Template MRI scans reliably approximate individual and group-level tES and TMS electric fields induced in motor and prefrontal circuits

BackgroundElectric field (E-field) modeling is a valuable method of elucidating the cortical target engagement from transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial electrical stimulation (tES), but it is typically dependent on individual MRI scans. In this study, we systematically tested whether E-field models in template MNI-152 and Ernie scans can reliably approximate group-level E-fields induced in N = 195 individuals across 5 diagnoses (healthy, alcohol use disorder, tobacco use disorder, anxiety, depression).MethodsWe computed 788 E-field models using the CHARM–SimNIBS 4.0.0 pipeline with 4 E-field models per participant (motor and prefrontal targets for TMS and tES). We additionally calculated permutation analyses to determine the point of stability of E-fields to assess whether the 152 brains represented in the MNI-152 template is sufficient.ResultsGroup-level E-fields did not significantly differ between the individual vs. MNI-152 template and Ernie scans for any stimulation modality or location (p > 0.05). However, TMS-induced E-field magnitudes significantly varied by diagnosis; individuals with generalized anxiety had significantly higher prefrontal and motor E-field magnitudes than healthy controls and those with alcohol use disorder and depression (p < 0.001). The point of stability for group-level E-field magnitudes ranged from 42 (motor tES) to 52 participants (prefrontal TMS).ConclusionMNI-152 and Ernie models reliably estimate group-average TMS and tES-induced E-fields transdiagnostically. The MNI-152 template includes sufficient scans to control for interindividual anatomical differences (i.e., above the point of stability). Taken together, using the MNI-152 and Ernie brains to approximate group-level E-fields is a valid and reliable approach

Development and Validation of a Risk Score for Chronic Kidney Disease in HIV Infection Using Prospective Cohort Data from the D:A:D Study

Ristola M. on työryhmien DAD Study Grp ; Royal Free Hosp Clin Cohort ; INSIGHT Study Grp ; SMART Study Grp ; ESPRIT Study Grp jäsen.Background Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a major health issue for HIV-positive individuals, associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Development and implementation of a risk score model for CKD would allow comparison of the risks and benefits of adding potentially nephrotoxic antiretrovirals to a treatment regimen and would identify those at greatest risk of CKD. The aims of this study were to develop a simple, externally validated, and widely applicable long-term risk score model for CKD in HIV-positive individuals that can guide decision making in clinical practice. Methods and Findings A total of 17,954 HIV-positive individuals from the Data Collection on Adverse Events of Anti-HIV Drugs (D:A:D) study with >= 3 estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) values after 1 January 2004 were included. Baseline was defined as the first eGFR > 60 ml/min/1.73 m2 after 1 January 2004; individuals with exposure to tenofovir, atazanavir, atazanavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir, other boosted protease inhibitors before baseline were excluded. CKD was defined as confirmed (>3 mo apart) eGFR In the D:A:D study, 641 individuals developed CKD during 103,185 person-years of follow-up (PYFU; incidence 6.2/1,000 PYFU, 95% CI 5.7-6.7; median follow-up 6.1 y, range 0.3-9.1 y). Older age, intravenous drug use, hepatitis C coinfection, lower baseline eGFR, female gender, lower CD4 count nadir, hypertension, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease (CVD) predicted CKD. The adjusted incidence rate ratios of these nine categorical variables were scaled and summed to create the risk score. The median risk score at baseline was -2 (interquartile range -4 to 2). There was a 1: 393 chance of developing CKD in the next 5 y in the low risk group (risk score = 5, 505 events), respectively. Number needed to harm (NNTH) at 5 y when starting unboosted atazanavir or lopinavir/ritonavir among those with a low risk score was 1,702 (95% CI 1,166-3,367); NNTH was 202 (95% CI 159-278) and 21 (95% CI 19-23), respectively, for those with a medium and high risk score. NNTH was 739 (95% CI 506-1462), 88 (95% CI 69-121), and 9 (95% CI 8-10) for those with a low, medium, and high risk score, respectively, starting tenofovir, atazanavir/ritonavir, or another boosted protease inhibitor. The Royal Free Hospital Clinic Cohort included 2,548 individuals, of whom 94 individuals developed CKD (3.7%) during 18,376 PYFU (median follow-up 7.4 y, range 0.3-12.7 y). Of 2,013 individuals included from the SMART/ESPRIT control arms, 32 individuals developed CKD (1.6%) during 8,452 PYFU (median follow-up 4.1 y, range 0.6-8.1 y). External validation showed that the risk score predicted well in these cohorts. Limitations of this study included limited data on race and no information on proteinuria. Conclusions Both traditional and HIV-related risk factors were predictive of CKD. These factors were used to develop a risk score for CKD in HIV infection, externally validated, that has direct clinical relevance for patients and clinicians to weigh the benefits of certain antiretrovirals against the risk of CKD and to identify those at greatest risk of CKD.Peer reviewe

Diagnosis and treatment in chronic pancreatitis: an international survey and case vignette study

Background The aim of the study was to evaluate the current opinion and clinical decision-making process of international pancreatologists, and to systematically identify key study questions regarding the diagnosis and treatment of chronic pancreatitis (CP) for future research. Methods An online survey, including questions regarding the diagnosis and treatment of CP and several controversial clinical case vignettes, was send by e-mail to members of various international pancreatic associations: IHPBA, APA, EPC, ESGE and DPSG. Results A total of 288 pancreatologists, 56% surgeons and 44% gastroenterologists, from at least 47 countries, participated in the survey. About half (48%) of the specialists used a classification tool for the diagnosis of CP, including the Mayo Clinic (28%), Mannheim (25%), or Büchler (25%) tools. Overall, CT was the preferred imaging modality for evaluation of an enlarged pancreatic head (59%), pseudocyst (55%), calcifications (75%), and peripancreatic fat infiltration (68%). MRI was preferred for assessment of main pancreatic duct (MPD) abnormalities (60%). Total pancreatectomy with auto-islet transplantation was the preferred treatment in patients with parenchymal calcifications without MPD abnormalities and in patients with refractory pain despite maximal medical, endoscopic, and surgical treatment. In patients with an enlarged pancreatic head, 58% preferred initial surgery (PPPD) versus 42% initial endoscopy. In patients with a dilated MPD and intraductal stones 56% preferred initial endoscopic ± ESWL treatment and 29% preferred initial surgical treatment. Conclusion Worldwide, clinical decision-making in CP is largely based on local expertise, beliefs and disbeliefs. Further development of evidence-based guidelines based on well designed (randomized) studies is strongly encouraged