| 1. |
- Chesnut, Randall M., et al.
(author)
-
Perceived Utility of Intracranial Pressure Monitoring in Traumatic Brain Injury : A Seattle International Brain Injury Consensus Conference Consensus-Based Analysis and Recommendations
- 2023
-
In: Neurosurgery. - : Oxford University Press. - 0148-396X .- 1524-4040. ; 93:2, s. 399-408
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring is widely practiced, but the indications are incompletely developed, and guidelines are poorly followed. OBJECTIVE: To study the monitoring practices of an established expert panel (the clinical working group from the Seattle International Brain Injury Consensus Conference effort) to examine the match between monitoring guidelines and their clinical decision-making and offer guidance for clinicians considering monitor insertion.METHODS: We polled the 42 Seattle International Brain Injury Consensus Conference panel members' ICP monitoring decisions for virtual patients, using matrices of presenting signs (Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS] total or GCS motor, pupillary examination, and computed tomography diagnosis). Monitor insertion decisions were yes, no, or unsure (traffic light approach). We analyzed their responses for weighting of the presenting signs in decision-making using univariate regression.RESULTS: Heatmaps constructed from the choices of 41 panel members revealed wider ICP monitor use than predicted by guidelines. Clinical examination (GCS) was by far the most important characteristic and differed from guidelines in being nonlinear. The modified Marshall computed tomography classification was second and pupils third. We constructed a heatmap and listed the main clinical determinants representing 80% ICP monitor insertion consensus for our recommendations.CONCLUSION: Candidacy for ICP monitoring exceeds published indicators for monitor insertion, suggesting the clinical perception that the value of ICP data is greater than simply detecting and monitoring severe intracranial hypertension. Monitor insertion heatmaps are offered as potential guidance for ICP monitor insertion and to stimulate research into what actually drives monitor insertion in unconstrained, real-world conditions.
|
|
| 2. |
- Ollila, Hanna M., et al.
(author)
-
Narcolepsy risk loci outline role of T cell autoimmunity and infectious triggers in narcolepsy
- 2023
-
In: Nature Communications. - : Springer Nature. - 2041-1723. ; 14
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Narcolepsy type 1 (NT1) is caused by a loss of hypocretin/orexin transmission. Risk factors include pandemic 2009 H1N1 influenza A infection and immunization with Pandemrix (R). Here, we dissect disease mechanisms and interactions with environmental triggers in a multi-ethnic sample of 6,073 cases and 84,856 controls. We fine-mapped GWAS signals within HLA (DQ0602, DQB1*03:01 and DPB1*04:02) and discovered seven novel associations (CD207, NAB1, IKZF4-ERBB3, CTSC, DENND1B, SIRPG, PRF1). Significant signals at TRA and DQB1*06:02 loci were found in 245 vaccination-related cases, who also shared polygenic risk. T cell receptor associations in NT1 modulated TRAJ*24, TRAJ*28 and TRBV*4-2 chain-usage. Partitioned heritability and immune cell enrichment analyses found genetic signals to be driven by dendritic and helper T cells. Lastly comorbidity analysis using data from FinnGen, suggests shared effects between NT1 and other autoimmune diseases. NT1 genetic variants shape autoimmunity and response to environmental triggers, including influenza A infection and immunization with Pandemrix (R).
|
|
| 3. |
- Sarigul, Buse, et al.
(author)
-
Prognostication and Goals of Care Decisions in Severe Traumatic Brain Injury : A Survey of The Seattle International Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Consensus Conference Working Group
- 2023
-
In: Journal of Neurotrauma. - : Mary Ann Liebert. - 0897-7151 .- 1557-9042. ; 40:15-16, s. 1707-1717
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Best practice guidelines have advanced severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) care; however, there is little that currently informs goals of care decisions and processes despite their importance and frequency. Panelists from the Seattle International severe traumatic Brain Injury Consensus Conference (SIBICC) participated in a survey consisting of 24 questions. Questions queried use of prognostic calculators, variability in and responsibility for goals of care decisions, and acceptability of neurological outcomes, as well as putative means of improving decisions that might limit care. A total of 97.6% of the 42 SIBICC panelists completed the survey. Responses to most questions were highly variable. Overall, panelists reported infrequent use of prognostic calculators, and observed variability in patient prognostication and goals of care decisions. They felt that it would be beneficial for physicians to improve consensus on what constitutes an acceptable neurological outcome as well as what chance of achieving that outcome is acceptable. Panelists felt that the public should help to define what constitutes a good outcome and expressed some support for a "nihilism guard." More than 50% of panelists felt that if it was certain to be permanent, a vegetative state or lower severe disability would justify a withdrawal of care decision, whereas 15% felt that upper severe disability justified such a decision. Whether conceptualizing an ideal or existing prognostic calculator to predict death or an unacceptable outcome, on average a 64-69% chance of a poor outcome was felt to justify treatment withdrawal. These results demonstrate important variability in goals of care decision making and a desire to reduce this variability. Our panel of recognized TBI experts opined on the neurological outcomes and chances of those outcomes that might prompt consideration of care withdrawal; however, imprecision of prognostication and existing prognostication tools is a significant impediment to standardizing the approach to care-limiting decisions.
|
|
| 4. |
- Voss, Erica A, et al.
(author)
-
Contextualising adverse events of special interest to characterise the baseline incidence rates in 24 million patients with COVID-19 across 26 databases: a multinational retrospective cohort study.
- 2023
-
In: EClinicalMedicine. - 2589-5370. ; 58
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Adverse events of special interest (AESIs) were pre-specified to be monitored for the COVID-19 vaccines. Some AESIs are not only associated with the vaccines, but with COVID-19. Our aim was to characterise the incidence rates of AESIs following SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients and compare these to historical rates in the general population.A multi-national cohort study with data from primary care, electronic health records, and insurance claims mapped to a common data model. This study's evidence was collected between Jan 1, 2017 and the conclusion of each database (which ranged from Jul 2020 to May 2022). The 16 pre-specified prevalent AESIs were: acute myocardial infarction, anaphylaxis, appendicitis, Bell's palsy, deep vein thrombosis, disseminated intravascular coagulation, encephalomyelitis, Guillain- Barré syndrome, haemorrhagic stroke, non-haemorrhagic stroke, immune thrombocytopenia, myocarditis/pericarditis, narcolepsy, pulmonary embolism, transverse myelitis, and thrombosis with thrombocytopenia. Age-sex standardised incidence rate ratios (SIR) were estimated to compare post-COVID-19 to pre-pandemic rates in each of the databases.Substantial heterogeneity by age was seen for AESI rates, with some clearly increasing with age but others following the opposite trend. Similarly, differences were also observed across databases for same health outcome and age-sex strata. All studied AESIs appeared consistently more common in the post-COVID-19 compared to the historical cohorts, with related meta-analytic SIRs ranging from 1.32 (1.05 to 1.66) for narcolepsy to 11.70 (10.10 to 13.70) for pulmonary embolism.Our findings suggest all AESIs are more common after COVID-19 than in the general population. Thromboembolic events were particularly common, and over 10-fold more so. More research is needed to contextualise post-COVID-19 complications in the longer term.None.
|
|
