Search

Shared decision-making (SDM) involves patients in choosing their treatment or care options. SDM enhances patient engagement and treatment satisfaction. SDM has proved difficult to implement and sustain in routine clinical practice, hence a supportive tool is needed. This quality improvement study focuses on the development of a generic tool, labeled SDM:KOMPASS, which is intended to support hospital settings by facilitating the visualization of their formative progress and the setting of goals for the SDM implementation into routine clinical practice. The main objective of the present paper is to describe the development of this generic tool. A six-step development process was performed to develop a tool and investigate the tool's overall perceived usability. Qualitative methods, such as observations, individual and focus group interviews, provided insights. A 10-item quantitative survey gauged informants' immediate attitudes towards the tool. Purposefully sampled informants (N = 20), including healthcare professionals and patients, contributed diverse perspectives regarding; 1) The tool's readability and clarity, 2) the construct's domains and content, and 3) the tool's perceived usability. In alignment with real-world challenges, SDM:KOMPASS emerges as a potentially valuable resource for healthcare organizations embedding SDM. The six-step development process revealed how the tool SDM:KOMPASS has potential to enhance SDM implementation's manageability, goal-setting, and focus. Professionals engaged in strategic implementation within somatic and mental hospital departments find the tool potentially beneficial and feasible. The tool shows promise and usability but requires careful attention due to its comprehensiveness. The next step is to alpha test the tool in clinical practice., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Lund 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.)

Background: Postoperative pain management is a challenge after robot-assisted cystectomy (RAC). Methadone has a long duration of action, and we therefore hypothesized that a single dose of intraoperative methadone would reduce postoperative opioid requirements and pain intensity in bladder cancer patients undergoing RAC., Methods: We conducted a blinded randomized controlled clinical trial from July 2020 to August 2023. Patients scheduled to undergo RAC because of bladder cancer were randomized to receive intraoperative methadone (0.15 mg/kg -1 ) or morphine (0.15 mg kg -1 ) 1 h before endotracheal extubation. The primary outcome was opioid requirements after 24 h. Secondary outcomes were opioid requirements after 3 h, pain intensity at rest and during coughing, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), sedation, hypoxemia, hypoventilation, time spent in the post-anesthetic care unit, and patient satisfaction., Results: A total of 114 patients were randomized. Data from 99 patients (14 females, 85 males; mean age 69.8 ± 8.9 years) were available for analysis; 52 received methadone and 47 received morphine. Opioid consumption was similar between the methadone group and morphine group at 3 h (median, mg, 45 (IQR 30 to 75) vs. 45 (IQR 15 to 82.5) p = .97) and at 24 h (median, mg, 125 (IQR 75 to 198.5) versus 105 (IQR 72 to 157.5), p = .29). Pain intensity was significantly lower in the morphine group at 48 h compared with the methadone group. Patient satisfaction at 24 h was increased in the methadone group compared with the morphine group (median, (IQR), NRS; 9 (IQR 7 to 10) versus 7 (IQR 4 to 9), p = .020). There were no differences between treatment groups in terms of time spent in the post-anesthetic care unit and the occurrence of opioid-related side effects., Conclusion: A single dose of intraoperative methadone does not reduce postoperative opioid requirements compared with a single dose of morphine in bladder cancer patients undergoing RAC., (© 2024 The Author(s). Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation.)

Background: In recent decades, there has been a growing emphasis on involving patients in healthcare decision-making, driven by political, ethical, and research considerations. Although patient involvement is associated with improved health outcomes, understanding patient preferences regarding their role in decision-making is crucial for effective interventions. The Control Preferences Scale (CPS) measures patient preferences along a continuum from passive to active participation. However, its application in Denmark necessitates translation and cultural adaptation., Methodology: This study aimed to translate and culturally adapt the CPS for Danish use across diverse healthcare settings: acute care, cancer care, elective surgery, chronic medical treatment, and parental involvement in pediatric care. Following a cross-sectional design, the translation process was systematically planned and executed using Beaton's guidelines, including the five stages: forward and back translation, synthesis, expert review, and pre-testing., Results: The translation and adaption process was carried out successfully. Few linguistic challenges were identified and resolved by the expert review. The findings of the pre-testing indicated high acceptability and usability of the adapted CPS among 152 Danish patients and parents. The collaborative role emerged as the most preferred across settings (69.8%), with passive roles more prevalent among cancer patients (30%) and parents waiting with their child to see a pediatrician (23.3%). Notable, more women preferred collaborative or active roles (83.9%) than men (73.9%). The content validity assessment yielded positive feedback, affirming the relevance and comprehensiveness of the CPS., Conclusions: In summary, the adaptation and validation of the CPS for Danish use proved successful, providing a valuable tool for assessing patient's role preferences in healthcare decision-making. However, future studies are recommended to ensure construct validity and reliability through psychometric testing., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Shared decision making (SDM) has become a crucial element on the political agenda and represents a vital aspect of modern healthcare. However, successful implementation of SDM highly depends on the attitude of clinicians towards SDM. The overall aim of our study was to explore the experience of oncologists and nurses with SDM using the Decision Helper, an in-consultation decision aid, at four Danish radiotherapy departments., Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 clinicians. The participants were selected using purposive sampling to include nurses and oncologists, male and female, with different levels of experience with SDM and clinical work. The analysis was a data-driven, iterative process with inductive coding of all interviews and meaning condensation., Results: Two main themes emerged: "Using the Decision Helper changes the consultation" and "Change of attitude among Danish oncologists." Each of the two themes included four elaborative subthemes, which are reported with supporting citations in this paper. In brief, the use of SDM and the Decision Helper should ideally be adjusted to the individual patient and depends highly on the oncologist. The participants described ambitions towards "making the right decision for this patient at this time." The healthcare system, however, has pitfalls that may hinder SDM, e.g., rigid interpretation of guideline-based recommendations., Conclusion: Using an in-consultation Decision Helper has the potential for individualized, structured patient engagement in decision making. There is a need for patient decision aids in clinical guidelines to ensure patient engagement in decision making., Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Shared care between oncology specialists and general practice regarding the delivery of palliative care (PC) is necessary to meet the demands for a cohesive PC. The primary objective of this study is to investigate models of cross-sectorial integration between primary care and oncology specialists that have been developed to promote early and basic PC and factors influencing the process., Method: A scoping review was conducted using publications dated up until April 2023. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Complementary searches were performed via reference lists and grey literature. Explicit early PC models aimed at patients with cancer aged ≥18 years with healthcare professionals from primary care and oncology constituted the inclusion criteria. The screening of the papers was performed independently by two reviewers. The reporting adheres to the extension for scoping reviews of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses., Results: The search provided 5630 articles of which six met the eligibility criteria, each describing a different model of early and cross-sectorial, integrated PC. 12 active components were identified. Education of staff as well as good communication and cooperation skills are essential factors to succeed with integrated, early PC., Conclusion: Integration of PC between general practice and oncology specialists has potential. The components of basic PC have been established. Factors known to influence the process are trust, communication and a common goal. Further research is required into strategies for approaching different levels of integration., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

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

Background and Purpose: Shared decision making (SDM) is a patient engaging process advocated especially for preference-sensitive decisions, such as adjuvant treatment after breast cancer. An increasing call for patient engagement in decision making highlights the need for a systematic SDM approach. The objective of this trial was to investigate whether the Decision Helper (DH), an in-consultation patient decision aid, increases patient engagement in decisions regarding adjuvant whole breast irradiation., Material and Methods: Oncologists at four radiotherapy units were randomized to practice SDM using the DH versus usual practice. Patient candidates for adjuvant whole breast irradiation after breast conserving surgery for node-negative breast cancer were eligible. The primary endpoint was patient-reported engagement in the decision process assessed with the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) (range 0-100, 4 points difference considered clinical relevant). Other endpoints included oncologist-reported patient engagement, decisional conflict, fear of cancer recurrence, and decision regret after 6 months., Results: Of the 674 included patients, 635 (94.2%) completed the SDM-Q-9. Patients in the intervention group reported higher level of engagement (median 80; IQR 68.9 to 94.4) than the control group (71.1; IQR 55.6 to 82.2; p < 0.0001). Oncologist-reported patient engagement was higher in the invention group (93.3; IQR 82.2 to 100) compared to control group (73.3; IQR 60.0 to 84.4) (p < 0.0001)., Conclusion: Patient engagement in medical decision making was significantly improved with the use of an in-consultation patient decision aid compared to standard. The DH on adjuvant whole breast irradiation is now recommended as standard of care in the Danish guideline., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Uterine carcinosarcoma (UCS) is a rare but aggressive endometrial cancer. Survival outcomes for women diagnosed with UCS remain poor with lower survival than those of endometrioid or high-grade serous uterine cancers. The histopathological hallmark of carcinosarcoma is the presence of both sarcomatous and carcinomatous elements. The survival rates for UCS have not improved for over 40 years; therefore, there is a profound need to identify new treatments. To investigate novel chemotherapy treatment combinations for UCS, we generated a UCS patient-derived organoid (PDO) cell line from a patient that received neoadjuvant treatment with paclitaxel and carboplatin. The PDO cell line (UCS1) was grown in three-dimensional domes. The PDO domes were treated with six individual chemotherapies or nine combinations of those six drugs. Cell death in response to chemotherapy was assessed. We found that the six monotherapies had minimal effectiveness at inducing cell death after 48 h of treatment. The combination of paclitaxel and carboplatin (which is the standard-of-care chemotherapy treatment for UCS) led to a small increase in apoptosis compared with the monotherapies. Importantly, when either carboplatin or paclitaxel was combined with gemcitabine, there was an appreciable increase in cell death. In conclusion, for the UCS1 patient-derived tumor cells, gemcitabine combinations were more effective than carboplatin/paclitaxel. Our data support the use of PDOs to predict responses to second-line chemotherapy., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Dahl, Lofgren, Haugen, Harmon, Hughes and Cowden Dahl.)

Background: After curative surgery for early-stage breast cancer, patients face a decision on whether to undergo surgery alone or to receive one or more adjuvant treatments, which may lower the risk of recurrence. Variations in survival outcomes are often marginal but there are differences in the side effects and other features of the options that patients may value differently. Hence, the patient's values and preferences are critical in determining what option to choose. It is well-researched that the use of shared decision making and patient decision aids can support this choice in a discussion between patient and clinician. However, it is still to be investigated what impact the timing and format of the patient decision aid have on shared decision making outcomes. In this trial, we aim to investigate the impact of a digital pre-consult compared to a paper-based in-consult patient decision aid on patients' involvement in shared decision making, decisional conflict and preparedness to make a decision., Methods: The study is a randomised controlled trial with 204 patients at two Danish oncology outpatient clinics. Eligible patients are newly diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer and offered adjuvant treatments after curative surgery to lower the risk of recurrence. Participants will be randomised to receive either an in-consult paper-based patient decision aid or a pre-consult digital patient decision aid. Data collection includes patient and clinician-reported outcomes as well as observer-reported shared decision making based on audio recordings of the consultation. The primary outcome is the extent to which patients are engaged in a shared decision making process reported by the patient. Secondary aims include the length of consultation, preparation for decision making, preferred role in shared decision making and decisional conflict., Discussion: This study is the first known randomised, controlled trial comparing a digital, pre-consult patient decision aid to an identical paper-based, in-consult patient decision aid. It will contribute evidence on the impact of patient decision aids in terms of investigating if pre-consult digital patient decisions aids compared to in-consult paper-based decision aids support the cancer patients in being better prepared for decision making., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05573022)., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Rationale: Previous studies investigating the impact of comorbidities on the effectiveness of biologic agents have been relatively small and of short duration and have not compared classes of biologic agents. Objectives: To determine the association between type 2-related comorbidities and biologic agent effectiveness in adults with severe asthma (SA). Methods: This cohort study used International Severe Asthma Registry data from 21 countries (2017-2022) to quantify changes in four outcomes before and after biologic therapy-annual asthma exacerbation rate, FEV 1 % predicted, asthma control, and long-term oral corticosteroid daily dose-in patients with or without allergic rhinitis, chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) with or without nasal polyps (NPs), NPs, or eczema/atopic dermatitis. Measurements and Main Results: Of 1,765 patients, 1,257, 421, and 87 initiated anti-IL-5/5 receptor, anti-IgE, and anti-IL-4/13 therapies, respectively. In general, pre- versus post-biologic therapy improvements were noted in all four asthma outcomes assessed, irrespective of comorbidity status. However, patients with comorbid CRS with or without NPs experienced 23% fewer exacerbations per year (95% CI, 10-35%; P  < 0.001) and had 59% higher odds of better post-biologic therapy asthma control (95% CI, 26-102%; P  < 0.001) than those without CRS with or without NPs. Similar estimates were noted for those with comorbid NPs: 22% fewer exacerbations and 56% higher odds of better post-biologic therapy control. Patients with SA and CRS with or without NPs had an additional FEV 1 % predicted improvement of 3.2% (95% CI, 1.0-5.3; P  = 0.004), a trend that was also noted in those with comorbid NPs. The presence of allergic rhinitis or atopic dermatitis was not associated with post-biologic therapy effect for any outcome assessed. Conclusions: These findings highlight the importance of systematic comorbidity evaluation. The presence of CRS with or without NPs or NPs alone may be considered a predictor of the effectiveness of biologic agents in patients with SA.

Background: The development of novel targeted biologic therapies for severe asthma has provided an opportunity to consider remission as a new treatment goal., Research Question: How many patients with severe asthma treated with biologic therapy achieve clinical remission, and what predicts response to treatment?, Study Design and Methods: The Danish Severe Asthma Register is a nationwide cohort including all adult patients receiving biologic therapy for severe asthma in Denmark. This observational cohort study defined "clinical response" to treatment following 12 months as a ≥ 50% reduction in exacerbations and/or a ≥ 50% reduction in maintenance oral corticosteroid dose, if required. "Clinical remission" was defined by cessation of exacerbations and maintenance oral corticosteroids, as well as a normalization of lung function (FEV 1 > 80%) and a six-question Asthma Control Questionnaire score ≤ 1.5 following 12 months of treatment., Results: Following 12 months of treatment, 104 (21%) of 501 biologic-naive patients had no response to treatment, and 397 (79%) had a clinical response. Among the latter, 97 (24%) fulfilled the study criteria of clinical remission, corresponding to 19% of the entire population. Remission was predicted by shorter duration of disease and lower BMI in the entire population of patients treated with biologic therapy., Interpretation: Clinical response was achieved in most adult patients initiating biologic therapy, and clinical remission was observed in 19% of the patients following 12 months of treatment. Further studies are required to assess the long-term outcome of achieving clinical remission with biologic therapy., Competing Interests: Financial/Nonfinancial Disclosures The authors have reported to CHEST the following: S. H. reports speaker fees from AstraZeneca; M. B. S. reports speaker fees from GSK; A. v. B. reports consulting fees from Novartis, speaker fees from Novartis, GSK, and AstraZeneca, travel grants from AstraZeneca, and participation in advisory boards with AstraZeneca and Novartis; A.-S. B. reports lecture fees from AstraZeneca and GSK; L. M. R. has received lecture fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, and Teva, support for attending meetings and/or travel received from AstraZeneca and Chiesi, and participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for AstraZeneca, GSK, and Teva; K. E. J. H. reports grants from SanofiGenzyme and AstraZeneca, lecture fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, Chiesi, TEVA, and SanofiGenzyme; O. H. reports support attending meetings from Sanofi, and participation in advisory boards with GSK, MSD, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, TEVA, and ALK; C. U. reports grants from Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Novartis, consulting fees from Chiesi, Orion Pharma, AstraZeneca, GSK, Teva, Menarini, and Takeda, lecture fees from Orion Pharma, AstraZeneca, and TEVA, and participation in advisory boards with Novartis, GSK, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Sanofi, Chiesi, and Boehringer Ingelheim; C. P. reports grants from AstraZeneca, GSK, Novartis, Teva, Sanofi, Chiesi, and ALK, consulting fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, Novartis, TEVA, Sanofi, Chiesi, and ALK, lecture fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, Novartis, TEVA, Sanofi, Chiesi, and ALK, participation in advisory boards with AstraZeneca, Novartis, TEVA, Sanofi, and ALK. None declared (J. S., C. R. J., T. I., S. L. J., M. B., K. D. A.)., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Investigation for the presence of asthma comorbidities is recommended by the Global Initiative for Asthma because their presence can complicate asthma management., Objective: To understand the prevalence and pattern of comorbidities and multimorbidity in adults with severe asthma and their association with asthma-related outcomes., Methods: This was a cross-sectional study using data from the International Severe Asthma Registry from 22 countries. A total of 30 comorbidities were identified and categorized a priori as any of the following: (1) potentially type 2-related comorbidities, (2) potentially oral corticosteroid (OCS)-related comorbidities, or (3) comorbidities mimicking or aggravating asthma. The association between comorbidities and asthma-related outcomes was investigated using multivariable models adjusted for country, age at enrollment, and sex (ie male or female)., Results: Of the 11,821 patients, 69%, 67%, and 55% had at least 1 potentially type 2-related, potentially OCS-related, or mimicking or aggravating comorbidities, respectively; 57% had 3 or more comorbidities, and 33% had comorbidities in all 3 categories. Patients with allergic rhinitis, nasal polyposis, and chronic rhinosinusitis experienced 1.12 (P = .003), 1.16 (P < .001), and 1.29 times (P < .001) more exacerbations per year, respectively, than those without. Patients with nasal polyposis and chronic rhinosinusitis were 40% and 46% more likely (P < .001), respectively, to have received long-term (LT) OCS. All assessed potential OCS-related comorbidities (except obesity) were associated with a greater likelihood of LTOCS use (odds ratios [ORs]: 1.23-2.77) and, except for dyslipidemia, with a greater likelihood of uncontrolled asthma (ORs: 1.29-1.68). All mimicking or aggravating comorbidities assessed were associated with more exacerbations (1.24-1.68 times more), all (except bronchiectasis) with increased likelihood of uncontrolled asthma (ORs: 1.57-1.81), and all (except chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) with increased likelihood of LTOCS use (ORs: 1.37-1.57). A greater number of comorbidities was associated with worse outcomes., Conclusion: In a global study, comorbidity or multimorbidity is reported in most adults with severe asthma and is associated with poorer asthma-related outcomes., Clinical Trial Registration: The International Severe Asthma Registry database has ethical approval from the Anonymous Data Ethics Protocols and Transparency (ADEPT) committee (ADEPT0218) and is registered with the European Union Electronic Register of Post-Authorization Studies (European Network Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance [ENCEPP]/DSPP/23720). The study was designed, implemented, and reported in compliance with the European Network Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCEPP) Code of Conduct (EMA 2014; EUPAS44024) and with all applicable local and international laws and regulations, and registered with ENCEPP (https://www.encepp.eu/encepp/viewResource.htm?id=48848). Governance was provided by ADEPT (registration number: ADEPT1121)., Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Scelo and Dr Murray are consultants for the Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute (OPRI). Dr Torres-Duque has received fees as an advisory board participant and/or speaker from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Sanofi-Aventis; has taken part in clinical trials from AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Sanofi-Aventis; and has received unrestricted grants for investigator-initiated studies at Fundacion Neumologica Colombiana from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Grifols, and Novartis. Dr Maspero reports receiving speaker fees, grants, or fees for serving on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Inmunotek, Menarini, and Noucor. Dr Tran, Dr Menzies-Gow, and Dr Martin are employees of AstraZeneca and may own stock or stock options in AstraZeneca. Dr Hew reports receiving grants and other advisory board fees (made to his institutional employer) from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi, Teva, and Seqirus for unrelated projects. Dr Peters reports receiving personal fees and nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr Gibson has received speaking fees and grants to his institution from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis. Dr Popov reports receiving relevant research support from Novartis and Chiesi Pharma. Dr Côté reports receiving speaking fees and consultant fees from Sanofi, Regeneron, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and ValeoPharma and reports receiving unrestricted grant support from GlaxoSmithKline; Dr Bergeron reports advisory board participation in Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Takeda, and ValeoPharma and honorarium for presentations for GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Grifols, Sanofi, Regeneron, and ValeoPharma. Dr Dorscheid is on faculty at the University of British Columbia and is supported by grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, British Columbia Lung Association, and Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research. In addition, he has received speaking fees, travel grants, unrestricted project grants, and writing fees and is a paid consultant for Sanofi-Regeneron, Novartis Canada, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and ValeoPharma and is an active member of the Canadian Thoracic Society, American Thoracic Society, European Respiratory Society, and the Allergen Research Network. Dr FitzGerald previously reported receiving grants from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi-Regeneron, and Novartis paid directly to UBC and personal fees for lectures and attending advisory boards for AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi-Regeneron, and Teva. Dr Chapman reports receiving grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bellus, CSL Behring, GlaxoSmithKline, Grifols, Inhibrx, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi, Takeda, and Vertex and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, CSL Behring, GlaxoSmithKline, Grifols, Inhibrx, Novartis, Sanofi, and Takeda; he has a leadership or fiduciary role in Alpha-1 Canada, the Canadian Thoracic Society, and Alpha-1 Foundation. Dr Boulet has received grants for participation in clinical studies from Amgen, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, Sanofi-Regeneron, and BioHaven; for consulting and advisory boards from AstraZeneca, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Sanofi-Regeneron; and lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Covis, Cipla, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Merck, and Sanofi. Dr Bhutani has received speaker and consultant fees for AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Covis, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Valeo. Dr Sadatsafavi has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Teva, and GlaxoSmithKline for purposes unrelated to the content of this manuscript; and has received research funding from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim directly into his research account from AstraZeneca for unrelated projects. Dr Jiménez-Maldonado has received fees as an advisory board participant and/or speaker from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Sanofi-Aventis and has participated in clinical trials for AstraZeneca, Novartis, and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr Duran-Silva has received fees as an advisory board participant and/or speaker from Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Sanofi-Aventis and has taken part in clinical trials from AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Sanofi-Aventis. Dr Solarte received fees from GlaxoSmithKline for participation on advisory boards. Dr Fernandez-Sanchez is a part-time employee of GlaxoSmithKline and does not hold shares in the company. Dr Bülow reports receiving speakers fees and consultancy fees from AstraZeneca and Novartis outside the submitted work and has also attended the advisory board for Novartis and AstraZeneca. Dr Bjerrum has received lecture fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis. Dr Ulrik reports receiving personal fees for talks and participation in advisory boards, among others, from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Teva, Boehringer Ingelheim, Orion Pharma, Sanofi-Genzyme, TFF Pharmaceuticals, Covis Pharma, Berlin-Chemie, Takeda, Chiesi, and Pfizer outside the submitted work. Dr Rasmussen declares receiving speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Teva, ALK, and Mundipharma outside the submitted work and attended advisory board for AstraZeneca, Sanofi, and Teva. Dr Altraja has received lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, MSD, Norameda, Novartis, Orion, Sanofi, and Zentiva; sponsorships from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, MSD, Norameda, Novartis, and Sanofi; and has participated in advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi, and Teva. Dr Bourdin has received industry-sponsored grants from AstraZeneca-MedImmune, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cephalon/Teva, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Sanofi-Regeneron and consultancies with AstraZeneca-MedImmune, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Regeneron-Sanofi, Med-in-Cell, Actelion, Merck, Roche, and Chiesi. Dr Taille has received lecture or advisory board fees and grants to her institution from AstraZeneca, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Chiesi, and Novartis for unrelated projects. Dr Charriot reports receiving advisory board and lecture fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi; consulting fees for Chiesi; and serving as a trial coinvestigator for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Sanofi. Dr Roche reports receiving grants and personal fees from Austral, Biosency, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Pfizer and personal fees from MSD, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Sanofi, Menarini, and Zambon. Dr Papaioannou has received fees and honoraria from Menarini, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Elpen, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Chiesi. Dr Kostikas received honoraria for presentations and consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, CSL Behring, Chiesi, ELPEN, GILEAD, GlaxoSmithKline, Menarini, Novartis, Sanofi, Specialty Therapeutics, and WebMD; and received funding and grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Innovis, ELPEN, GlaxoSmithKline, Menarini, Novartis, and NuvoAir (paid to the University of Ioannina). Dr Papadopoulos has been a speaker and/or advisory board member for Abbott, AbbVie, ALK, Asit Biotech, AstraZeneca, Biomay, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, HAL, Faes Farma, Medscape, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Nutricia, OM Pharma, Regeneron, Sanofi, Takeda, and Viatris. Dr Salvi reports receiving research support and speaker fees from Cipla, Glenmark, and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr Mitchell has received speaker fees from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Teva, and Novartis and has received grants from AstraZeneca and Teva. Dr Costello has received honoraria for lectures from Aerogen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Teva; is a member of advisory boards for GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis; has received grant support from GlaxoSmithKline and Aerogen; and has patents in the use of acoustics in the diagnosis of lung disease, assessment of adherence, and prediction of exacerbations. Dr Heffler declares receiving personal fees from Sanofi, Regeneron, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Stallergenes, and Circassia. Dr Puggioni reports having received lectures or advisory board fees from Menarini, Mundipharma, Chiesi, Alk Abello, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Guidotti, Malesci, GlaxoSmithKline, HAL Allergy, Novartis, Sanofi, Regeneron, Stallergenes Greer, Valeas, and Almirall. Dr Canonica has received research grants and lecture or advisory board fees from A. Menarini, Alk-Albello, Allergy Therapeutics, Anallergo, AstraZeneca, MedImmune, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi Farmaceutici, Circassia, Danone, Faes, Genentech, Guidotti Malesci, GlaxoSmithKline, HAL Allergy, Merck, MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis, Orion, Sanofi-Aventis, Sanofi, Genzyme/Regeneron, Stallergenes, UCB Pharma, Uriach Pharma, Teva, Thermo Fisher, and Valeas. Dr Iwanaga received lecture fees from Kyorin, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca. Dr Mona Al-Ahmad has received advisory board and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Novartis, and GlaxoSmithKline and received a grant from the Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Sciences (KFAS). Dr Linnemann reports receiving personal fees from ALK-Abelló, AstraZeneca national and global, Bayer, Chiesi, Grunenthal, Grin, GlaxoSmithKline national and global, Viatris, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Siegfried, UCB, and Carnot and grants from AbbVie, Bayer, Lilly, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Circassia, UCB, and GlaxoSmithKline outside the submitted work. Dr Garcia Ramirez received fees as a speaker and advisory board participant from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi-Genzyme, Chiesi, and Novartis. Dr Kuna reports receiving personal fees from Adamed, AstraZeneca, Berlin-Chemie Menarini, FAES, Glenmark, Novartis, Polpharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Teva, and Zentiva outside the submitted work. Dr Fonseca reports receiving grants from or has research agreements with AstraZeneca, Mundipharma, Sanofi-Regeneron, and Novartis and has received personal fees for lectures and attending advisory boards for AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Mundipharma, Novartis, Sanofi-Regeneron, and Teva. Dr Lehebi has given lectures at meetings supported by AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi and participated in advisory board fees from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Abbott. Dr Koh reports receiving grant support from AstraZeneca and honoraria for lectures and advisory board meetings paid to her hospital (Singapore General Hospital) from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Sanofi, and Boehringer Ingelheim outside the submitted work. Dr Kook Rhee received consulting/lecture fees from MSD, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Takeda, Mundipharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Teva, Sanofi, and Bayer. Dr Cosio declares receiving grants from Chiesi and GlaxoSmithKline; personal fees for advisory board activities from Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi, Teva, and AstraZeneca; and payment for lectures/speaking engagements from Chiesi, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Menarini, and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. Dr de Llano reports receiving grants, personal fees and nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca, Teva, Faes, and Sanofi; personal fees and nonfinancial support from GlaxoSmithKline and Chiesi; personal fees from MSD, Techdow Pharma, GILEAD, and Leo Pharma; and grants and personal fees from GEBRO outside the submitted work. Dr Perng received sponsorship to attend or speak at international meetings, honoraria for lecturing or attending advisory boards, and research grants from the following companies: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, Shionogi, and Orient Pharma. Dr Tsai has received grants from Boehringer Ingelheim and has received honoraria for lectures from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Orient EuroPharma. Dr Jackson has received speaker fees and consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi-Regeneron, and Boehringer Ingelheim and research funding from AstraZeneca. Dr Busby has received research grants from AstraZeneca and personnel fees from NuvoAir outside the submitted work. Dr Heaney has received grant funding, participated in advisory boards, and given lectures at meetings supported by Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Circassia, Hoffmann la Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Theravance, Evelo Biosciences, Sanofi, and Teva; has received grants from MedImmune, Novartis UK, Roche/Genentech Inc, GlaxoSmithKline, Amgen, Genentech/Hoffman la Roche, AstraZeneca, Aerocrine, and Vitalograph; has received sponsorship for attending international scientific meetings from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, and Napp Pharmaceuticals; has taken part in asthma clinical trials sponsored by AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Hoffmann la Roche, and GlaxoSmithKline, for which his institution received remuneration; and is the Academic Lead for the Medical Research Council Stratified Medicine UK Consortium in Severe Asthma, which involves industrial partnerships with a number of pharmaceutical companies including Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann la Roche, and Janssen. Dr Pfeffer has attended advisory boards for AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi; has given lectures at meetings supported by AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline; has taken part in clinical trials sponsored by AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Sanofi, for which his institution received remuneration; and has a current research grant funded by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr Goddard reports receiving lecture fees from Sanofi. Dr Wang has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Genentech; and has been an investigator on studies sponsored by AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, Sanofi, Novartis, and Teva, for which her institution has received funding. Dr Hoyte reports receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca and Genentech and has been an investigator on clinical trials sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, Teva, and Sanofi, for which her institution has received funding. Dr Wechsler reports receiving grants and/or personal fees from Novartis, Sanofi, Regeneron, Genentech, Sentien, resTORbio, Equillium, Genzyme, Cohero Health, Teva, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, Cytoreason, Cerecor, Sound biologic, Incyte, and Kinaset. Ms Carter is an employee of Optimum Patient Care (OPC) (OPC is a cofounder of the International Severe Asthma Registry and a cofounder of the APEX-COPD initiative). Ms Bulathsinhala is an employee of OPRI. Ms Eleangovan and Mr Ariti were employees of OPRI. Dr Lyu was an employee of OPC. Dr Price has advisory board membership with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Circassia, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Thermofisher; consultancy agreements with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Theravance; received grants and unrestricted funding for investigator-initiated studies (conducted through OPRI Pte Ltd) from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Circassia, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Respiratory Effectiveness Group, Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Theravance, and the UK National Health Service; received payment for lectures/speaking engagements from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, GlaxoSmithKline, Kyorin, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva Pharmaceuticals; payment for the development of educational materials from Mundipharma, Novartis; payment for travel/accommodation/meeting expenses from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Mundipharma, Mylan, Novartis, Thermofisher; funding for patient enrollment or completion of research from Novartis; has stock/stock options from AKL Research and Development Ltd, which produces phytopharmaceuticals; owns 74% of the social enterprise OPC Ltd (Australia and UK) and 74% of OPRI Pte Ltd (Singapore); has 5% shareholding in Timestamp, which develops adherence monitoring technology; is a peer reviewer for grant committees of the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation program and Health Technology Assessment; and was an expert witness for GlaxoSmithKline. Dr Porsbjerg has attended advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Novartis, Teva, and Sanofi-Genzyme; has given lectures at meetings supported by AstraZeneca, Novartis, Teva, Sanofi-Genzyme, and GlaxoSmithKline; has taken part in clinical trials sponsored by AstraZeneca, Novartis, MSD, Sanofi-Genzyme, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis; and has received educational and research grants from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Teva, GlaxoSmithKline, ALK, and Sanofi-Genzyme. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to report., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

There is a Danish Christmas tune indicating that Santa can cause traffic hazards. The question is, however, whether there are other dangers associated with closer contacts to reindeers during Christmas. A literature search reveals a need for cautiousness, should one be tempted to try to get a glimpse of - or even to pad - Rudolph on the back on Christmas Eve., (Published under Open Access CC-BY-NC-BD 4.0. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.)

Introduction: Management of an endoscopically resected malignant colorectal polyps can be challenging due to the risk of residual tumour and lymphatic spread. International studies have shown, that of those choosing surgical management instead of surveillance strategy, there are between 54% and 82% of bowel resections without evidence of residual tumour or lymphatic spread. As surgical management entails risks of complications and surveillance strategy entails risks of residual tumour or recurrence, a clinical dilemma arises when choosing a management strategy. Shared decision-making is a concept that can be used in preference-sensitive decision-making to facilitate patient involvement and empowerment to facilitate active patient participation in the decision-making process., Methods and Analysis: This study protocol describes our clinical multi-institutional, non-randomised, interventional phase II study at Danish surgical departments planned to commence in the second quarter of 2024. The aim of this study is to examine whether shared decision-making and using a patient decision aid in consultations affect patients' choice of management, comparing with retrospective data. The secondary aim is to investigate patients' experiences, perceived involvement, satisfaction, decision conflict and other outcomes using questionnaire feedback directly from the patients., Ethics and Dissemination: There are no conflicts of interest for principal or local investigators in any of the study sites. All results will be published at Danish and international meetings, and in English language scientific peer-reviewed journals. Our study underwent evaluation by the Regional Committees on Health Research Ethics for Southern Denmark (file number 20232000-47), concluding that formal approval was not required for this kind of research., Trial Registration Number: NCT05776381., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Aim: Clinical utility of the dynamics of ctDNA is sparse. This study aimed at evaluating the prognostic impact of early ctDNA dynamics in patients with metastatic cancer treated with chemotherapy. Materials & methods: The ctDNA dynamics were evaluated in 595 patients with metastatic cancer using droplet digital PCR. Results: Patients with an increase in ctDNA after one treatment cycle (n = 73; 12.2%) had an overall survival of 5.6 months compared with 8.6 months in patients with stable or decreasing ctDNA (n = 328; 55.1%) and 21.0 months in patients with undetectable ctDNA (p < 0.001; hazard ratio: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.41-0.53). Conclusion: Early ctDNA dynamics hold important prognostic information and have great implications for evaluation with the perspective of a more individualized treatment strategy.

Objectives: Avoidant personality disorder (AvPD) is a highly prevalent personality disorder, especially in clinical settings, yet scarcely researched. People diagnosed with AvPD have severe impairments in functioning and suffer greatly, yet we still lack meta-analytic evidence for therapy and only a few RCTs are conducted. Patient factors are the most important for outcome in therapy, in general. Lack of agency might be a core deficit in people diagnosed with AvPD. Their conditions might be improved if we understand their agency better. We review previous research regarding psychological mechanisms and interpersonal relationships that facilitate or hinder agency in AvPD in daily life and psychotherapy., Methods: Summarizing original literature in a narrative review with reflexive thematic analysis., Results: People diagnosed with AvPD seem to have significant impairments in their sense of agency due to a lack of emotional awareness, an overweight of inhibiting vs. activating emotions, and difficulties regulating emotions. Difficulties also seem related to high levels of attachment avoidance and fear, creating strong ambivalence in social needs, in addition to a strong tendency to subordinate to others. A weak sense of self with a poor narrative, self-doubt, and harsh self-critique makes a reflexive and intentional stand increasingly difficult for these people., Conclusion: This review gives a clinically meaningful understanding of core strengths and deficits in the personality functioning of AvPD that can help clinicians map out important therapeutic work, identify barriers to client-agency in therapy, and work through relational difficulties in the therapeutic alliance., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Weme, Sørensen and Binder.)

Abstract: Paclitaxel-induced peripheral neuropathy (PIPN) is a barrier to effective cancer treatment and impacts quality of life among patients with cancer. We used a translational approach to assess the utility of neurofilament light chain (NFL) as a biomarker of PIPN in a human cell model and in patients with ovarian cancer. We measured NFL in medium from human induced pluripotent stem cell-derived sensory neurons (iPSC-SNs) exposed to paclitaxel. Serum NFL (sNFL) levels were quantified in 190 patients with ovarian cancer receiving paclitaxel/carboplatin chemotherapy at baseline and after each of the following 2 or 6 cycles. Adverse outcomes related to PIPN were retrospectively obtained, and Cox regression model was performed with different sNFL cut-offs after first cycle. The apparent elimination half-life of sNFL was estimated in patients who discontinued paclitaxel. Paclitaxel neurotoxicity in iPSC-SNs was accompanied by NFL release in a concentration-dependent manner ( P < 0.001, analysis of variance). Serum NFL levels increased substantially in patients during paclitaxel/carboplatin chemotherapy with considerable interindividual variability. Patients with sNFL >150 pg/mL after first cycle had increased risk to discontinue paclitaxel early (unadjusted HR: 2.47 [95% CI 1.16-5.22], adjusted HR: 2.25 [95% CI: 0.88-5.79]). Similar trends were shown for risk of severe PIPN and paclitaxel dose reduction because of PIPN. The median elimination half-life of sNFL was 43 days (IQR 27-82 days). Neurofilament light chain constitutes an objective biomarker of neurotoxicity in iPSC-SNs and in ovarian cancer patients with high sNFL predicting PIPN-related adverse outcomes. If prospectively validated, NFL can be used to study PIPN and may guide clinical decision making and personalize treatment with paclitaxel., (Copyright © 2023 International Association for the Study of Pain.)

Introduction: The objective of this study was to assess the quality of online information on orthodontic treatment provided by orthodontic Web sites in the United States and investigate their claims., Methods: Three hundred and one American orthodontic Web sites were identified after an advanced Google search. Data collection included: the location of the clinic, treatment options offered, quality-of-information assessment using the DISCERN tool, and finally, claims when promoting 1 treatment option against another, as well as the presence of information on relapse risk and retention needs., Results: All Web sites belonged to private clinics, with more than half (60.5%) in a single location. Invisalign (Align Technology, Santa Clara, Calif) was the most commonly promoted treatment option (94%), followed by the full fixed appliance (FFA) (92%). The mean DISCERN total score was poor (36.78 out of 80.00), whereas the mean reliability (questions 1-8) and quality-of-information (questions 9-15) scores were 17.06 out of 40.00 and 16.85 out of 35.00, respectively. Almost one-third (28%) of the Web sites compared aligners to FFA, whereas 25% claimed that aligners are less painful than FFA, faster than FFA (14%), or give better results than FFA (1%). Almost half of the Web sites (47%) failed to display information on relapse risk and retention needs after orthodontic treatment (41%). The Web sites that displayed such info had higher DISCERN total scores (P <0.001)., Conclusions: Invisalign seems to be the treatment modality most commonly mentioned online. According to DISCERN, U.S. orthodontic Web sites display poor or fair quality information. On many Web sites, aligner treatment was compared with FFA, with some stating that aligners cause less pain than FFA or are more efficient/faster than FFA. Moreover, almost half of the American orthodontic Web sites failed to display information on the relapse risk or retention need. Display of such information can be an indicator of better-quality Web sites. There is ample room for improvement in the online information American orthodontists provide to potential patients., (Copyright © 2023 American Association of Orthodontists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Clay minerals are abundant in caprock formations for anthropogenic storage sites for CO 2 , and they are potential capture materials for CO 2 postcombustion sequestration. We investigate the response to CO 2 exposure of dried fluorohectorite clay intercalated with Li + , Na + , Cs + , Ca 2+ , and Ba 2+ . By in situ powder X-ray diffraction, we demonstrate that fluorohectorite with Na + , Cs + , Ca 2+ , or Ba 2+ does not swell in response to CO 2 and that Li-fluorohectorite does swell. A linear uptake response is observed for Li-fluorohectorite by gravimetric adsorption, and we relate the adsorption to tightly bound residual water, which exposes adsorption sites within the interlayer. The experimental results are supported by DFT calculations.

Studying disease-related changes in the brain vasculature is warranted due to its crucial role in supplying oxygen and nutrients and removing waste and due to the anticipated vascular dysfunction in brain diseases. To this end, we have developed a protocol for fast and simple isolation of brain vascular fragments without the use of transgenic reporters. We used it to isolate and analyze 22,515 cells by single-cell RNA sequencing. The cells distributed into 23 distinct clusters corresponding to all known vascular and perivascular cell types in the brain. Western blot analysis also suggested that the protocol is suitable for proteomic analysis. We further adapted it for the establishment of primary cell cultures. The protocol generated highly reproducible results. In conclusion, we have developed a simple and robust brain vascular isolation protocol suitable for different experimental modalities, such as single-cell analyses, western blotting, and primary cell culture., Competing Interests: The authors declare no competing interests., (© 2023 The Authors.)

In the CNS, oligodendrocyte progenitor cells (OPCs) differentiate into mature oligodendrocytes to generate myelin, an essential component for normal nervous system function. OPC differentiation is driven by signaling pathways, such as mTOR, which functions in two distinct complexes: mTOR complex 1 (mTORC1) and mTOR complex 2 (mTORC2), containing Raptor or Rictor, respectively. In the current studies, mTORC2 signaling was selectively deleted from OPCs in PDGFRα-Cre X Rictor fl/fl mice. This study examined developmental myelination in male and female mice, comparing the impact of mTORC2 deletion in the corpus callosum and spinal cord. In both regions, Rictor loss in OPCs resulted in early reduction in myelin RNAs and proteins. However, these deficits rapidly recovered in spinal cord, where normal myelin was noted at P21 and P45. By contrast, the losses in corpus callosum resulted in severe hypomyelination and increased unmyelinated axons. The hypomyelination may result from decreased oligodendrocytes in the corpus callosum, which persisted in animals as old as postnatal day 350. The current studies focus on uniquely altered signaling pathways following mTORC2 loss in developing oligodendrocytes. A major mTORC2 substrate is phospho-Akt-S473, which was significantly reduced throughout development in both corpus callosum and spinal cord at all ages measured, yet this had little impact in spinal cord. Loss of mTORC2 signaling resulted in decreased expression of actin regulators, such as gelsolin in corpus callosum, but only minimal loss in spinal cord. The current study establishes a regionally specific role for mTORC2 signaling in OPCs, particularly in the corpus callosum. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT mTORC1 and mTORC2 signaling has differential impact on myelination in the CNS. Numerous studies identify a role for mTORC1, but deletion of Rictor (mTORC2 signaling) in late-stage oligodendrocytes had little impact on myelination in the CNS. However, the current studies establish that deletion of mTORC2 signaling from oligodendrocyte progenitor cells results in reduced myelination of brain axons. These studies also establish a regional impact of mTORC2, with little change in spinal cord in these conditional Rictor deletion mice. Importantly, in both brain and spinal cord, mTORC2 downstream signaling targets were impacted by Rictor deletion. Yet, these signaling changes had little impact on myelination in spinal cord, while they resulted in long-term alterations in myelination in brain., (Copyright © 2023 the authors.)

Background: Shared decision making (SDM) is a core element in the meeting between patient and healthcare professionals, but has proved difficult to implement and sustain in routine clinical practice. One of five Danish regions set out to succeed and to develop a model that ensures lasting SDM based on learnings from large-scale real-world implementation initiatives that go beyond the 'barriers' and 'facilitators' research approach. This paper describes this process and development of a generic implementation model, SDM:HOSP., Methods: This project was carried out in the Region of Southern Denmark with five major hospital units. Based on existing theory of SDM, SDM implementation, implementation science and improvement methodology, a process of four phases were described; development of conceptual elements, field-testing, evaluation, and development of the final implementation model. The conceptual elements developed aimed to prepare leaders, train SDM teachers, teach clinicians to perform SDM, support development of patient decision aids, and support systematic planning, execution and follow-up. Field testing was done including continuous participant evaluations and an overall evaluation after one year., Results: Data from field testing and learnings from the implementation process, illustrated the need for a dynamic and easy adjustable model. The final SDM:HOSP model included four themes; i)Training of Leaders, ii) Training of Teachers and Clinicians, iii) Decision Helper, and iv) 'Process', each with details in three levels, 1) shared elements, 2) recommendations, and 3) local adaption., Conclusions: A feasible and acceptable model for implementation of SDM across hospitals and departments that accounts for different organizations and cultures was developed. The overall design can easily be adapted to other organizations and can be adjusted to fit the specific organization and culture. The results from the ongoing and overall evaluation suggest promising avenues for future work in further testing and research of the usability of the model., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist, (Copyright: © 2023 Steffensen 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.)

Objective: Shared decision making (SDM) and use of patient decision aids (PtDAs) are key components in patient-centered care in relapsed ovarian cancer. This paper describes the development and implementation process of PtDAs into a clinical routine in three departments., Methods: Two PtDAs were developed in collaboration between patients and clinicians. Acceptability and usability of the PtDAs were tested on clinicians and patients using items from the internationally validated questionnaire "Preparation for Decision Making Scale"., Results: Ten patients and 15 clinicians participated in the study. Most patients indicated that PtDAs would be helpful as preparation for the decision-making process with the clinicians. Ten (75%) of the clinicians responded that the PtDAs helped the patients to understand the benefits and disadvantages of each treatment option. Generally, the clinicians indicated that they would use SDM if they had a PtDA tailored to the clinical situation., Conclusions: Two PtDAs were systematically developed, tested, and implemented thereby supporting an SDM intervention. The PtDAs are still in use at the participating departments., Innovation: This study was successful in reusing a generic template for a patient decision aid (PtDA) developed at one institution and implemented in two other institutions. This was guided by a well-described systematic development process for PtDAs., Competing Interests: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Introduction: The Italian Medieval doctor Thaddeus Florentinus (AD 1210-1295) claimed that herbs could cure or relieve various symptoms such as obstipation, melancholia and nervousness. Additionally, certain herbs were proposed to be able to predict the weather and induce the vision of elves. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate whether herbs could have medical properties as claimed., Methods: A randomized controlled trial with three arms was conducted: 1) Gin with St. John's wort, 2) Gin with angelica and 3) Gin with sweet woodruff. Participants were 21 anesthesia registrars. The primary outcome was visual induction of elves (yes/no) whereas secondary outcomes included melancholia (VAS 0-100), nervousness (VAS 0-100), weather prediction capabilities (yes/no) obstipation (Bristol Stool Chart 1-7) and others. Baseline recordings were obtained and hourly registrations of outcomes were undertaken. Confounding factors such as alcohol intoxication and vivid imagination was controlled by the means of alcohol breathalyzers and assessment of cerebral oxygenation by near infrared spectroscopy., Rresults: The vision of elves was induced in 10 out of 21 participants (48.6%) and was associated with male sex (p = 0.01), young age (p = 0.03) and increase in cerebral oxygenation (p = 0.04) but not with sweet woodruff (p = 0.83) or alcohol intoxication (p = 0.26). Participants were not capable of predicting the weather forecast (p = 0.55). Melancholia and nervousness were not relieved by St. John's wort, and obstipation could not be relieved by the intake of angelica., Conclusion: Sweet woodruff, St. John's wort and angelica were unable to relieve relevant Christmas symptoms as proposed by a medieval doctor. Alcohol ingestion might have influenced results, and data should be interpreted in the light of these precautions., Funding: none., Trial Registration: not applicable.

Necroptosis is a form of programmed necrotic cell death in which a signaling cascade induces oligomerization of mixed lineage kinase domain-like (MLKL) protein, leading to plasma membrane rupture. Necroptotic cell death is recognized as important for protection against viral infection and has roles in a variety of diseases, including cancer and diabetes. Despite its relevance to health and disease states, many questions remain about the precise mechanism of necroptotic cell death, cellular factors that can protect cells from necroptosis, and the role of necroptosis in disease models. In this study, we engineered a light-activated version of MLKL that rapidly oligomerizes and is recruited to the plasma membrane in cells exposed to light, inducing rapid cell death. We demonstrate this tool can be controlled spatially and temporally, used in a chemical genetic screen to identify chemicals and pathways that protect cells from MLKL-induced cell death, and used to study signaling responses of non-dying bystander cells. In additional studies, we re-engineered MLKL to block its cell-killing capacity but retain light-mediated membrane recruitment, developing a new single-component optogenetic tool that allows modulation of protein function at the plasma membrane., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Serous ovarian carcinoma is the most frequent histological subgroup of ovarian cancer and the leading cause of death among gynecologic tumors. The tumor microenvironment and cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) have a critical role in the origin and progression of cancer. We comprehensively characterized the crosstalk between CAFs and ovarian cancer cells from malignant fluids to identify specific ligands and receptors mediating intercellular communications and disrupted pathways related to prognosis and therapy response., Methods: Malignant fluids of serous ovarian cancer, including tumor-derived organoids, CAFs-enriched (eCAFs), and malignant effusion cells (no cultured) paired with normal ovarian tissues, were explored by RNA-sequencing. These data were integrated with single-cell RNA-sequencing data of ascites from ovarian cancer patients. The most relevant ligand and receptor interactions were used to identify differentially expressed genes with prognostic values in ovarian cancer., Results: CAF ligands and epithelial cancer cell receptors were enriched for PI3K-AKT, focal adhesion, and epithelial-mesenchymal transition signaling pathways. Collagens, MIF, MDK, APP, and laminin were detected as the most significant signaling, and the top ligand-receptor interactions THBS2/THBS3 (CAFs)-CD47 (cancer cells), MDK (CAFs)-NCL/SDC2/SDC4 (cancer cells) as potential therapeutic targets. Interestingly, 34 genes encoding receptors and ligands of the PI3K pathway were associated with the outcome, response to treatment, and overall survival in ovarian cancer. Up-regulated genes from this list consistently predicted a worse overall survival (hazard ratio &gt; 1.0 and log-rank P &lt; 0.05) in two independent validation cohorts., Conclusions: This study describes critical signaling pathways, ligands, and receptors involved in the communication between CAFs and cancer cells that have prognostic and therapeutic significance in ovarian cancer. Video abstract., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Objective: Patients with relapsed ovarian cancer are offered multiple treatment options. To match treatment with the individual patient's life situation and preferences, healthcare professionals can apply shared decision making (SDM) including patient decision aids (PtDAs).This study aimed to evaluate the implementation of two different PtDAs in consultations with patients suffering from relapsed ovarian cancer., Methods: We analyzed the following data before and after implementation of the PtDAs: 1) observed SDM using the OPTION instrument, 2) physician treatment recommendations, and 3) patients' and physicians' evaluations of SDM in consultations using the CollaboRATE, SDM-Q-9, and SDM-Q-Doc., Results: Significant improvement in observed SDM was found after the implementation ( p = 0.002). Improvement of SDM was detected in consultations conducted by physicians reporting more than two hours of SDM-training ( p < 0.001), but not when physicians reported less than two hours of SDM-training.No before/after differences in treatment recommendations and in patients' and physicians' evaluations were found., Conclusion: Implementation of PtDAs improved the level of observed SDM. Training of physicians in SDM is necessary for improved SDM practice., Innovation: Discussing oncological treatment options with the use of PtDAs is not standard practice in Denmark. The present study is one of the first Danish studies focusing on how to implement SDM and PtDAs in oncological consultations., Competing Interests: None., (© 2022 The Authors.)

Background: Phase III regulatory trials show that anti-interleukin (IL)-5 biologics efficiently reduce exacerbations and the use of maintenance oral corticosteroids (mOCS) in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. However, patients eligible for these trials differ significantly compared with real-life severe asthma populations. Therefore, our aim was to explore efficacy in a real-life setting. The Danish Severe Asthma Register (DSAR) is a complete, nationwide register that comprises all Danish patients on biological therapy for severe asthma., Methods: This prospective study identified patients in the DSAR who were complete responders to anti-IL-5 biologics after 1 year of treatment. A complete response was defined as resolution of the parameter setting the indication, i.e. recurrent exacerbations and/or use of mOCS., Results: A total of 289 out of 502 (58%) patients were complete responders to anti-IL-5 biologics after 12 months. Complete responders had greater improvements in forced expiratory volume in 1 s and Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) score compared with noncomplete responders (Δ 210 versus 30 mL; p<0.0001 and Δ -1.04 versus -0.68; p=0.016, respectively). A complete response was predicted by age at onset, less severe disease at baseline ( i.e. no mOCS and lower ACQ score) and higher blood eosinophils., Conclusions: More than half of Danish patients treated with anti-IL-5 biologics for severe asthma achieve a complete response to treatment, thereby becoming free from asthma exacerbations and the need for mOCS. Complete responders also achieved superior effects on lung function and symptoms compared with noncomplete responders., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: M.B. Soendergaard has received lecture fees from GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: S. Hansen has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: A.S. Bjerrum has received lecture fees from AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: O. Hilberg has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: S. Lock-Johansson has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: K.E.J. Håkansson has received unrestricted research grants, paid to his institution, from AstraZeneca and Sanofi Genzyme, outside the submitted work; and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from AstraZeneca, Teva, GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi Genzyme, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: T.S. Ingebrigtsen has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: C.R. Johnsen has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: L.M. Rasmussen has received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Teva and ALK, outside the submitted work; support for attending meetings and/or travel received from AstraZeneca and Chiesi, outside the submitted work; and participation on data safety monitoring or advisory boards for AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Teva and Sanofi, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: A. von Bülow has done consultancy work for Novartis DK, outside the submitted work; lectures and speakers fees received from AstraZeneca, Novartis and GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work; and advisory boards for AstraZeneca and Novartis, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: K.D. Assing has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: J.M. Schmid has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: C.S. Ulrik received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Teva, Sanofi, Orion Pharma, Novartis and Chiesi, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: C. Porsbjerg has received grants or contracts from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Teva, Sanofi, Chiesi and ALK, outside the submitted work; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Teva, Sanofi, Chiesi and ALK, outside the submitted work; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events, received from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Teva, Sanofi, Chiesi and ALK, outside the submitted work; and participation on data safety monitoring or advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Novartis, Teva, Sanofi and ALK, outside the submitted work., (Copyright ©The authors 2022.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: We have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and have the following interests to declare: MB received a research grant in the past from Healthwise, a non-profit organization, through Massachusetts General Hospital. DS received payments for travel from the Joint Commission of Taiwan and Safer Care in Melbourne, Australia. The other authors have no declarations. MB is a member of the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). This article does not necessarily represent the views and policies of the USPSTF.

Objectives: Persistence of COVID-19 symptoms in nonhospitalized individuals beyond a few months has not been well characterized. In this longitudinal study from the Faroe Islands, we present prevalence of long COVID in mainly nonhospitalized patients who were followed up for up to 8 months., Methods: All Faroese individuals with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis from August to December 2020 were invited to participate in this study (n = 297). Demographic and clinical characteristics and self-reported symptoms were ascertained prospectively using a detailed questionnaire administered at repeated phone interviews., Results: A total of 226 individuals participated at baseline (226/297, 76% participation rate), of whom 170 participants had more than 3 months follow-up. Of these, 39% (n = 67/170, 95% confidence interval [CI] 32-37%) reported persistent symptoms (median [range] 168 [93-231] days) after the acute phase and 8% (n = 14/170, 95% CI 5-13%) reported severe persistent symptoms. The most prevalent symptoms were fatigue (17%) and smell (17%) and taste (14%) dysfunction. Long COVID was more common in people reporting daily medication use (odds ratio 2.34, 95% CI 1.02-5.37)., Conclusion: Our results show that symptoms may take months to resolve, even among nonhospitalized individuals, with a mild illness in the acute phase. Continued monitoring for long COVID is needed to evaluate the added risk of a potential public health concern., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest The authors have no competing interests to declare., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

This review aims to discuss and illustrate various uses of cantilevers to solve multiple clinical issues and prove their versatility. Cantilevers are commonly used in the segmented arch technique, and they can be designed to solve various clinical problems with highly predictable results. Its design and shape can modify the various combinations of vertical and horizontal forces. The novel trend is to combine cantilevers with skeletal anchorage. Cantilevers offer a very simple and statically determined force system. The advantage is the control over side effects, which normally occur on the anchor teeth and the occlusion. The disadvantages include possible side effects on the anchorage unit, when the anchorage is poorly controlled. The review highlights the clear benefits of cantilever use in complex corrections of single teeth, segments, and entire arch with a diminished effect on the dentition, also with the use of skeletal anchorage. With their simple and easily tailored design, these springs can be called an orthodontic multi-tool.

When high-grade gliomas recur, patients, their families, and clinicians face difficult medical decisions. There is no curable treatment, and the treatment options all come with a risk of complications and adverse effects. The patients are often cognitively affected, and they need tailored decision support. The objective of this study was to develop a patient decision aid (PtDA) targeted at patients with recurrent high-grade gliomas. Based on existing knowledge and the International Patient Decision Aids Standards, the PtDA was developed through an iterative process. The PtDA was alpha-tested by potential users to assess its acceptability and usability. The development team comprised three clinicians, two patients, two family members, and a researcher. The fifth version of the PtDA was submitted to the alpha test. Eleven patients, nine family members, and eleven clinicians assessed the PtDA and found it acceptable. Three changes were made during the alpha test. Most participants perceived the PtDA to prepare patients for decision making and improve consultations. The involvement of potential users was emphasized during the development and alpha test process. The PtDA was assessed as useful and acceptable by patients, family members, and clinicians in the decision-making situation of recurrent high-grade glioma.

Symptoms of long coronavirus disease (COVID) were found in 38% of 170 patients followed for a median of 22.6 months. The most prevalent symptoms were fatigue, affected taste and smell, and difficulties remembering and concentrating. Predictors for long COVID were older age and number of symptoms in the acute phase. Long COVID may take many months, maybe years, to resolve., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Shared decision making (SDM) about medicine with older poly-medicated patients is vital to improving adherence and preventing medication-related hospital admissions, but it is difficult to achieve in practice. This study's primary aim was to provide insight into the extent of SDM in medication decisions in the Emergency Department (ED) and to compare how it aligns with older poly-medicated patients' preferences and needs. We applied a mixed-methods design to investigate SDM in medication decisions from two perspectives: (1) observational measurements with the observing patient involvement (OPTION 5) instrument of healthcare professionals' SDM behavior in medication decisions and (2) semi-structured interviews with older poly-medicated patients. A convergent parallel analysis was performed. Sixty-five observations and fourteen interviews revealed four overall themes: (1) a low degree of SDM about medication, (2) a variation in the pro-active and non-active patients approach to conversations about medicine, (3) no information on side effects, and (4) a preference for medication reduction. The lack of SDM with older patients in the ED may increase inequality in health. Patients with low health literacy are at risk of safety threats, nonadherence, and preventable re-admissions. Therefore, healthcare professionals should systematically investigate older poly-medicated patients' preferences and discuss the side effects and the possibility of reducing harmful medicine.

Extrapelvic endometriosis is a rare type of endometriosis. The diagnosis can be challenging, especially if the patient lacks characteristic endometriosis symptoms. This case report presents a 27-year-old woman diagnosed with both primary umbilical endometriosis and infiltrating endometriosis of the diaphragm. The woman presented with a painful bluish tumour in the umbilicus and cyclic pain in her upper right abdomen, but no lower abdominal pain. Endometriosis should be one of the differential diagnoses when symptoms like pain and/or swelling is cyclic and menstrual-related.

Methylated Homeobox A9 circulating tumor DNA (meth-HOXA9) has been suggested as a blood-based biomarker in epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), although its prognostic significance remains unproven. The aim of the present study was to investigate the prognostic impact of meth-HOXA9 in patients with recurrent EOC. DNA was purified from 4 mL plasma and, following bilsulfite conversion, meth-HOXA9 was analyzed using a methylation-specific droplet digital PCR. Detection of meth-HOXA9 was reported as a percentage of total DNA and as a binary variable (detectable and undetectable). Meth-HOXA9 status and its dynamics during palliative treatment were correlated with overall survival (OS) as the primary endpoint. At baseline, meth-HOXA9 was detected in 65.9% (83/126) of the patients. The median OS was 8.9 and 17.9 months in patients with detectable and undetectable meth-HOXA9 at baseline (hazard ratio: 2.04, p = 0.002), which remained significant in the multivariate analysis. Median OS in patients with an increase in meth-HOXA9 after one treatment cycle was 5.3 months compared to 33 months in patients with undetectable meth-HOXA9 (p < 0.001). Meth-HOXA9 was significantly related to poor survival and may serve as a prognostic marker in patients with recurrent EOC. The longitudinal monitoring of meth-HOXA9 is clinically feasible with the perspective of aiding clinical decision making.

Genetic and epigenetic changes contribute to intratumor heterogeneity and chemotherapy resistance in several tumor types. LncRNAs have been implicated, directly or indirectly, in the epigenetic regulation of gene expression. We investigated lncRNAs that potentially mediate carboplatin-resistance of cell subpopulations, influencing the progression of ovarian cancer (OC). Four carboplatin-sensitive OC cell lines (IGROV1, OVCAR3, OVCAR4, and OVCAR5), their derivative resistant cells, and two inherently carboplatin-resistant cell lines (OVCAR8 and Ovc316) were subjected to RNA sequencing and global DNA methylation analysis. Integrative and cross-validation analyses were performed using external (The Cancer Genome Atlas, TCGA dataset, n = 111 OC samples) and internal datasets ( n = 39 OC samples) to identify lncRNA candidates. A total of 4255 differentially expressed genes (DEGs) and 14529 differentially methylated CpG positions (DMPs) were identified comparing sensitive and resistant OC cell lines. The comparison of DEGs between OC cell lines and TCGA-OC dataset revealed 570 genes, including 50 lncRNAs, associated with carboplatin resistance. Eleven lncRNAs showed DMPs, including the SNHG12 . Knockdown of SNHG12 in Ovc316 and OVCAR8 cells increased their sensitivity to carboplatin. The results suggest that the lncRNA SNHG12 contributes to carboplatin resistance in OC and is a potential therapeutic target. We demonstrated that SNHG12 is functionally related to epigenetic mechanisms.

The interaction between genetic and environmental factors determines the development of type 1 diabetes (T1D). Some viruses are capable of infecting and damaging pancreatic β-cells, whose antiviral response could be modulated by specific viral RNA receptors and sensors such as melanoma differentiation associated gene 5 (MDA5), encoded by the IFIH1 gene. MDA5 has been shown to be involved in pro-inflammatory and immunoregulatory outcomes, thus determining the response of pancreatic islets to viral infections. Although the function of MDA5 has been previously well explored, a detailed immunohistochemical characterization of MDA5 in pancreatic tissues of nondiabetic and T1D donors is still missing. In the present study, we used multiplex immunofluorescence imaging analysis to characterize MDA5 expression and distribution in pancreatic tissues obtained from 22 organ donors (10 nondiabetic autoantibody-negative, 2 nondiabetic autoantibody-positive, 8 recent-onset, and 2 long-standing T1D). In nondiabetic control donors, MDA5 was expressed both in α- and β-cells. The colocalization rate imaging analysis showed that MDA5 was preferentially expressed in α-cells. In T1D donors, we observed an increased colocalization rate of MDA5-glucagon with respect to MDA5-insulin in comparison to nondiabetic controls; such increase was more pronounced in recent-onset with respect to long-standing T1D donors. Of note, an increased colocalization rate of MDA5-glucagon was found in insulin-deficient-islets (IDIs) with respect to insulin-containing-islets (ICIs). Strikingly, we detected the presence of MDA5-positive/hormone-negative endocrine islet-like clusters in T1D donors, presumably due to dedifferentiation or neogenesis phenomena. These clusters were identified exclusively in donors with recent disease onset and not in autoantibody-positive nondiabetic donors or donors with long-standing T1D. In conclusion, we showed that MDA5 is preferentially expressed in α-cells, and its expression is increased in recent-onset T1D donors. Finally, we observed that MDA5 may also characterize the phenotype of dedifferentiated or newly forming islet cells, thus opening to novel roles for MDA5 in pancreatic endocrine cells., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Nigi, Brusco, Grieco, Fignani, Licata, Formichi, Aiello, Marselli, Marchetti, Krogvold, Jorgensen, Sebastiani and Dotta.)

Background: Patients with advanced cancer are faced with a wide variety of challenges and difficult treatment decisions made while in a vulnerable life-threatening situation, including decisions about clinical trial participation. Internationally, there is a great focus on shared decision-making as a way to help patients and healthcare professionals to make informed decisions together; nevertheless, research focusing on patient experiences shows that information about clinical trials is insufficient in supporting patients to make trial decisions in the context of their course of disease and managing life with advanced cancer., Aim: To explore where and how decisions about participation in oncology clinical trials are made and the role of the patients and healthcare professionals., Methods: Participant observation was used as a qualitative research method to gain knowledge about decision-making in different clinical situations. Data were analysed using thematic analysis., Results: Four themes were developed: (a) preformed decisions, (b) dissimilar perceptions of successful treatment, (c) cues and concerns stated by patients and (d) creating common ground., Conclusion: There are underexposed aspects to be aware of in the decision-making process for clinical trial participation. Preformed decisions made by the physicians before the encounter with patients seemed to narrow down the patients' options and could have benefited from including the patients' views. Cues and concerns stated by patients were often neglected. However, when physicians talked with the patients about truly difficult issues such as treatment expectations, hope and death, it led to another kind of conversation about treatment decisions involving the patients' preferences., Implications for Practice: Awareness of preformed decisions and an increased focus on picking up cues and concerns about existential issues in the clinical encounter may improve the quality of the decisions and increase shared decision-making., (© 2021 Nordic College of Caring Science.)

Introduction: Acute pain is a frequent symptom among patients in the pre-hospital setting, and opioids are the most widely used class of drugs for the relief of pain in these patients. However, the evidence base for opioid use in this setting appears to be weak. The aim of this systematic review was to explore the efficacy and safety of opioid analgesics in the pre-hospital setting and to assess potential alternative therapies., Methods: The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, Scopus, and Epistemonikos databases were searched for studies investigating adult patients with acute pain prior to their arrival at hospital. Outcomes on efficacy and safety were assessed. Risk of bias for each included study was assessed according to the Cochrane approach, and confidence in the evidence was assessed using the GRADE method., Results: A total of 3453 papers were screened, of which the full text of 125 was assessed. Twelve studies were ultimately included in this systematic review. Meta-analysis was not undertaken due to substantial clinical heterogeneity among the included studies. Several studies had high risk of bias resulting in low or very low quality of evidence for most of the outcomes. No pre-hospital studies compared opioids with placebo, and no studies assessed the risk of opioid administration for subgroups of frail patients. The competency level of the attending healthcare provider did not seem to affect the efficacy or safety of opioids in two observational studies of very low quality. Intranasal opioids had a similar effect and safety profile as intravenous opioids. Moderate quality evidence supported a similar efficacy and safety of synthetic opioid compared to morphine., Conclusions: Available evidence for pre-hospital opioid administration to relieve acute pain is scarce and the overall quality of evidence is low. Intravenous administration of synthetic, fast-acting opioids may be as effective and safe as intravenous administration of morphine. More controlled studies are needed on alternative routes for opioid administration and pre-hospital pain management for potentially more frail patient subgroups., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Objective: In the Phase 3 VELIA trial (NCT02470585), veliparib added to carboplatin plus paclitaxel concomitantly and as maintenance for women with newly-diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus chemotherapy alone. Here we present exploratory analyses by paclitaxel dosing schedule and germline BRCA (gBRCA) status., Methods: Women with untreated ovarian carcinoma were randomized (1:1:1) to: veliparib during chemotherapy and maintenance (veliparib-throughout), veliparib during chemotherapy followed by placebo maintenance (veliparib-combination only), or placebo during chemotherapy and maintenance (control). Chemotherapy included carboplatin plus dose-dense (DD; weekly) or every-3-week (Q3W) paclitaxel (a stratification factor at randomization), selected at the investigator's discretion pre-randomization. PFS was assessed by paclitaxel dosing schedule using a Cox proportional hazard model adjusted by treatment arm and stratification factors; safety was analyzed based on paclitaxel dosing schedule and gBRCA status., Results: 1132 patients were analyzed by paclitaxel schedule. Pooled treatment arms demonstrated longer median PFS with DD (n = 586) versus Q3W (n = 546) paclitaxel (ITT: 20.5 vs 15.7 months, hazard ratio [HR] 0.77; homologous recombination proficient cancer: 15.1 vs 11.8 months, HR 0.64; BRCAwt: 18.0 vs 12.9 months, HR 0.70). Comparison between arms favored veliparib-throughout versus control in both DD (PFS, 24.2 vs 18.3 months, hazard ratio 0.67) and Q3W (19.3 vs 14.6, hazard ratio 0.69) subgroups. DD paclitaxel was associated with higher incidence of Grade 3/4 neutropenia, fatigue, and anemia versus Q3W. There were no differences in toxicity between gBRCAm (n = 211) and gBRCAwt (n = 902) subgroups., Conclusions: DD paclitaxel was tolerable and associated with longer PFS in the HR proficient and gBRCAwt groups, versus Q3W. gBRCA status did not impact safety., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: In the Phase 3 VELIA trial (NCT02470585), PARP inhibitor (PARPi) veliparib was combined with first-line chemotherapy and continued as maintenance for patients with ovarian carcinoma enrolled regardless of chemotherapy response or biomarker status. Here, we report exploratory analyses of the impact of homologous recombination deficient (HRD) or proficient (HRP) status on progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rates during chemotherapy., Methods: Women with Stage III-IV ovarian carcinoma were randomized to veliparib-throughout, veliparib-combination-only, or placebo. Stratification factors included timing of surgery and germline BRCA mutation status. HRD status was dichotomized at genomic instability score 33. During combination therapy, CA-125 levels were measured at baseline and each cycle; radiographic responses were assessed every 9 weeks., Results: Of 1140 patients randomized, 742 had BRCA wild type (BRCAwt) tumors (HRP, n = 373; HRD/BRCAwt, n = 329). PFS hazard ratios between veliparib-throughout versus control were similar in both BRCAwt populations (HRD/BRCAwt: 22.9 vs 19.8 months; hazard ratio 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53-1.09; HRP: 15.0 vs 11.5 months; hazard ratio 0.765; 95% CI 0.56-1.04). By Cycle 3, the proportion with ≥90% CA-125 reduction from baseline was higher in those receiving veliparib (pooled arms) versus control (34% vs 23%; P = 0.0004); particularly in BRCAwt and HRP subgroups. Complete response rates among patients with measurable disease after surgery were 24% with veliparib (pooled arms) and 18% with control., Conclusions: These results potentially broaden opportunities for PARPi utilization among patients who would not qualify for frontline PARPi maintenance based on other trials., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: More than 70% of patients admitted to emergency departments (EDs) in Denmark are older patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy vulnerable to adverse events and poor outcomes. Research suggests that patient involvement and shared decision-making (SDM) could optimize the treatment of older patients with polypharmacy. The patients become more aware of potential outcomes and, therefore, often tend to choose less medication. However, implementing SDM in clinical practice is challenging if it does not fit into existing workflows and healthcare systems., Aim: The aim was to explore the determinants of patient involvement in decisions made in the ED about the patient's medication., Methods: The design was a qualitative ethnographic study. We observed forty-eight multidisciplinary healthcare professionals in two medical EDs focusing on medication processes and patient involvement in medication. Based on field notes, we developed a semi-structured interview guide. We conducted 20 semi-structured interviews with healthcare professionals to elaborate on the findings. Data were analyzed with thematic analyses., Findings: We found five themes (determinants) which affected patient involvement in decisions about medicine in the ED: 1) blurred roles among multidisciplinary healthcare professionals, 2) older patients with polypharmacy increase complexity, 3) time pressure, 4) faulty IT- systems, and 5) the medicine list as a missed enabler of patient involvement., Conclusion: There are several barriers to patient involvement in decisions about medicine in the ED and some facilitators. A tailored medication conversation guide based on the SDM methodology combined with the patient's printed medicine list and well-functioning IT- systems can function as a boundary object, ensuring the treatment is optimized and aligned with the patient's preferences and goals., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Due to the compact two-dimensional interlayer pore space and the high density of interlayer molecular adsorption sites, clay minerals are competitive adsorption materials for carbon dioxide capture. We demonstrate that with a decreasing interlayer surface charge in a clay mineral, the adsorption capacity for CO 2 increases, while the pressure threshold for adsorption and swelling in response to CO 2 decreases. Synthetic nickel-exchanged fluorohectorite was investigated with three different layer charges varying from 0.3 to 0.7 per formula unit of Si 4 O 10 F 2 . We associate the mechanism for the higher CO 2 adsorption with more accessible space and adsorption sites for CO 2 within the interlayers. The low onset pressure for the lower-charge clay is attributed to weaker cohesion due to the attractive electrostatic forces between the layers. The excess adsorption capacity of the clay is measured to be 8.6, 6.5, and 4.5 wt % for the lowest, intermediate, and highest layer charges, respectively. Upon release of CO 2 , the highest-layer charge clay retains significantly more CO 2 . This pressure hysteresis is related to the same cohesion mechanism, where CO 2 is first released from the edges of the particles thereby closing exit paths and trapping the molecules in the center of the clay particles.

Background: Little is known about long-term recovery from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) disease, especially in nonhospitalized individuals. In this longitudinal study we present symptoms registered during the acute phase as well as long COVID (ie, long-lasting COVID-19 symptoms) in patients from the Faroe Islands., Methods: All consecutive patients with confirmed reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction testing from April to June 2020 were invited to participate in this study for the assessment of long COVID. Demographic and clinical characteristics and self-reported acute and persistent symptoms were assessed using a standardized detailed questionnaire administered at enrollment and at repeated phone interviews in the period 22 April to 16 August., Results: Of the 180 participants (96.3% of the 187 eligible COVID-19 patients), 53.1% reported persistence of at least 1 symptom after a mean of 125 days after symptoms onset, 33.0% reported 1 or 2 symptoms, and 20.1% reported 3 or more symptoms. At the last follow-up, 46.9% were asymptomatic compared with 4.4% during the acute phase. The most prevalent persistent symptoms were fatigue, loss of smell and taste, and arthralgias., Conclusions: Our results show that it might take months for symptoms to resolve, even among nonhospitalized persons with mild illness course in the acute phase. Continued monitoring for long COVID is needed., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate if and to what extent small lateral wedges inserted under the ski boot, known as canting, could impact knee kinematics/kinetics, balance, and neuromuscular activity in recreational alpine skiers in the laboratory setting., Design: Experimental, crossover study with repeated-measures analysis METHODS: Thirty-eight recreational skiers completed a single-leg postural balance test while wearing standardized ski boots in their unmodified state (control), and with medial and lateral canting wedges applied. Kinematics, kinetics, postural control measures, and neuromuscular activity of the lower extremity were assessed using optical motion capture, instrumented force plates, and electromyography., Results: Canting modifications had significant impact on lower extremity kinematics and kinetics: canting wedges on the medial side of the foot significantly decreased knee valgus moments, hip internal rotation, and hip adduction. Medial canting also improved some postural control measures associated with balance quality, and reduced activation levels of the Vastus Lateralis, Biceps Femoris, and Tibialis Anterior., Conclusions: In the laboratory setting, canting appears to be an appropriate option for improving balance in alpine skiers. Medial canting can alter skier kinematics and kinetics in ways which are consistent with mechanisms of ACL injury. Canting may also result in reduced neuromuscular effort. These changes in movement have potential to prevent lower limb injuries in alpine skiers. The findings of this study motivate future research to predict individual responses to canting treatment in a study setting more closely resembling the sports environment., (Copyright © 2020 Sports Medicine Australia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The vast majority of patients with advanced ovarian cancer experience disease recurrence after primary treatment., Objective: To explore the diagnostic accuracy of repeated measurement of patient-reported outcomes and quality-of-life scores in relation to ovarian cancer recurrence., Methods: Patients with ovarian cancer were recruited to the PROMova study by the end of their primary treatment at eight centers in Denmark. The purpose of the PROMova study was to explore the applicability of repeated use of patient-reported outcomes, which consisted of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer generic questionnaire and the ovarian specific questionnaire. The patient-reported outcomes were completed 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15 months after enrollment or until recurrence. The 3-month interval between completions was the period in which recurrence was assessed. Imaging and the biomarker CA125 were used as reference modality for recurrence. Mixed effects logistic regression was used to investigate the association between mean patient-reported outcome scores and recurrence. Receiver operating curves were used to establish cut-off scores. The diagnostic accuracy of patient-reported outcomes, including sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values was estimated based on the Youden index. For combined scales, diagnostic accuracy was investigated based on multivariate analysis., Results: The analysis included 196 patients with an overall recurrence rate of 50.5% and an overall mean time to recurrence of 302 days. With imaging as reference, patients with recurrence reported significantly lower global health, worse physical functioning, and more abdominal symptoms preceding recurrence. With CA125 as reference, global health, physical and emotional functioning were impaired. Despite the worsening of a number of symptoms prior to recurrence whichever reference modality was applied, the patient-reported outcome scores did not provide adequate diagnostic accuracy., Conclusion: Repeated use of patient-reported outcomes during surveillance of ovarian cancer was not of diagnostic value. Future efforts should be directed at improving the administration of patient-reported outcomes as well as exploring the potential of using these outcomes as an indicator of clinical relevance., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© IGCS and ESGO 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Oligodendrocytes are highly specialized glial cells, responsible for producing myelin in the central nervous system (CNS). The multi-stage process of oligodendrocyte development is tightly regulated to ensure proper lineage progression of oligodendrocyte progenitor cells (OPCs) to mature myelin producing oligodendrocytes. This developmental process involves complex interactions between several intrinsic signaling pathways that are modulated by an array of extrinsic factors. Understanding these regulatory processes is of crucial importance, as it may help to identify specific molecular targets both to enhance plasticity in the normal CNS and to promote endogenous recovery following injury or disease. This review describes two major regulators that play important functional roles in distinct phases of oligodendrocyte development: OPC proliferation and differentiation. Specifically, we highlight the roles of the extracellular astrocyte/radial glia-derived protein Endothelin-1 in OPC proliferation and the intracellular Akt/mTOR pathway in OPC differentiation. Lastly, we reflect on how recent advances in neuroscience and scientific technology will enable greater understanding into how intrinsic and extrinsic regulators interact to generate oligodendrocyte diversity., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)