Search

Anti-spike monoclonal antibodies have proven invaluable in preventing severe outcomes from COVID-19, including hospitalization and death. The rise of the SARS-CoV-2 delta variant begs the question of whether monoclonal antibodies maintain similar efficacy now as they had when the alpha and beta variants predominated, when they were first assessed and approved. We used a retrospective cohort to compare rates of severe outcomes in an epoch in which alpha and beta were predominant compared with delta. A total of 5356 patients were infused during the alpha/beta variant-predominant (n=4874) and delta variant-predominant (n=482) era. Overall, odds of severe infection were 3.0% of patients in the alpha/beta-predominant era compared with 4.9% in the delta-predominant cohort. The unadjusted odds ratio (OR) was higher for severe disease in the delta era (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 0.96 to 2.89), particularly when adjusted for Charlson Comorbidity Index (adjusted OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.30 to 3.08). The higher odds of severe infection could be due to a more virulent delta variant, although the possibility of decreased anti-spike monoclonal antibody effectiveness in the clinical setting cannot be excluded. Research into the most effective strategies for using and improving anti-spike monoclonals for the treatment of emerging variants is warranted., (Copyright © 2021 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) created a classification to help stratify surgical wounds based on contamination and risk of developing a surgical site infection. The classification includes four options (I to IV) depending on the level of contamination present. Although universally applied to a variety of surgical specialties, it is unknown whether the current system is reliable when considering orthopaedic surgeries. The purpose of this study was to compare the degree of interobserver reliability between orthopaedic surgeons using the current CDC wound class definitions., Methods: A questionnaire containing 30 clinical vignettes was completed by 39 orthopaedic surgeons at our institution. After each vignette, respondents were asked to determine the appropriate wound class based on information provided in the vignette. The overall interobserver agreement among all participants was analyzed. In addition, respondents were queried about the adequacy of the current classification system in describing orthopaedic surgical wound class., Results: Interobserver agreement was poor at 66%, with a coefficient of concordance of 0.48. Only six physicians (15.4%) thought that the current wound classification system adequately covered orthopaedic surgery., Conclusions: There is poor interobserver reliability using the CDC surgical wound class definitions for orthopaedic surgeries. Alternate definitions are needed to improve the validity of the system for subspecialty procedures., (Copyright © 2021 by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.)

Purpose: We sought to develop a quality surveillance program for approximately 15,000 US veterans treated at the 40 radiation oncology facilities at the Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals each year., Methods and Materials: State-of-the-art technologies were used with the goal to improve clinical outcomes while providing the best possible care to veterans. To measure quality of care and service rendered to veterans, the Veterans Health Administration established the VA Radiation Oncology Quality Surveillance program. The program carries forward the American College of Radiology Quality Research in Radiation Oncology project methodology of assessing the wide variation in practice pattern and quality of care in radiation therapy by developing clinical quality measures (QM) used as quality indices. These QM data provide feedback to physicians by identifying areas for improvement in the process of care and identifying the adoption of evidence-based recommendations for radiation therapy., Results: Disease-site expert panels organized by the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) defined quality measures and established scoring criteria for prostate cancer (intermediate and high risk), non-small cell lung cancer (IIIA/B stage), and small cell lung cancer (limited stage) case presentations. Data elements for 1567 patients from the 40 VA radiation oncology practices were abstracted from the electronic medical records and treatment management and planning systems. Overall, the 1567 assessed cases passed 82.4% of all QM. Pass rates for QM for the 773 lung and 794 prostate cases were 78.0% and 87.2%, respectively. Marked variations, however, were noted in the pass rates for QM when tumor site, clinical pathway, or performing centers were separately examined., Conclusions: The peer-review protected VA-Radiation Oncology Surveillance program based on clinical quality measures allows providers to compare their clinical practice to peers and to make meaningful adjustments in their personal patterns of care unobtrusively., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

A substantial barrier to the single- and multi-institutional aggregation of data to supporting clinical trials, practice quality improvement efforts, and development of big data analytics resource systems is the lack of standardized nomenclatures for expressing dosimetric data. To address this issue, the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group 263 was charged with providing nomenclature guidelines and values in radiation oncology for use in clinical trials, data-pooling initiatives, population-based studies, and routine clinical care by standardizing: (1) structure names across image processing and treatment planning system platforms; (2) nomenclature for dosimetric data (eg, dose-volume histogram [DVH]-based metrics); (3) templates for clinical trial groups and users of an initial subset of software platforms to facilitate adoption of the standards; (4) formalism for nomenclature schema, which can accommodate the addition of other structures defined in the future. A multisociety, multidisciplinary, multinational group of 57 members representing stake holders ranging from large academic centers to community clinics and vendors was assembled, including physicists, physicians, dosimetrists, and vendors. The stakeholder groups represented in the membership included the AAPM, American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), NRG Oncology, European Society for Radiation Oncology (ESTRO), Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG), Children's Oncology Group (COG), Integrating Healthcare Enterprise in Radiation Oncology (IHE-RO), and Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine working group (DICOM WG); A nomenclature system for target and organ at risk volumes and DVH nomenclature was developed and piloted to demonstrate viability across a range of clinics and within the framework of clinical trials. The final report was approved by AAPM in October 2017. The approval process included review by 8 AAPM committees, with additional review by ASTRO, European Society for Radiation Oncology (ESTRO), and American Association of Medical Dosimetrists (AAMD). This Executive Summary of the report highlights the key recommendations for clinical practice, research, and trials., (Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)