Search

Ehyal Shweiki,1 Niels D Martin,2 Alec C Beekley,1 Jay S Jenoff,1 George J Koenig,1 Kris R Kaulback,1 Gary A Lindenbaum,1 Pankaj H Patel,1 Matthew M Rosen,1 Michael S Weinstein,1 Muhammad H Zubair,2 Murray J Cohen1 1Department of Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA; 2Department of Surgery, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA Abstract: Medical resident education in the United States has been a matter of national priority for decades, exemplified initially through the Liaison Committee for Graduate Medical Education and then superseded by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. A recent Special Report in the New England Journal of Medicine, however, has described resident educational programs to date as prescriptive, noting an absence of innovation in education. Current aims of contemporary medical resident education are thus being directed at ensuring quality in learning as well as in patient care. Achievement and work-motivation theories attempt to explain people's choice, performance, and persistence in tasks. Expectancy Theory as one such theory was reviewed in detail, appearing particularly applicable to surgical residency training. Correlations between Expectancy Theory as a work-motivation theory and residency education were explored. Understanding achievement and work-motivation theories affords an opportunity to gain insight into resident motivation in training. The application of Expectancy Theory in particular provides an innovative perspective into residency education. Afforded are opportunities to promote the development of programmatic methods facilitating surgical resident motivation in education. Keywords: learning, education, achievement

While spermatogenesis has been extensively characterized in the Drosophila melanogaster model system, very little is known about the genes required for fly sperm entry into eggs. We identified a lineage-specific gene, which we named katherine johnson ( kj ), that is required for efficient fertilization. Males that do not express kj produce and transfer sperm that are stored normally in females, but sperm from these males enter eggs with severely reduced efficiency. Using a tagged transgenic rescue construct, we observed that the KJ protein localizes around the edge of the nucleus at various stages of spermatogenesis but is undetectable in mature sperm. These data suggest that kj exerts an effect on sperm development, the loss of which results in reduced fertilization ability. Interestingly, KJ protein lacks detectable sequence similarity to any other known protein, suggesting that kj could be a lineage-specific orphan gene. While previous bioinformatic analyses indicated that kj was restricted to the melanogaster group of Drosophila , we identified putative orthologs with conserved synteny, male-biased expression, and predicted protein features across the genus, as well as likely instances of gene loss in some lineages. Thus, kj was likely present in the Drosophila common ancestor and subsequently evolved an essential role in fertility in D. melanogaster . Our results demonstrate a new aspect of male reproduction that has been shaped by a lineage-specific gene and provide a molecular foothold for further investigating the mechanism of sperm entry into eggs in Drosophila ., Article Summary: How fruit fly sperm enter eggs is poorly understood. Here, we identify a gene required for efficient fertilization. Sperm from males lacking this gene's function cannot enter eggs. The gene appears to act during sperm production, rather than in mature sperm. Interestingly, the gene is undetectable outside of genus Drosophila , and its encoded protein shows no discernable similarity to other proteins. This study provides insights into sperm-egg interactions and illustrates how lineage-specific genes can impact important aspects of reproduction.

Objective/background: Various anastomotic and reconstruction techniques are used for minimally invasive total (miTG) and distal gastrectomy (miDG). Their effects on postoperative morbidity have not been extensively studied., Methods: MiTG and miDG patients were selected from 9356 oncological gastrectomies performed in 2017-2021 in 43 centers. Endpoints included anastomotic leakage (AL) rate and postoperative morbidity tested by multivariable analysis., Results: Three major anastomotic techniques [circular stapled (CS); linear stapled (LS); and hand sewn (HS)], and 3 major bowel reconstruction types [Roux (RX); Billroth I (BI); Billroth II (BII)] were identified in miTG (n=878) and miDG (n=3334). Postoperative complications, including AL (5.2% vs 1.1%), overall (28.7% vs 16.3%), and major morbidity (15.7% vs 8.2%), as well as 90-day mortality (1.6% vs 0.5%) were higher after miTG compared with miDG. After miTG, the AL rate was higher after CS (4.3%) and HS (7.9%) compared with LS (3.4%). Similarly, major complications (LS: 9.7%, CS: 16.2%, and HS: 12.7%) were lowest after LS. Multivariate analysis confirmed anastomotic technique as a predictive factor for AL, overall, and major complications. In miDG, AL rate (BI: 1.4%, BII 0.8%, and RX 1.2%), overall (BI: 14.5%, BII: 15.0%, and RX: 18.7%), and major morbidity (BI: 7.9%, BII: 9.1%, and RX: 7.2%), and mortality (BI: 0%, BII: 0.1%, and RY: 1.1%%) were not affected by bowel reconstruction., Conclusions: In oncologically suitable situations, miDG should be preferred to miTG, as postoperative morbidity is significantly lower. LS should be a preferred anastomotic technique for miTG in Western Centers. Conversely, bowel reconstruction in DG may be chosen according to the surgeon's preference., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Introduction: The upper gastrointestinal microbiome is a dynamic entity that is involved in numerous processes including digestion, production of vitamins and protection against pathogens. Many external and intrinsic factors may cause changes in the proportions of bacteria within the microbial community, termed 'dysbiosis'. A number of these have been identified as risk factors for a range of diseases, including oesophago-gastric carcinoma., Materials and Methods: A narrative review was conducted to elucidate the current evidence on the role of the microbiome in promoting oesophago-gastric tumourigenesis. Significant causes of dysbiosis including age, medications and GORD were examined and key pro-inflammatory pathways implicated in tumourigenesis and their interaction with the microbiome were described., Results and Discussion: An association between microbial dysbiosis and development of oesophago-gastric cancer may be mediated via activation of pro-inflammatory pathways, the inflammasome and the innate immune system. Advances in sequencing technology allow microbial communities to be fingerprinted by sequencing the 16S rRNA gene, enabling a deeper understanding of the genera that may be implicated in driving tumourigenesis., Conclusions: Developing a greater understanding of the influence of the microbiota on oesophago-gastric tumourigenesis may enable advances to be made in the early detection of malignancy and in the development of novel systemic therapies, leading to improved rates of survival.

Background: Biologic asthma therapies reduce exacerbations and long-term oral corticosteroids (LTOCS) use in randomized controlled trials (RCTs); however, there are limited data on outcomes among patients ineligible for RCTs. Hence, we investigated responsiveness to biologics in a real-world population of adults with severe asthma., Methods: Adults in the International Severe Asthma Registry (ISAR) with ≥24 weeks of follow-up were grouped into those who did, or did not, initiate biologics (anti-IgE, anti-IL5/IL5R, anti-IL4/13). Treatment responses were examined across four domains: forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV 1 ) increase by ≥100 mL, improved asthma control, annualized exacerbation rate (AER) reduction ≥50%, and any LTOCS dose reduction. Super-response criteria were: FEV 1 increase by ≥500 mL, new well-controlled asthma, no exacerbations, and LTOCS cessation or tapering to ≤5 mg/day., Results: 5.3% of ISAR patients met basic RCT inclusion criteria; 2116/8451 started biologics. Biologic initiators had worse baseline impairment than non-initiators, despite having similar biomarker levels. Half or more of initiators had treatment responses: 59% AER reduction, 54% FEV 1 increase, 49% improved control, 49% reduced LTOCS, of which 32%, 19%, 30%, and 39%, respectively, were super-responses. Responses/super-responses were more frequent in biologic initiators than in non-initiators; nevertheless, ~40-50% of initiators did not meet response criteria., Conclusions: Most patients with severe asthma are ineligible for RCTs of biologic therapies. Biologics are initiated in patients who have worse baseline impairments than non-initiators despite similar biomarker levels. Although biologic initiators exhibited clinical responses and super-responses in all outcome domains, 40-50% did not meet the response criteria., (© 2024 The Author(s). Allergy published by European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Radical surgery for esophageal cancer requires macroscopic and microscopic clearance of all malignant tissue. A critical element of the procedure is achieving a negative circumferential margin (CRM) to minimize local recurrence. The utility of minimally invasive surgery poses challenges in replicating techniques developed in open surgery, particularly for hiatal dissection in esophago-gastrectomy. In this study, the technical approach and clinical and oncological outcomes for open and laparoscopic esophago-gastrectomy are described with particular reference to CRM involvement., Materials and Methods: This cohort study included all patients undergoing either open or laparoscopic esophago-gastrectomy between January 2004 and June 2022 in a single tertiary center. A standard surgical technique for hiatal dissection of the esophago-gastric junction developed in open surgery was adapted for a laparoscopic approach. Clinical parameters, length of stay (LOS), postoperative complications, and mortality data were collected and analyzed by a Mann-Whitney U or Fisher's exact method., Results: Overall 447 patients underwent an esophago-gastrectomy in the study with 219 open and 228 laparoscopic procedures. The CRM involvement was 18.8% in open surgery and 13.6% in laparoscopic surgery. The 90-day-mortality for open surgery was 4.1 compared with 2.2% for laparoscopic procedures. Median Intensive care unit (ITU), inpatient LOS and 30-day readmission rates were shorter for laparoscopic compared with open esophago-gastrectomy (ITU: 5 versus 8 days, P= 0.0004; LOS: 14 versus 20 days, P= 0.022; 30-day re-admission 7.46 versus 10.50%). Postoperative complication rates were comparable across both cohorts. The rates of starting adjuvant chemotherapy were 51.8 after open and 74.4% in laparoscopic esophago-gastrectomy., Conclusion: This study presents a standardized surgical approach to hiatal dissection for esophageal cancer. The authors present equivalence between open and laparoscopic esophago-gastrectomy in clinical, oncological, and survival outcomes with similar rates of CRM involvement. The authors also observe a significantly shorter hospital length of stay with the minimally invasive approach., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Background: Type 2 low-severe asthma phenotype is often a result of corticosteroid-overtreated type 2 disease owing to persistent symptoms, often unrelated to asthma and unlikely to respond to high-dose corticosteroid treatment., Objective: This study aimed to characterize patients with severe asthma with low eosinophil counts (<300 cells/μL) and describe their disease burden and treatment across health care settings in the United Kingdom., Methods: A retrospective cohort study of patients with severe asthma using linked Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum-Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) and UK Severe Asthma Registry (UKSAR) data indexed patients according to the latest blood eosinophil count (BEC). Clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, outcomes, and health care resource use were described by baseline BEC (≤150 and >150 to <300 cells/μL)., Results: Analysis included 701 (CPRD-HES) and 1,546 (UKSAR) patients; 60.5% and 59.4% had BECs 150 cells/μL or less at baseline, respectively. Across BEC groups, the proportion with uncontrolled asthma (two or more exacerbations) at follow-up (12 months after the index) was 5.4% in CPRD-HES and 45.2% in UKSAR. Maintenance oral corticosteroid use remained high across BEC groups (CPRD-HES: 29.4%; UKSAR: 51.7%), symptom control remained poor (>200 μg short-acting β 2 agonist or >500 μg terbutaline/d in CPRD-HES: 48.8%; median Asthma Control Questionnaire-6 score in UKSAR: 2.0 [range, 1.0-3.3]). Health care resource use was similar across BEC groups., Conclusions: Most patients managed in primary care experienced infrequent exacerbations, whereas UKSAR patients had frequent exacerbations. Large proportions of both patient groups had poor symptom control and continued to receive high levels of maintenance oral corticosteroids, increasing the risk of corticosteroid-induced morbidity. These data highlight the need for rigorous assessment of underlying disease pathology to guide appropriate treatment., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: To assess toxicity and patient quality of life after stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) to oligoprogressive disease (OPD) in patients with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) on androgen receptor targeted agents (ARTA)., Material and Methods: This phase II trial enrolled patients with metastatic CRPC with ≤ 2 oligoprogressive lesions in bone, lymph node, lung, or prostate. All patients were receiving systemic treatment with abiraterone or enzalutamide at the time of oligoprogression. All patients received SBRT to the OPD site(s) and continued the current ARTA. Patients received 30 Gy in 5 fractions (alternate days) to the OPD site. The primary endpoint of the trial is to assess if SBRT to OPD sites results in progression free survival of >6 months. The primary endpoint for this toxicity analysis is the rate of grade 3 or higher adverse events at any timepoint up to 6 months after SBRT. Secondary endpoints included comparing pre- and post-SBRT patient-related outcomes reported using visual analogue scale scores and EQ-5D health questionnaire., Results: Forty enrolled patients had at least 6 months of follow-up at the time of analysis. Grade 3 or higher toxicity from any cause recorded using common terminology criteria for adverse events and radiation therapy oncology group was found in 8/40 (20%) of patients, but only 1/40 (2.5%) was deemed possibly related to SBRT. There was no significant difference in mean EQ5D visual analogue scale score from baseline to each timepoint after SBRT (p = 0.449)., Conclusion: In this prospective phase II clinical trial for OPD whilst on ARTA in the CRPC setting, we report low grade ≥ 3 toxicity after SBRT. There is no discernible change in patient-reported quality of life due to SBRT treatment. The final results of progression-free survival and toxicity of SBRT treatment will be reported once further follow-up is complete., (Crown Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Radical esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer is a major surgical intervention, associated with considerable postoperative morbidity. The introduction of robotic surgical platforms in esophagectomy may enhance advantages of minimally invasive surgery enabled by laparoscopy and thoracoscopy, including reduced postoperative pain and pulmonary complications. This systematic review aims to assess the clinical and oncological benefits of robot-assisted esophagectomy., Methods: A systematic literature search of the MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase and Cochrane databases was performed for studies published up to 1 August 2023. This review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocols and was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42022370983). Clinical and oncological outcomes data were extracted following full-text review of eligible studies., Results: A total of 113 studies (n = 14,701 patients, n = 2455 female) were included. The majority of the studies were retrospective in nature (n = 89, 79%), and cohort studies were the most common type of study design (n = 88, 79%). The median number of patients per study was 54. Sixty-three studies reported using a robotic surgical platform for both the abdominal and thoracic phases of the procedure. The weighted mean incidence of postoperative pneumonia was 11%, anastomotic leak 10%, total length of hospitalisation 15.2 days, and a resection margin clear of the tumour was achieved in 95% of cases., Conclusions: There are numerous reported advantages of robot-assisted surgery for resectable esophageal cancer. A correlation between procedural volume and improvements in outcomes with robotic esophagectomy has also been identified. Multicentre comparative clinical studies are essential to identify the true objective benefit on outcomes compared with conventional surgical approaches before robotic surgery is accepted as standard of practice., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objectives: Urinary tract infection (UTI) is the most common bacterial infection in infants. Current practice guidelines suggest a treatment duration of 7 to 14 days. Suboptimal therapy may increase the risk for recurrent UTIs leading to renal scarring and possibly chronic kidney disease. The primary objective is to evaluate the duration of therapy for UTIs and its association with the incidence of recurrent UTIs in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). The secondary objectives are to identify the risk factors and the most common organisms for recurrent UTIs., Methods: Patients were identified via the diagnosis codes for UTIs and were included if admitted to the NICU and if they received antibiotics prior to hospital discharge. Patients were divided into 2 groups: antibiotic treatment for 7 days or fewer and antibiotic treatment for greater than 7 days., Results: Eighty-six infants were included in the study. Twenty-six patients received antibiotics for 7 days or fewer, and 60 for more than 7 days. In the study, the median birth weight was 977 g and the median gestational age was 27.6 weeks. There was no significant difference in the rate of recurrent UTIs between the 2 groups (p = 0.66). However, in the subgroup analysis, the incidence was higher for patients receiving antibiotic therapy for fewer than 7 days versus 7 days (p = 0.03)., Conclusion: There was no difference in recurrence of UTI between treatment groups (≤7 days versus >7 days), and recurrence was seen in a higher percentage of patients with a urinary tract anomaly., Competing Interests: Disclosure. The authors declare no conflicts or financial interest in any product or service mentioned in the manuscript, including grants, equipment, medications, employment, gifts, and honoraria. All authors had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis., (Copyright. Pediatric Pharmacy Association. All rights reserved. For permissions, email: membership@pediatricpharmacy.org.)

Background: There is little agreement on clinically useful criteria for identifying real-world responders to biologic treatments for asthma., Objective: To investigate the impact of pre-biologic impairment on meeting domain-specific biologic responder definitions in adults with severe asthma., Methods: This was a longitudinal, cohort study across 22 countries participating in the International Severe Asthma Registry (https://isaregistries.org/) between May 2017 and January 2023. Change in 4 asthma domains (exacerbation rate, asthma control, long-term oral corticosteroid [LTOCS] dose, and lung function) was assessed from biologic initiation to 1 year post-treatment (minimum 24 weeks). Pre- to post-biologic changes for responders and nonresponders were described along a categorical gradient for each domain derived from pre-biologic distributions (exacerbation rate: 0 to 6+/y; asthma control: well controlled to uncontrolled; LTOCS: 0 to >30 mg/d; percent-predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second [ppFEV 1 ]: <50% to ≥80%)., Results: Percentage of biologic responders (ie, those with a category improvement pre- to post-biologic) varied by domain and increased with greater pre-biologic impairment, increasing from 70.2% to 90.0% for exacerbation rate, 46.3% to 52.3% for asthma control, 31.1% to 58.5% for LTOCS daily dose, and 35.8% to 50.6% for ppFEV 1 . The proportion of patients having improvement post-biologic tended to be greater for anti-IL-5/5R compared with for anti-IgE for exacerbation, asthma control, and ppFEV 1 domains, irrespective of pre-biologic impairment., Conclusion: Our results provide realistic outcome-specific post-biologic expectations for both physicians and patients, will be foundational to inform future work on a multidimensional approach to define and assess biologic responders and response, and may enhance appropriate patient selection for biologic therapies., Trial Registration: The ISAR database has ethical approval from the Anonymous Data Ethics Protocols and Transparency (ADEPT) committee (ADEPT0218) and is registered with the European Union Electronic Register of Post-Authorization studies (ENCEPP/DSPP/23720). The study was designed, implemented, and reported in compliance with the European Network Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCEPP) Code of Conduct (EUPAS38288) and with all applicable local and international laws and regulation, and registered with ENCEPP (https://www.encepp.eu/encepp/viewResource.htm?id=38289). Governance was provided by ADEPT (registration number: ADEPT1220)., Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Perez-de-Llano reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, personal fees and non-financial support from GlaxoSmithKline, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Teva, personal fees and non-financial support from Chiesi, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Sanofi, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Techdow Pharma, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Faes Farma, personal fees from Leo-Pharma, grants and personal fees from Gebro, personal fees from Gilead, outside the submitted work. Dr Scelo is a consultant for Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute (OPRI). OPRI conducted this study in collaboration with Optimum Patient Care and AstraZeneca. Dr Canonica has received research grants and lecture or advisory board fees from Menarini, Alk-Albello, Allergy Therapeutics, Anallergo, AstraZeneca, MedImmune, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi Farmaceutici, Circassia, Danone, Faes, Genentech, Guidotti Malesci, GlaxoSmithKline, Hal Allergy, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Novartis, Orion, Sanofi Aventis, Sanofi, Genzyme/Regeneron, Stallergenes, UCB Pharma, Uriach Pharma, Teva, Thermo Fisher, and Valeas. Dr Henley is affiliated with OPRI and reports receiving travel support from Eisai Limited. Dr Larenas-Linnemann reports receiving personal fees from ALK-Abelló, AstraZeneca national and global, Bayer, Chiesi, Grunenthal, Grin, GlaxoSmithKline national and global, Viatris, Menarini, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Siegfried, UCB, Carnot, grants from AbbVie, Bayer, Lilly, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Circassia, UCB, and GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. Dr Peters declares receiving personal fees and nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi. Dr Pfeffer has attended advisory boards for AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi; has given lectures at meetings supported by AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline; has taken part in clinical trials sponsored by AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Sanofi, for which his institution received remuneration; and has a current research grant funded by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr Tran is an employee of AstraZeneca and may own stock or stock options in AstraZeneca. Dr Suppli Ulrik reports receiving personal fees for talks and having participation in advisory boards and others from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, TEVA, Boehringer Ingelheim, Orion Pharma, Sanofi Genzyme, TFF Pharmaceuticals, Covis Pharma, Berlin-Chemie, Takeda, Chiesi, and Pfizer, outside the submitted work. Dr Popov declares relevant research support from Novartis and Chiesi Pharma. Dr Sadatsafavi has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, TEVA, and GlaxoSmithKline for purposes unrelated to the content of this manuscript and has received research funding from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim directly into his research account from AstraZeneca for unrelated projects. Dr Hew declares receiving grants and other advisory board fees (made to his institutional employer) from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi, Teva, and Seqirus, for unrelated projects. Dr Maspero reports receiving speaker fees and grants or serving on the advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Inmunotek, Menarini, and Noucor. Dr Gibson has received speaker fees and grants to his institution from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis. Dr FitzGerald previously declared receiving grants from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Regeneron, and Novartis paid directly to UBC and receiving personal fees for lectures and attending advisory boards for AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Regeneron, and TEVA. Dr Torres-Duque has received fees as advisory board participant and/or speaker from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Sanofi-Aventis; has taken part in clinical trials from AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Sanofi-Aventis; and has received unrestricted grants for investigator-initiated studies at Fundacion Neumologica Colombiana from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Grifols, and Novartis. Dr Porsbjerg has attended advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Novartis, TEVA, and Sanofi-Genzyme; has given lectures at meetings supported by AstraZeneca, Novartis, TEVA, Sanofi-Genzyme, and GlaxoSmithKline; has taken part in clinical trials sponsored by AstraZeneca, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Sanofi-Genzyme, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis; and has received educational and research grants from AstraZeneca, Novartis, TEVA, GlaxoSmithKline, ALK, and Sanofi-Genzyme. Dr Papadopoulos has been a speaker and/or advisory board member for Abbott, AbbVie, ALK, Asit Biotech, AstraZeneca, Biomay, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, HAL, Faes Farma, Medscape, Menarini, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Nutricia, OM Pharma, Regeneron, Sanofi, Takeda, and Viatris. Dr Papaioannou has received fees and honoraria from Menarini, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Elpen, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Chiesi. Dr Heffler declares receiving personal fees from Sanofi, Regeneron, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Stallergenes, and Circassia. Dr Iwanaga received lecture fees from Kyorin, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca. Dr Al-Ahmad has received advisory board and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Novartis, and GlaxoSmithKline and received a grant from Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Sciences. Dr Kuna reports receiving personal fees from Adamed, AstraZeneca, Berlin Chemie Menarini, FAES, Glenmark, Novartis, Polpharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Teva, and Zentiva, outside the submitted work. Dr Fonseca reports receiving grants from research agreements with AstraZeneca, Mundipharma, Sanofi Regeneron, and Novartis and personal fees for lectures and attending advisory boards for AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Mundipharma, Novartis, Sanofi Regeneron, and TEVA. Dr Al-Lehebi has given lectures at meetings supported by AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi and participated in advisory board fees from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Abbott. Dr Rhee received consulting/lecture fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Takeda, Mundipharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Teva, Sanofi, and Bayer. Dr Koh reports receiving grant support from AstraZeneca and honoraria for lectures and advisory board meetings paid to her hospital (Singapore General Hospital) from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Sanofi, and Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work. Dr Cosio declares receiving grants from Chiesi and GlaxoSmithKline; personal fees for advisory board activities from Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi, Teva, and AstraZeneca; and payment for lectures/speaking engagements from Chiesi, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Menarini, and AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. Dr Perng (Steve) has received sponsorship to attend or speak at international meetings, honoraria for lecturing or attending advisory boards, and research grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, Shionogi, and Orient Pharma. Dr Menzies-Gow is an employee of AstraZeneca and may own stock or stock options in AstraZeneca. Dr Jackson has received speaker fees and consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Regeneron, and Boehringer Ingelheim and research funding from AstraZeneca. Dr Busby has received research grants from AstraZeneca and personnel fees from NuvoAir, outside the submitted work. Dr Heaney has received grant funding, participated in advisory boards, and given lectures at meetings supported by Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Circassia, Hoffmann-La Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Theravance, Evelo Biosciences, Sanofi, and Teva; has received grants from MedImmune, Novartis United Kingdom, Roche/Genentech Inc, GlaxoSmithKline, Amgen, Genentech/Hoffman-La Roche, AstraZeneca, MedImmune, Aerocrine, and Vitalograph; has received sponsorship for attending international scientific meetings from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, and Napp Pharmaceuticals; has taken part in asthma clinical trials sponsored by AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Hoffmann-La Roche, and GlaxoSmithKline for which his institution received remuneration; and is the Academic Lead for the Medical Research Council Stratified Medicine United Kingdom Consortium in Severe Asthma which involves industrial partnerships with a number of pharmaceutical companies including Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann-La Roche, and Janssen. Dr Patel has received advisory board and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Sanofi/Regeneron. Dr Wang has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Genentech; has been an investigator on studies sponsored by AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, Sanofi, Novartis, and Teva, for which her institution has received funding. Dr Wechsler reports receiving grants and/or personal fees from Novartis, Sanofi, Regeneron, Genentech, Sentien, Restorbio, Equillium, Genzyme, Cohero Health, Teva, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, Cytoreason, Cerecor, Sound Biologics, Incyte, and Kinaset. Dr Altraja has received lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Berlin-Chemie Menarini, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Norameda, Novartis, Orion, Sanofi, and Zentiva; has sponsorships from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Berlin-Chemie Menarini, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Norameda, Novartis, and Sanofi; and has participated in advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi, and Teva. Dr Lehtimäki has received personal fees from ALK, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Menarini, Novartis, Orion Pharma, and Sanofi. Dr Bourdin has received industry-sponsored grants from AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cephalon/Teva, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Sanofi-Regeneron and conducted consultancies with AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Regeneron-Sanofi, Med-in-Cell, Actelion, Merck, Roche, and Chiesi. Dr Bjermer has (in the last 3 years) received lecture or advisory board fees from Alk-Abello, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Mundipharma, Novartis, Sanofi, Genzyme/Regeneron, and Teva. Ms Bulathsinhala is an employee of the OPRI. OPRI conducted this study in collaboration with Optimum Patient Care and AstraZeneca. Ms Carter is an employee of Optimum Patient Care, which is a co-funder of the International Severe Asthma Registry. Dr Murray is a consultant for OPRI. OPRI conducted this study in collaboration with Optimum Patient Care and AstraZeneca. Mr Beastall is an employee of the Optimum Patient Care Global, a co-funder of the International Severe Asthma Registry. Dr Denton declares receiving grants to her institution from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi, Teva, and Seqirus, for unrelated projects and speaker fees from Sanofi. Dr Price has advisory board membership with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Viatris, and Teva Pharmaceuticals; consultancy agreements with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Viatris, and Teva Pharmaceuticals; grants and unrestricted funding for investigator-initiated studies (conducted through OPRI Pte Ltd) from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Viatris, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi Genzyme, and United Kingdom National Health Service; payment for lectures/speaking engagements from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, Commune Digital, GlaxoSmithKline, Medscape, Viatris, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi Genzyme, and Teva Pharmaceuticals; payment for travel/accommodation/meeting expenses from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Medscape, and Teva Pharmaceuticals; stock/stock options from AKL Research and Development Ltd which produces phytopharmaceuticals; owns 74% of the social enterprise Optimum Patient Care Ltd (Australia and United Kingdom) and 92.61% of OPRI Pte Ltd (Singapore); 5% shareholding in Timestamp which develops adherence monitoring technology; is peer reviewer for grant committees of the United Kingdom Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme and Health Technology Assessment; and was an expert witness for GlaxoSmithKline. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to report., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Studies have evaluated vitamin D 3 's therapeutic potential in estrogen-responsive cancers, with conflicting findings. We have shown that the proliferation of breast cancer cells is regulated by 24R,25-dihydroxyvitamin D 3 (24R,25(OH) 2 D 3 ) depending on estrogen receptor alpha 66 (ERα66) expression, suggesting that this could also be the case for estrogen-sensitive laryngeal cancer cells. Accordingly, we examined levels of ERα isoforms in ERα66-positive UM-SCC-12 and ERα66-negative UM-SCC-11A cells and their response to 24R,25(OH) 2 D 3 . 24R,25(OH) 2 D 3 stimulated proliferation, increased the expression of metastatic markers, and inhibited apoptosis in UM-SCC-12 cells while having the opposite effect in UM-SCC-11A cells. To evaluate if vitamin metabolites could act via autocrine/paracrine mechanisms, we assessed the expression, protein levels, and activity of vitamin D 3 hydroxylases CYP24A1 and CYP27B1. Both cell types expressed both mRNAs; but the levels of the enzymes and their activities were differentially regulated by estrogen. ERα66-negative UM-SCC-11A cells produced more 24,25(OH) 2 D 3 than UM-SCC-12 cells, but comparable levels of 1,25(OH) 2 D 3 when treated with 25(OH)D 3 These results suggest that the regulation of vitamin D 3 metabolism in laryngeal cancer cells is modulated by ERα66 expression, and support a role for 24R,25(OH) 2 D 3 as an autocrine/paracrine regulator of laryngeal cancer. The local metabolism of 25(OH)D 3 should be considered when determining the potential of vitamin D 3 in laryngeal cancer.

Background: To date, studies investigating the association between pre-biologic biomarker levels and post-biologic outcomes have been limited to single biomarkers and assessment of biologic efficacy from structured clinical trials., Aim: To elucidate the associations of pre-biologic individual biomarker levels or their combinations with pre-to-post biologic changes in asthma outcomes in real-life., Methods: This was a registry-based, cohort study using data from 23 countries, which shared data with the International Severe Asthma Registry (May 2017-February 2023). The investigated biomarkers (highest pre-biologic levels) were immunoglobulin E (IgE), blood eosinophil count (BEC) and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO). Pre- to approximately 12-month post-biologic change for each of three asthma outcome domains (i.e. exacerbation rate, symptom control and lung function), and the association of this change with pre-biologic biomarkers was investigated for individual and combined biomarkers., Results: Overall, 3751 patients initiated biologics and were included in the analysis. No association was found between pre-biologic BEC and pre-to-post biologic change in exacerbation rate for any biologic class. However, higher pre-biologic BEC and FeNO were both associated with greater post-biologic improvement in FEV 1 for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R, with a trend for anti-IL4Rα. Mean FEV 1 improved by 27-178 mL post-anti-IgE as pre-biologic BEC increased (250 to 1000 cells/µL), and by 43-216 mL and 129-250 mL post-anti-IL5/5R and -anti-IL4Rα, respectively along the same BEC gradient. Corresponding improvements along a FeNO gradient (25-100 ppb) were 41-274 mL, 69-207 mL and 148-224 mL for anti-IgE, anti-IL5/5R, and anti-IL4Rα, respectively. Higher baseline BEC was also associated with lower probability of uncontrolled asthma (OR 0.392; p=0.001) post-biologic for anti-IL5/5R. Pre-biologic IgE was a poor predictor of subsequent pre-to-post-biologic change for all outcomes assessed for all biologics. The combination of BEC + FeNO marginally improved the prediction of post-biologic FEV 1 increase (adjusted R 2 : 0.751), compared to BEC (adjusted R 2 : 0.747) or FeNO alone (adjusted R 2 : 0.743) (p=0.005 and <0.001, respectively); however, this prediction was not improved by the addition of IgE., Conclusions: The ability of higher baseline BEC, FeNO and their combination to predict biologic-associated lung function improvement may encourage earlier intervention in patients with impaired lung function or at risk of accelerated lung function decline., Competing Interests: CP has attended advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Novartis, TEVA, and Sanofi-Genzyme; has given lectures at meetings supported by AstraZeneca, Novartis, TEVA, Sanofi-Genzyme, and GlaxoSmithKline; has taken part in clinical trials sponsored by AstraZeneca, Novartis, MSD, Sanofi-Genzyme, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis; and has received educational and research grants from AstraZeneca, Novartis, TEVA, GlaxoSmithKline, ALK, and Sanofi-Genzyme. JT is an employee of the Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute OPRI. OPRI conducted this study in collaboration with Optimum Patient Care and AstraZeneca. CB reports advisory board participation of Sanofi-Regeneron, AstraZeneca, Takeda, ValeoPharma, honorarium for presentations for AstraZeneca/Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, Grifols, Sanofi-Regeneron, ValeoPharma and grants paid to UBC from BioHaven, Sanofi-Regeneron, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline. GCC declares relevant research support from AstraZeneca and Sanofi. GK has attended advisory boards for AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline and Chiesi. He has also given lectures at meetings supported by Novartis, Sanofi-Genzyme, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Boehringer-Ingelheim. DL reports personal fees from ALK-Abelló, AstraZeneca national and global, Bayer, Chiesi, Grunenthal, Grin, GlaxoSmithKline national and global, Viatris, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Siegfried, UCB, Carnot, grants from Abbvie, Bayer, Lilly, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Circassia, UCB, GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. TNT is an employee of AstraZeneca and may own stock or stock options in AstraZeneca. AstraZeneca is a co-funder of ISAR. RA-L has given lectures at meetings supported by AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi, and participated in advisory board fees from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Abbott. SB-A has received honorarium for participation in expert advisory boards and given lectures for Teva Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Meda, Mundipharma, Sanofi, Mylan and received unrestricted research grants from Mylan, AstraZeneca, Teva, Mundipharma International, GlaxoSmithKline, and Viatris. JB has received research grants from AstraZeneca and personnel fees from NuvoAir, outside the submitted work. MH declares grants and other advisory board fees made to his institutional employer from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi, Teva, and Seqirus, for unrelated projects. KK received honoraria for presentations and consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, CSL Behring, Chiesi, ELPEN, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Menarini, Novartis, Sanofi, Specialty Therapeutics, WebMD. His department has received funding and grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Innovis, ELPEN, GlaxoSmithKline, Menarini, Novartis and NuvoAir. NP has been a speaker and/or advisory board member for Abbott, Abbvie, ALK, Asit Biotech, AstraZeneca, Biomay, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, HAL, Faes Farma, Medscape, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Nutricia, OM Pharma, Regeneron, Sanofi, Takeda, and Viatris. PEP has attended advisory boards for AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi; has given lectures/webinars at meetings supported by AstraZeneca, Chiesi and GlaxoSmithKline; has taken part in clinical trials sponsored by AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Regeneron, and Sanofi, for which his institution received remuneration; and has a current research grant funded by GlaxoSmithKline. TP declares relevant research support from Novartis and Chiesi Pharma. CR received consulting/lecture fees from MSD, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Takeda, Mundipharma, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Teva, Sanofi, and Bayer. MS has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Teva, and GlaxoSmithKline for purposes unrelated to the content of this manuscript and has received research funding from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim directly into his research account from AstraZeneca for unrelated projects. M-JT has received sponsorship to attend or speak at conferences, honoraria for lecturing or attending advisory boards, and research grants from the following companies: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, Shionogi and Orient EuroPharma. CU reports personal fees for talks, participation in advisory boards etc. from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Teva, Boehringer Ingelheim, Orion Pharma, Sanofi Genzyme, TFF Pharmaceuticals, Covis Pharma, Berlin-Chemie, Takeda, Chiesi, and Pfizer, outside the submitted work. MA-A has received advisory board and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Novartis, and GlaxoSmithKline and received a grant from Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Sciences KFAS. AA has received lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Berlin-Chemie Menarini, Boehringer Ingelheim, CSL Behring, GlaxoSmithKline, MSD, Norameda, Novartis, Orion, Sanofi, and Zentiva; sponsorships from AstraZeneca, Berlin-Chemie Menarini, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, MSD, Norameda, Novartis, and Sanofi; and has participated in advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, CSL Behring, GlaxoSmithKline, MSD, Novartis, Sanofi, and Teva. ABe is an employee of Optimum Patient Care Global, a co-funder of the International Severe Asthma Registry. LBu is an employee of the Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute OPRI. OPRI conducted this study in collaboration with Optimum Patient Care and AstraZeneca. VC is an employee of Optimum Patient Care OPC. OPC is a co-funder of the International Severe Asthma Registry. BC declares grants from Chiesi and GlaxoSmithKline; personal fees for advisory board activities from Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi, Teva, and AstraZeneca; and payment for lectures/speaking engagements from Chiesi, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Menarini, and AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. KF is an employee of Optimum Patient Care Global OPCG, a co-funder of the International Severe Asthma Registry. LH has received grant funding, participated in advisory boards and given lectures at meetings supported by Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Circassia, Hoffmann la Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Theravance, Evelo Biosciences, Sanofi, and Teva; he has received grants from MedImmune, Novartis UK, Roche/Genentech Inc, and GlaxoSmithKline, Amgen, Genentech/Hoffman la Roche, AstraZeneca, MedImmune, GlaxoSmithKline, Aerocrine, and Vitalograph; he has received sponsorship for attending international scientific meetings from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, and Napp Pharmaceuticals; he has also taken part in asthma clinical trials sponsored by AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Hoffmann la Roche, and GlaxoSmithKline for which his institution received remuneration; he is the Academic Lead for the Medical Research Council Stratified Medicine UK Consortium in Severe Asthma which involves industrial partnerships with a number of pharmaceutical companies including Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann la Roche, and Janssen. RH is an employee for Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute OPRI which conducted this study in collaboration with Optimum Patient Care and AstraZeneca. PK reports personal fees from Adamed, AstraZeneca, Berlin Chemie Menarini, FAES, Glenmark, Novartis, Polpharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Teva, Zentiva, outside the submitted work. RM is a consultant for Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute OPRI which conducted this study in collaboration with Optimum Patient Care and AstraZeneca. TN received lecture fees from Kyorin, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi, and AstraZeneca. LP received research grants and lecture fees from GlaxoSmithKline, Menarini, Chiesi, AstraZeneca and Grifols. DC has received speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and has acted as an investigator for trials sponsored by AstraZeneca. FS reports consultancy work for GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Sanofi - Advisory board, received speaker fees from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Amgen, Teva and research grants from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, and Chiesi. MW reports grants and/or personal fees from Novartis, Sanofi, Regeneron, Genentech, Sentien, Restorbio, Equillium, Genzyme, Cohero Health, Teva, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, Cytoreason, Cerecor, Sound Biologics, Incyte, and Kinaset. ABo has received industry-sponsored grants from AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cephalon/Teva, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi-Regeneron, and consultancies with AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Boehringer-Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Regeneron-Sanofi, Med-in-Cell, Actelion, Merck, Roche, and Chiesi. GB has received honoraria for lectures from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis. He is a member of advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, MSD Merck sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Sanofi/Regeneron. LC has received speaker and consultancy fees and conference expenses from AstraZeneca, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim and Menarini. ED declares grants to her institution from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi, Teva, and Seqirus, for unrelated projects and speaker fees from Sanofi. JF reports grants from research agreements with AstraZeneca, Mundipharma, Sanofi Regeneron, and Novartis. Personal fees for lectures and attending advisory boards: AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Mundipharma, Novartis, Sanofi Regeneron, and Teva. FH declares honoraria from AstraZeneca, Sanofi, TEVA, GSK, and Genentech. She has been an investigator on clinical trials sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, and Sanofi, for which her institution has received funding. DJ has received speaker fees and consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Regeneron, Boehringer Ingelheim and research funding from AstraZeneca. MK reports grant support from AstraZeneca, and honoraria for lectures and advisory board meetings paid to her hospital Singapore General Hospital from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Sanofi and Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work. LL has received personal fees from ALK, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Menarini, Novartis, Orion Pharma and Sanofi. NM is an employee of AstraZeneca and may own stock or stock options in AstraZeneca. AstraZeneca is a co-funder of ISAR. AM-G is an employee of AstraZeneca and may own stock or stock options in AstraZeneca. AstraZeneca is a co-funder of ISAR. PHwP has received honoraria for talks and advisory board meetings from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, and Sanofi. AP has received fees and honoraria from Menarini, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Elpen, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Chiesi. PHP has received advisory board and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Sanofi/Regeneron. LP-d-L reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, personal fees and non-financial support from GlaxoSmithKline, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Teva, personal fees and non-financial support from Chiesi, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Sanofi, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Techdow Pharma, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Faes Farma, personal fees from Leo-Pharma, grants and personal fees from Gebro, personal fees from Gilead, outside the submitted work. MP declares personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi. LR received fees as a speaker from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Sanofi. IS has received fees as advisory board participant and/or speaker from GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi. CT-D has received fees as advisory board participant and/or speaker from AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Sanofi-Aventis; has taken part in clinical trials from AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Sanofi-Aventis; has received unrestricted grants for investigator-initiated studies at Fundacion Neumologica Colombiana from AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Grifols and Novartis. EW has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Genentech. She has been an investigator on studies sponsored by AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, Sanofi, Novartis, and Teva, for which her institution has received funding. RC has received honoraria for lectures from Aerogen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Teva. He is a member of advisory boards for GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis, has received grant support from GlaxoSmithKline and Aerogen and has patents in the use of acoustics in the diagnosis of lung disease, assessment of adherence and prediction of exacerbations. PG has received speaker fees and grants to his institution from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis. EH declares personal fees for advisory boards participation and/or speaker activities from: Sanofi, Regeneron, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Stallergenes-Greer, Circassia, Bosch, Celltrion-Healthcare, Chiesi, and Almirall. JM reports speaker fees, grants or advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Inmunotek, Menarini and Noucor. D-WP received sponsorship to attend or speak at international meetings, honoraria for lecturing or attending advisory boards, and research grants from the following companies: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, Shionogi, and Orient Pharma. FP reports having received lectures or advisory board fees from: Menarini, Mundipharma, Chiesi, Alk Abello, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Guidotti, Malesci, GlaxoSmithKline, Hal Allergy, Novartis, Sanofi, Regeneron, Stallergenes Greer, Valeas, and Almirall. SS declares research support and speaker fees from Cipla, Glenmark, and GlaxoSmithKline. C-CS has received speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Pfizer, and has acted as an investigator for trials sponsored by AstraZeneca, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Regeneron, Galapagos, Shionogi, Aridis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Insmed, United Therapeutics, Enanta Pharmaceuticals, Areteia Therapeutics, Meiji, and Horizon Therapeutics. CT has received lecture or advisory board fees and grants to her institution from AstraZeneca, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Chiesi and Novartis, for unrelated projects. TT is an advisory Board Member for Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Takeda, GlaxoSmithKline, MSD, Mundipharma, and Janssen. Honoraria were received for these advisory boards. Honoraria were received for speaking at CMEs for AstraZeneca in the past. Conference sponsorships from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Serono, GlaxoSmithKline, Norvatis, Mundipharma and MSD. Research grants from Merck Serono Concor Study, MSD Apbord study. LBj has in the last three years received lecture or advisory board fees from Alk-Abello, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Mundipharma, Novartis, Sanofi, Genzyme/Regeneron, and Teva. GWC has received research grants, as well as lecture or advisory board fees from A. Menarini, Alk-Albello, Allergy Therapeutics, Anallergo, AstraZeneca, MedImmune, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi Farmaceutici, Circassia, Danone, Faes, Genentech, Guidotti Malesci, GlaxoSmithKline, Hal Allergy, Merck, MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis, Orion, Sanofi Aventis, Sanofi, Genzyme/Regeneron, Stallergenes, UCB Pharma, Uriach Pharma, Teva, Thermo Fisher, and Valeas. TI received speaker bureau fees from Kyorin, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca and Sanofi. LJ-M has received fees as advisory board participant and/or speaker from AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Sanofi-Aventis; has participated in clinical trials for AstraZeneca, Novartis, and GlaxoSmithKline. DP has advisory board membership with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Viatris, Teva Pharmaceuticals; consultancy agreements with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Viatris, Teva Pharmaceuticals; grants and unrestricted funding for investigator-initiated studies conducted through Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Viatris, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi Genzyme, and UK National Health Service; payment for lectures/speaking engagements from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, Commune Digital, GlaxoSmithKline, Medscape, Viatris, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi Genzyme, Teva Pharmaceuticals; payment for travel/accommodation/meeting expenses from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Medscape, Teva Pharmaceuticals; stock/stock options from AKL Research and Development Ltd which produces phytopharmaceuticals; owns 74% of the social enterprise Optimum Patient Care Ltd Australia and UK and 92.61% of Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd Singapore; 5% shareholding in Timestamp which develops adherence monitoring technology; is peer reviewer for grant committees of the UK Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme, and Health Technology Assessment; and was an expert witness for GlaxoSmithKline. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Porsbjerg, Townend, Bergeron, Christoff, Katsoulotos, Larenas-Linnemann, Tran, Al-Lehebi, Bosnic-Anticevich, Busby, Hew, Kostikas, Papadopoulos, Pfeffer, Popov, Rhee, Sadatsafavi, Tsai, Ulrik, Al-Ahmad, Altraja, Beastall, Bulathsinhala, Carter, Cosio, Fletton, Hansen, Heaney, Hubbard, Kuna, Murray, Nagano, Pini, Cano Rosales, Schleich, Wechsler, Amaral, Bourdin, Brusselle, Chen, Chung, Denton, Fonseca, Hoyte, Jackson, Katial, Kirenga, Koh, Ławkiedraj, Lehtimäki, Liew, Mahboub, Martin, Menzies-Gow, Pang, Papaioannou, Patel, Perez-De-Llano, Peters, Ricciardi, Rodríguez-Cáceres, Solarte, Tay, Torres-Duque, Wang, Zappa, Abisheganaden, Assing, Costello, Gibson, Heffler, Máspero, Nicola, Perng (Steve), Puggioni, Salvi, Sheu, Sirena, Taillé, Tan, Bjermer, Canonica, Iwanaga, Jiménez-Maldonado, Taube, Brussino and Price.)

Bacteria have evolved diverse antiviral defence mechanisms to protect themselves against phage infection. Phages integrated into bacterial chromosomes, known as prophages, also encode defences that protect the bacterial hosts in which they reside. Here, we identify a type of anti-phage defence that interferes with the virion assembly pathway of invading phages. The protein that mediates this defence, which we call Tab (for 'Tail assembly blocker'), is constitutively expressed from a Pseudomonas aeruginosa prophage. Tab allows the invading phage replication cycle to proceed, but blocks assembly of the phage tail, thus preventing formation of infectious virions. While the infected cell dies through the activity of the replicating phage lysis proteins, there is no release of infectious phage progeny, and the bacterial community is thereby protected from a phage epidemic. Prophages expressing Tab are not inhibited during their own lytic cycle because they express a counter-defence protein that interferes with Tab function. Thus, our work reveals an anti-phage defence that operates by blocking virion assembly, thereby both preventing formation of phage progeny and allowing destruction of the infected cell due to expression of phage lysis genes., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Domiciliary spirometry (DS) is a novel tool that is widely employed in the assessment of respiratory disease. We assessed real-world feasibility, effectiveness and value of a physiologist-led home spirometry programme in patients with treatment-refractory severe asthma., Methods: Patients were referred and provided with a hand-held DS device. Patients completed baseline measurements in a physiologist-led virtual clinic and were instructed to provide further values during any periods of respiratory symptoms. Outcome measures included prevalence of new obstructed events, DS adherence and uptake of this approach., Results: 112 patients were enrolled from November 2020 to January 2023. 102 individuals, mean±sd age 44±13 years (86% female) with median (IQR) forced expiratory volume in 1 s % predicted 88% (77-97%), successfully recorded baseline spirometry values. During follow-up (24 months), 11 (11%) were identified with new obstructive spirometry and were subsequently able to be commenced on biologic therapy. Patient engagement was poor with median (IQR) of 4 (2-6) attempts of contact made before baseline values were recorded, and 2 (1-3) attempts required to record technically acceptable values. Continued DS use was suboptimal; 34% failed to use their device after baseline and only 10% continued at the end of the study period. The cost of DS measurements was greater than a single hospital-based visit but enables multiple event capture., Conclusion: Overall, DS measurement uptake was poor, with a minority of patients continuing to use the device at the end of the study period. However, for those that engage, DS provides an alternative approach to traditional hospital-based spirometry measurements that can alter clinical management., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: Z. Williams, Y. Ge, J. Ming, C. Roberts and S. Rhamie have no conflict of interests to declare. Conflict of interest: J.H. Hull is an associate editor of this journal. Conflict of interest: P.H. Patel reports attending advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Celltrion Healthcare and GlaxoSmithKline; he has received speaker fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Sanofi/Regeneron; he has attended international conferences sponsored by AstraZeneca., (Copyright ©The authors 2023.)

Background: Novel biologic therapies have revolutionised the management of severe asthma with more ambitious treatment aims. Here we analyse the definition of clinical remission as a suggested treatment goal and consider the characteristics associated with clinical remission in a large, real-world severe asthma cohort., Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of severe asthma patients registered in the UK Severe Asthma Registry (UKSAR) who met strict national access criteria for biologics. Patients had a pre-biologics baseline assessment and annual review. The primary definition of clinical remission applied included Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ)-5 <1.5 and no oral corticosteroids for disease control and forced expiratory volume in 1 s above lower limit of normal or no more than 100 mL less than baseline., Results: 18.3% of patients achieved the primary definition of remission. The adjusted odds of remission on biologic therapy were 7.44 (95% CI 1.73-31.95)-fold higher in patients with type 2 (T2)-high biomarkers. The adjusted odds of remission were lower in patients who were female (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.45-0.93), obese (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.24-0.65) or had ACQ-5 ≥1.5 (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.12-0.31) pre-biologic therapy. The likelihood of remission reduced by 14% (95% CI 0.76-0.97) for every 10-year increase in disease duration. 12-21% of the cohort attained clinical remission depending on the definition applied; most of those who did not achieve remission failed to meet multiple criteria., Conclusions: 18.3% of patients achieved the primary definition of clinical remission. Remission was more likely in T2-high biomarker patients with shorter duration of disease and less comorbidity. Further research on the optimum time to commence biologics in severe asthma is required., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: The UK Severe Asthma Registry (UKSAR) does not receive any monetary benefits or benefits-in-kind from any pharmaceutical entity; UKSAR does make limited data contributions to the International Severe Asthma Registry (ISAR) and the European Respiratory Society Clinical Research Collaborative (SHARP), which do receive pharmaceutical funding. P.J. McDowell reports speaker fees from GlaxoSmithKline and scientific meeting support from Chiesi. R. McDowell and M. Patel have no conflicts of interest to declare. M.C. Eastwood reports support to attend meetings from GlaxoSmithKline. J. Busby reports grants from AstraZeneca and personal fees from Nuvoair. P.H. Patel received advisory board fees and lecture fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis and Sanofi. D.J. Jackson has received speaker fees and consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi Regeneron. A. Mansur declares personal and to institution payment for talks, advisory board meetings and sponsorship to attend conferences from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Teva, Sanofi, Novartis and Boehringer Ingelheim; he also declares research grants from GlaxoSmithKline. H. Burhan reports fees for advisory board meetings from AstraZeneca and Novartis, honoraria for lectures from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, GSK and Sanofi, and support for attending conferences from AstraZeneca, Chiesi and GSK. S. Doe has participated on advisory boards for Vertex, Gilead and Novartis, and has received support for travel to meetings from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Teva; Sanofi, Chiesi and Forest, and fees for lectures from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca and Sanofi. R. Chaudhuri has received lecture fees from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Teva, Chiesi, Sanofi and Novartis, honoraria for advisory board meetings from GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca, sponsorship to attend international scientific meetings from Chiesi, Sanofi and GlaxoSmithKline, and a research grant (paid to institute) from AstraZeneca for a UK multicentre study. R. Gore has received fees for lecturing from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Sanofi and GlaxoSmithKline. J.W. Dodd declares he has received honoraria for participating in advisory boards and given lectures at meetings supported by GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, AstraZeneca, Fisher & Paykel and Aerogen; he has received sponsorship for attending international scientific meetings from Chiesi; he has also taken part in asthma clinical trials sponsored by Sanofi, AstraZeneca and Chiesi, for which his institution received remuneration; his institution has received funding for research from the MRC, NIHR, SBRI, NHSx, Templeton Foundation and Southmead Hospital research charity. T. Brown has received fees as an external expert from AstraZeneca, speaker fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Teva, Novartis and Chiesi, honoraria for advisory board attendance from AstraZeneca, Sanofi and Teva, and sponsorship to attend international scientific meetings from Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Teva, Chiesi and Napp Pharmaceuticals. D. Subramanian is part of the AstraZeneca Precision National Working group and has received speaker fees from Chiesi. L.G. Heaney is academic lead for the Medical Research Council Stratified Medicine UK Consortium in Severe Asthma, which involves industrial partnerships with a number of pharmaceutical companies., (Copyright ©The authors 2023.)

Survival in oesophago-gastric cancer (OGC) is poor due to early diagnostic challenges. Non-invasive risk stratification may identify susceptible patients with pre-malignant or benign disease. Following diagnostic confirmation with endoscopic biopsy, early OGC may be treated sooner. Mucins are transmembrane glycoproteins implicated in OGC with potential use as biomarkers of malignant transformation. This systematic review defines the role of mucins in OGC diagnosis. A literature search of MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane databases was performed following PRISMA protocols for studies published January 1960-December 2022. Demographic data and data on mucin sampling and analysis methods were extracted. The review included 124 studies ( n = 11,386 patients). Gastric adenocarcinoma (GAc) was the commonest OG malignancy ( n = 101) followed by oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAc, n = 24) and squamous cell carcinoma (OSqCc, n = 10). Mucins MUC1, MUC2, MUC5AC and MUC6 were the most frequently implicated. High MUC1 expression correlated with poorer prognosis and metastases in OSqCc. MUC2 expression decreases during progression from healthy mucosa to OAc, causing reduced protection from gastric acid. MUC5AC was upregulated, and MUC6 downregulated in GAc. Mucin expression varies in OGC; changes may be epigenetic or mutational. Profiling upper GI mucin expression in OGC, with pre-malignant, benign and healthy controls may identify potential early diagnostic biomarkers.

Introduction: Cross-sectional imaging plays an integral role in the management of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancer, from initial diagnosis and staging to determining appropriate treatment strategies. Subjective imaging interpretation has known limitations. The field of radiomics has evolved to extract quantitative data from medical imaging and relate these to biological processes. The key concept behind radiomics is that the high-throughput analysis of quantitative imaging features can provide predictive or prognostic information, with the goal of providing individualised care., Objective: Radiomic studies have shown promising utility in upper gastrointestinal oncology, highlighting a potential role in determining stage of disease and degree of tumour differentiation and predicting recurrence-free survival. This narrative review aims to provide an insight into the concepts underpinning radiomics, as well as its potential applications for guiding treatment and surgical decision-making in upper gastrointestinal malignancy., Conclusion: Outcomes from studies to date have been promising; however, further standardisation and collaboration are required. Large prospective studies with external validation and evaluation of radiomic integration into clinical pathways are needed. Future research should now focus on translating the promising utility of radiomics into meaningful patient outcomes., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Temperate phages are pervasive in nature, existing within bacterial cells in a form known as prophages. In this state, survival of the phage is intricately tied to the survival of the bacterial host. As a result, prophages often encode genes that increase bacterial fitness. One important way to increase survival is to provide defense against competing phages. Recent work reviewed here reveals that prophages provide a diverse and robust reservoir of antiphage defense systems that likely play a major role in bacterial-phage dynamics., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused unprecedented disruption to global healthcare delivery. In England, the majority of elective surgery was postponed or cancelled to increase intensive care capacity. Our unit instituted the 'RM Partners Cancer Hub' at the Royal Marsden Hospital in London, to deliver ongoing cancer surgery in a 'COVID-lite' setting. This article describes the operational set-up and outcomes for upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancer resections performed during this period., Methods: From April 2020 to April 2021, the Royal Marsden Hospital formed the RM Partners Cancer Hub. This approach was designed to coordinate resources and provide as much oncological treatment as feasible for patients across the RM Partners West London Cancer Alliance. A UGI surgical case prioritisation strategy, along with strict infection control pathways and pre-operative screening protocols, was adopted., Results: A total of 231 patients underwent surgery for confirmed or suspected UGI cancer during the RM Partners Cancer Hub, with 213 completed resections and combined 90-day mortality rate of 3.5%. Good short-term survival outcomes were demonstrated with 2-year disease free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) for oesophageal (70.8% and 72.9%), gastric (66.7% and 83.3%) and pancreatic cancer resections (68.0% and 88.0%). One patient who developed perioperative COVID-19 during the RM Partners Cancer Hub operation made a full recovery with no lasting clinical sequelae., Conclusion: Our experience demonstrates that the RM Partners Cancer Hub approach is a safe strategy for continuing upper gastrointestinal (GI) resectional surgery during future periods of healthcare service disruption., (© 2022. Crown.)

Cancer is the second leading cause of death worldwide after heart disease. The current treatment options to fight cancer are limited, and there is a critical need for better treatment strategies. During the last several decades, several electric field (EF)-based approaches for anti-cancer therapies have been introduced, such as electroporation and tumor-treating fields; still, they are far from optimal due to their invasive nature, limited efficacy and significant side effects. In this study, we developed a non-contact EF stimulation system to investigate the in vitro effects of a novel EF modality on cancer biomarkers in normal (human astrocytes, human pancreatic ductal epithelial -HDPE-cells) and cancer cell lines (glioblastoma U87-GBM, human pancreatic cancer cfPac-1, and MiaPaCa-2). Our results demonstrate that this EF modality can successfully modulate an important cancer cell biomarker-cell surface phosphatidylserine (PS). Our results further suggest that moderate, but not low, amplitude EF induces p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK), actin polymerization, and cell cycle arrest in cancer cell lines. Based on our results, we propose a mechanism for EF-mediated PS exposure in cancer cells, where the magnitude of induced EF on the cell surface can differentially regulate intracellular calcium (Ca 2+ ) levels, thereby modulating surface PS exposure.

Objective: The objective of this review was to provide dosing recommendations for percentage change in weekly warfarin dose and rates of thrombotic and bleeding events in patients requiring long-term warfarin therapy after bariatric surgery., Data Sources: A comprehensive literature search of PubMed (through April 5, 2021), Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar (through April 5, 2021) databases was completed using the keywords warfarin OR vitamin k antagonist AND bariatric surgery., Study Selection and Data Extraction: Retrospective studies and matched-cohort studies evaluating preoperative and postoperative use of warfarin after bariatric surgery for obesity were considered. Weekly dose defined as sum of daily doses of warfarin for 7 consecutive days was a required outcome to be considered in this review. Patients were excluded from review if post-operative dosage change was not reported., Data Synthesis: Six studies were included with a total of 160 patients who met the criteria. A decrease in average warfarin dose was seen in all studies, with the largest decrease occurring at 1 month postsurgery followed by an upward trend toward baseline about 90 days postsurgery. While thrombotic events were observed in none of the patients, there was an increased risk of bleeding in patients, particularly in those who underwent roux-en-y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgery., Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: The study provides a specific warfarin dosing titration regimen, as well as embolic and bleed risk in post-bariatric surgery population., Conclusions: Clinicians may consider lowering warfarin weekly dose by about 25% immediately postsurgery, with doses approaching closer to baseline about 90 days postsurgery.

Background: Patients with borderline-resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (BR-PDAC) have historically poor survival, even after curative pancreatic resection and adjuvant chemotherapy. Emerging evidence suggests that neoadjuvant chemoradiation (NCR) improves R0 resection rates in BR-PDAC patients. We evaluated the R0 resection rate, disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in our patients who underwent NCR for BR-PDAC at our institution., Methods: All patients who underwent NCR for BR-PDAC from January 2010 to March 2020 were included in the study. The patients received a variety of NCR regimens during the study period, and in patients with radiological evidence of tumour stability or regression, pancreatic resection was performed. The primary endpoint was the OS, and the secondary endpoints included patient morbidity, the R0 resection rate, histological parameters and the DFS., Results: The study included 29 patients (16 men and 13 women), with a median age of 65 years (range 46-74 years). Of these 29 patients, 17 received FOLFIRINOX and 12 received gemcitabine (GEM)-based NCR regimens. All patients received chemoradiation at the end of chemotherapy (range 45-56 Gy). R0 resection was achieved in 75% of the patients, with a higher rate noted in the FOLFIRINOX group. The median DFS was 22 months for the whole cohort but higher in the FOLFIRINOX group (34 months). The median OS for the cohort was 29 months, with a higher median OS noted for the FOLFIRINOX cohort versus the GEM cohort (42 versus 28 months)., Conclusion: NCR, particularly FOLFIRINOX-based treatment, for BR-PDAC results in higher rates of R0 resection and an increased median DFS and OS, supporting its continued use in this patient group.

Humans maintain core body temperature via a complicated system of physiologic mechanisms that counteract heat/cold fluctuations from metabolism, exertion, and the environment. Overextension of these mechanisms or disruption of body temperature homeostasis leads to bodily dysfunction, culminating in a syndrome analogous to exertional heat stroke (EHS). The inability of this thermoregulatory process to maintain the body temperature is caused by either thermal stress or certain drugs. EHS is a syndrome characterized by hyperthermia and the activation of systemic inflammation. Several drug-induced hyperthermic syndromes may resemble EHS and share common mechanisms. The purpose of this article is to review the current literature and compare exertional heat stroke (EHS) to three of the most widely studied drug-induced hyperthermic syndromes: malignant hyperthermia (MH), neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS), and serotonin syndrome (SS). Drugs and drug classes that have been implicated in these conditions include amphetamines, diuretics, cocaine, antipsychotics, metoclopramide, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), and many more. Observations suggest that severe or fulminant cases of drug-induced hyperthermia may evolve into an inflammatory syndrome best described as heat stroke. Their underlying mechanisms, symptoms, and treatment approaches will be reviewed to assist in accurate diagnosis, which will impact the management of potentially life-threatening complications., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright © 2022, Horseman et al.)

Background: The purpose of the current study is to examine the association between non-exercise estimated cardiorespiratory fitness and incident hypertension by sex., Methods: A total of 5513 participants (4403 men and 1110 women) free of hypertension from the Aerobics Center Longitudinal Study were followed for incident hypertension, which was determined as resting systolic or diastolic blood pressure at least 130/80 mm Hg or physician diagnosis. Non-exercise estimated cardiorespiratory fitness was estimated in metabolic equivalents (METs) with sex-specific algorithms. Age, body mass index, waist circumference, and resting heart rate were used as continuous variables, whereas being physically active and current smoking were dichotomous variables. Multivariable Cox regression models were used to examine the association between cardiorespiratory fitness and risk of developing hypertension. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported as an index of strength of association., Results: During an average follow-up of 5 years, 61.7% of men and 39.5% of women developed hypertension. In men, the upper and middle tertiles of cardiorespiratory fitness had 22% (95% CI, 0.71-0.86) and 10% (95% CI, 0.82-0.99) lower risk, respectively, of developing hypertension compared with those in the lower tertile. In women, the upper and middle tertiles of cardiorespiratory fitness had 30% (95% CI, 0.55-0.88) and 6% (95% CI, 0.74-1.18) lower risk, respectively, of developing hypertension. Each 1-MET increment was associated with a 10% higher risk of incident hypertension in the overall sample., Conclusion: Cardiorespiratory fitness estimated using a non-exercise algorithm is inversely associated with risk of developing hypertension in men and women., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Liver lesions located adjacent to the middle hepatic vein (MHV) at the hepatocaval confluence are rare. Mini-mesohepatectomy (MMH) allows resection of these lesions with preservation of liver parenchymal volume thus reducing the risk of post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF). We evaluated our experience of MMH at our institution and assessed post-operative complications, disease free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). All patients undergoing MMH at our institution were included in the study. Intra-operative parameters, histopathological data, DFS and OS were evaluated. 11 patients with colorectal liver metastasis underwent MMH between Jan 2012 and Dec 2020. MMH resulted in R0 resection rate in all patients with no PHLF. There were 1 post-operative bile leaks but no mortality following MMH. Median DFS was 13.5 months with OS being 60 months. MMH offers safe oncological resection of lesions at the MHV at the hepatocaval confluence and should be considered in patients presenting with such lesions., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Abstract: Severe asthma is "asthma which requires treatment with high dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) plus a second controller (and/or systemic corticosteroids) to prevent it from becoming 'uncontrolled' or which remains 'uncontrolled' despite this therapy." The state of control was defined by symptoms, exacerbations and the degree of airflow obstruction. Therefore, for the diagnosis of severe asthma, it is important to have evidence for a diagnosis of asthma with an assessment of its severity, followed by a review of comorbidities, risk factors, triggers and an assessment of whether treatment is commensurate with severity, whether the prescribed treatments have been adhered to and whether inhaled therapy has been properly administered. Phenotyping of severe asthma has been introduced with the definition of a severe eosinophilic asthma phenotype characterized by recurrent exacerbations despite being on high dose ICS and sometimes oral corticosteroids, with a high blood eosinophil count and a raised level of nitric oxide in exhaled breath. This phenotype has been associated with a Type-2 (T2) inflammatory profile with expression of interleukin (IL)-4, IL-5, and IL-13. Molecular phenotyping has also revealed non-T2 inflammatory phenotypes such as Type-1 or Type-17 driven phenotypes. Antibody treatments targeted at the T2 targets such as anti-IL5, anti-IL5Rα, and anti-IL4Rα antibodies are now available for treating severe eosinophilic asthma, in addition to anti-immunoglobulin E antibody for severe allergic asthma. No targeted treatments are currently available for non-T2 inflammatory phenotypes. Long-term azithromycin and bronchial thermoplasty may be considered. The future lies with molecular phenotyping of the airway inflammatory process to refine asthma endotypes for precision medicine., (Copyright © 2022 The Chinese Medical Association, produced by Wolters Kluwer, Inc. under the CC-BY-NC-ND license.)

Aims: Oligoprogression is poorly defined in current literature. Little is known about the natural history and significance of oligoprogression in patients with hormone-resistant prostate cancer on abiraterone or enzalutamide treatment [termed androgen receptor-targeted therapy (ARTT)]. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of oligoprogression, describe the characteristics of oligoprogression in a cohort of patients from a single center, and identify the number of patients potentially treatable with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT)., Methods: Castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) patients who radiologically progressed while on ARTT were included. Patients with oligoprogressive disease (OPD) (≤3 lesions) on any imaging were identified in a retrospective analysis of electronic patient records. Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test were used to calculate progression-free and overall survival., Results: A total of 102 patients with metastatic CRPC on ARTT were included. Thirty (29%) patients presented with oligoprogression (46 lesions in total); 21 (21% of total) patients had lesions suitable for SBRT. The majority of lesions were in the bone (21, 46%) or lymph nodes (15, 33%). Patients with oligoprogression while on ARTT had a significantly better prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response on commencing ARTT as compared to patients who later developed polyprogression. However, PSA doubling time immediately prior to progression did not predict OPD. Median progression-free survival to oligoprogression versus polyprogression was 16.8 vs. 11.7 months. Time to further progression after oligoprogression was 13.6 months in those treated with radiotherapy (RT) for oligoprogression vs. 5.7 months in those treated with the continuation of ARTT alone., Conclusions: In this study, nearly a third of patients on ARTT for CRPC were found to have OPD. OPD patients had a better PSA response on ART and a longer duration on ARTT before developing OPD as compared to those developing polyprogressive disease (Poly-PD). The majority of patients (70%) with OPD had lesions suitable for SBRT treatment. Prospective randomized control trials are needed to establish if there is a survival benefit of SBRT in oligoprogressive prostate cancer and to determine predictive indicators., Competing Interests: AT has received research funding and/or travel funding from Elekta, Varian, and Accuray, and honoraria/travel budget support from Janssen and historically from Astellas. AP has received research funding from Elekta and honoraria from Elekta and Janssen. JB has served on advisory boards and received fees from many companies including Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Astellas, Bayer, Bioxcel Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cellcentric, Daiichi, Eisai, Genentech/Roche, Genmab, GSK, Harpoon, ImCheck Therapeutics, Janssen, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Menarini/Silicon Biosystems, Orion, Pfizer, Qiagen, Sanofi Aventis, Sierra Oncology, Taiho, Terumo, and Vertex Pharmaceuticals. He is an employee of ICR and has received funding or other support for his research work from AZ, Astellas, Bayer, Cellcentric, Daiichi, Genentech, Genmab, GSK, Janssen, Merck Serono, MSD, Menarini/Silicon Biosystems, Orion, Sanofi Aventis, Sierra Oncology, Taiho, Pfizer, and Vertex, which has a commercial interest in abiraterone, PARP inhibition in DNA repair defective cancers, and PI3K/AKT pathway inhibitors (no personal income). JB was named as an inventor, with no financial interest for patent 8,822,438, submitted by Janssen, that covers the use of abiraterone acetate with corticosteroids. He has been the CI/PI of many industry-sponsored clinical trials. JB is a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Senior Investigator. CP served on Bayer in the education steering committee on January 21, 2020. He received payment from ICR for the podcast on mCRPC, July 2021; speaker fees from Janssen for Summit on Feb 2020, lecture on Nov 2020, and Ad board on March 2020; fees from Clarity Pharmaceuticals for Ad board on April 2020; fees from Myovant for Ad board on October 2020; fees from ITM Radiopharma for Ad board on October 2021; payment from AAA to ICR for Ad board on Dec 2021. RE declares receiving honorarium as a speaker at GU-ASCO Meeting 2016 and support from Janssen, as a speaker at the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust 2017. She has received an honorarium as a speaker at the University of Chicago in 2018 and Bayer and Ipsen honoraria at the ESMO meeting in 2019, and she is a member of the external expert committee of AstraZeneca UK Limited. PP received an honorarium for educational cases for PinPoint Case Platform, Mirrors of Medicine, and research post funded by the Royal Marsden/Institute of Cancer Research Biomedical Research Centre and Prostate Cancer UK. N.J.V.A. declares consultant honorarium from Accuray and Research funds from Accuray. AR has received honoraria and travel support from Janssen, Astellas and AZD. VK reports honoraria for speakers bureaus, personal fees and non-financial support from Accuray, Astellas, Bayer, Boston Scientific, and Janssen. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Patel, Tunariu, Levine, de Bono, Eeles, Khoo, Murray, Parker, Pathmanathan, Reid, van As and Tree.)

Background: In preterm neonates, parenteral nutrition (PN) is utilized to provide adequate energy and maintain the expected growth rate of a fetus. To optimize growth, our institution implemented comprehensive guidelines for prescribing PN. This study compared the effect of this change on growth outcomes of very low-birth-weight (VLBW) infants at 28 days' postnatal age (PNA)., Methods: Neonates <1250 g who received PN for >7 days were divided into preimplementation and postimplementation cohorts based on date of birth. The primary objective was to compare the average weight velocity (g/kg/day) of neonates at 28 days' PNA. Secondary objectives included identifying the average number of days to regain birth weight and comparing the percentage of infants above the 10th percentile for weight for age at 28 days with those at baseline., Results: There were 204 neonates in cohort 1 (before implementation) and 176 neonates in cohort 2 (after). No difference in weight velocity was identified (12.9 ± 5.2 vs 12.1 ± 4.9 g/kg/day; P = .177). No difference was detected in days to regain birth weight (9.2 ± 4.6 vs 9.9 ± 4.7; P = .909) or in the percentage of patients above the 10th percentile for weight for age (birth: 85.3% vs 83.5% [P = .634]; 28 days: 73% vs 64.8% [P = .082])., Conclusion: No difference was observed in the weight velocity of VLBW neonates <1250 g at birth when using the implemented guideline for PN prescription writing at our institution., (© 2021 American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition.)

Background: Duodenal adenocarcinoma (DA) is a rare gastrointestinal malignancy. There is limited data reporting patient outcomes following radical pancreatic resection for DA. We assessed the disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy for DA in our institution., Methods: We retrospectively analysed all patients undergoing pancreatic resection of DA at our institution between January 2009 and March 2020 inclusive., Results: Ninteen patients underwent pancreatic resection at our institution for DA during the study period. The overall postoperative morbidity and mortality was 37% and 5%, respectively. Nine patients (47%) had no nodal involvement. Median follow up was 25 months (range 1-108 months). Median DFS for our whole cohort was 17 months but was significantly higher in patients with no nodal metastasis [p < 0.001]. Median OS was 9.5 months for the whole cohort but was significantly higher in the patients with no nodal metastasis (60 months) compared to those with nodal metastasis (17.5 months) [p < 0.003]., Conclusion: Improved DFS and OS for patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy for DAs is associated with lymph node negative disease., (© 2022 Royal Australasian College of Surgeons.)

Background: Peri-operative chemotherapy improves survival in patients with locally advanced oesophago-gastric adenocarcinoma. Two regimens with proven survival benefits are epirubicin, cisplatin plus capecitabine or fluorouracil (Medical Research Council Adjuvant Gastric Infusional Chemotherapy, MAGIC) and fluorouracil plus leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel (FLOT). This study aimed to compare the effect of these regimens on survival (primary aim) and pathological response, surgical complications, adverse events and chemotherapy completion rates., Methods: Cohort study including 946 patients treated with FLOT (n = 257) or MAGIC (n = 689) who underwent surgical resection for oesophageal (n = 743) or gastric (n = 203) adenocarcinoma between 2002 and 2021 at St Thomas' Hospital or The Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK. Survival analysis was performed using multivariable Cox regression, providing hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for age, sex, clinical T-stage, clinical N-stage, tumour grade and presence of signet ring cells., Results: Patients treated with FLOT had better overall survival (HR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.50-0.94) and disease-free survival (HR = 0.75, 95% CI 0.58-0.98) than MAGIC. Patients treated with FLOT were more likely to have a complete pathological response (9.5% FLOT versus 5.5% MAGIC, p = 0.027) and were less likely to have a positive resection margin (19.1% FLOT versus 32.2% MAGIC, p < 0.001). The stratified analysis revealed similar results for oesophageal and gastric tumours. Rates of surgical complications, chemotherapy-associated adverse events and completion were similarly distributed between treatment groups., Conclusions: Patients with oesophageal or gastric adenocarcinoma treated with peri-operative FLOT had better survival and pathological response than those treated with peri-operative MAGIC. Rates of surgical complications, adverse events and chemotherapy completion were comparable., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this article., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)