two questions. Part 2 took up the second two questions. Part 3 now deals with Questions 5 & 6. Question 5 confronts the issue of utility, whether the manual design of DSM-III and IV favors clinicians or researchers, and what that means for DSM-5. Our final question, Question 6, takes up a concluding issue, whether the acknowledged problems with the earlier DSMs warrants a significant overhaul of DSM-5 and future manuals. As in Parts 1 & 2 of this article, the general introduction, as well as the introductions and conclusions for the specific questions, are written by James Phillips, and the responses to commentaries are written by Allen Frances