Long-Term Investigation of Retinal Function in Patients with Achromatopsia.

PURPOSE: To investigate the long-term natural history of retinal function of achromatopsia (ACHM). METHODS: Subjects with molecularly confirmed ACHM were recruited in a prospective cohort study of mesopic microperimetry. Coefficient of repeatability and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of mean sensitivity (MS) were calculated. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), bivariate contour ellipse area (BCEA), contrast sensitivity (CS), MS, total volume (VTOT), and central field volume (V5°) from volumetric and topographic analyses were acquired. Correlation of functional parameters with structural findings from optical coherence tomography (OCT) was performed. RESULTS: Eighteen subjects were recruited. Mean follow-up was 7.2 years. The MS test-retest repeatability coefficient was 1.65 decibels (dB), and the ICC was 0.973 (95% confidence interval, 0.837-0.98). Mean MS was similar for right and left eyes (16.97dB and 17.14dB, respectively). A negative significant correlation between logMAR BCVA and the retinal sensitivity indices (MS, VTOT, V5°) was found. A significant negative correlation between logCS and MS, VTOT, and V5° was also observed. BCVA and BCEA improved during follow-up. Mean CS, MS, VTOT, and V5° at final follow-up were similar to baseline. MS was similar between CNGA3- and CNGB3-ACHM. Patients with and without the presence of a foveal ellipsoid zone on OCT had similar MS (16.64 dB and 17.17 dB, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate a highly reproducible assessment of MS. Retinal function including MS, volumetric indices, and CS are stable in ACHM. Improvement of fixation stability and small changes of BCVA over time may be part of the natural history of the disease

Effect of PET Image Reconstruction Techniques on Unexpected Aorta Uptake

Objectives: To determine if unexpected aorta uptake seen in some patients is influenced by popular modern reconstruction algorithms using semi-quantitative and qualitative analysis. Methods: Twenty-five consecutive patients without suspected vascular disease were selected for 18F-FDG positron emission tomography/ computed tomography (PET/CT) scanning and images of the aorta were created using iterative reconstruction (IT), IT + time of flight (TOF), IT + TOF + point spread function correction (referred collectively as UHD) with and without metal artefact reduction (MAR) algorithms. An experienced radiologist created aorta and blood pool (BP) regions of interests then copied these to all reconstructions for accurate positioning before recording target aorta standardized-uptake-values (SUVₘₐₓ) and background BP SUVₘₑₐₙ. Furthermore, target-to-background ratio (TBRₘₐₓ) was defined by aorta SUVₘₐₓ-to-BP SUVₘₑₐₙ ratio for more analysis. Results: For aorta SUVₘₐₓ with IT, IT + TOF, UHD, UHD + MAR reconstructions the mean ± standard deviation recorded were 2.15±0.43, 2.25±0.51, 2.25±0.45 and 2.09±0.4, respectively. Values for BP SUVₘₑₐₙ were 1.61±0.31, 1.58±0.28, 1.58±0.28 and 1.47±0.25, respectively. Likewise, for TBRₘₐₓ these were 1.35±0.19, 1.43±0.21, 1.43±0.19, 1.43±0.18, respectively. ANOVA analysis revealed no significant differences for aorta SUVₘₐₓ (F(0.86) p=0.46), BP SUVₘₑₐₙ (F(1.22) p=0.31) or TBRₘₐₓ (F(0.99) p=0.4). However, the qualitative visual analysis revealed significant differences between IT + TOF with UHD (p=0.02) or UHD + MAR (p=0.02). Conclusion: Reconstruction algorithm effect on aorta SUVₘₐₓ or BP SUVₘₑₐₙ or TBRₘₐₓ was not statistically significant. However, qualitative visual analysis showed significant differences between IT + TOF as compared with UHD or UHD + MAR reconstructions. Harmonization of techniques with a larger patient cohort is recommended in future clinical trials

Cost and value in contemporary heart failure clinical guidance documents

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the frequency and nature of cost/value statements in contemporary heart failure (HF) clinical guidance documents (CGDs). BACKGROUND: In an era of rising health care costs and expanding therapeutic options, there is an increasing need for formal consideration of cost and value in the development of HF CGDs. METHODS: HF CGDs published by major professional cardiovascular organizations between January 2010 and February 2021 were reviewed for the inclusion of cost/value statements. RESULTS: Overall, 33 documents were identified, including 5 (15%) appropriate use criteria, 7 (21%) clinical practice guidelines, and 21 (64%) expert consensus documents. Most CGDs (27 of 33; 82%) included at least 1 cost/value statement, and 20 (61%) CGDs included at least 1 cost/value-related citation. Most of these statements were found in expert consensus documents (77.7%). Three (9%) documents reported estimated costs of recommended interventions, but only 1 estimated out-of-pocket cost. Of 179 cost/value-related statements observed, 116 (64.8%) highlighted the economic impact of HF or HF-related care, 6 (3.4%) advocated for cost/value issues, 15 (8.4%) reported gaps in cost/value evidence, and 42 (23.5%) supported clinical guidance recommendations. Over time, patterns of inclusion of statements and citations of cost/value have been largely stable. CONCLUSIONS: Although most contemporary HF CGDs contain at least 1 cost/value statement, most CGDs focus on the high economic impact of HF and its related care; explicit inclusion of cost/value to support clinical guidance recommendations remains infrequent. These results highlight key opportunities for the integration of formalized cost/value considerations in future HF-focused CGDs

A demonstration of cone function plasticity after gene therapy in achromatopsia

Recent advances in regenerative therapy have placed the treatment of previously incurable eye diseases within arms’ reach. Achromatopsia is a severe monogenic heritable retinal disease that disrupts cone function from birth, leaving patients with complete colour blindness, low acuity, photosensitivity and nystagmus. While successful gene-replacement therapy in non-primate models of achromatopsia has raised widespread hopes for clinical treatment, it was yet to be determined if and how these therapies can induce new cone function in the human brain. Using a novel multimodal approach, we demonstrate for the first time that gene therapy can successfully activate dormant cone-mediated pathways in children with achromatopsia (CNGA3- and CNGB3-associated, 10–15 years). To test this, we combined functional MRI population receptive field mapping and psychophysics with stimuli that selectively measure cone photoreceptor signalling. We measured cortical and visual cone function before and after gene therapy in four paediatric patients, evaluating treatment-related change against benchmark data from untreated patients (n = 9) and normal-sighted participants (n = 28). After treatment, two of the four children displayed strong evidence for novel cone-mediated signals in visual cortex, with a retinotopic pattern that was not present in untreated achromatopsia and which is highly unlikely to emerge by chance. Importantly, this change was paired with a significant improvement in psychophysical measures of cone-mediated visual function. These improvements were specific to the treated eye, and provide strong evidence for successful read-out and use of new cone-mediated information. These data show for the first time that gene replacement therapy in achromatopsia within the plastic period of development can awaken dormant cone-signalling pathways after years of deprivation. This reveals unprecedented neural plasticity in the developing human nervous system and offers great promise for emerging regenerative therapies

Pre-referral rectal artesunate in severe malaria: flawed trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Immediate injectable treatment is essential for severe malaria. Otherwise, the afflicted risk lifelong impairment or death. In rural areas of Africa and Asia, appropriate care is often miles away. In 2009, Melba Gomes and her colleagues published the findings of a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of rectal artesunate for suspected severe malaria in such remote areas. Enrolling nearly 18,000 cases, the aim was to evaluate whether, as patients were in transit to a health facility, a pre-referral artesunate suppository blocked disease progression sufficiently to reduce these risks. The affirmative findings of this, the only trial on the issue thus far, have led the WHO to endorse rectal artesunate as a pre-referral treatment for severe malaria. In the light of its public health importance and because its scientific quality has not been assessed for a systematic review, our paper provides a detailed evaluation of the design, conduct, analysis, reporting, and practical features of this trial.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We performed a checklist-based and an in-depth evaluation of the trial. The evaluation criteria were based on the CONSORT statement for reporting clinical trials, the clinical trial methodology literature, and practice in malaria research. Our main findings are: The inclusion and exclusion criteria and the sample size justification are not stated. Many clearly ineligible subjects were enrolled. The training of the recruiters does not appear to have been satisfactory. There was excessive between center heterogeneity in design and conduct. Outcome evaluation schedule was not defined, and in practice, became too wide. Large gaps in the collection of key data were evident. Primary endpoints were inconsistently utilized and reported; an overall analysis of the outcomes was not done; analyses of time to event data had major flaws; the stated intent-to-treat analysis excluded a third of the randomized subjects; the design-indicated stratified or multi-variate analysis was not done; many improper subgroups were analyzed in a post-hoc fashion; the analysis and reporting metric was deficient. There are concerns relating to patient welfare at some centers. Exclusion of many cases from data analysis compromised external validity. A bias-controlled reanalysis of available data does not lend support to the conclusions drawn by the authors.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This trial has numerous serious deficiencies in design, implementation, and methods of data analysis. Interpretation and manner of reporting are wanting, and the applicability of the findings is unclear. The trial conduct could have been improved to better protect patient welfare. The totality of these problems make it a flawed study whose conclusions remain subject to appreciable doubt.</p

Outcome based subgroup analysis: a neglected concern

A subgroup of clinical trial subjects identified by baseline characteristics is a proper subgroup while a subgroup determined by post randomization events or measures is an improper subgroup. Both types of subgroups are often analyzed in clinical trial papers. Yet, the extensive scrutiny of subgroup analyses has almost exclusively attended to the former. The analysis of improper subgroups thereby not only flourishes in numerous disguised ways but also does so without a corresponding awareness of its pitfalls. Comparisons of the grade of angina in a heart disease trial, for example, usually include only the survivors. This paper highlights some of the distinct ways in which outcome based subgroup analysis occurs, describes the hazards associated with it, and proposes a simple alternative approach to counter its analytic bias. Data from six published trials show that outcome based subgroup analysis, like proper subgroup analysis, may be performed in a post-hoc fashion, overdone, selectively reported, and over interpreted. Six hypothetical trial scenarios illustrate the forms of hidden bias related to it. That bias can, however, be addressed by assigning clinically appropriate scores to the usually excluded subjects and performing an analysis that includes all the randomized subjects. A greater level of awareness about the practice and pitfalls of outcome based subgroup analysis is needed. When required, such an analysis should maintain the integrity of randomization. This issue needs greater practical and methodologic attention than has been accorded to it thus far

Reporting on covariate adjustment in randomised controlled trials before and after revision of the 2001 CONSORT statement: a literature review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Objectives</p> <p>To evaluate the use and reporting of adjusted analysis in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and compare the quality of reporting before and after the revision of the CONSORT Statement in 2001.</p> <p>Design</p> <p>Comparison of two cross sectional samples of published articles.</p> <p>Data Sources</p> <p>Journal articles indexed on PubMed in December 2000 and December 2006.</p> <p>Study Selection</p> <p>Parallel group RCTs with a full publication carried out in humans and published in English</p> <p>Main outcome measures</p> <p>Proportion of articles reported adjusted analysis; use of adjusted analysis; the reason for adjustment; the method of adjustment and the reporting of adjusted analysis results in the main text and abstract.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In both cohorts, 25% of studies reported adjusted analysis (84/355 in 2000 vs 113/422 in 2006). Compared with articles reporting only unadjusted analyses, articles that reported adjusted analyses were more likely to specify primary outcomes, involve multiple centers, perform stratified randomization, be published in general medical journals, and recruit larger sample sizes. In both years a minority of articles explained why and how covariates were selected for adjustment (20% to 30%). Almost all articles specified the statistical methods used for adjustment (99% in 2000 vs 100% in 2006) but only 5% and 10%, respectively, reported both adjusted and unadjusted results as recommended in the CONSORT guidelines.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>There was no evidence of change in the reporting of adjusted analysis results five years after the revision of the CONSORT Statement and only a few articles adhered fully to the CONSORT recommendations.</p

Crowdsourcing the General Public for Large Scale Molecular Pathology Studies in Cancer

Background: Citizen science, scientific research conducted by non-specialists, has the potential to facilitate biomedical research using available large-scale data, however validating the results is challenging. The Cell Slider is a citizen science project that intends to share images from tumors with the general public, enabling them to score tumor markers independently through an internet-based interface. Methods: From October 2012 to June 2014, 98,293 Citizen Scientists accessed the Cell Slider web page and scored 180,172 sub-images derived from images of 12,326 tissue microarray cores labeled for estrogen receptor (ER). We evaluated the accuracy of Citizen Scientist's ER classification, and the association between ER status and prognosis by comparing their test performance against trained pathologists. Findings: The area under ROC curve was 0.95 (95% CI 0.94 to 0.96) for cancer cell identification and 0.97 (95% CI 0.96 to 0.97) for ER status. ER positive tumors scored by Citizen Scientists were associated with survival in a similar way to that scored by trained pathologists. Survival probability at 15 years were 0.78 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.80) for ER-positive and 0.72 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.77) for ER-negative tumors based on Citizen Scientists classification. Based on pathologist classification, survival probability was 0.79 (95% CI 0.77 to 0.81) for ER-positive and 0.71 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.74) for ER-negative tumors. The hazard ratio for death was 0.26 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.37) at diagnosis and became greater than one after 6.5 years of follow-up for ER scored by Citizen Scientists, and 0.24 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.33) at diagnosis increasing thereafter to one after 6.7 (95% CI 4.1 to 10.9) years of follow-up for ER scored by pathologists. Interpretation: Crowdsourcing of the general public to classify cancer pathology data for research is viable, engages the public and provides accurate ER data. Crowdsourced classification of research data may offer a valid solution to problems of throughput requiring human input

No short-cut in assessing trial quality: a case study

Assessing the quality of included trials is a central part of a systematic review. Many check-list type of instruments for doing this exist. Using a trial of antibiotic treatment for acute otitis media, Burke et al., BMJ, 1991, as the case study, this paper illustrates some limitations of the check-list approach to trial quality assessment. The general verdict from the check list type evaluations in nine relevant systematic reviews was that Burke et al. (1991) is a good quality trial. All relevant meta-analyses extensively used its data to formulate therapeutic evidence. My comprehensive evaluation, on the other hand, brought to the surface a series of serious problems in the design, conduct, analysis and report of this trial that were missed by the earlier evaluations. A check-list or instrument based approach, if used as a short-cut, may at times rate deeply flawed trials as good quality trials. Check lists are crucial but they need to be augmented with an in-depth review, and where possible, a scrutiny of the protocol, trial records, and original data. The extent and severity of the problems I uncovered for this particular trial warrant an independent audit before it is included in a systematic review