Search

Identifying people at risk for progressive chronic kidney disease and connecting them with recommended care is crucial for providing timely and optimal treatment. The ASSIST-CKD (A programme to Spread eGFR [estimated glomerular filtration rate] graph Surveillance for the early identification, Support and Treatment of people with progressive CKD [chronic kidney disease]) trial evaluated the effect of graphical eGFR reporting to primary care physicians on late presentation to a nephrologist in the United Kingdom. Trial data were obtained from the UK Renal Registry. Although the results were neutral, the data generated from the ASSIST-CKD trial are informative and provide useful estimates of the intervention effect. The trial also provides valuable insights into the challenges of implementing complex interventions in busy health care environments, which can be used to guide the designs of future interventions., (Copyright © 2024 International Society of Nephrology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: We studied the pharmacokinetics and exposure-response relationships of the brentuximab vedotin (BV) antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) and unconjugated monomethyl auristatin E in haematologic malignancies., Methods: This population pharmacokinetic analysis included data from five adult and three paediatric studies. Exposures in virtual adult and paediatric populations following BV 1.8 mg/kg (maximum 180 mg) intravenously every 3 weeks were simulated. Clinical endpoints included overall response rate, grade ≥2 peripheral neuropathy (PN) and grade ≥3 neutropenia., Results: BV ADC exhibited linear pharmacokinetics, well-described by a three-compartment model, with body weight being the only significant covariate for exposure. Monomethyl auristatin E exhibited time-varying formation rate. Simulated steady-state BV ADC exposures in patients aged 12 to <18 years were similar to those of adult patients, but 23%-38% lower in patients aged 2 to <12 years. Despite lower exposure, clinical activity was observed with BV 1.8 mg/kg every 3 weeks in those aged 2 to <12 years (overall response rate: 2 to <12 years, 60%; 12 to <18 years, 43%). In adult, but not paediatric patients, increased BV ADC exposures were associated with grade ≥2 PN and grade ≥3 neutropenia occurrence., Conclusions: BV pharmacokinetics in adult and paediatric patients were consistent. BV ADC exposures were lower in patients aged 2 to <12 years vs. ≥12 years, but no apparent clinically relevant differences in efficacy, grade ≥2 PN or grade ≥3 neutropenia were observed. These data support body weight-based dosing of BV in patients irrespective of age; thus, dose adjustment in those 2 to <12 years does not appear warranted., (© 2024 The Author(s). British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Pharmacological Society.)

Background: There are limited data on the risk of new-onset anxiety disorders in patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS)., Objectives: To compare the risk of new-onset anxiety disorder in patients with HS and controls, and to describe risk factors for the development of anxiety in patients with HS., Methods: We carried out a retrospective cohort analysis of a US electronic health records database between 2011 and 2020. Adults newly diagnosed with HS at a dermatology or primary care visit and control participants were included. The primary outcome was a new diagnosis of generalized anxiety disorder, phobic disorders, panic disorder or unspecified anxiety. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to compare the crude risk of any anxiety disorder between groups and to assess the independent association with HS while controlling for potential demographic, clinical and healthcare-related confounders., Results: Among 9597 patients with HS and 959 493 controls, the incidence rate (IR) of anxiety was 5.74 and 3.86 per 100 person-years (PY), respectively. The crude risk among all patients was 48% higher for those with HS vs. controls [hazard ratio (HR) 1.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.40-1.55]. When stratified by index encounter type, patients with HS had 2.43 (95% CI 2.13-2.77) times the risk of anxiety disorder than dermatology controls and 1.46 (95%CI 1.38-1.55) times the risk than primary care controls. The adjusted HR for patients with HS vs. controls was 1.11 (95% CI 1.05-1.17) overall, 1.26 (95% CI 1.07-1.48) in the dermatology subgroup and 1.07 (95% CI 1.01-1.13) in the primary care subgroup. Risk factors for an incident anxiety diagnosis among patients with HS included depression (HR 1.69, 95% CI 1.48-1.93), female sex (HR 1.41, 95% CI 1.23-1.60), younger age (HR 0.87 per 10-year increase, 95% CI 0.84-0.90), White race, in the Medicaid insurance programme (HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.07-1.40), tobacco smoking (HR 1.16, 95% CI 1.03-1.31) and having one or more emergency department visits in the year before a HS diagnosis. Absolute IRs of anxiety disorders were highest among patients with HS who were aged 18-29 years (7.10 per 100 PY), female (6.34 per 100 PY) and White (6.79 per 100 PY)., Conclusions: HS is independently associated with an increased risk of anxiety disorders. An increased risk remains but is attenuated when confounders are controlled for. The relative risk may be particularly high in patients managed by dermatologists., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest A.G. is an advisor for AbbVie, Aclaris Therapeutics, Anaptys Bio, Aristea Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cosmo Pharmaceutical, Incyte, Insmed, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sonoma Biotherapeutics, UCB, Union Therapeutics, Ventyx Biosciences and Viela Biosciences, and receives honoraria. A.G. receives research grants from AbbVie, UCB, the National Psoriasis Foundation and the CHORD COUSIN Collaboration (C3)., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is common in hospitalized children. Pediatric AKI receiving acute kidney replacement therapy (KRT) is associated with long-term chronic kidney disease (CKD), hypertension, and death. We aim to determine the outcomes after AKI in children who did not receive acute KRT, since these remain uncertain., Methods: Retrospective cohort study of all hospitalized children (0-18 years) surviving AKI without acute KRT between 1996-2020 in Ontario, Canada, identified by validated diagnostic codes in provincial administrative health databases. Children with prior KRT, CKD, or AKI were excluded. Cases were matched with up to four hospitalized comparators without AKI by age, neonatal status, sex, intensive care unit admission, cardiac surgery, malignancy, hypertension, hospitalization era, and a propensity score for AKI. Patients were followed until death, provincial emigration, or censoring in March 2021. The primary outcome was long-term major adverse kidney events (MAKE-LT; a composite of all-cause mortality, long-term KRT, or incident CKD)., Results: We matched 4,173 pediatric AKI survivors with 16,337 hospitalized comparators. Baseline covariates were well-balanced following propensity score matching. During median 9.7-year follow-up, 18% of AKI survivors developed MAKE-LT vs. 5% of hospitalized comparators (hazard ratio [HR] 4.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.6-4.4). AKI survivors had higher rates of long-term KRT (2% vs. <1%; HR 11.7, 95%CI 7.5-18.4), incident CKD (16% vs. 2%; HR 7.9, 95%CI 6.9-9.1), incident hypertension (17% vs. 8%; HR 2.3, 95%CI 2.1-2.6), and AKI during subsequent hospitalization (6% vs. 2%; HR 3.7, 95%CI 3.1-4.5), but no difference in all-cause mortality (3% vs. 3%; HR 0.9, 95%CI 0.7-1.1)., Conclusions: Children surviving AKI without acute KRT were at higher long-term risk of CKD, long-term KRT, hypertension, and subsequent AKI vs. hospitalized comparators., (Copyright © 2024 by the American Society of Nephrology.)

Purpose: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the relationships between brentuximab vedotin (BV) pharmacokinetics, age, and body weight (BW) with efficacy and safety in pediatric and young adult patients with previously untreated, high-risk classical Hodgkin lymphoma in the phase III AHOD1331 study., Experimental Design: Overall, 296 patients (age 2-21 years) in the overall population were randomized to and received BV + chemotherapy; the pharmacokinetic subpopulation comprised 24 patients (age <13 years). Age- and/or BW-based (pharmacokinetic surrogates) subgroup analyses of efficacy and safety were conducted for the overall population. Exposure-response analyses were limited to the pharmacokinetic subpopulation., Results: There were no visible trends in disease characteristics across pediatric age subgroups, whereas BW increased with age. Observed antibody-drug conjugate exposures in patients ages <12 years were lower than those in adults administered BV 1.8 mg/kg every 3 weeks, as exposure increased with BW. Nevertheless, no detrimental impact on event-free survival was seen in younger subgroups: 3-year event-free survival rates were 96.2% (2-<12 years) and 92.0% (12-<18 years), with no events observed in those ages <6 years. Neither early response nor lack of need for radiation therapy was associated with high pharmacokinetic exposure. No evidence of exposure-driven grade ≥2 or ≥3 peripheral neuropathy or grade ≥3 neutropenia was seen in exposure-safety and BW-based subgroup analyses; the incidence of these safety events was comparable across pediatric age subgroups, despite lower exposure in younger children., Conclusions: No further adjustments based on age or BW are required for the BV dosage (1.8 mg/kg every 3 weeks) approved in children., (©2024 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Quality indicators in kidney transplants are needed to identify care gaps and improve access to transplants. We used linked administrative health care databases to examine multiple ways of defining pre-emptive living donor kidney transplants, including different patient cohorts and censoring definitions. We included adults from Ontario, Canada with advanced chronic kidney disease between January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2018. We created 4 unique incident patient cohorts, varying the eligibility by the risk of progression to kidney failure and whether individuals had a recorded contraindication to kidney transplant (eg, home oxygen use). We explored the effect of 4 censoring event definitions. Across the 4 cohorts, size varied substantially from 20 663 to 9598 patients, with the largest reduction (a 43% reduction) occurring when we excluded patients with ≥1 recorded contraindication to kidney transplantation. The incidence rate (per 100 person-years) of pre-emptive living donor kidney transplant varied across cohorts from 1.02 (95% CI: 0.91-1.14) for our most inclusive cohort to 2.21 (95% CI: 1.96-2.49) for the most restrictive cohort. Our methods can serve as a framework for developing other quality indicators in kidney transplantation and monitoring and improving access to pre-emptive living donor kidney transplants in health care systems., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors of this manuscript have conflicts of interest to disclose as described by the American Journal of Transplantation. Amit Garg received an investigator-initiated grant from Astellas which featured as partnership funds in CIHR-funded research. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 American Society of Transplantation & American Society of Transplant Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Lichen planopilaris (LPP) is a form of scarring alopecia associated with progressive, permanent hair loss. Symptoms range from burning pain to itching, also carrying substantial psychological morbidity. Yet, disease characteristics, pathophysiology, and effective treatment data are limited, making treatment a challenge., Objective: To describe the prevalence and dermatologist-prescribed treatment patterns of LPP among US adults., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used the Explorys database. The prevalence analysis used a 15% random sample and identified US adults with LPP diagnoses between 2017 and 2019. The LPP treatment analysis included all patients with LPP diagnoses between 2016 and 2020 and a dermatologist encounter in the first year after diagnosis. Data were analyzed from January 2023 to April 2023., Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes of the prevalence analysis were the crude and standardized prevalence estimates of US adults with LPP across age, sex, and racial groups. The main outcomes of the treatment analysis were the frequency of LPP treatments within 1 year of diagnosis, and the number of patients who continued treatment beyond 1 year, switched treatments, and combined treatments., Results: Among 1 466 832 eligible patients analyzed for prevalence, 241 patients had an LPP diagnosis (222 [92.1%] female; median [IQR] age, 64 [54-73] years). Standardized overall prevalence was 13.4 per 100 000 (95% CI, 11.7-15.1). In the treatment analysis, 991 patients had an LPP diagnosis (907 [91.5%] female; median (IQR) age, 60 [47-69] years). Most received at least 1 type of medication (635 [64.1%]), most frequently intralesional corticosteroids (370 [37.3%]) and topical corticosteroids (342 [34.5%]), followed by doxycycline (104 [10.5%]) and hydroxychloroquine (72 [7.3%]). Treatment continued beyond 1 year in 71 of 200 patients (35.5%) prescribed intralesional corticosteroids and 7 of 29 patients (24.1%) prescribed hydroxychloroquine. Treatment switching at 1 year occurred in 32 of 254 patients (12.6%) first prescribed an intralesional corticosteroid and in 44 of 194 (22.7%) first prescribed a topical corticosteroid. Combinations of 2 or 3 treatment types were given to 137 (13.8%) and 74 (7.5%) patients, respectively., Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study reported prevalence and treatment patterns for US adults with LPP in a representative sample. Most patients with LPP received treatment, and many received multiple treatment types and switched treatments, suggesting further research into medication selection offers clinical benefit.

Nurses play a key role in providing in-hospital care to patients. Worldwide, there has been a shortage of nursing staff, putting enormous strain on the existing nursing workforce physically and mentally. A vicious cycle of demanding workplaces exacerbated by perennial shortages leads to attrition and high staff turnover. A centralized, automated infusion pump monitoring system optimizes and augments nurses' performance in the hospital by cutting down on nurse visits to the patient's bedside for every matter, whether significant or insignificant. This viewpoint intends to highlight that by filtering out the noise effectively, nurses can focus on improving patient outcome-led interventions and enhancing the quality of care., (©Naruemol Chindamorragot, Orawan Suitthimeathegorn, Amit Garg. Originally published in the Asian/Pacific Island Nursing Journal (https://apinj.jmir.org), 24.07.2024.)

Importance: Recent guidelines call for better evidence on health outcomes after living kidney donation., Objective: To determine the risk of hypertension in normotensive adults who donated a kidney compared with nondonors of similar baseline health. Their rates of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline and risk of albuminuria were also compared., Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective cohort study of 924 standard-criteria living kidney donors enrolled before surgery and a concurrent sample of 396 nondonors. Recruitment occurred from 2004 to 2014 from 17 transplant centers (12 in Canada and 5 in Australia); follow-up occurred until November 2021. Donors and nondonors had the same annual schedule of follow-up assessments. Inverse probability of treatment weighting on a propensity score was used to balance donors and nondonors on baseline characteristics., Exposure: Living kidney donation., Main Outcomes and Measures: Hypertension (systolic blood pressure [SBP] ≥140 mm Hg, diastolic blood pressure [DBP] ≥90 mm Hg, or antihypertensive medication), annualized change in eGFR (starting 12 months after donation/simulated donation date in nondonors), and albuminuria (albumin to creatinine ratio ≥3 mg/mmol [≥30 mg/g])., Results: Among the 924 donors, 66% were female; they had a mean age of 47 years and a mean eGFR of 100 mL/min/1.73 m2. Donors were more likely than nondonors to have a family history of kidney failure (464/922 [50%] vs 89/394 [23%], respectively). After statistical weighting, the sample of nondonors increased to 928 and baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. During a median follow-up of 7.3 years (IQR, 6.0-9.0), in weighted analysis, hypertension occurred in 161 of 924 donors (17%) and 158 of 928 nondonors (17%) (weighted hazard ratio, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.75-1.66]). The longitudinal change in mean blood pressure was similar in donors and nondonors. After the initial drop in donors' eGFR after nephrectomy (mean, 32 mL/min/1.73 m2), donors had a 1.4-mL/min/1.73 m2 (95% CI, 1.2-1.5) per year lesser decline in eGFR than nondonors. However, more donors than nondonors had an eGFR between 30 and 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 at least once in follow-up (438/924 [47%] vs 49/928 [5%]). Albuminuria occurred in 132 of 905 donors (15%) and 95 of 904 nondonors (11%) (weighted hazard ratio, 1.46 [95% CI, 0.97-2.21]); the weighted between-group difference in the albumin to creatinine ratio was 1.02 (95% CI, 0.88-1.19)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of living kidney donors and nondonors with the same follow-up schedule, the risks of hypertension and albuminuria were not significantly different. After the initial drop in eGFR from nephrectomy, donors had a slower mean rate of eGFR decline than nondonors but were more likely to have an eGFR between 30 and 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 at least once in follow-up., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00936078.

Enfortumab vedotin is a fully human monoclonal antibody directed to Nectin-4 and conjugated to monomethyl auristatin E (MMAE), approved for treatment of previously treated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC). This population analysis characterized pharmacokinetics of enfortumab vedotin and free (unconjugated) MMAE, identified covariates affecting pharmacokinetics, and evaluated weight-based dosing for enfortumab vedotin. Exposure-response analyses characterized relationships between enfortumab vedotin and free MMAE exposures and efficacy/safety endpoints. Data from 748 patients with locally advanced or mUC in 5 clinical studies were analyzed using nonlinear mixed-effects modeling. Patients received enfortumab vedotin 0.50-1.25 mg/kg every 3 weeks or on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle. Relevant covariates retained in final models were evaluated for clinical relevance to enfortumab vedotin and free MMAE exposures. Although some covariates produced differences in exposure, the magnitude of changes was not clinically meaningful. Simulations indicated weight-based dosing yielded more consistent exposures across body weight groups vs. a hypothetical fixed-dose regimen of enfortumab vedotin 95 mg (calculated for median body weight, 75 kg). Exposure-response analysis showed average enfortumab vedotin concentrations were not a statistically significant predictor of overall survival (hazard ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval: 0.72-1.14; P = 0.41); all exposure quartiles had a greater median overall survival than chemotherapy (11.0-12.6 vs. 9.0 months). Enfortumab vedotin and free MMAE exposures were statistically significant predictors of grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events (both P < 0.0001). This analysis supports enfortumab vedotin 1.25 mg/kg on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle., (© 2024 The Author(s). Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

The American Radium Society (ARS) Central Nervous System (CNS) committee reviewed literature on epidermal growth factor receptor mutated (EGFRm) and ALK-fusion (ALK+) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) for the treatment of brain metastases (BrMs) from non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) to generate appropriate use guidelines addressing use of TKIs in conjunction with or in lieu of radiotherapy (RT). The panel developed three key questions to guide systematic review: can radiotherapy be deferred in patients receiving EGFR or ALK TKIs at (1) diagnosis or (2) recurrence? Should TKI be administered concurrently with RT (3)? Two literature searches were performed (May 2019 and December 2023). The panel developed 8 model cases and voted on treatment options using a 9-point scale, with 1-3, 4-6 and 7-9 corresponding to usually not appropriate, may be appropriate, and usually appropriate (respectively), per the UCLA/RAND Appropriateness Method. Consensus was achieved in only 4 treatment scenarios, all consistent with existing ARS-AUC guidelines for multiple BrM. The panel did not reach consensus that RT can be appropriately deferred in patients with BrM receiving CNS penetrant ALK or EGFR TKIs, though median scores indicated deferral may be appropriate under most circumstances. Whole brain RT with concurrent TKI generated broad disagreement except in cases with 2-4 BrM, where it was considered usually not appropriate. We identified no definitive studies dictating optimal sequencing of TKIs and RT for EGFRm and ALK+ BrM. Until such studies are completed, the committee hopes these cases guide decision- making in this complex clinical space., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Neuro-Oncology.)

Background: The evidence for acute effects of air pollution on mortality in India is scarce, despite the extreme concentrations of air pollution observed. This is the first multi-city study in India that examines the association between short-term exposure to PM 2·5 and daily mortality using causal methods that highlight the importance of locally generated air pollution., Methods: We applied a time-series analysis to ten cities in India between 2008 and 2019. We assessed city-wide daily PM 2·5 concentrations using a novel hybrid nationwide spatiotemporal model and estimated city-specific effects of PM 2·5 using a generalised additive Poisson regression model. City-specific results were then meta-analysed. We applied an instrumental variable causal approach (including planetary boundary layer height, wind speed, and atmospheric pressure) to evaluate the causal effect of locally generated air pollution on mortality. We obtained an integrated exposure-response curve through a multivariate meta-regression of the city-specific exposure-response curve and calculated the fraction of deaths attributable to air pollution concentrations exceeding the current WHO 24 h ambient PM 2·5 guideline of 15 μg/m 3 . To explore the shape of the exposure-response curve at lower exposures, we further limited the analyses to days with concentrations lower than the current Indian standard (60 μg/m 3 )., Findings: We observed that a 10 μg/m 3 increase in 2-day moving average of PM 2·5 was associated with 1·4% (95% CI 0·7-2·2) higher daily mortality. In our causal instrumental variable analyses representing the effect of locally generated air pollution, we observed a stronger association with daily mortality (3·6% [2·1-5·0]) than our overall estimate. Our integrated exposure-response curve suggested steeper slopes at lower levels of exposure and an attenuation of the slope at high exposure levels. We observed two times higher risk of death per 10 μg/m 3 increase when restricting our analyses to observations below the Indian air quality standard (2·7% [1·7-3·6]). Using the integrated exposure-response curve, we observed that 7·2% (4·2%-10·1%) of all daily deaths were attributed to PM 2·5 concentrations higher than the WHO guidelines., Interpretation: Short-term PM 2·5 exposure was associated with a high risk of death in India, even at concentrations well below the current Indian PM 2·5 standard. These associations were stronger for locally generated air pollutants quantified through causal modelling methods than conventional time-series analysis, further supporting a plausible causal link., Funding: Swedish Research Council for Sustainable Development., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests PP reports working as a consultant for World Bank for climate change and health outcomes. GAW reports receiving consulting income from the Health Efects Institute and Google. PL has received air travel and hotel accommodation paid by Fondazione Menarini to attend and hold a presentation at the Respirami meeting in Milan. He is the Scientific Secretary of the Swedish Society of Cardiology and co-chair of the European Chapter of International Society of Environmental Epidemiology (both unpaid). He was a paid member of the ethical committee board for the Swedish Ethical Authority 2022–23. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) may increase digoxin concentration, a medication with a narrow therapeutic index. Small changes in digoxin concentration could predispose individuals to the risk of toxicity., Objective: To characterize the risk of digoxin toxicity in older adults taking digoxin following co-prescription of TMP-SMX compared with co-prescription of amoxicillin., Design, Settings, and Participants: Retrospective population-based cohort study in Ontario, Canada (2002-2020) using linked health care data. Participants comprised 47,961 older adults taking digoxin (58% women; median age 80 years [interquartile range 74-86]) who were newly treated with TMP-SMX (n = 10,273) compared with those newly treated with amoxicillin (n = 37,688)., Exposure: Co-prescription of TMP-SMX versus amoxicillin in older adults concurrently taking digoxin., Main Outcome and Measure: The primary outcome was a hospital encounter (i.e., hospital admission or emergency department visit) with digoxin toxicity within 30 days of the antibiotic prescription. Inverse probability of treatment weighting on the propensity score was used to balance comparison groups on indicators of baseline health. Weighted risk ratios (RR) were obtained using modified Poisson regression and weighted risk differences (RD) using binomial regression. The number needed to harm (NNH) was calculated as 1/RD., Results: A hospital encounter with digoxin toxicity occurred in 49/10,273 (0.48%) patients treated with TMP-SMX versus 32/37,688 (0.08%) in those treated with amoxicillin (weighted RR, 5.71 [95% confidence interval (CI), 3.19 to 10.24]; weighted RD, 0.39% [95% CI, 0.25% to 0.53%]; NNH 256 [95% CI, 233 to 400])., Conclusion and Relevance: In older adults taking digoxin, the 30-day risk of a hospital encounter with digoxin toxicity was nearly 6 times higher in those co-prescribed TMP-SMX versus amoxicillin, although the absolute risk difference was low (0.4%). Physicians should prescribe an alternative antibiotic when clinically appropriate. If TMP-SMX must be co-prescribed with digoxin (if the benefit is believed to outweigh the risk), digoxin should be dose-reduced on an individual basis., (© 2024 The Author(s). Pharmacotherapy: The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug Therapy published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Pharmacotherapy Publications, Inc.)

Background: Mental health problems, particularly anxiety and depression, are common in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and negatively impact quality of life, treatment adherence and mortality. However, the degree to which mental health and addiction services are utilized by those with CKD is unknown. We examined the history of mental health and addiction service use of individuals across levels of kidney function., Methods: We performed a population-based cross-sectional study using linked healthcare databases from Ontario, Canada from 2009 to 2017. We abstracted the prevalence of individuals with mental health and addiction service use within the previous 3 years across levels of kidney function [estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥60, 45 to <60, 30 to <45, 15 to <30, <15 ml/min/1.73 m2 and maintenance dialysis]. We calculated prevalence ratios (PRs) to compare prevalence across kidney function strata, while adjusting for age, sex, year of cohort entry, urban versus rural location, area-level marginalization and Charlson comorbidity index., Results: Of 5 956 589 adults, 9% (n = 534 605) had an eGFR <60 ml/min/1.73 m2 or were receiving maintenance dialysis. Fewer individuals with an eGFR <60 ml/min/1.73 m2 had a history of any mental health and addiction service utilization (crude prevalence range 28-31%) compared with individuals with an eGFR ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m2 (35%). Compared with an eGFR ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m2, the lowest prevalence of individuals with any mental health and addiction service utilization was among those with an eGFR of 15 to <30 ml/min/1.73 m2 {adjusted PR 0.86 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 0.88]}, an eGFR <15 ml/min/1.73 m2 [adjusted PR 0.81 (95% CI 0.76-0.86)] and those receiving maintenance dialysis [adjusted PR 0.83 (95% CI 0.81-0.84)]. Less use of outpatient services accounted for differences in service utilization., Conclusions: Mental health and addiction service utilization is common but less so in individuals with advanced CKD in Ontario, Canada., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the ERA.)

Background: Solid organ transplant recipients have a high risk of severe outcomes from SARS-CoV-2 infection. A comprehensive understanding of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic across multiple waves in the solid organ transplant population and how this compares to the general population is limited. We conducted a population-based cohort study using linked administrative healthcare databases from Ontario, Canada to answer this question., Methods: We included 15 306 solid organ transplant recipients and 12 160 904 individuals from the general population. Our primary outcome was the rate (per 100 person-years) of severe COVID-19 (ie, hospitalization or death with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test) occurring between January 25, 2020, and November 30, 2022., Results: Compared with the general population, solid organ transplant recipients had almost a 6 times higher rate of severe COVID-19 (20.39 versus 3.44 per 100 person-years), with almost 5.5 times as high a rate of death alone (4.19 versus 0.77 per 100 person-years). Transplant recipients with severe COVID-19 were substantially younger (60.1 versus 66.5 y) and had more comorbidities. The rate of severe COVID-19 declined over time in the solid organ transplant population, with an incidence rate of 41.25 per 100 person-years in the first wave (January 25, 2020, to August 31, 2020) and 18.41 in the seventh wave (June 19, 2022, to November 30, 2022, Omicron era)., Conclusions: Solid organ transplant recipients remain at high risk of severe outcomes when they are infected with SARS-CoV-2. Resources and strategies to mitigate the impact of SARS-CoV-2 exposure are needed in this vulnerable patient population., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Transplantation Direct. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Objectives: To determine COVID-19 vaccine uptake among physicians in Ontario, Canada from 14 December 2020 to 13 February 2022., Design: Population-based retrospective cohort study., Setting: All registered physicians in Ontario, Canada using data from linked provincial administrative healthcare databases., Participants: 41 267 physicians (including postgraduate trainees) who were Ontario residents and registered with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario were included. Physicians who were out of province, had not accessed Ontario Health Insurance Plan-insured services for their own care for ≥5 years and those with missing identifiers were excluded., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: Primary outcomes were the proportions of physicians who were recorded to have received at least one, at least two and three doses of a Health Canada-approved COVID-19 vaccine by study end date. Secondary outcomes were how uptake varied by physician characteristics (including age, sex, specialty and residential location) and time elapsed between doses., Results: Of 41 267 physicians, (56% male, mean age 47 years), 39 359 (95.4%) received at least one dose, 39 148 (94.9%) received at least two doses and 35 834 (86.8%) received three doses of a COVID-19 vaccine. Of those who received three doses, the proportions were 90.4% among those aged ≥60 years and 81.2-89.5% among other age groups; 88.7% among family physicians and 89% among specialists. 1908 physicians (4.6%) had no record of vaccination, and this included 3.4% of family physicians and 4.1% of specialists; however, 28% of this group had missing specialty information., Conclusions: In Ontario, within 14 months of COVID-19 vaccine availability, 86.8% of physicians had three doses of a COVID-19 vaccine, compared with 45.6% of the general population. Findings may signify physicians' confidence in the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MS has received speaker fees from AstraZeneca. No other competing interests were declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Patients with hidradenitis suppurativa have substantial unmet clinical needs and scarce therapeutic options. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of bimekizumab, a monoclonal IgG1 antibody that selectively inhibits interleukin (IL)-17F and IL-17A, in patients with moderate-to-severe hidradenitis suppurativa., Methods: BE HEARD I and II were two identically designed, 48-week randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre phase 3 trials. Patients aged 18 years or older with moderate-to-severe hidradenitis suppurativa were randomly assigned 2:2:2:1 using interactive response technology (stratified by worst Hurley Stage at baseline and baseline systemic antibiotic use) to receive subcutaneous bimekizumab 320 mg every 2 weeks; bimekizumab 320 mg every 2 weeks to week 16, then every 4 weeks to week 48; bimekizumab 320 mg every 4 weeks to week 48; or placebo to week 16, then bimekizumab 320 mg every 2 weeks. The primary outcome was an hidradenitis suppurativa clinical response of at least 50%, defined as a reduction in total abscess and inflammatory nodule count of at least 50% from baseline with no increase from baseline in abscess or draining tunnel count (HiSCR50) at week 16. Efficacy analyses included all randomly assigned study patients (intention-to-treat population). Safety analyses included all patients who received at least one full or partial dose of study treatment in the safety set, and of bimekizumab in the active-medication set. These trials are registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04242446 and NCT04242498, and both are completed., Findings: Patients for BE HEARD I were recruited from Feb 19, 2020, to Oct 27, 2021, and 505 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned. Patients for BE HEARD II were recruited from March 2, 2020, to July 28, 2021, and 509 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned. The primary outcome at week 16 was met in the group who received bimekizumab every 2 weeks using modified non-responder imputation; higher responder rates were observed with bimekizumab versus placebo in both trials: 138 (48%) of 289 patients versus 21 (29%) of 72 patients in BE HEARD I (odds ratio [OR] 2·23 [97·5% CI 1·16-4·31]; p=0·0060) and 151 (52%) of 291 patients versus 24 (32%) of 74 patients in BE HEARD II (2·29 [1·22-4·29]; p=0·0032). In BE HEARD II, HiSCR50 was also met in the group who were administered bimekizumab every 4 weeks (77 [54%] of 144 vs 24 [32%] of 74 with placebo; 2·42 [1·22-4·80]; p=0·0038). Responses were maintained or increased to week 48. Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 40 (8%) patients in BE HEARD I and in 24 (5%) patients in BE HEARD II treated with bimekizumab over 48 weeks. The most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse events to week 48 were hidradenitis in both trials, in addition to coronavirus infection and diarrhoea in BE HEARD I, and oral candidiasis and headache in BE HEARD II. One death was reported across the two trials, and was due to congestive heart failure in a patient with substantial cardiovascular history treated with bimekizumab every 2 weeks in BE HEARD I (considered unrelated to bimekizumab treatment by the investigator). No new safety signals were observed., Interpretation: Bimekizumab was well tolerated by patients with hidradenitis suppurativa and produced rapid and deep clinically meaningful responses that were maintained up to 48 weeks. Data from these two trials support the use of bimekizumab for the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe hidradenitis suppurativa., Funding: UCB Pharma., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests ABK reports grants paid to the institution from AbbVie, Admirx, Anapyts Bio, Aristea, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly and Company, Incyte, Janssen, MoonLake Immunotherapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, Prometheus, Sonoma Bio, and UCB Pharma; consulting fees from AbbVie, Alumis, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, MoonLake Immunotherapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, Priovant, Sonoma Bio, Sanofi, Target RWE, UCB Pharma, Union, and Ventyx; and serves on the board of directors of Almirall. GBEJ reports honoraria for participation on advisory boards from AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chemocentryx, Incyte, Janssen-Cilag, LEO Pharma, Novartis, and UCB Pharma; and acted as an investigator for AbbVie, CJSL, InflaRx, Janssen-Cilag, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi, and UCB Pharma. CJS acted as an investigator for AbbVie, Chemocentryx, GSK, Incyte, InflaRx, Novartis, and UCB Pharma; reports consultancy fees from AbbVie, Alumis, InflaRx, Incyte, Logical Images, Sonoma Biotherapeutics, and UCB Pharma; and acted as a speaker for AbbVie and Novartis. JSK reports personal fees from AbbVie, ChemoCentryx, CJSL Behring, DermTech, Incyte, Insmed, Janssen, MoonLake, Novartis, and UCB Pharma; personal fees and grants from Incyte; is a co-copyright holder of HiSQOL; has been a consultant for and received honoraria from AbbVie, Alumis, DermTech, Incyte, Insmed, Janssen, MoonLake Immunotherapeutics, Novartis, and UCB Pharma; and has been a speaker for AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB Pharma. EP has been a consultant, advisory board member, speaker for, and received honoraria from Almirall, Janssen-Cilag, GSK, MoonLake Immunotherapeutics, Novartis, and UCB Pharma; and his department received investigator-initiated grant support from AbbVie, Celgene, CHDR, Citryll, Kymera, Janssen-Cilag, and UCB Pharma. JRI receives a stipend as Editor‑in‑Chief of the British Journal of Dermatology and an authorship honorarium from UpToDate; has been a consultant for AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, ChemoCentryx, Citryll, MoonLake Immunotherapeutics, Novartis, UCB Pharma, and Union Therapeutics, and has served on advisory boards for Insmed, Kymera Therapeutics, and Viela Bio; is a co‑copyright holder of the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Quality of Life score (HiSQOL) and hidradenitis suppurativa-Investigator Global Assessment; and his department receives income from copyright of the Dermatology Life Quality Instrument and related instruments. AG has been a consultant and receives honoraria from AbbVie, Aclaris Therapeutics, AnaptysBio, Aristea Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Incyte, Insmed, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sonoma Biotherapeutics, UCB Pharma, Union Therapeutics, Ventyx Biosciences, and Viela Biosciences; has received research grants from AbbVie, C3, National Psoriasis Foundation, and UCB Pharma; and is a co-copyright holder of HiSQOL and hidradenitis suppurativa-IGA. ABG reports honoraria as an advisory board member and consultant for Amgen, Almirall, AnaptysBio, Avotres Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dice Therapeutics, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi, UCB Pharma, and Xbiotech; and research or educational grants from AnaptysBio, Bristol Myers Squibb, MoonLake Immunotherapeutics, Novartis, and UCB Pharma (all paid to Mount Sinai School of Medicine). JCJS has acted as a consultant and advisory board member of AbbVie, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi Genzyme, and Trevi Therapeutics; acted as a speaker for AbbVie, Almirall, Eli Lilly and Company, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre-Fabre, Sanofi, and UCB Pharma; and has acted as an investigator for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Galapagos, Galderma, Incyte, InflaRX, Janssen, Kliniksa, Kymab Limited, Menlo Therapeutics, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regereron Pharmaceuticals, Trevi Therapeutics, and UCB Pharma. FGB reports honoraria for participation in advisory boards, in clinical trials, and as a speaker from AbbVie, AbbVie Deutschland, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celltrion, Dr. Wolff, Incyte, Janssen, Mölnlycke, MoonLake Immunotherapeutics, Novartis, and UCB Pharma. EJG-B reports honoraria from Abbott Products Operations, bioMérieux, Brahms, GSK, InflaRX, Sobi and XBiotech; independent educational grants from Abbott Products Operations, AxisShield, bioMérieux, InflaRx, Johnson & Johnson, MSD, Novartis, Sobi, and XBiotech; and funding from the Horizon2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie International Training Network the European Sepsis Academy (granted to the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens), the Horizon 2020 European Grants ImmunoSep and RISCinCOVID (granted to the Hellenic Institute for the Study of Sepsis) and the Horizon Health grant EPIC-CROWN-2 (granted to the Hellenic Institute for the Study of Sepsis). HF reports honoraria or fees for serving on advisory boards, as a speaker, and as a consultant; and grants as an investigator from AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, Japan Blood Products Organization, JMEC, Kaken Pharmaceutical, Kyowa Kirin, LEO Pharma, Maruho, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Nihon Pharmaceutical, Novartis, Otsuka Pharmaceutical, Sanofi, Sato Pharmaceutical, Sun Pharma, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Torii Pharmaceutical, UCB Pharma, and Ushio. RR, PJ, PD, EM, and LP are employees and shareholders of UCB Pharma. CM is a former employee and shareholder of UCB Pharma. MB is an employee of UCB Pharma. CCZ reports grants paid to the institution from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, InflaRx, Novartis, Relaxera, and UCB Pharma for participation as a clinical and research investigator; consultant honoraria from AccureAcne, Almirall, Boehringer Ingelheim, Incyte, InflaRx, Janssen, L'Oréal, Luvos, NAOS-BIODERMA, Novartis, PPM, Sanofi, UCB Pharma, and Viatris; lecture fees from Almirall, Biogen, Novartis, Sobi, and UCB Pharma; and is the president of the European Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation, coordinator of the ALLOCATE Skin group of the European Reference Network for rare skin diseases, and chair of the Acne, Rosacea and Hidradenitis Suppurativa Task Force group of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV); is the editor of the EADV News; and co-copyright holder of the International Hidradenitis Suppurativa Severity Score System on behalf of the European Hidradenitis Supurativa Foundation., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Background: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is common after major abdominal surgery. Selection of candidate kidney protective strategies for testing in large trials should be based on robust preliminary evidence., Methods: A secondary analysis of the Restrictive versus Liberal Fluid Therapy in Major Abdominal Surgery (RELIEF) trial was conducted in adult patients undergoing major abdominal surgery and randomly assigned to a restrictive or liberal perioperative fluid regimen. The primary outcome was maximum AKI stage before hospital discharge. Two multivariable ordinal regression models were developed to test the primary hypothesis that modifiable risk factors associated with increased maximum stage of postoperative AKI could be identified. Each model used a separate approach to variable selection to assess the sensitivity of the findings to modeling approach. For model 1, variable selection was informed by investigator opinion; for model 2, the Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) technique was used to develop a data-driven model from available variables., Results: Of 2,444 patients analyzed, stage 1, 2, and 3 AKI occurred in 223 (9.1%), 59 (2.4%), and 36 (1.5%) patients, respectively. In multivariable modeling by model 1, administration of a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug or cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor, intraoperatively only (odds ratio, 1.77 [99% CI, 1.11 to 2.82]), and preoperative day-of-surgery administration of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker compared to no regular use (odds ratio, 1.84 [99% CI, 1.15 to 2.94]) were associated with increased odds for greater maximum stage AKI. These results were unchanged in model 2, with the additional finding of an inverse association between nadir hemoglobin concentration on postoperative day 1 and greater maximum stage AKI., Conclusions: Avoiding intraoperative nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors is a potential strategy to mitigate the risk for postoperative AKI. The findings strengthen the rationale for a clinical trial comprehensively testing the risk-benefit ratio of these drugs in the perioperative period., (Copyright © 2024 American Society of Anesthesiologists. All Rights Reserved.)

Importance: Assessment of type, severity, and impact of dermatologic adverse events (DAEs) necessitates well-developed and validated clinician-reported outcome measures (ClinROMs) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) that evaluate concepts specific to mucocutaneous toxic effects and that allow appropriate interpretation and comparison of DAEs across trials., Objective: To evaluate heterogeneity and quality of ClinROMs and PROMs used to assess DAEs from systemic cancer therapy., Evidence Review: Two systematic reviews were conducted by searching PubMed and Embase databases from inception through March 7, 2023, and April 12, 2023. The first search included randomized clinical trials and observational studies reporting systemic cancer treatment-induced DAEs assessed by a ClinROM or PROM. The second included studies evaluating measurement properties of frequently used ClinROM and PROM instruments. The Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments risk of bias tool was used to evaluate methodologic quality of validation assessments., Findings: A total of 395 studies were included. The Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) was utilized in 331 studies meeting inclusion criteria (83.8%). At least 1 skin-related PROM was infrequently utilized in systemic chemotherapy clinical trials (79 studies [20.0%]). Most frequently utilized PROMs were the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI; 34 studies [8.6%]) and Skindex-16 (20 studies [5.1%]). Among studies capturing DAEs, 115 (29.1%) reported a nondescript term (ie, rash) as the only DAE. Eight studies described 44 property assessments of the CTCAE, DLQI, and Skindex. There were no studies evaluating content validity, intrarater reliability, or measurement error for the CTCAE, DLQI, or Skindex. There were no studies evaluating structural validity, internal consistency, and responsiveness of DLQI or Skindex. Interrater reliability and responsiveness were each assessed for 1 DAE-related component of the CTCAE. Construct validity for CTCAE, DLQI, and Skindex was evaluated in 29 (65.9%), 3 (6.8%), and 9 (20.5%) assessments, respectively., Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review, there was a narrow spectrum of ClinROMs and PROMs with limited validity for the measurement of DAEs in the context of systemic chemotherapy interventions in clinical trials. Report of trial DAEs often had low morphologic specificity and meaning. Based on existing gaps in measurement and report of DAEs, a frequent and impactful adverse event to chemotherapy, the framework for evaluating cutaneous toxic effects in oncology trials may need collaborative reevaluation.

Background: For psoriatic patients who need to receive nonlive or live vaccines, evidence-based recommendations are needed regarding whether to pause or continue systemic therapies for psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis., Objective: To evaluate literature regarding vaccine efficacy and safety and to generate consensus-based recommendations for adults receiving systemic therapies for psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis receiving nonlive or live vaccines., Methods: Using a modified Delphi process, 22 consensus statements were developed by the National Psoriasis Foundation Medical Board and COVID-19 Task Force, and infectious disease experts., Results: Key recommendations include continuing most oral and biologic therapies without modification for patients receiving nonlive vaccines; consider interruption of methotrexate for nonlive vaccines. For patients receiving live vaccines, discontinue most oral and biologic medications before and after administration of live vaccine. Specific recommendations include discontinuing most biologic therapies, except for abatacept, for 2-3 half-lives before live vaccine administration and deferring next dose 2-4 weeks after live vaccination., Limitations: Studies regarding infection rates after vaccination are lacking., Conclusion: Interruption of antipsoriatic oral and biologic therapies is generally not necessary for patients receiving nonlive vaccines. Temporary interruption of oral and biologic therapies before and after administration of live vaccines is recommended in most cases., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest Dr Chat, Dr Ellebrecht, Ms. Kingston, and Dr Cordoro have no conflicts of interest to declare. Dr Bell is an employee of the National Psoriasis Foundation. Author Gondo is an employee of the National Psoriasis Foundation. Dr Desai has served as a research investigator, consultant, speaker, and/or advisor for AbbVie, Galderma, Foundation for Research & Education of Dermatology, Almirall, Dermavant, Ferndale Laboratories, Inc, Incyte Corporation, Gore Range Capital, AOBiome, LLC, Bristol Myers Squibb, Verrica Pharmaceuticals, UCB, Ortho Dermatologics, Scientis, EPI Health, Avita, Pfizer, Lilly, LEO, Incyte Corporation, L'Oreal USA, Inc, Beiersdorf, Inc, and Johnson and Johnson; is a board member of the National Psoriasis Foundation and Women's Derm Society; and is a stockholder for Gore Range Capital. Dr Duffin has been a consultant, advisor, or served as an investigator for AbbVie, AnaptysBio, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squib, Celgene, CorEvitas/Corrona, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Ortho Dermatologica, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sienna, Stiefel, and UCB. Dr Feldman has received research, speaking and/or consulting support from Eli Lilly and Company, GlaxoSmithKline/Stiefel, AbbVie, Janssen, Alovtech, vTv Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Samsung, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Amgen Inc, Dermavant, Arcutis, Novartis, Novan, UCB, Helsinn, SunPharma, Almirall, Galderma, Leo Pharma, Mylan, Celgene, Valeant, Menlo, Merck & Co, Qurient Forte, Arena, Biocon, Accordant, Argenx, Sanofi, Regeneron, the National Biological Corporation, Caremark, Advance Medical, Suncare Research, Informa, UpToDate and the National Psoriasis Foundation; is the founder and majority owner of www.DrScore.com; is a founder and part owner of Causa Research; and has stock in Sensal Health. Dr Garg is an advisor for AbbVie, Aclaris Therapeutics, Anaptys Bio, Aristea Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Incyte, InflaRx, Insmed, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, and Viela Biosciences; receives honoraria; and receives research grants from AbbVie, UCB and National Psoriasis Foundation. Dr Gelfand served as a consultant for Abbvie, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celldex (DSMB), FIDE (which is sponsored by multiple pharmaceutical companies) GSK, Happify, Lilly (DMC), Leo, Janssen Biologics, Neumentum, Novartis Corp, Pfizer, UCB (DSMB), Neuroderm (DSMB), Regeneron, Trevi, and Mindera Dx., receiving honoraria; receives research grants (to the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania) from Boehringer Ingelheim, and Pfizer Inc; and received payment for continuing medical education work related to psoriasis that was supported indirectly pharmaceutical sponsors. Dr Gelfand is a co-patent holder of resiquimod for treatment of cutaneous T cell lymphoma. Dr Gelfand is a Deputy Editor for the Journal of Investigative Dermatology receiving honoraria from the Society for Investigative Dermatology, is Chief Medical Editor for Healio Psoriatic Disease (receiving honoraria) and is a member of the Board of Directors for the International Psoriasis Council, receiving no honoraria. Dr Gladman has served as a consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Eli Lily, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB; and has received grants from AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lily, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr Green is a research investigator, speaker, and/or consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Arcutis, BMS, Dermavant, Lilly, MC2, SunPharma, and UCB. Dr Gudjonsson has served as an advisor for Novartis, Janssen, Almirall, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, and Boehringer Ingelheim; and has received research support from Almirall, Eli Lilly, Prometheus, BMS, and Janssen. Dr Han has served as a research investigator, consultant, and/or speaker for AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Dermavant, Janssen, Lilly, UCB, Novartis, Leo Pharma, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Ortho Dermatologics, Bond Avillion, Pellepharm, MC2, Athenex, Celgene, Sun Pharma, and Pfizer. Dr Hawkes is an advisor and/or consultant for AbbVie, Arcutis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, LearnSkin, LEO, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron-Sanofi Genzyme, and UCB; is a board member of the National Psoriasis Foundation; and has stock ownership/equity of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr Kircik is a research investigator, speaker, advisor, and/or consultant for Abbott Laboratories, Allergan, Almirall, Amgen, Arcutis, Biogen-Idec, BMS, Boehringer-Ingleheim, Breckinridge Pharma, Celgene, Centocor, Inc, Cellceutix, Cipher, Combinatrix, Connetics Corporation, Coria, Dermavant, Dermira, Dow Pharmaceutical Sciences, Inc, Dr Reddy's Lab, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Genentech, Inc, GlaxoSmithKline, PLC, Idera, Leo, Maruho, Merck, Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., Novartis AG, Promius, PharmaDerm, Pfizer, Serono, Stiefel Laboratories, Inc, Sun Pharma, Taro, UCB, Valeant Pharmaceuticals Intl, and XenoPort. Dr Koo is a speaker and/or advisor for AbbVie, Amgen, Lilly, UCB, Ortho Dermatologics, LEO, Sun Pharma, Janssen, and Epi Pharm. Dr Langley has been an investigator, served on the scientific advisory board, and/or has provided a lecture for AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Leo, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr Lebwohl is an employee of Mount Sinai; receives research funds from AbbVie, Amgen, Arcutis, Avotres, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cara Therapeutics, Dermavant Sciences, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Ortho Dermatologics, Regeneron, and UCB, Inc; and is a consultant for Aditum Bio, Almirall, AltruBio Inc, AnaptysBio, Arcutis, Inc, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Aristea Therapeutics, Arrive Technologies, Avotres Therapeutics, BiomX, Brickell Biotech, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cara Therapeutics, Castle Biosciences, Corevitas, Dermavant Sciences, Dr Reddy's Laboratories, Evelo Biosciences, Evommune, Inc, Facilitatation of International Dermatology Education, Forte Biosciences, Foundation for Research and Education in Dermatology, Helsinn Therapeutics, Hexima Ltd., LEO Pharma, Meiji Seika Pharma, Mindera, Pfizer, Seanergy, and Verrica. Dr Lewitt has received speaking and/or consulting support from AbbVie, Lilly, Janssen, Ortho Dermatologics, UCB, Galderma, Pfizer; received honoraria; and served as an advisor for AbbVie, Janssen, and Dermavant. Dr Liao has received research/grant support from AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, Leo, Novartis, Trex Bio, Pfizer, and Regeneron. Dr Martin has served as an advisor for Bristol Meyers Squibb, DUSA/SUN, AbbVie, Ortho/Bausch Health, Galderma, Pfizer, LEO, Janssen, Horizon, UCB, Trevi, Almirall, Dermavent, Incyte, and Lilly; has served as a consultant for Bristol Meyers Squibb, DUSA/SUN, AbbVie, Ortho/Bausch Health, Galderma, Pfizer, LEO, UCB, Trevi, Almirall, Lilly, Arcutis, and Dermavant; and has received speaking support from UCB, Almirall, LEO, Incyte, Dermavant, and Bristol Meyers Squibb. Dr Orbai is a consultant and/or advisor for Janssen, Novartis, and UCB; and receives research support from AbbVie, Amgen, and Celgene. Dr Reddy has served as a consultant for Novartis, AbbVie, Janssen, and UCB; and has received grant support from Pfizer. Ms Richardson has served as an advisor for and received honoraria from Boehringer Engelheim and Lilly. Dr Ritchlin is a consultant and/or speaker for Novartis, Lilly, AbbVie, Janssen, UCB, and Pfizer. Dr Schwartzman has received speaking support from AbbVie, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, and UCB; served as a consultant for Abbvie, Janssen, Lilly, Myriad, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi, UCB, Stelexis, Jubilant, and Teijin; is a board member of the National Psoriasis Foundation; and served as an advisor for Myriad. Dr Siegel has served as an advisor, speaker, and/or consultant for Abbvie, UCB, Lilly, Horizon, and BMS. Dr Van Voorhees has served as a research investigator and/or scientific advisor for Lilly, AbbVie, UCB, Bristol Meyers Squibb, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Merck. Dr Wallace serves as an investigator for Pfizer and Target RWE. Dr Weinberg is a research investigator, consultant, and/or speaker for Novartis, Lilly, Amgen, AbbVie, Sun, Janssen, and BMS. Dr Winthrop is a consultant for Pfizer, AbbVie, Union Chimique Belge (UCB), Eli Lilly & Company, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Roche, Gilead, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Regeneron, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, and Novartis; and receives research funding from BMS and Pfizer. Dr Yamauchi serves as a research investigator, consultant, and speaker for Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, UCB. Dr Armstrong has served as a research investigator, scientific advisor, and/or speaker to AbbVie, Almirall, Arcutis, ASLAN, Beiersdorf, BI, BMS, EPI, Incyte, Leo, UCB, Janssen, Lilly, Mindera, Nimbus, Novartis, Ortho Dermatologics, Sun, Dermavant, Dermira, Sanofi, Regeneron, and Pfizer., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: It is unclear whether the use of higher dialysate bicarbonate concentrations is associated with clinically relevant changes in the pre-dialysis serum bicarbonate concentration., Objective: The objective is to examine the association between the dialysate bicarbonate prescription and the pre-dialysis serum bicarbonate concentration., Design: This is a retrospective cohort study., Setting: The study was performed using linked administrative health care databases in Ontario, Canada., Patients: Prevalent adults receiving maintenance in-center hemodialysis as of April 1, 2020 (n = 5414) were included., Measurements: Patients were grouped into the following dialysate bicarbonate categories at the dialysis center-level: individualized (adjustment based on pre-dialysis serum bicarbonate concentration) or standardized (>90% of patients received the same dialysate bicarbonate concentration). The standardized category was stratified by concentration: 35, 36 to 37, and ≥38 mmol/L. The primary outcome was the mean outpatient pre-dialysis serum bicarbonate concentration at the patient level., Methods: We examined the association between dialysate bicarbonate category and pre-dialysis serum bicarbonate using an adjusted linear mixed model., Results: All dialysate bicarbonate categories had a mean pre-dialysis serum bicarbonate concentration within the normal range. In the individualized category, 91% achieved a pre-dialysis serum bicarbonate ≥22 mmol/L, compared to 87% in the standardized category. Patients in the standardized category tended to have a serum bicarbonate that was 0.25 (95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.93, 0.43) mmol/L lower than patients in the individualized category. Relative to patients in the 35 mmol/L category, patients in the 36 to 37 and ≥38 mmol/L categories tended to have a serum bicarbonate that was 0.70 (95% CI = -0.30, 1.70) mmol/L and 0.87 (95% CI = 0.14, 1.60) mmol/L higher, respectively. There was no effect modification by age, sex, or history of chronic lung disease., Limitations: We could not directly confirm that all laboratory measurements were pre-dialysis. Data on prescribed dialysate bicarbonate concentrations for individual dialysis sessions were not available, which may have led to some misclassification, and adherence to a practice of individualization could not be measured. Residual confounding is possible., Conclusions: We found no significant difference in the pre-dialysis serum bicarbonate concentration irrespective of whether an individualized or standardized dialysate bicarbonate was used. Dialysate bicarbonate concentrations ≥38 mmol/L (vs 35 mmol/L) may increase the pre-dialysis serum bicarbonate concentration by 0.9 mmol/L., Competing Interests: The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: A.O.M. receives funding from the McMaster University Department of Medicine. A.X.G. was supported by the Dr Adam Linton Chair in Kidney Health Analytics. K.T. has served on an advisory board and CME initiatives for Bayer, Baxter, GSK, Otsuka, Vifor, and has unrestricted grant funding from Otsuka. S.A.S. has received honorarium from Otsuka., (© The Author(s) 2024.)

Generally, financial investments are necessary for portfolio management. However, the prediction of a portfolio becomes complicated in several processing techniques which may cause certain issues while predicting the portfolio. Moreover, the error analysis needs to be validated with efficient performance measures. To solve the problems of portfolio optimization, a new portfolio prediction framework is developed. Initially, a dataset is collected from the standard database which is accumulated with various companies' portfolios. For forecasting the benefits of companies, a Multi-serial Cascaded Network (MCNet) is employed which constitutes of Autoencoder, 1D Convolutional Neural Network (1DCNN), and Recurrent Neural Network (RNN) is utilized. The prediction output for the different companies is stored using the developed MCNet model for further use. After predicting the benefits, the best company with the highest profit is selected by Integration of Artificial Rabbit and Hummingbird Algorithm (IARHA). The major contribution of our work is to increase the accuracy of prediction and to choose the optimal portfolio. The implementation is conducted in Python platform. The result analysis shows that the developed model achieves 0.89% and 0.56% regarding RMSE and MAE measures. Throughout the analysis, the experimentation of the developed model shows enriched performance.

Purpose: With expansion of academic cancer center networks across geographically-dispersed sites, ensuring high-quality delivery of care across all network affiliates is essential. We report on the characteristics and efficacy of a radiation oncology peer-review quality assurance (QA) system implemented across a large-scale multinational cancer network., Methods and Materials: Since 2014, weekly case-based peer-review QA meetings have been standard for network radiation oncologists with radiation oncology faculty at a major academic center. This radiotherapy (RT) QA program involves pre-treatment peer-review of cases by disease site, with disease-site subspecialized main campus faculty members. This virtual QA platform involves direct review of the proposed RT plan as well as supporting data, including relevant pathology and imaging studies for each patient. Network RT plans were scored as being concordant or nonconcordant based on national guidelines, institutional recommendations, and/or expert judgment when considering individual patient-specific factors for a given case. Data from January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2019, were aggregated for analysis., Results: Between 2014 and 2019, across 8 network centers, a total of 16,601 RT plans underwent peer-review. The network-based peer-review case volume increased over the study period, from 958 cases in 2014 to 4,487 in 2019. A combined global nonconcordance rate of 4.5% was noted, with the highest nonconcordance rates among head-and-neck cases (11.0%). For centers that joined the network during the study period, we observed a significant decrease in the nonconcordance rate over time (3.1% average annual decrease in nonconcordance, P = 0.01); among centers that joined the network prior to the study period, nonconcordance rates remained stable over time., Conclusions: Through a standardized QA platform, network-based multinational peer-review of RT plans can be achieved. Improved concordance rates among newly added network affiliates over time are noted, suggesting a positive impact of network membership on the quality of delivered cancer care., Competing Interests: Disclosures The authors declare no relevant financial disclosures or conflicts of interest. Data sharing not available at this time., (Copyright © 2024 American Society for Radiation Oncology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Research teams are increasingly interested in using cluster randomized trial (CRT) designs to generate practice-guiding evidence for in-center maintenance hemodialysis. However, CRTs raise complex ethical issues. The Ottawa Statement on the Ethical Design and Conduct of Cluster Randomized Trials, published in 2012, provides 15 recommendations to address ethical issues arising within 7 domains: justifying the CRT design, research ethics committee review, identifying research participants, obtaining informed consent, gatekeepers, assessing benefits and harms, and protecting vulnerable participants. But applying the Ottawa Statement recommendations to CRTs in the hemodialysis setting is complicated by the unique features of the setting and population. Here, with the help of content experts and patient partners, we co-developed this implementation guidance document to provide research teams, research ethics committees, and other stakeholders with detailed guidance on how to apply the Ottawa Statement recommendations to CRTs in the hemodialysis setting, the result of a 4-year research project. Thus, our work demonstrates how the voices of patients, caregivers, and all stakeholders may be included in the development of research ethics guidance., (Copyright © 2024 International Society of Nephrology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) clinical response (HiSCR) has come under scrutiny as several HS clinical trials failed to meet primary endpoints with high placebo responses. This may be due to limitations of the tool and raters' ability to accurately characterize and count lesions, rather than lack of efficacy of the studied drug. Due to HS lesion complexity and potential differences in rater training, it was hypothesized that there would be discrepancies in how providers characterize and count lesions for HS clinical trials., Objective: To evaluate how HS providers and patients name and count HS lesions and to identify discrepancies among providers to initiate the development of consensus-driven guidance for HS rater training., Methods: An online survey was distributed to the members of HIdradenitis SuppuraTiva cORe outcomes set International Collaboration (HISTORIC). Respondents were asked to classify lesion images composed of multiple and different morphology types and answer questions regarding inclusion of associated dermatological conditions., Results: Forty-seven HISTORIC members responded (29 providers; 18 patients). There was variability in how respondents classified HS lesions. Of 12 questions containing images, four had ≥50% of respondents choosing the same answer. With an image of a lesion composed of different morphologies, 45% of providers counted it as a single lesion and 45% counted it as multiple distinct lesions. With an image of multiple interconnected draining tunnels, 7% of providers classified it as a single draining tunnel while 79% categorized it as multiple draining tunnels with the number estimated by visual inspection. There was also variability in deciding whether lesions occurring in associated conditions should be considered separately or included in HS lesion counts. Patient responses were also variable., Conclusions: The result of the current study reaffirms the gap in how providers characterize and count HS lesions for clinical trials and the need to develop consensus-driven rater training related to HS outcome measures., (© 2024 European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.)

Enfortumab vedotin is an antibody-drug conjugate comprised of a human monoclonal antibody directed to Nectin-4 and monomethyl auristatin E (MMAE), a microtubule-disrupting agent. The objectives of this review are to summarize the clinical pharmacology of enfortumab vedotin monotherapy and demonstrate that the appropriate dose has been selected for clinical use. Pharmacokinetics (PK) of enfortumab vedotin (antibody-drug conjugate and total antibody) and free MMAE were evaluated in five clinical trials of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (n = 748). Intravenous enfortumab vedotin 0.5-1.25 mg/kg on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle showed linear, dose-proportional PK. No significant differences in exposure or safety of enfortumab vedotin and free MMAE were observed in mild, moderate, or severe renal impairment versus normal renal function. Patients with mildly impaired versus normal hepatic function had a 37% increase in area under the concentration-time curve (0-28 days), a 31% increase in maximum concentration of free MMAE, and a similar adverse event profile. No clinically significant PK differences were observed based on race/ethnicity with weight-based dosing, and no clinically meaningful QT prolongation was observed. Concomitant use with dual P-glycoprotein and strong cytochrome P450 3A4 inhibitors may increase MMAE exposure and the risk of adverse events. Approximately 3% of patients developed antitherapeutic antibodies against enfortumab vedotin 1.25 mg/kg. These findings support enfortumab vedotin 1.25 mg/kg monotherapy on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle. No dose adjustments are required for patients with renal impairment or mild hepatic impairment, or by race/ethnicity., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common heart arrhythmia in the elderly population. AF patients are at high-risk of ischemic strokes, but oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy reduces such risks. Warfarin had been the standard OAC for AF patients, however its effectiveness is highly variable and dependent on close monitoring of the anticoagulant response. Newer OACs such as rivaroxaban and apixaban address these drawbacks but are more costly. It is uncertain which OAC therapy for AF is cost-saving from the healthcare system perspective., Methods: We followed a cohort of patients in Ontario, Canada, aged ≥ 66 who were newly diagnosed with AF and prescribed OACs between 2012 and 2017. We used a two-stage estimation procedure. First, we account for the patient selection into OACs using a multinomial logit regression model and estimated propensity scores. Second, we used an inverse probability weighted regression adjustment approach to determine cost-saving OAC options. We also examined component-specific costs (i.e., drug, hospitalization, emergency department and physician) to understand the drivers of cost-saving OACs., Results: We found that compared to warfarin, rivaroxaban and apixaban treatments were cost-saving options, with per-patient 1-year healthcare cost savings at $2436 and $1764, respectively. These savings were driven by cost-savings in hospitalization, emergency department visits, and physician visits, outweighing higher drug costs. These results were robust to alternative model specifications and estimation procedures., Conclusions: Treating AF patients with rivaroxaban and apixaban than warfarin reduces healthcare costs. OAC reimbursement policies for AF patients should consider rivaroxaban or apixaban over warfarin as the first-line treatment., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Cannabis consumption for recreational and medical use is increasing worldwide. However, the long-term effects on kidney health and disease are largely unknown. Materials and Methods: Post hoc analysis of cannabis use as a risk factor for kidney disease was performed using data from the Assessment, Serial Evaluation, and Subsequent Sequelae of Acute Kidney Injury (ASSESS-AKI) study that enrolled hospitalized adults with and without acute kidney injury from four U.S. centers during 2009-2015. Associations between self-reported cannabis consumption and the categorical and continuous outcomes were determined using multivariable Cox regression and linear mixed models, respectively. Results: Over a mean follow-up of 4.5±1.8 years, 94 participants without chronic kidney disease (CKD) (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] >60 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ) who consumed cannabis had similar rates of annual eGFR decline versus 889 nonconsumers (mean difference=-0.02 mL/min/1.73 m 2 /year, p =0.9) and incident CKD (≥25% reduction in eGFR compared with the 3-month post-hospitalization measured eGFR and achieving CKD stage 3 or higher) (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]=1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.7-2.0). Nineteen participants with CKD (eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ) who consumed cannabis had more rapid eGFR decline versus 597 nonconsumers (mean difference=-1.3 mL/min/1.73 m 2 /year; p =0.02) that was not independently associated with an increased risk of CKD progression (≥50% reduction in eGFR compared with the 3-month post-hospitalization eGFR, reaching CKD stage 5, or receiving kidney replacement therapy) (aHR=1.6; 95% CI=0.7-3.5). Cannabis consumption was not associated with the rate of change in urine albumin to creatinine ratio (UACR) over time among those with ( p =0.7) or without CKD ( p =0.4). Conclusions: Cannabis consumption did not adversely affect the kidney function of participants without CKD but was associated with a faster annual eGFR decline among participants with CKD. Cannabis consumption was not associated with changes in UACR over time, incident CKD, or progressive CKD regardless of baseline kidney function. Additional research is needed to investigate the kidney endocannabinoid system and the impact of cannabis use on kidney disease outcomes.

Background: In some jurisdictions, individuals become eligible or recommended for referral for different types of kidney care using criteria based on their estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Historically, GFR was estimated with an equation developed in 2009, which included a Black race term. An updated, race-free equation was developed in 2021. It is unclear how adoption of the 2021 equation will influence the number of individuals meeting referral criteria to receive different types of kidney care., Objective: To develop population-based estimates on how the number of individuals meeting the eGFR-based referral criteria to receive three different types of kidney care (nephrologist consultation, care in a multi-care specialty clinic, kidney transplant evaluation) changes when the 2021 versus 2009 equation is used to calculate eGFR., Design: Population-based, cross-sectional study., Setting: Ontario, Canada's most populous province with 14.2 million residents as of 2021. Less than 5% of Ontario's residents self-identify as being of Black race., Patients: Adults with at least one outpatient serum creatinine measurement in the 2 years prior to December 31, 2021., Measurements: Referral criteria to 3 different types of kidney care: nephrologist consultation, multi-care specialty clinic, and evaluation for a kidney transplant. The eGFR thresholds used to define referral eligibility or recommendation for these kidney health services were based on guidelines from Ontario's provincial renal agency., Methods: The number of individuals meeting referral criteria for the 3 different healthcare services was compared between the 2009 and 2021 equations, restricted to individuals not yet receiving that level of care. As individual-level race data were not available, estimates were repeated, randomly assigning a Black race status to 1%, 5%, and 10% of the population., Results: We had an outpatient serum creatinine measurement available for 1 048 110 adults. Using the 2009 equation, 37 345 individuals met the criteria to be referred to a nephrologist, 10 019 met the criteria to receive care in a multi-care specialty clinic, and 10 178 met the criteria to be referred for kidney transplant evaluation. Corresponding numbers with the 2021 equation (and the percent relative to the 2009 equation) were 26 645 (71.3%), 9009 (89.9%), and 8615 (84.6%) individuals, respectively. These numbers were largely unchanged when Black race was assumed in up to 10% of the population., Limitations: Referral criteria based solely on urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio were not assessed. Self-reported race data were unavailable., Conclusions: For healthcare planning, in regions where a minority of the population is Black, a substantial number of individuals may no longer meet referral criteria for different types of kidney healthcare following adoption of the new 2021 eGFR equation., Competing Interests: The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Dr. Amit Garg was supported by the Dr. Adam Linton Chair in Kidney Health Analytics., (© The Author(s) 2024.)

Background: Several registries for hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) already exist in Europe and the USA. There is currently no global consensus on a core dataset (CDS) for these registries. Creating a global HS registry is challenging, owing to logistical and regulatory constraints, which could limit opportunities for global collaboration as a result of differences in the dataset collected. The solution is to encourage all HS registries to collect the same CDS of information, allowing registries to collaborate., Objectives: To establish a core set of items to be collected by all HS registries globally. The core set will cover demographic details, comorbidities, clinical examination findings, patient-reported outcome measures and treatments., Methods: Beginning in September 2022, 20 participants - including both clinicians with expertise in HS and patient advocates - from eight countries across three continents participated in a Delphi process consisting of four rounds of voting, with all participants completing each round. A list of potential items for inclusion in the core set was generated from the relevant published literature, including systematic reviews of comorbidities in HS, clinical and examination findings, and epidemiology. For disease severity and progression items, the Hidradenitis SuppuraTiva Core outcome set International Collaboration (HiSTORIC) core set and other relevant instruments were considered for inclusion. This resulted in 47 initial items. Participants were invited to suggest additional items to include during the first round. Anonymous feedback was provided to inform each subsequent round of voting to encourage consensus., Results: The eDelphi process established a CDS of 48 items recommended for inclusion in all HS registries globally., Conclusions: The routine adoption of this CDS in current and future HS registries should allow registries in different parts of the world to collaborate, enabling research requiring large numbers of participants., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis have multiple comorbidities and are at high risk of presenting to the hospital. However, the incidence and cost of acute health care utilization in the in-center hemodialysis population and how this compares with other populations is poorly understood., Objective: To determine the rate, pattern, and cost of emergency department visits and hospitalizations in patients receiving in-center hemodialysis compared with a matched general population., Design: Population-based matched cohort study., Setting: We used linked administrative health care databases from Ontario, Canada., Patients: We included 25 379 patients (incident and prevalent) receiving in-center hemodialysis between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2018. Patients were matched on birth date (±2 years), sex, and cohort entry date using a 1:4 ratio to 101 516 individuals from the general population., Measurements: Our primary outcomes were emergency department visits (allowing for multiple visits per individual) and hospital admissions from the emergency department. We also assessed all-cause hospitalizations, all-cause readmissions within 30 days of discharge from the original hospitalization, length of stay for hospital admissions (including multiple visits per individual), and the financial cost of these admissions., Methods: We presented the rate, percentage, median (25th, 75th percentiles), and incidence rate per 1000 person-years for emergency department visits and hospitalizations. Individual-level health care costs for emergency department visits and all-cause hospitalization were estimated using resource intensity weights multiplied by the cost per weighted case., Results: Patients receiving in-center hemodialysis had substantially more comorbidities (eg, diabetes) than the matched general population. Eighty percent (n = 20 309) of patients receiving in-center hemodialysis had at least 1 emergency department visit compared with 56% (n = 56 452) of individuals in the matched general population, over a median follow-up of 1.8 years (25th, 75th percentiles: 0.7, 3.6) and 5.2 (2.5, 8.4) years, respectively. The incidence rate of emergency department visits, allowing for multiple visits per individual, was 2274 per 1000 person-years (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2263, 2286) for patients receiving in-center hemodialysis, which was almost 5 times as high as the matched general population (471 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI: 469, 473). The rate of hospital admissions from the emergency department and the rate of all-cause hospital admissions in the in-center hemodialysis population was more than 7 times as high as the matched general population (hospital admissions from the emergency department: 786 vs 101 per 1000 person-years; all-cause hospital admissions: 1056 vs 139 per 1000 person-years). The median number of all-cause hospitalization days per patient year was 4.0 (0, 16.5) in the in-center hemodialysis population compared with 0 (0, 0.5) in the matched general population. The cost per patient-year for emergency department visits in the in-center hemodialysis population was approximately 5.5 times as high as the matched general population while the cost of hospitalizations in the in-center hemodialysis population was approximately 11 times as high as the matched general population (emergency department visits: CAN$ 1153 vs CAN$ 209; hospitalizations: CAN$ 21 151 vs CAN$ 1873 [all costs in 2023 CAN$])., Limitations: External generalizability and we could not determine whether emergency department visits and hospitalizations were preventable., Conclusions: Patients receiving in-center hemodialysis have high acute health care utilization. These results improve our understanding of the burden of disease and the associated costs in the in-center hemodialysis population, highlight the need to improve acute outcomes, and can aid health care capacity planning. Additional research is needed to address the risk of hospitalization after controlling for patient comorbidities., Trial Registration: This is not applicable as this is a population-based matched cohort study and not a clinical trial., Competing Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© The Author(s) 2024.)

For decades, researchers have used linkable administrative health data for evaluating the health care system, subject to local privacy legislation. In Ontario, Canada, the relevant privacy legislation permits some organizations (prescribed entities) to conduct this kind of research but is silent on their ability to identify and contact individuals in those datasets. Following consultation with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, we developed a pilot study to identify and contact by mail a sample of people at high risk for kidney failure within the next 2 years, based on laboratory and administrative data from provincial datasets held by ICES, to ensure they receive needed kidney care. Before proceeding, we conducted six focus groups to understand the acceptability to the public and people living with chronic kidney disease of direct mail outreach to people at high risk of developing kidney failure. While virtually all participants indicated they would likely participate in the study, most felt strongly that the message should come directly from their primary care provider or whoever ordered the laboratory tests, rather than from an unknown organization. If this is not possible, they felt the health care provider should be made aware of the concern related to their kidney health. Most agreed that, if health authorities could identify people at high risk of a treatable life-threatening illness if caught early enough, there is a social responsibility to notify people. While privacy laws allow for free flow of health information among health care providers who provide direct clinical care, the proposed case-finding and outreach falls outside that model. Enabling this kind of information flow will require greater clarity in existing laws or revisions to these laws. This also requires adequate notification and culture change for health care providers and the public around information uses and flows., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Willison et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Purpose of Program: A key barrier to becoming a living kidney donor is an inefficient evaluation process, requiring more than 30 tests (eg, laboratory and diagnostic tests), questionnaires, and specialist consultations. Donor candidates make several trips to hospitals and clinics, and often spend months waiting for appointments and test results. The median evaluation time for a donor candidate in Ontario, Canada, is nearly 1 year. Longer wait times are associated with poorer outcomes for the kidney transplant recipient and higher health care costs. A shorter, more efficient donor evaluation process may help more patients with kidney failure receive a transplant, including a pre-emptive kidney transplant (ie, avoiding the need for dialysis). In this report, we describe the development of a quality improvement intervention to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and patient-centeredness of the donor candidate evaluation process. We developed a One-Day Living Kidney Donor Assessment Clinic, a condensed clinic where interested donor candidates complete all testing and consultations within 1 day., Sources of Information: The One-Day Living Kidney Donor Assessment Clinic was developed after performing a comprehensive review of the literature, receiving feedback from patients who have successfully donated, and meetings with transplant program leadership from St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton. A multistakeholder team was formed that included health care staff from nephrology, transplant surgery, radiology, cardiology, social work, nuclear medicine, and patients with the prior lived experience of kidney donation. In the planning stages, the team met regularly to determine the objectives of the clinic, criteria for participation, clinic schedule, patient flow, and clinic metrics., Methods: Donor candidates entered the One-Day Clinic if they completed initial laboratory testing and agreed to an expedited process. If additional testing was required, it was completed on a different day. Donor candidates were reviewed by the nephrologist, transplant surgeon, and donor coordinator approximately 2 weeks after the clinic for final approval. The team continues to meet regularly to review donor feedback, discuss challenges, and brainstorm solutions., Key Findings: The One-Day Clinic was implemented in March 2019, and has now been running for 4 years, making iterative improvements through continuous patient and provider feedback. To date, we have evaluated more than 150 donor candidates in this clinic. Feedback from donors has been uniformly positive (98% of donors stated they were very satisfied with the clinic), with most noting that the clinic was efficient and minimally impacted work and family obligations. Hospital leadership, including the health care professionals from each participating department, continue to show support and collaborate to create a seamless experience for donor candidates attending the One-Day Clinic., Limitations: Clinic spots are limited, meaning some interested donor candidates may not be able to enter a One-Day Clinic the same month they come forward., Implications: This patient-centered quality improvement intervention is designed to improve the efficiency and experience of the living kidney donor evaluation, result in better outcomes for kidney transplant recipients, and potentially increase living donation. Our next step is to conduct a formal evaluation of the clinic, measuring qualitative feedback from health care professionals working in the clinic and donor candidates attending the clinic, and measuring key process and outcome measures in donor candidates who completed the one-day assessment compared with those who underwent the usual care assessment. This program evaluation will provide reliable, regionally relevant evidence that will inform transplant centers across the country as they consider incorporating a similar one-day assessment model., Competing Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© The Author(s) 2024.)

Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest A.G. is an advisor for AbbVie, Aclaris Therapeutics, Anaptys Bio, Aristea Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Incyte, Insmed, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sonoma Biotherapeutics, UCB, Union Therapeutics, Ventyx Biosciences and Viela Biosciences, and receives honoraria. A.G. receives research grants from AbbVie, UCB, National Psoriasis Foundation, and CHORD COUSIN Collaboration (C3). A.G. is a project lead for HiSTORIC. He is cocopyright holder of the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Investigator Global Assessment (HS-IGA) and Hidradenitis Suppurativa Quality of Life (HiSQOL) instruments. J.R.I. reports receiving a stipend as Editor-in-Chief of the British Journal of Dermatology and an authorship honorarium from UpToDate. He is a consultant for AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, ChemoCentryx, Novartis and UCB Pharma and has served on advisory boards for Insmed, Kymera Therapeutics and Viela Bio. J.R.I. is a project lead for HiSTORIC. He is cocopyright holder of the HS-IGA, Patient Global Assessment and HiSQOL instruments. His department receives income from copyright of the Dermatology Life Quality Instrument and related instruments.

Introduction: Core outcome sets (COSs) are agreed outcomes (domains (subdomains) and instruments) that should be measured as a minimum in clinical trials or practice in certain diseases or clinical fields. Worldwide, the number of COSs is increasing and there might be conceptual overlaps of domains (subdomains) and instruments within disciplines. The aim of this scoping review is to map and to classify all outcomes identified with COS projects relating to skin diseases., Methods and Analysis: We will conduct a scoping review of outcomes of skin disease-related COS initiatives to identify all concepts and their definitions. We will search PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library. The search dates will be 1 January 2010 (the point at which Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) was established) to 1 January 2024. We will also review the COMET database and C3 website to identify parts of COSs (domains and/or instruments) that are being developed and published. This review will be supplemented by querying relevant stakeholders from COS organisations, dermatology organisations and patient organisations for additional COSs that were developed. The resulting long lists of outcomes will then be mapped into conceptually similar concepts., Ethics and Dissemination: This study was supported by departmental research funds from the Department of Dermatology at Northwestern University. An ethics committee review was waived since this protocol was done by staff researchers with no involvement of patient care. Conflicts of interests, if any, will be addressed by replacing participants with relevant conflicts or reassigning them. The results will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals, social media posts and promotion by COS organisations., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Importance: Despite the US Food and Drug Administration's approval of adalimumab for the treatment of hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), prescription rates remain low, indicating a critical gap between evidence-based guidelines and clinical practice. Understanding the medical decision-making process that these patients use when considering biologic agents and other HS therapies may uncover opportunities for improved patient-physician communication and HS disease control., Objective: To elucidate factors that affect the medical decision-making process for patients with HS, with an emphasis on biologic therapies., Design, Setting, and Participants: Open-ended semistructured interviews were conducted with English-speaking adults with HS (aged ≥18 years) recruited from 2 dermatology clinics that are part of Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia. All participants had an average 7-day pain score of 1 or higher on a 0- to 10-point numeric rating scale. Surveys were conducted between November 2019 and March 2020, and data were analyzed from December 2021 to August 2022. Data collection continued until thematic saturation was reached at 21 interviews., Results: A total of 21 participants (median [IQR] age, 38.5 [27.9-43.4] years; 16 females [76%]) were included in the analysis. Almost all participants (96%) had Hurley stage II or III disease, and 15 (71%) had a history of adalimumab use. Suffering threshold, perceptions of treatment risk, treatment fatigue, disease understanding, and sources of information (included dermatologists, the internet, advertisements, and friends and loved ones) were identified as factors affecting participants' decisions to initiate new treatments for HS., Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this qualitative study suggest that mitigating misconceptions about treatment risk, identifying gaps in disease knowledge, and emphasizing early treatment to prevent scarring and disease progression may empower patients with HS to engage in treatment planning and to try new therapies.

Background: Safety issues are detected in about one third of prescription drugs in the years following regulatory agency approval. Older adults, especially those with chronic kidney disease, are at particular risk of adverse reactions to prescription drugs. This protocol describes a new approach that may identify credible drug-safety signals more efficiently using administrative health care data., Objective: To use high-throughput computing and automation to conduct 700+ drug-safety cohort studies in older adults in Ontario, Canada. Each study will compare 74 acute (30-day) outcomes in patients who start a new prescription drug (new users) to a group of nonusers with similar baseline health characteristics. Risks will be assessed within strata of baseline kidney function., Design and Setting: The studies will be population-based, new-user cohort studies conducted using linked administrative health care databases in Ontario, Canada (January 1, 2008, to March 1, 2020). The source population for these studies will be residents of Ontario aged 66 years or older who filled at least one outpatient prescription through the Ontario Drug Benefit (ODB) program during the study period (all residents have universal health care, and those aged 65+ have universal prescription drug coverage through the ODB)., Patients: We identified 3.2 million older adults in the source population during the study period and built 700+ initial medication cohorts, each containing mutually exclusive groups of new users and nonusers. Nonusers were randomly assigned cohort entry dates that followed the same distribution of prescription start dates as new users. Eligibility criteria included a baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) measurement within 12 months before the cohort entry date (median time was 71 days before cohort entry in the new user group), no prior receipt of maintenance dialysis or a kidney transplant, and no prior prescriptions for drugs in the same subclass as the study drug. New users and nonusers will be balanced on ~400 baseline health characteristics using inverse probability of treatment weighting on propensity scores within 3 strata of baseline eGFR: ≥60, 45 to <60, <45 mL/min per 1.73 m 2 ., Outcomes: We will compare new user and nonuser groups on 74 clinically relevant outcomes (17 composites and 57 individual outcomes) in the 30 days after cohort entry. We used a prespecified approach to identify these 74 outcomes., Statistical Analysis Plan: In each cohort, we will obtain eGFR-stratum-specific weighted risk ratios and risk differences using modified Poisson regression and binomial regression, respectively. Additive and multiplicative interaction by eGFR category will be examined. Drug-outcome associations that meet prespecified criteria (identified signals) will be further examined in additional analyses (including survival, negative-control exposure, and E-value analyses) and visualizations., Results: The initial medication cohorts had a median of 6120 new users per cohort (interquartile range: 1469-38 839) and a median of 1 088 301 nonusers (interquartile range: 751 697-1 267 009). Medications with the largest number of new users were amoxicillin trihydrate (n = 1 000 032), cephalexin (n = 571 566), prescription acetaminophen (n = 571 563), and ciprofloxacin (n = 504,374); 19% to 29% of new users in these cohorts had an eGFR <60 mL/min per 1.73 m 2 ., Limitations: Despite our use of robust techniques to balance baseline indicators and to control for confounding by indication, residual confounding will remain a possibility. Only acute (30-day) outcomes will be examined. Our data sources do not include nonprescription (over-the-counter) drugs or drugs prescribed in hospitals and do not include outpatient prescription drug use in children or adults <65 years., Conclusion: This accelerated approach to conducting postmarket drug-safety studies has the potential to more efficiently detect drug-safety signals in a vulnerable population. The results of this protocol may ultimately help improve medication safety., Competing Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© The Author(s) 2024.)

Competing Interests: None disclosed.

Introduction: Data concerning the global burden of hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) are limited. Reported prevalence estimates vary between 0.0003% and 4.1%, and data from various geographical regions are still to be collected. Previously reported prevalences have been limited by the methodological approach and source of data. This has resulted in great heterogeneity as prevalence data from physician-diagnosed cases poorly match those of self-reported apparent HS disease., Methods: The Global Hidradenitis Suppurativa Atlas (GHiSA) introduces an innovative approach to determine the global prevalence of HS. This approach involves using a previously validated questionnaire to screen apparently healthy adults accompanying a patient to a non-dermatological outpatient clinic visit in a hospital or a private/family medicine clinic. The screening questionnaire (i.e., the index test) is combined with a subsequent physician-based in-person validation (i.e., the reference standard) of the participants who screen positive. Approximately ten percent of the screen-negative participants are also clinically assessed to verify the diagnostic precision of the test. The local prevalence (pi) will be estimated from each country that submits the number of patients who are HS positive according to the index test and clinical examination (n), and the corresponding total number of observations (N)., Conclusion: The GHiSA Global Prevalence studies are currently running simultaneously in 58 countries across six continents (Africa, Europe, Australia, North America, South America, and Asia). The goal of the combined global proportion is the generation of a single summary (i.e., proportional meta-analysis), which will be done after a logit transformation and synthesized using a random-effects model. The novel standardization of the Global Prevalence Studies conducted through GHiSA enables direct international comparisons, which were previously not possible due to substantial heterogeneity in past HS prevalence studies., (© 2024 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background: As centuries and millennia passed, tuberculosis remains the major health threat for millions of people. Due to this resurgence of tuberculosis, scientists around the globe have intensified their research efforts to curb down the transmission of this disease and that is the reason which led to the development of new and efficient diagnostic tools, one such being the rapid cartridge-based nucleic acid amplification test which can give the real-time results and that too in a short period of time. These diagnostic tools which are based on the latest technologies help in paving the way to eliminate tuberculosis by early detection method and further prevent the transmission., Aim: In this study, we did a comparative analysis of the effectiveness of CBNAAT technique in the early detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis over the conventional method of Ziehl-Nielsen microscopy as diagnostic modalities., Materials and Methods: Comparative analysis of CBNAAT (GeneXpert) and Ziehl-Nielsen staining test was done as diagnostic modalities using standard protocols., Results: Out of total 300 samples, 153 were female, 146 were male, while one was transgender. For all these samples, the positivity rates were 48% for the CBNAAT technique and 21.3% for ZN staining method, respectively. For extrapulmonary samples, positivity rates were 49.1% and 11.86% for CBNAAT and ZN microscopy, respectively, while the same for pulmonary samples was 47.7% and 23.6%, respectively., Conclusions: ZN microscopy and CBNAAT are both initial tests for the detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis , but the introduction of CBNAAT is a boon for peripheral sites. The higher positivity rate of CBNAAT over ZN staining is the icing on the cake with the ability to detect even those cases that could be missed by the latter., Competing Interests: There are no conflicts of interest., (Copyright: © 2024 Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care.)

Background: In previous analyses, myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery, major bleeding, and sepsis were independently associated with most deaths in the 30 days after noncardiac surgery, but most of these deaths occurred during the index hospitalization for surgery. The authors set out to describe outcomes after discharge from hospital up to 1 yr after inpatient noncardiac surgery and associations between predischarge complications and postdischarge death up to 1 yr after surgery., Methods: This study was an analysis of patients discharged after inpatient noncardiac surgery in a large international prospective cohort study across 28 centers from 2007 to 2013 of patients aged 45 yr or older followed to 1 yr after surgery. The study estimated (1) the cumulative postdischarge incidence of death and other outcomes up to a year after surgery and (2) the adjusted time-varying associations between postdischarge death and predischarge complications including myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery, major bleeding, sepsis, infection without sepsis, stroke, congestive heart failure, clinically important atrial fibrillation or flutter, amputation, venous thromboembolism, and acute kidney injury managed with dialysis., Results: Among 38,898 patients discharged after surgery, the cumulative 1-yr incidence was 5.8% (95% CI, 5.5 to 6.0%) for all-cause death and 24.7% (95% CI, 24.2 to 25.1%) for all-cause hospital readmission. Predischarge complications were associated with 33.7% (95% CI, 27.2 to 40.2%) of deaths up to 30 days after discharge and 15.0% (95% CI, 12.0 to 17.9%) up to 1 yr. Most of the association with death was due to myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery (15.6% [95% CI, 9.3 to 21.9%] of deaths within 30 days, 6.4% [95% CI, 4.1 to 8.7%] within 1 yr), major bleeding (15.0% [95% CI, 8.3 to 21.7%] within 30 days, 4.7% [95% CI, 2.2 to 7.2%] within 1 yr), and sepsis (5.4% [95% CI, 2.2 to 8.6%] within 30 days, 2.1% [95% CI, 1.0 to 3.1%] within 1 yr)., Conclusions: One in 18 patients 45 yr old or older discharged after inpatient noncardiac surgery died within 1 yr, and one quarter were readmitted to the hospital. The risk of death associated with predischarge perioperative complications persists for weeks to months after discharge., (Copyright © 2023 American Society of Anesthesiologists. All Rights Reserved.)

Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest Dr Garg has served as an advisor for AbbVie, Aclaris Therapeutics, Anaptys Bio, Aristea Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Incyte, Insmed, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sonoma Biotherapeutics, UCB, Union Therapeutics, Ventyx Biosciences, and Viela Biosciences, and receives honoraria. He receives research grants from AbbVie, UCB, National Psoriasis Foundation, and CHORD COUSIN Collaboration (C3). He is a cocopyright holder of the HS-IGA and HiSQOL instruments. Dr Noe has served as an advisor for Boehringer Ingelheim and Janssen and received honoraria. She has received research grants from Boehringer Ingelheim and Bristol Myers Squibb. She is senior editor for the Journal of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis. Dr Anadkat has served as a consultant and/or advisor for ImClone, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Therakos, Aspire Bariatrics, Biogen, Amgen, Veloce, Adgero, Eli Lilly, AbbVie, UCB Biopharma, Innovaderm, Boehringer Ingelheim, OnQuality, Novocure, Springworks, BioLinq, and Protagonist. He has served as a principal investigator for Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lutris, OnQuality, UCB Biopharma, InflamRx, Eli Lilly, InCyte, AbbVie, Moonlake, AnaptysBio, Hana Biosciences, Xoma, Veloce, Biogen, Xbiotech, ChemoCentryx, Moberg, Regeneron, and Phoenecis. Dr Armstrong has served as an investigator, scientific advisor, and/or speaker to AbbVie, Almirall, Arcutis, ASLAN, Beiersdorf, BI, BMS, EPI, Incyte, LEO, UCB, Janssen, Lilly, Mindera, Nimbus, Novartis, Ortho Dermatologics, Sun, Dermavant, Dermira, Sanofi, Regeneron, and Pfizer. Dr Bhutani is currently a principal investigator for studies being sponsored by AbbVie, Castle, CorEvitas, Dermavant, and Pfizer. She has additional research funding from Novartis and Regeneron. She has served as an advisor for AbbVie, Arcutis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, LEO, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Sun, and UCB. Dr Farberg has served as an advisor for Apogee, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Castle Biosciences, Feldan, Incyte, Galderma, Janssen, L’Oréal, Novartis, Ortho Dermatologics, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Pharmaceuticals, and UCB. Dr Han has served as an investigator, consultant/advisor, or speaker for AbbVie, Amgen, Apogee, Arcutis, Bausch Health, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bond Avillion, Bristol Myers Squibb, Castle Biosciences, Celgene Corporation, Dermavant, DermTech, Eli Lilly and Company, EPI Health, Incyte, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, LEO Pharma, L’Oréal, MC2 Therapeutics, Novartis, Ortho Dermatologics, PellePharm, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, SUN Pharmaceuticals, and UCB. Dr Hawkes has served as an advisor/consultant for AbbVie, Arcutis, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Janssen, LearnSkin, LEO, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron-Sanofi Genzyme, and UCB. Paid speaker for Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, and UCB. He also currently serves as a councilor for the International Psoriasis Council and sits on the medical board and scientific advisory committee of the National Psoriasis Foundation. Dr Lebwohl has served as an advisor to Aditum Bio, Almirall, AltruBio Inc, AnaptysBio, Arcutis, Inc, Aristea Therapeutics, Avotres Therapeutics, Brickell Biotech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cara Therapeutics, Castle Biosciences, Celltrion, Corevitas, Dermavant Sciences, Dr Reddy, EPI, Evommune, Inc, Facilitatation of International Dermatology Education, Forte Biosciences, Foundation for Research and Education in Dermatology, Galderma, Helsinn, Incyte, LEO Pharma, Meiji Seika Pharma, Mindera, Pfizer, Seanergy, Strata, Trevi, and Verrica. He receives research funds from AbbVie, Amgen, Arcutis, Avotres, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cara Therapeutics, Dermavant Sciences, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Ortho Dermatologics, Regeneron, and UCB, Inc. Dr Rekhtman has served as an advisor to Castle Biosciences. Dr Song has served as a consultant/speaker for AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi & Regeneron, LEO, UCB, Incyte, SUN, Dermavant, Arcutis, Alphyn, and Apogee. He is an investigator for Arcutis, SUN, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, CorEvitas, DermBiont, Apogee, and TARGET-Derm. Dr Duffin has served as an advisor/consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, CorEvitas, Janssen, LEO, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, and WCG/Trifecta and receives honoraria. She is an investigator for Amgen, AbbVie, Castle Biosciences, UCB, Boehringer Ingelheim, CorEvitas, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, UCB, Novartis, and receives research grant funding. Author Strunk has no conflicts of interest to declare.