Emerging artificial intelligence-aided diagnosis and management methods for ischemic strokes and vascular occlusions: A comprehensive review

Large-vessel occlusion (LVO) stroke is a promising field for the use of AI, especially machine learning (ML) because optimal results are highly dependent on timely diagnosis, communication, and treatment. In order to better understand the current state of artificial intelligence (AI) in relation to LVO strokes, its efficacy, and potential future applications, we searched relevant literature to perform a comprehensive evaluation of the topic. The databases PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were extensively searched for this review. Studies were then screened using title and abstract criteria and duplicate studies were excluded. By using pre-established inclusion and exclusion criteria, it was decided whether or not to include full-text papers in the final analysis. The studies were analyzed, and the relevant information was retrieved. In recognizing LVO on computed tomography, ML approaches were very accurate. There is a shortage of AI applications for thrombectomy patient selection, despite the fact that certain research accurately evaluates individual patient eligibility for endovascular therapy. Machine learning algorithms may reasonably predict clinical and angiographic outcomes as well as associated factors. AI has shown promise in the diagnosis and treatment of people who have just suffered a stroke. However, the usefulness of AI in management and forecasting remains restricted, necessitating more studies into machine learning applications that can guide decision making in the future.

Pan-Asian adapted ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients with endometrial cancer

The most recent version of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients with endometrial cancer was published in 2022. It was therefore decided, by both the ESMO and the Indian Society of Medical and Paediatric Oncology (ISMPO), to convene a virtual meeting in July 2022 to adapt the ESMO 2022 guidelines to take into account the variations in the management of endometrial cancer in Asia. These guidelines represent the consensus opinion of a panel of Asian experts representing the oncological societies of China (CSCO), India (ISMPO), Indonesia (ISHMO), Japan (JSMO), Korea (KSMO), Malaysia (MOS), the Philippines (PSMO), Singapore (SSO), Taiwan (TOS) and Thailand (TSCO). Voting was based on scientific evidence and was conducted independently of the current treatment practices and treatment access constraints in the different Asian countries, which were discussed when appropriate. The aim of this guideline manuscript is to provide guidance for the optimisation and harmonisation of the management of patients with endometrial cancer across the different regions of Asia, drawing on the evidence provided by Western and Asian trials whilst respecting the variations in clinical presentation, diagnostic practices including molecular profiling and disparities in access to therapeutic options, including drug approvals and reimbursement strategies.

LDL cholesterol an unmet target in diabetic, hypertensive population pan India exposing susceptive cardiovascular disorder risk

Funding Acknowledgements

Type of funding sources: None.

Background

Management and pathophysiology of diabetes and hypertension has always been the centre of research, with new insights being found consistently. CVD is the major cause of mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes and affects approximately 32.2% of people with type 2 diabetes. Southeast Asia stands out with a higher prevalence of CAD (29.4%) compared with other regions.

Purpose

The purpose of this EHR based real world study was to identify the proportion of patients with LDL-C out of control in people living with diabetes and hypertension who were under regular care of physicians. Specialized clinical care by super-specialists ensures management of specific disorders, yet risk factors for overall cardiovascular health continue to be expressed uncontrolled.

Methods

Patients reporting for routine care in 14 centers across the country were eligible to participate in the study. Patient recruitment at each site required informed consent signature, history of at least 6 months of diabetes mellitus type 2, was sequential and independent of other sites. An EMR (Medeva) integrated research proforma was created only for this study which collected data on medical history, comorbidities, diabetic complications, medications and laboratory values of relevance to the study. The recruitment started in March 2022 and ended in August 2022 (6 months).

Results

Average age of these patients was 54.36 years, and 1238 were male and 964 were female patients. Out of this sample, 1388 patients were only diabetic and 814 patients had diabetes as well as hypertension. 256 patients 44.8% patients had LDL-C within acceptable limits and the remaining 51.2% had hyperdyslipidemia. Average LDL-C value for all patients was 107.07, average LDL-C levels in only diabetic patients was 116.51, and LDL in patients with diabetes and hypertension is 90.97. In diabetes only patients, 37% patients had LDL-C under control whereas in diabetes and hypertension group 58% patients had LDL-C under control.

Conclusion

Although diabetic patients are under regular clinical care, their LDL-C values were higher in 55.2% of the patients. This is an alarming signal that calls all the stakeholders - diabetologists, researchers, educators, dieticians, policymakers, government agencies and people with diabetes must contribute towards the management of lipid profile for prevention of cardiovascular events. Also, the proportion of patients with LDL-C under control is lesser in patients who are only diabetic as compared to patients who are both diabetic and hypertensive. This finding suggests that there is either lesser focus or inadequate on lipid profile of patients who are only diabetic; more holistic management is an unprecedented requirement. More research is needed in this direction to recognize the loopholes, manage them and prevent them adequately.

Maintenance therapy with a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor in patients with newly diagnosed advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: individual patient data and trial-level meta-analysis

Background

We synthesize the efficacy and toxicity of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPis) in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer.

Patients and methods

We manually extracted individual patient data (IPD) for progression-free survival (PFS) from published survival curves of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared PARPi versus placebo as maintenance therapy in first-line treatment, for whole study populations and subgroups, based on BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation (germline and/or somatic) and homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) status, using WebPlotDigitizer software. The respective PFS curves for each study and combined population were reconstructed from extracted IPD. The primary outcome was PFS in combined whole population and subgroups.

Results

In IPD analysis of combined population from three RCTs, with 2296 patients and 1287 events, PFS was significantly longer in PARPi versus placebo [median 20.4 (95% confidence interval (CI) 18.6-21.9) versus 14.9 (95% CI 13.9-16.5) months, respectively; hazard ratio (HR) 0.67, 95% CI 0.60-0.75; P < 0.001]. In IPD subgroup analyses from four eligible RCTs (2687 patients and 1485 events), median PFS was significantly longer in PARPi versus placebo arm, in the BRCA-mutated (45.7 versus 17.7 months, respectively; HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.32-0.46; P < 0.001), HRD-positive including BRCA-mutated (34.7 versus 17.9 months, respectively; HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.38-0.54; P < 0.001), and HRD positive excluding BRCA-mutated (22.3 versus 13.1 months, respectively; HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.34-0.65; P < 0.001) subgroups, but not in the HRD-negative (15.0 versus 11.3 months, respectively; HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.76-1.05; P = 0.75) subgroup. Results of trial-level meta-analysis were concordant with IPD analysis in whole population and subgroups.

Conclusions

Among newly diagnosed ovarian cancer patients, PARPi maintenance therapy significantly improves PFS in those with germline and/or somatic BRCA mutation and/or HRD-positive tumor but not in those with HRD-negative tumor.

•

Maintenance PARPi resulted in significant PFS improvement in total population, but benefit varied in subgroups.

•

PARPi showed PFS gain in BRCA-mutated (45.7 versus 17.7 m) and HRD-positive subgroups.

•

No significant PFS benefit was seen in the HRD-negative subgroup (15.0 versus 11.3 months; P = 0.75).

•

PARPi should be a standard treatment in newly diagnosed ovarian cancer patients except those with HRD-negative tumors.

O-129 Subclinical hypothyroidism and antithyroid autoantibodies in women with subfertility or recurrent pregnancy loss: a scientific impact paper

Study question

How should subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH) and autoimmune thyroid disease (ATD) be managed in women with subfertility or recurrent pregnancy loss?

Summary answer

This Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) scientific impact paper provides evidence based recommendations on the testing for and management of SCH and ATD.

What is known already

Subclinical hypothyroidism and autoimmune thyroid disease have been linked to adverse pregnancy outcomes such as miscarriage and premature birth. There is debate about whether there should be routine testing of thyroid function in both the general population and individuals who are trying for a baby. In addition, the strategies used to manage certain thyroid problems are questioned. Discussions around testing and subsequent management particularly relate to women with a history of subfertility or recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL).

Study design, size, duration

The purpose of this scientific impact paper is to provide evidence based clinical practice recommendations about the controversial subjects of SCH and antithyroid autoantibodies in women with a history of subfertility or RPL. This has been done by reviewing and collating the published evidence and international guidance.

Participants/materials, setting, methods

This body of work is a literature review of published primary studies, systematic reviews and international guidelines relating to the screening for and management of SCH and ATD in women with subfertility or recurrent pregnancy loss. Recommendations for practice and areas for further research have been identified.

Main results and the role of chance

Population-trimester and laboratory-specific reference ranges for serum thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) and free thyroxine (fT4) should be applied when defining SCH. Untreated mild–moderate SCH (TSH 4.0-10.0mIU/l) is associated with early pregnancy loss and there is low-quality evidence that levothyroxine (LT4) treatment of such women is associated with improved pregnancy and live birth rates.

Routine preconception TSH and fT4 testing should be offered to women with history of RPL or subfertile women undergoing assisted reproduction.

Women receiving LT4 treatment for SCH should have an empirical dose increase in pregnancy, doubling the dose on 2days per week once pregnancy is confirmed, with regular TSH measurements from 7–9weeks gestation.

There is no benefit from LT4 treatment in improving pregnancy outcomes for euthyroid TPOAb-negative women. Knowing TPOAb status allows for stratification of women who will require thyroid function monitoring during pregnancy. The option of performing preconception TPOAb testing for women with infertility or a history of RPL versus routine early pregnancy thyroid function testing alone are both acceptable strategies, until clinical and cost-effectiveness analyses are available. Further studies are required to determine the role of selenium or steroids in improving pregnancy outcomes for euthyroid TPOAb-positive women.

Limitations, reasons for caution

The evidence for treatment of SCH in women with RPL or subfertility is of low quality and therefore must be interpreted with caution.

Wider implications of the findings

SCH and ATD are common conditions and management strategies are widely debated, particularly in women with history of subfertility or recurrent pregnancy loss. Further high quality studies are needed in this area to help strengthen our knowledge on how to manage such patients.

Trial registration number

Not applicable

P-761 Perinatal outcomes following blastocyst versus cleavage-stage transfer of fresh embryos: an updated analysis of UK national data

Study question

Are there differences in perinatal outcomes in singleton live births following transfer of fresh embryos at blastocyst versus cleavage-stage?

Summary answer

In singleton live births arising from fresh embryos, blastocyst transfer is not associated with higher perinatal risks than cleavage-stage transfer.

What is known already

Extended culture involves prolonged exposure to culture media. Although blastocyst transfer is currently the default strategy for many fertility clinics, there is a paucity of perinatal data from randomised trials. Previous observational research, including an earlier analysis of United Kingdom (UK) national data (up to 2012) by our group, has been suggestive of increased perinatal risks following blastocyst transfer. As laboratory practices have continued to evolve over time, we felt it was important to address this question again using more contemporary data (up to 2018) which have been recently made available by the UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA).

Study design, size, duration

A retrospective cohort study was undertaken using anonymised HFEA data on all fresh in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles resulting in a singleton live birth (127,632) between 1999 and 2018. Perinatal outcomes were compared in babies conceived from the transfer of fresh embryos which were either at cleavage-stage (2-3 days of culture) or blastocyst-stage (5-6 days).

Participants/materials, setting, methods

All IVF/ICSI cycles resulting in singleton live births following the transfer of fresh blastocysts or cleavage-stage embryos were included. Logistic regression was used to calculate adjusted risk ratios (aRRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for perinatal outcomes including a healthy baby (term delivery, normal birth weight, no congenital anomalies) following either blastocyst or cleavage-stage transfer. Outcomes were separately compared in women who had a singleton live birth after their first fresh cycle of IVF/ICSI.

Main results and the role of chance

Of 127,632 singleton live births, 54,688 occurred after blastocyst transfer while 72,944 resulted from cleavage-stage transfer. The corresponding numbers in 64,812 women who underwent their first cycle of IVF/ICSI were 25,452 (blastocyst) and 39,360 (cleavage-stage). Outcomes following blastocyst and cleavage-stage transfer were comparable in terms of low birth weight (7.2% vs. 7.5%, aRR 0.98, 95% CI 0.93-1.05), very low birth weight (1.7% vs. 1.8%, aRR 0.95, 95% CI 0.82-1.10), high birth weight (6.4% vs. 7.3%, aRR 0.98, 95% CI 0.92-1.04), very high birth weight (1.2% vs. 1.4%, aRR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87-1.14), very preterm birth (1.7% vs. 1.7%, aRR 1.04, 95% CI 0.92-1.17) and congenital anomalies (0.6% vs. 2.5%, aRR 0.93, 95% CI 0.80-1.08). These findings were confirmed in the sensitivity analysis involving women undergoing their first fresh embryo transfer. In the general population, the risk of preterm birth was higher following blastocyst transfer (7.7% vs. 7.3%, aRR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01-1.13) but this difference was not maintained in the sensitivity analysis (aRR 1.05, 95% CI 0.96-1.14). The chance to deliver a healthy singleton was similar across both groups in both primary cycle-based analysis (aRR 1.00, 95% CI 0.98-1.02) and sensitivity analysis (aRR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97-1.02).

Limitations, reasons for caution

The primary analysis was unable to discriminate between cycles and women or to adjust for clustering of women within cycles. Data were unavailable for some key confounders (body mass index, smoking status, previous medical history and complications during pregnancy).

Wider implications of the findings

While our findings provide some reassurance to patients undergoing blastocyst transfer, the limitations of the current study mean that further research is needed using women based rather than cycle based data.

Trial registration number

not applicable

O-073 Perinatal outcomes of infants conceived using partner versus donor sperm - An analysis of singleton and twin pregnancies from the UK national dataset

Study question

Are perinatal outcomes different in pregnancies conceived using donor sperm compared with those with partner sperm?

Summary answer

The perinatal outcomes of singleton and twin pregnancies conceived with donor sperm are better when compared to those conceived with partner sperm

What is known already

There has been a substantial increase in the use of donor sperm in the last 15 years across the world. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis has suggested that there is an increased risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and small for gestational age babies from ART treatment using donor sperm compared to partner`s sperm. This meta-analysis was limited due to poor quality of primary studies often with small sample sizes.

Study design, size, duration

This is a retrospective cohort study on 196,293 singleton and 46,275 twin pregnancies from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) anonymised dataset including all live births from 1991 to 2016. Outcomes were preterm birth ( &lt; 37 weeks); very preterm birth ( &lt; 32 weeks); very low, low, high and very high birth weight ( &lt; 1500g, &lt; 2500g, &gt;4000g and &gt;4500g respectively); congenital anomaly and healthy baby (term live birth with appropriate weight and no congenital anomaly).

Participants/materials, setting, methods

All pregnancies resulting in singleton or twin livebirth were included. Any cycle involving donor oocytes, PGD, gamete intra-fallopian transfer, ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth, or termination was excluded. Logistic regression and generalised estimating equations were used for analysis of singletons and twins, respectively. Odds ratios (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for donor versus partner sperm were adjusted for maternal age, previous pregnancy, cause of infertility and year for all outcomes plus gestational age for birthweight.

Main results and the role of chance

Baseline characteristics for donor and partner sperm pregnancies were assessed for singleton and twin livebirths separately. In both analyses there were significant differences between donor and partner sperm pregnancies in terms of maternal age, previous pregnancy status and cause of infertility.

Analysis of singleton births demonstrated an increased odds (aOR, 95% CI) of having a healthy baby (1.09, 1.05 - 1.12) and reduced odds of congenital anomaly (0.34, 0.29 - 0.39), very preterm birth (0.66, 0.58-0.75), preterm birth (0.81, 0.76-0.86), low birthweight 0.89 (0.83 - 0.96) in singleton births using donor sperm compared with those using partner sperm. There was, however, an increased odds of high birthweight (1.10, 1.05 - 1.16) and very high birthweight (1.16, 1.05-1.29) with donor sperm pregnancies.

Analysis of twin births conceived with donor sperm also showed higher odds of having a healthy baby (1.07, 1.01 - 1.15) and lower odds of congenital anomaly (0.52, 0.39 - 0.68) compared with partner sperm. There were no statistically significant differences between the birthweight or birth gestation outcomes for twin pregnancies.

Sensitivity analysis of only cases with complete outcome data showed no significant differences when compared to the primary analysis.

Limitations, reasons for caution

This is a retrospective study of a single nation’s routinely collected data. We could not adjust for confounders such as smoking, BMI and pregnancy complications such as pre-eclampsia, as they are not recorded in HFEA’s dataset.

Wider implications of the findings

Patients and clinicians can be reassured that donor sperm pregnancies are not at higher risk of adverse perinatal outcomes. In fact, they are more likely to result in a healthy baby. Worldwide registries should consider including maternal data to enable a better assessment of outcomes.

Trial registration number

Not applicable

P–775 Obstetric and perinatal outcomes of singleton pregnancies after blastocyst-stage embryo transfer: a systematic review and cumulative meta-analysis

Study question

Are obstetric/perinatal outcomes different in singleton pregnancies following blastocyst-stage embryo transfer when compared to cleavage-stage embryo transfer and have results changed over time?

Summary answer

Pregnancies following blastocyst are consistently associated with higher risk of large for gestational age and lower risk of small for gestational age babies

What is known already

Extended embryo culture to blastocyst-stage is widely used to select best embryos in in vitro fertilisation (IVF) cycles to improve pregnancy rates. Transfer of blastocyst-stage embryos is increasing with this being the default strategy in most clinics. As blastocysts are kept in culture until day 5, 6 or 7 after oocyte fertilisation, there are suggestions that longer exposure to culture media may have a negative impact on pregnancy outcomes. More recent primary studies have challenged some of the initial findings. We therefore conducted an updated systematic review and cumulative meta-analysis (CMA) to examine if these results have changed over time.

Study design, size, duration

Systematic review of studies published between 1980 and 2020, followed by aggregated meta-analysis and CMA to track the accumulation of evidence over the period of time. Exposed group: singleton pregnancies following blastocyst transfer. Non-exposed group: singleton pregnancies following cleavage-stage transfer. Sub-group analyses were conducted on fresh and frozen-thawed embryo transfers. Perinatal (categories of preterm birth and birth weight) and obstetric outcomes (hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, gestational diabetes, c-section, placental anomalies) were compared between the groups.

Participants/materials, setting, methods

Medline, EMBASE, CINHAL, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform databases were searched. Relevant journals were searched for advance access publications. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklists were used to assess study quality. Two independent reviewers extracted data in 2 × 2 tables. Aggregated and CMA were performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software. Risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated.

Main results and the role of chance

A total of 33 observational studies were included (n = 574,756 singleton pregnancies). Pregnancies following blastocyst-stage embryo transfer are associated with a higher risk of preterm birth (PTB) (RR 1.09; 95% CI 1.01–1.17), very preterm birth (VPTB) (RR 1.15; 95% CI 1.07–1.24), large for gestational age (LGA) babies (RR 1.13; 95% CI 1.08–1.19), c-section (RR 1.05; 95% CI 1.02–1.09), and with a lower risk of small for gestational age (SGA) babies (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.81–0.93) as compared to singleton pregnancies following cleavage-stage embryo transfer.

These findings were maintained in both fresh and frozen-thawed sub-groups for LGA and SGA. PTB was not significantly different in both sub-group analyses. The risk of VPTB was higher after blastocyst-stage embryo transfer only in the sub-group analysis of fresh embryo transfers (RR 1.17; 95% CI 1.09–1.27) and that of c-section only in the frozen-thawed sub-group (RR 1.08; 95% CI 1.04–1.12).

No other statistically significant differences for the other outcomes were noted.

The CMA suggests that for SGA and LGA subsequent studies have increased the precision of the point estimate with no change in the direction or magnitude of the treatment effect since 2014.

Limitations, reasons for caution

This analysis was constrained by the intrinsic limitations of observational studies with some of them receiving a CASP score &lt; 10. Adjustment for confounders was not possible and a high degree of clinical and statistical heterogeneity was noted among studies.

Wider implications of the findings: Blastocyst is associated with a higher risk of LGA and a lower risk of SGA with a stable body of evidence since 2014. We may need to revisit the default position of extending embryo culture and individualise care, until further high-quality data from individual-patient-data of large registries are available.

Trial registration number

Not applicable

Psychological assessment and lived experiences of recovered COVID-19 patients who presented for convalescent plasma donation

Background

Increasingly, it has been seen that patients recovering from COVID-19 may face a second battle of coping with its mental health ramifications. These psychological issues can even be experienced by patients who were asymptomatic or had mild to moderate symptoms, potentially impacting their quality of life.

Methodology

This was a prospective observational study to analyse the psychological impact of COVID-19 in recovered patients who presented as prospective convalescent plasma (CP) donors. An interview for the psychological assessment of the prospective donors was carried out. Depression and anxiety in the participants were assessed by HAM-A, and HAM-D scores and Quality of Life were assessed using the WHOQOL-BREF scale.

Results

A total of 51 prospective donors were assessed, with a mean age of 34.37 (±9.08) years, with the majority being males (46). No clinically significant depression and anxiety were found on the basis of HAM-D and HAM-A scores. The worst affected quality of life parameter, based on the WHOQOL-BREF scale, was physical quality of life followed by environmental, psychological, and social relationships. Moreover, due to infection, social stigma was experienced by 49.02% of the donors, while 21.97% had anxiety related to convalescent plasma donation as a common livid experience.

Conclusion

Poor quality of life and social stigma during the recovery phase is prevalent in COVID-19 recovered patients, for which formulation of holistic support strategies are the need of the hour.

Use of insulin glargine during pregnancy: A review

BACKGOUND AND AIMS

Hyperglycemia during pregnancy is increasing globally. Insulin therapy is considered the standard of care for its optimum management. Insulin glargine, in spite of widespread use in non-pregnant adults, lacks randomized controlled trial evidence as safe basal insulin during pregnancy. Aim of this review is to discuss major available evidences and recommendations on the use of insulin glargine during pregnancy.

METHODS

Evidences related to use of insulin glargine during pregnancy, including animal studies, placental transfer studies, case reports as well as observational studies were retrieved using PUBMED & Google scholar. Recommendations regarding use of insulin glargine during pregnancy by international and Indian organizations were reviewed.

RESULTS

Trans-placental transfer studies show that insulin glargine does not cross placenta when used at therapeutic concentrations. Although there are no randomized controlled trials on insulin glargine in pregnancy, it's use during pregnancy is not associated with any adverse maternal or neonatal outcomes as shown in many case reports and observational studies (both prospective and retrospective). It's use during pregnancy is hence considered safe by many organizations across the globe.

CONCLUSIONS

Insulin glargine can be continued safely during pregnancy in women who are already taking it prior to pregnancy and have achieved good glycemic control with it. However we require preferably randomized controlled trials or large prospective observational studies to establish it as first line or preferred basal insulin for management of hyperglycemia during pregnancy.

Current Opinion on Peritoneal Carcinomatosis Treatment: a Survey of the Indian Society of Peritoneal Surface Malignancies (ISPSM)

Purpose

Patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) are increasingly treated with multidisciplinary combined approaches. The study aim was to assess current practice and perceptions of treatment modalities of PC.

Methods

Indian Society of Peritoneal Surface Malignancies (ISPSM) members were invited to complete an online survey. Current practice and perceptions of treatment modalities were assessed through 19 closed questions. Scores were assessed using a Likert scale (0: not important, 5: very important). Treatment modality satisfaction was assessed using a semantic scale (frustrated: 0, perfectly happy: 10). Participants were sent 3 reminders at 4-week intervals.

Results

Fifty-seven out of 182 members completed the survey (31%). Forty percent of participants had an experience of at least 10 years, and 75% stated treating less than 20 PC patients per year. Main treatment goals for patients with PC were cure (5/5) and symptom relief (4/5). Participant’s satisfaction with treatment modalities for ovarian, colorectal, and gastric PC were 6/10, 5/10, and 2/10, respectively. Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for ovarian (57%) and colorectal (44%) origins were considered to be useful. Clinical usefulness of chemotherapy for gastric PC was rated to be low (17%).

Conclusions

Current treatment modalities fall short to satisfy the needs (cure, symptom relief) of patients with PC. Alternative systemic and intraperitoneal treatment modalities should be assessed.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12029-020-00538-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Predicting the chances of having a baby with or without treatment at different time points in couples with unexplained subfertility

STUDY QUESTION

Can we develop a prediction model that can estimate the chances of conception leading to live birth with and without treatment at different points in time in couples with unexplained subfertility?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Yes, a dynamic model was developed that predicted the probability of conceiving under expectant management and following active treatments (in vitro fertilisation (IVF), intrauterine insemination with ovarian stimulation (IUI + SO), clomiphene) at different points in time since diagnosis.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Couples with no identified cause for their subfertility continue to have a realistic chance of conceiving naturally, which makes it difficult for clinicians to decide when to intervene. Previous fertility prediction models have attempted to address this by separately estimating either the chances of natural conception or the chances of conception following certain treatments. These models only make predictions at a single point in time and are therefore inadequate for informing continued decision-making at subsequent consultations.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A population-based study of 1316 couples with unexplained subfertility attending a regional clinic between 1998 and 2011.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

A dynamic prediction model was developed that estimates the chances of conception within 6 months from the point when a diagnosis of unexplained subfertility was made. These predictions were recomputed each month to provide a dynamic assessment of the individualised chances of conception while taking account of treatment status in each month. Conception must have led to live birth and treatments included clomiphene, IUI + SO, and IVF. Predictions for natural conception were externally validated using a prospective cohort from The Netherlands.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

A total of 554 (42%) couples started fertility treatment within 2 years of their first fertility consultation. The natural conception leading to live birth rate was 0.24 natural conceptions per couple per year. Active treatment had a higher chance of conception compared to those who remained under expectant management. This association ranged from weak with clomiphene to strong with IVF [clomiphene, hazard ratio (HR) = 1.42 (95% confidence interval, 1.05 to 1.91); IUI + SO, HR = 2.90 (2.06 to 4.08); IVF, HR = 5.09 (4.04 to 6.40)]. Female age and duration of subfertility were significant predictors, without clear interaction with the relative effect of treatment.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

We were unable to adjust for other potentially important predictors, e.g. measures of ovarian reserve, which were not available in the linked Grampian dataset that may have made predictions more specific. This study was conducted using single centre data meaning that it may not be generalizable to other centres. However, the model performed as well as previous models in reproductive medicine when externally validated using the Dutch cohort.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

For the first time, it is possible to estimate the chances of conception following expectant management and different fertility treatments over time in couples with unexplained subfertility. This information will help inform couples and their clinicians of their likely chances of success, which may help manage expectations, not only at diagnostic workup completion but also throughout their fertility journey.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This work was supported by a Chief Scientist Office postdoctoral training fellowship in health services research and health of the public research (ref PDF/12/06). B.W.M. is supported by an NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck, and Guerbet. None of the other authors declare any conflicts of interest.

Marie M, Stickney K, VanBuecken D, Vellek B, Webber C, Allen L, Bollyk J, Hilderman N, Ismail H, Lamola S, Sanda S, Vendettuoli H, Tridgell D, Monzavi R, Bock M, Fisher L, Halvorson M, Jeandron D, Kim M, Wood J, Geffner M, Kaufman F, Parkman R, Salazar C, Goland R, Clynes R, Cook S, Freeby M, Pat Gallagher M, Gandica R, Greenberg E, Kurland A, Pollak S, Wolk A, Chan M, Koplimae L, Levine E, Smith K, Trast J, DiMeglio L, Blum J, Evans-Molina C, Hufferd R, Jagielo B, Kruse C, Patrick V, Rigby M, Spall M, Swinney K, Terrell J, Christner L, Ford L, Lynch S, Menendez M, Merrill P, Pescovitz M, Rodriguez H, Alleyn C, Baidal D, Fay S, Gaglia J, Resnick B, Szubowicz S, Weir G, Benjamin R, Conboy D, deManbey A, Jackson R, Jalahej H, Orban T, Ricker A, Wolfsdorf J, Zhang HH, Wilson D, Aye T, Baker B, Barahona K, Buckingham B, Esrey K, Esrey T, Fathman G, Snyder R, Aneja B, Chatav M, Espinoza O, Frank E, Liu J, Perry J, Pyle R, Rigby A, Riley K, Soto A, Gitelman S, Adi S, Anderson M, Berhel A, Breen K, Fraser K, Gerard-Gonzalez A, Jossan P, Lustig R, Moassesfar S, Mugg A, Ng D, Prahalod P, Rangel-Lugo M, Sanda S, Tarkoff J, Torok C, Wesch R, Aslan I, Buchanan J, Cordier J, Hamilton C, Hawkins L, Ho T, Jain A, Ko K, Lee T, Phelps S, Rosenthal S, Sahakitrungruang T, Stehl L, Taylor L, Wertz M, Wong J, Philipson L, Briars R, Devine N, Littlejohn E, Grant T, Gottlieb P, Klingensmith G, Steck A, Alkanani A, Bautista K, Bedoy R, Blau A, Burke B, Cory L, Dang M, Fitzgerald-Miller L, Fouts A, Gage V, Garg S, Gesauldo P, Gutin R, Hayes C, Hoffman M, Ketchum K, Logsden-Sackett N, Maahs D, Messer L, Meyers L, Michels A, Peacock S, Rewers M, Rodriguez P, Sepulbeda F, Sippl R, Steck A, Taki I, Tran BK, Tran T, Wadwa RP, Zeitler P, Barker J, Barry S, Birks L, Bomsburger L, Bookert T, Briggs L, Burdick P, Cabrera R, Chase P, Cobry E, Conley A, Cook G, Daniels J, DiDomenico D, Eckert J, Ehler A, Eisenbarth G, Fain P, Fiallo-Scharer R, Frank N, Goettle H, Haarhues M, Harris S, Horton L, Hutton J, Jeffrrey J, Jenison R, Jones K, Kastelic W, King MA, Lehr D, Lungaro J, Mason K, Maurer H, Nguyen L, Proto A, Realsen J, Schmitt K, Schwartz M, Skovgaard S, Smith J, Vanderwel B, Voelmle M, Wagner R, Wallace A, Walravens P, Weiner L, Westerhoff B, Westfall E, Widmer K, Wright H, Schatz D, Abraham A, Atkinson M, Cintron M, Clare-Salzler M, Ferguson J, Haller M, Hosford J, Mancini D, Rohrs H, Silverstein J, Thomas J, Winter W, Cole G, Cook R, Coy R, Hicks E, Lewis N, Marks J, Pugliese A, Blaschke C, Matheson D, Pugliese A, Sanders-Branca N, Ray Arce LA, Cisneros M, Sabbag S, Moran A, Gibson C, Fife B, Hering B, Kwong C, Leschyshyn J, Nathan B, Pappenfus B, Street A, Boes MA, Peterson Eck S, Finney L, Albright Fischer T, Martin A, Jacqueline Muzamhindo C, Rhodes M, Smith J, Wagner J, Wood B, Becker D, Delallo K, Diaz A, Elnyczky B, Libman I, Pasek B, Riley K, Trucco M, Copemen B, Gwynn D, Toledo F, Rodriguez H, Bollepalli S, Diamond F, Eyth E, Henson D, Lenz A, Shulman D, Raskin P, Adhikari S, Dickson B, Dunnigan E, Lingvay I, Pruneda L, Ramos-Roman M, Raskin P, Rhee C, Richard J, Siegelman M, Sturges D, Sumpter K, White P, Alford M, Arthur J, Aviles-Santa ML, Cordova E, Davis R, Fernandez S, Fordan S, Hardin T, Jacobs A, Kaloyanova P, Lukacova-Zib I, Mirfakhraee S, Mohan A, Noto H, Smith O, Torres N, Wherrett D, Balmer D, Eisel L, Kovalakovska R, Mehan M, Sultan F, Ahenkorah B, Cevallos J, Razack N, Jo Ricci M, Rhode A, Srikandarajah M, Steger R, Russell WE, Black M, Brendle F, Brown A, Moore D, Pittel E, Robertson A, Shannon A, Thomas JW, Herold K, Feldman L, Sherwin R, Tamborlane W, Weinzimer S, Toppari J, Kallio T, Kärkkäinen M, Mäntymäki E, Niininen T, Nurmi B, Rajala P, Romo M, Suomenrinne S, Näntö-Salonen K, Simell O, Simell T, Bosi E, Battaglia M, Bianconi E, Bonfanti R, Grogan P, Laurenzi A, Martinenghi S, Meschi F, Pastore M, Falqui L, Teresa Muscato M, Viscardi M, Bingley P, Castleden H, Farthing N, Loud S, Matthews C, McGhee J, Morgan A, Pollitt J, Elliot-Jones R, Wheaton C, Knip M, Siljander H, Suomalainen H, Colman P, Healy F, Mesfin S, Redl L, Wentworth J, Willis J, Farley M, Harrison L, Perry C, Williams F, Mayo A, Paxton J, Thompson V, Volin L, Fenton C, Carr L, Lemon E, Swank M, Luidens M, Salgam M, Sharma V, Schade D, King C, Carano R, Heiden J, Means N, Holman L, Thomas I, Madrigal D, Muth T, Martin C, Plunkett C, Ramm C, Auchus R, Lane W, Avots E, Buford M, Hale C, Hoyle J, Lane B, Muir A, Shuler S, Raviele N, Ivie E, Jenkins M, Lindsley K, Hansen I, Fadoju D, Felner E, Bode B, Hosey R, Sax J, Jefferies C, Mannering S, Prentis R, She J, Stachura M, Hopkins D, Williams J, Steed L, Asatapova E, Nunez S, Knight S, Dixon P, Ching J, Donner T, Longnecker S, Abel K, Arcara K, Blackman S, Clark L, Cooke D, Plotnick L, Levin P, Bromberger L, Klein K, Sadurska K, Allen C, Michaud D, Snodgrass H, Burghen G, Chatha S, Clark C, Silverberg J, Wittmer C, Gardner J, LeBoeuf C, Bell P, McGlore O, Tennet H, Alba N, Carroll M, Baert L, Beaton H, Cordell E, Haynes A, Reed C, Lichter K, McCarthy P, McCarthy S, Monchamp T, Roach J, Manies S, Gunville F, Marosok L, Nelson T, Ackerman K, Rudolph J, Stewart M, McCormick K, May S, Falls T, Barrett T, Dale K, Makusha L, McTernana C, Penny-Thomas K, Sullivan K, Narendran P, Robbie J, Smith D, Christensen R, Koehler B, Royal C, Arthur T, Houser H, Renaldi J, Watsen S, Wu P, Lyons L, House B, Yu J, Holt H, Nation M, Vickers C, Watling R, Heptulla R, Trast J, Agarwal C, Newell D, Katikaneni R, Gardner C, Del A, Rio A, Logan H, Collier C, Rishton G, Whalley A, Ali S, Ramtoola T, Quattrin L, Mastrandea A, House M, Ecker C, Huang C, Gougeon J, Ho D, Pacuad D, Dunger J, May C, O’Brien C, Acerini B, Salgin A, Thankamony R, Williams J, Buse G, Fuller M, Duclos J, Tricome H, Brown D, Pittard D, Bowlby A, Blue T, Headley S, Bendre K, Lewis K, Sutphin C, Soloranzo J, Puskaric H, Madison M, Rincon M, Carlucci R, Shridharani B, Rusk E, Tessman D, Huffman H, Abrams B, Biederman M, Jones V, Leathers W, Brickman P, Petrie D, Zimmerman J, Howard L, Miller R, Alemzadeh D, Mihailescu R, Melgozza-Walker N, Abdulla C, Boucher-Berry D, Ize-Ludlow R, Levy C, Swenson, Brousell N, Crimmins D, Edler T, Weis C, Schultz D, Rogers D, Latham C, Mawhorter C, Switzer W, Spencer P, Konstantnopoulus S, Broder J, Klein L, Knight L, Szadek G, Welnick B, Thompson R, Hoffman A, Revell J, Cherko K, Carter E, Gilson J, Haines G, Arthur B, Bowen W, Zipf P, Graves R, Lozano D, Seiple K, Spicer A, Chang J, Fregosi J, Harbinson C, Paulson S, Stalters P, Wright D, Zlock A, Freeth J, Victory H, Maheshwari A, Maheshwari T, Holmstrom J, Bueno R, Arguello J, Ahern L, Noreika V, Watson S, Hourse P, Breyer C, Kissel Y, Nicholson M, Pfeifer S, Almazan J, Bajaj M, Quinn K, Funk J, McCance E, Moreno R, Veintimilla A, Wells J, Cook S, Trunnel J, Henske S, Desai K, Frizelis F, Khan R, Sjoberg K, Allen P, Manning G, Hendry B, Taylor S, Jones W, Strader M, Bencomo T, Bailey L, Bedolla C, Roldan C, Moudiotis B, Vaidya C, Anning S, Bunce S, Estcourt E, Folland E, Gordon C, Harrill J, Ireland J, Piper L, Scaife K, Sutton S, Wilkins M, Costelloe J, Palmer L, Casas C, Miller M, Burgard C, Erickson J, Hallanger-Johnson P, Clark W, Taylor A, Lafferty S, Gillett C, Nolan M, Pathak L, Sondrol T, Hjelle S, Hafner J, Kotrba R, Hendrickson A, Cemeroglu T, Symington M, Daniel Y, Appiagyei-Dankah D, Postellon M, Racine L, Kleis K, Barnes S, Godwin H, McCullough K, Shaheen G, Buck L, Noel M, Warren S, Weber S, Parker I, Gillespie B, Nelson C, Frost J, Amrhein E, Moreland A, Hayes J, Peggram J, Aisenberg M, Riordan J, Zasa E, Cummings K, Scott T, Pinto A, Mokashi K, McAssey E, Helden P, Hammond L, Dinning S, Rahman S, Ray C, Dimicri S, Guppy H, Nielsen C, Vogel C, Ariza L, Morales Y, Chang R, Gabbay L, Ambrocio L, Manley R, Nemery W, Charlton P, Smith L, Kerr B, Steindel-Kopp M, Alamaguer D, Liljenquist G, Browning T, Coughenour M, Sulk E, Tsalikan M, Tansey J, Cabbage N. Identical and Nonidentical Twins: Risk and Factors Involved in Development of Islet Autoimmunity and Type 1 Diabetes

OBJECTIVE

There are variable reports of risk of concordance for progression to islet autoantibodies and type 1 diabetes in identical twins after one twin is diagnosed. We examined development of positive autoantibodies and type 1 diabetes and the effects of genetic factors and common environment on autoantibody positivity in identical twins, nonidentical twins, and full siblings.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Subjects from the TrialNet Pathway to Prevention Study (N = 48,026) were screened from 2004 to 2015 for islet autoantibodies (GAD antibody [GADA], insulinoma-associated antigen 2 [IA-2A], and autoantibodies against insulin [IAA]). Of these subjects, 17,226 (157 identical twins, 283 nonidentical twins, and 16,786 full siblings) were followed for autoantibody positivity or type 1 diabetes for a median of 2.1 years.

RESULTS

At screening, identical twins were more likely to have positive GADA, IA-2A, and IAA than nonidentical twins or full siblings (all P < 0.0001). Younger age, male sex, and genetic factors were significant factors for expression of IA-2A, IAA, one or more positive autoantibodies, and two or more positive autoantibodies (all P ≤ 0.03). Initially autoantibody-positive identical twins had a 69% risk of diabetes by 3 years compared with 1.5% for initially autoantibody-negative identical twins. In nonidentical twins, type 1 diabetes risk by 3 years was 72% for initially multiple autoantibody-positive, 13% for single autoantibody-positive, and 0% for initially autoantibody-negative nonidentical twins. Full siblings had a 3-year type 1 diabetes risk of 47% for multiple autoantibody-positive, 12% for single autoantibody-positive, and 0.5% for initially autoantibody-negative subjects.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk of type 1 diabetes at 3 years is high for initially multiple and single autoantibody-positive identical twins and multiple autoantibody-positive nonidentical twins. Genetic predisposition, age, and male sex are significant risk factors for development of positive autoantibodies in twins.

Prolonged concurrent hypotension and low bispectral index ('double low') are associated with mortality, serious complications, and prolonged hospitalization after cardiac surgery

Background

Low bispectral index (BIS) and low mean arterial pressure (MAP) are associated with worse outcomes after surgery. We tested the hypothesis that a combination of these risk factors, a 'double low', is associated with death and major complications after cardiac surgery.

Methods

We used data from 8239 cardiac surgical patients from two US hospitals. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and a composite of in-hospital mortality and morbidity. We examined whether patients who had a case-averaged double low, defined as time-weighted average BIS and MAP (calculated over an entire case) below the sample mean but not in the reference group, had increased risk of the primary outcomes compared with patients whose BIS and/or MAP were at or higher than the sample mean. We also examined whether a prolonged cumulative duration of a concurrent double low (simultaneous low MAP and BIS) increased the risk of the primary outcomes.

Results

Case-averaged double low was not associated with increased risk of 30-day mortality {odds ratio [OR] 1.73 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94-3.18] vs reference; P =0.01} or the composite of in-hospital mortality and morbidity [OR 1.47 (95% CI 0.98-2.20); P =0.01] after correction for multiple outcomes. A prolonged concurrent double low was associated with 30-day mortality [OR 1.06 (95% CI 1.01-1.11) per 10-min increase; P =0.001] and the composite of in-hospital mortality and morbidity [OR 1.04 (95% CI 1.01-1.07), P =0.004].

Conclusions

A prolonged concurrent double low, but not a case-averaged double low, was associated with higher morbidity and mortality after cardiac surgery.

Marie M, Stickney K, VanBuecken D, Vellek B, Webber C, Allen L, Bollyk J, Hilderman N, Ismail H, Lamola S, Sanda S, Vendettuoli H, Tridgell D, Monzavi R, Bock M, Fisher L, Halvorson M, Jeandron D, Kim M, Wood J, Geffner M, Kaufman F, Parkman R, Salazar C, Goland R, Clynes R, Cook S, Freeby M, Gallagher MP, Gandica R, Greenberg E, Kurland A, Pollak S, Wolk A, Chan M, Koplimae L, Levine E, Smith K, Trast J, DiMeglio L, Blum J, Evans-Molina C, Hufferd R, Jagielo B, Kruse C, Patrick V, Rigby M, Spall M, Swinney K, Terrell J, Christner L, Ford L, Lynch S, Menendez M, Merrill P, Pescovitz M, Rodriguez H, Alleyn C, Baidal D, Fay S, Gaglia J, Resnick B, Szubowicz S, Weir G, Benjamin R, Conboy D, deManbey A, Jackson R, Jalahej H, Orban T, Ricker A, Wolfsdorf J, Zhang HH, Wilson D, Aye T, Baker B, Barahona K, Buckingham B, Esrey K, Esrey T, Fathman G, Snyder R, Aneja B, Chatav M, Espinoza O, Frank E, Liu J, Perry J, Pyle R, Rigby A, Riley K, Soto A, Gitelman S, Adi S, Anderson M, Berhel A, Breen K, Fraser K, Gerard-Gonzalez A, Jossan P, Lustig R, Moassesfar S, Mugg A, Ng D, Prahalod P, Rangel-Lugo M, Sanda S, Tarkoff J, Torok C, Wesch R, Aslan I, Buchanan J, Cordier J, Hamilton C, Hawkins L, Ho T, Jain A, Ko K, Lee T, Phelps S, Rosenthal S, Sahakitrungruang T, Stehl L, Taylor L, Wertz M, Wong J, Philipson L, Briars R, Devine N, Littlejohn E, Grant T, Gottlieb P, Klingensmith G, Steck A, Alkanani A, Bautista K, Bedoy R, Blau A, Burke B, Cory L, Dang M, Fitzgerald-Miller L, Fouts A, Gage V, Garg S, Gesauldo P, Gutin R, Hayes C, Hoffman M, Ketchum K, Logsden-Sackett N, Maahs D, Messer L, Meyers L, Michels A, Peacock S, Rewers M, Rodriguez P, Sepulbeda F, Sippl R, Steck A, Taki I, Tran BK, Tran T, Wadwa RP, Zeitler P, Barker J, Barry S, Birks L, Bomsburger L, Bookert T, Briggs L, Burdick P, Cabrera R, Chase P, Cobry E, Conley A, Cook G, Daniels J, DiDomenico D, Eckert J, Ehler A, Eisenbarth G, Fain P, Fiallo-Scharer R, Frank N, Goettle H, Haarhues M, Harris S, Horton L, Hutton J, Jeffrrey J, Jenison R, Jones K, Kastelic W, King MA, Lehr D, Lungaro J, Mason K, Maurer H, Nguyen L, Proto A, Realsen J, Schmitt K, Schwartz M, Skovgaard S, Smith J, Vanderwel B, Voelmle M, Wagner R, Wallace A, Walravens P, Weiner L, Westerhoff B, Westfall E, Widmer K, Wright H, Schatz D, Abraham A, Atkinson M, Cintron M, Clare-Salzler M, Ferguson J, Haller M, Hosford J, Mancini D, Rohrs H, Silverstein J, Thomas J, Winter W, Cole G, Cook R, Coy R, Hicks E, Lewis N, Marks J, Pugliese A, Blaschke C, Matheson D, Sanders-Branca N, Sosenko J, Arazo L, Arce R, Cisneros M, Sabbag S, Moran A, Gibson C, Fife B, Hering B, Kwong C, Leschyshyn J, Nathan B, Pappenfus B, Street A, Boes MA, Eck SP, Finney L, Fischer TA, Martin A, Muzamhindo CJ, Rhodes M, Smith J, Wagner J, Wood B, Becker D, Delallo K, Diaz A, Elnyczky B, Libman I, Pasek B, Riley K, Trucco M, Copemen B, Gwynn D, Toledo F, Rodriguez H, Bollepalli S, Diamond F, Eyth E, Henson D, Lenz A, Shulman D, Raskin P, Adhikari S, Dickson B, Dunnigan E, Lingvay I, Pruneda L, Ramos-Roman M, Raskin P, Rhee C, Richard J, Siegelman M, Sturges D, Sumpter K, White P, Alford M, Arthur J, Aviles-Santa ML, Cordova E, Davis R, Fernandez S, Fordan S, Hardin T, Jacobs A, Kaloyanova P, Lukacova-Zib I, Mirfakhraee S, Mohan A, Noto H, Smith O, Torres N, Wherrett D, Balmer D, Eisel L, Kovalakovska R, Mehan M, Sultan F, Ahenkorah B, Cevallos J, Razack N, Ricci MJ, Rhode A, Srikandarajah M, Steger R, Russell WE, Black M, Brendle F, Brown A, Moore D, Pittel E, Robertson A, Shannon A, Thomas JW, Herold K, Feldman L, Sherwin R, Tamborlane W, Weinzimer S, Toppari J, Kallio T, Kärkkäinen M, Mäntymäki E, Niininen T, Nurmi B, Rajala P, Romo M, Suomenrinne S, Näntö-Salonen K, Simell O, Simell T, Bosi E, Battaglia M, Bianconi E, Bonfanti R, Grogan P, Laurenzi A, Martinenghi S, Meschi F, Pastore M, Falqui L, Muscato MT, Viscardi M, Castleden H, Farthing N, Loud S, Matthews C, McGhee J, Morgan A, Pollitt J, Elliot-Jones R, Wheaton C, Knip M, Siljander H, Suomalainen H, Colman P, Healy F, Mesfin S, Redl L, Wentworth J, Willis J, Farley M, Harrison L, Perry C, Williams F, Mayo A, Paxton J, Thompson V, Volin L, Fenton C, Carr L, Lemon E, Swank M, Luidens M, Salgam M, Sharma V, Schade D, King C, Carano R, Heiden J, Means N, Holman L, Thomas I, Madrigal D, Muth T, Martin C, Plunkett C, Ramm C, Auchus R, Lane W, Avots E, Buford M, Hale C, Hoyle J, Lane B, Muir A, Shuler S, Raviele N, Ivie E, Jenkins M, Lindsley K, Hansen I, Fadoju D, Felner E, Bode B, Hosey R, Sax J, Jefferies C, Mannering S, Prentis R, She J, Stachura M, Hopkins D, Williams J, Steed L, Asatapova E, Nunez S, Knight S, Dixon P, Ching J, Donner T, Longnecker S, Abel K, Arcara K, Blackman S, Clark L, Cooke D, Plotnick L, Levin P, Bromberger L, Klein K, Sadurska K, Allen C, Michaud D, Snodgrass H, Burghen G, Chatha S, Clark C, Silverberg J, Wittmer C, Gardner J, LeBoeuf C, Bell P, McGlore O, Tennet H, Alba N, Carroll M, Baert L, Beaton H, Cordell E, Haynes A, Reed C, Lichter K, McCarthy P, McCarthy S, Monchamp T, Roach J, Manies S, Gunville F, Marosok L, Nelson T, Ackerman K, Rudolph J, Stewart M, McCormick K, May S, Falls T, Barrett T, Dale K, Makusha L, McTernana C, Penny-Thomas K, Sullivan K, Narendran P, Robbie J, Smith D, Christensen R, Koehler B, Royal C, Arthur T, Houser H, Renaldi J, Watsen S, Wu P, Lyons L, House B, Yu J, Holt H, Nation M, Vickers C, Watling R, Heptulla R, Trast J, Agarwal C, Newell D, Katikaneni R, Gardner C, Del Rio A, Logan A, Collier H, Rishton C, Whalley G, Ali A, Ramtoola S, Quattrin T, Mastrandea L, House A, Ecker M, Huang C, Gougeon C, Ho J, Pacuad D, Dunger D, May J, O’Brien C, Acerini C, Salgin B, Thankamony A, Williams R, Buse J, Fuller G, Duclos M, Tricome J, Brown H, Pittard D, Bowlby D, Blue A, Headley T, Bendre S, Lewis K, Sutphin K, Soloranzo C, Puskaric J, Madison H, Rincon M, Carlucci M, Shridharani R, Rusk B, Tessman E, Huffman D, Abrams H, Biederman B, Jones M, Leathers V, Brickman W, Petrie P, Zimmerman D, Howard J, Miller L, Alemzadeh R, Mihailescu D, Melgozza-Walker R, Abdulla N, Boucher-Berry C, Ize-Ludlow D, Levy R, Swenson Brousell C, Scott R, Heenan H, Lunt H, Kendall D, Willis J, Darlow B, Crimmins N, Edler D, Weis T, Schultz C, Rogers D, Latham D, Mawhorter C, Switzer C, Spencer W, Konstantnopoulus P, Broder S, Klein J, Bachrach B, Gardner M, Eichelberger D, Knight L, Szadek L, Welnick G, Thompson B, Hoffman R, Revell A, Cherko J, Carter K, Gilson E, Haines J, Arthur G, Bowen B, Zipf W, Graves P, Lozano R, Seiple D, Spicer K, Chang A, Fregosi J, Harbinson J, Paulson C, Stalters S, Wright P, Zlock D, Freeth A, Victory J, Maheshwari H, Maheshwari A, Holmstrom T, Bueno J, Arguello R, Ahern J, Noreika L, Watson V, Hourse S, Breyer P, Kissel C, Nicholson Y, Pfeifer M, Almazan S, Bajaj J, Quinn M, Funk K, McCance J, Moreno E, Veintimilla R, Wells A, Cook J, Trunnel S, Transue D, Surhigh J, Bezzaire D, Moltz K, Zacharski E, Henske J, Desai S, Frizelis K, Khan F, Sjoberg R, Allen K, Manning P, Hendry G, Taylor B, Jones S, Couch R, Danchak R, Lieberman D, Strader W, Bencomo M, Bailey T, Bedolla L, Roldan C, Moudiotis C, Vaidya B, Anning C, Bunce S, Estcourt S, Folland E, Gordon E, Harrill C, Ireland J, Piper J, Scaife L, Sutton K, Wilkins S, Costelloe M, Palmer J, Casas L, Miller C, Burgard M, Erickson C, Hallanger-Johnson J, Clark P, Taylor W, Galgani J, Banerjee S, Banda C, McEowen D, Kinman R, Lafferty A, Gillett S, Nolan C, Pathak M, Sondrol L, Hjelle T, Hafner S, Kotrba J, Hendrickson R, Cemeroglu A, Symington T, Daniel M, Appiagyei-Dankah Y, Postellon D, Racine M, Kleis L, Barnes K, Godwin S, McCullough H, Shaheen K, Buck G, Noel L, Warren M, Weber S, Parker S, Gillespie I, Nelson B, Frost C, Amrhein J, Moreland E, Hayes A, Peggram J, Aisenberg J, Riordan M, Zasa J, Cummings E, Scott K, Pinto T, Mokashi A, McAssey K, Helden E, Hammond P, Dinning L, Rahman S, Ray S, Dimicri C, Guppy S, Nielsen H, Vogel C, Ariza C, Morales L, Chang Y, Gabbay R, Ambrocio L, Manley L, Nemery R, Charlton W, Smith P, Kerr L, Steindel-Kopp B, Alamaguer M, Tabisola-Nuesca E, Pendersen A, Larson N, Cooper-Olviver H, Chan D, Fitz-Patrick D, Carreira T, Park Y, Ruhaak R, Liljenquist D. A Type 1 Diabetes Genetic Risk Score Predicts Progression of Islet Autoimmunity and Development of Type 1 Diabetes in Individuals at Risk

OBJECTIVE

We tested the ability of a type 1 diabetes (T1D) genetic risk score (GRS) to predict progression of islet autoimmunity and T1D in at-risk individuals.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We studied the 1,244 TrialNet Pathway to Prevention study participants (T1D patients' relatives without diabetes and with one or more positive autoantibodies) who were genotyped with Illumina ImmunoChip (median [range] age at initial autoantibody determination 11.1 years [1.2-51.8], 48% male, 80.5% non-Hispanic white, median follow-up 5.4 years). Of 291 participants with a single positive autoantibody at screening, 157 converted to multiple autoantibody positivity and 55 developed diabetes. Of 953 participants with multiple positive autoantibodies at screening, 419 developed diabetes. We calculated the T1D GRS from 30 T1D-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms. We used multivariable Cox regression models, time-dependent receiver operating characteristic curves, and area under the curve (AUC) measures to evaluate prognostic utility of T1D GRS, age, sex, Diabetes Prevention Trial-Type 1 (DPT-1) Risk Score, positive autoantibody number or type, HLA DR3/DR4-DQ8 status, and race/ethnicity. We used recursive partitioning analyses to identify cut points in continuous variables.

RESULTS

Higher T1D GRS significantly increased the rate of progression to T1D adjusting for DPT-1 Risk Score, age, number of positive autoantibodies, sex, and ethnicity (hazard ratio [HR] 1.29 for a 0.05 increase, 95% CI 1.06-1.6; P = 0.011). Progression to T1D was best predicted by a combined model with GRS, number of positive autoantibodies, DPT-1 Risk Score, and age (7-year time-integrated AUC = 0.79, 5-year AUC = 0.73). Higher GRS was significantly associated with increased progression rate from single to multiple positive autoantibodies after adjusting for age, autoantibody type, ethnicity, and sex (HR 2.27 for GRS >0.295, 95% CI 1.47-3.51; P = 0.0002).

CONCLUSIONS

The T1D GRS independently predicts progression to T1D and improves prediction along T1D stages in autoantibody-positive relatives.