Vita-Salute San Raffaele University

Atherosclerosis, formerly considered a bland lipid storage disease, actually involves an ongoing inflammatory response. Recent advances in basic science have established a fundamental role for inflammation in mediating all stages of this disease from initiation through progression and, ultimately, the thrombotic complications of atherosclerosis. These new findings provide important links between risk factors and the mechanisms of atherogenesis. Clinical studies have shown that this emerging biology of inflammation in atherosclerosis applies directly to human patients. Elevation in markers of inflammation predicts outcomes of patients with acute coronary syndromes, independently of myocardial damage. In addition, low-grade chronic inflammation, as indicated by levels of the inflammatory marker C-reactive protein, prospectively defines risk of atherosclerotic complications, thus adding to prognostic information provided by traditional risk factors. Moreover, certain treatments that reduce coronary risk also limit inflammation. In the case of lipid lowering with statins, this anti-inflammatory effect does not appear to correlate with reduction in low-density lipoprotein levels. These new insights into inflammation in atherosclerosis not only increase our understanding of this disease, but also have practical clinical applications in risk stratification and targeting of therapy for this scourge of growing worldwide importance.

AUTORES: Daniel J Klionsky1745,1749*, Kotb Abdelmohsen840, Akihisa Abe1237, Md Joynal Abedin1762, Hagai Abeliovich425,
\nAbraham Acevedo Arozena789, Hiroaki Adachi1800, Christopher M Adams1669, Peter D Adams57, Khosrow Adeli1981,
\nPeter J Adhihetty1625, Sharon G Adler700, Galila Agam67, Rajesh Agarwal1587, Manish K Aghi1537, Maria Agnello1826,
\nPatrizia Agostinis664, Patricia V Aguilar1960, Julio Aguirre-Ghiso784,786, Edoardo M Airoldi89,422, Slimane Ait-Si-Ali1376,
\nTakahiko Akematsu2010, Emmanuel T Akporiaye1097, Mohamed Al-Rubeai1394, Guillermo M Albaiceta1294,
\nChris Albanese363, Diego Albani561, Matthew L Albert517, Jesus Aldudo128, Hana Alg€ul1164, Mehrdad Alirezaei1198,
\nIraide Alloza642,888, Alexandru Almasan206, Maylin Almonte-Beceril524, Emad S Alnemri1212, Covadonga Alonso544,
\nNihal Altan-Bonnet848, Dario C Altieri1205, Silvia Alvarez1497, Lydia Alvarez-Erviti1395, Sandro Alves107,
\nGiuseppina Amadoro860, Atsuo Amano930, Consuelo Amantini1554, Santiago Ambrosio1458, Ivano Amelio756,
\nAmal O Amer918, Mohamed Amessou2089, Angelika Amon726, Zhenyi An1538, Frank A Anania291, Stig U Andersen6,
\nUsha P Andley2079, Catherine K Andreadi1690, Nathalie Andrieu-Abadie502, Alberto Anel2027, David K Ann58,
\nShailendra Anoopkumar-Dukie388, Manuela Antonioli832,858, Hiroshi Aoki1791, Nadezda Apostolova2007,
\nSaveria Aquila1500, Katia Aquilano1876, Koichi Araki292, Eli Arama2098, Agustin Aranda456, Jun Araya591,
\nAlexandre Arcaro1472, Esperanza Arias26, Hirokazu Arimoto1225, Aileen R Ariosa1749, Jane L Armstrong1930,
\nThierry Arnould1773, Ivica Arsov2120, Katsuhiko Asanuma675, Valerie Askanas1924, Eric Asselin1867, Ryuichiro Atarashi794,
\nSally S Atherton369, Julie D Atkin713, Laura D Attardi1131, Patrick Auberger1787, Georg Auburger379, Laure Aurelian1727,
\nRiccardo Autelli1992, Laura Avagliano1029,1755, Maria Laura Avantaggiati364, Limor Avrahami1166, Suresh Awale1986,
\nNeelam Azad404, Tiziana Bachetti568, Jonathan M Backer28, Dong-Hun Bae1933, Jae-sung Bae677, Ok-Nam Bae409,
\nSoo Han Bae2117, Eric H Baehrecke1729, Seung-Hoon Baek17, Stephen Baghdiguian1368,
\nAgnieszka Bagniewska-Zadworna2, Hua Bai90, Jie Bai667, Xue-Yuan Bai1133, Yannick Bailly884,
\nKithiganahalli Narayanaswamy Balaji473, Walter Balduini2002, Andrea Ballabio316, Rena Balzan1711, Rajkumar Banerjee239,
\nG abor B anhegyi1052, Haijun Bao2109, Benoit Barbeau1363, Maria D Barrachina2007, Esther Barreiro467, Bonnie Bartel997,
\nAlberto Bartolom e222, Diane C Bassham550, Maria Teresa Bassi1046, Robert C Bast Jr1273, Alakananda Basu1798,
\nMaria Teresa Batista1578, Henri Batoko1336, Maurizio Battino970, Kyle Bauckman2085, Bradley L Baumgarner1909,
\nK Ulrich Bayer1594, Rupert Beale1553, Jean-Fran¸cois Beaulieu1360, George R. Beck Jr48,294, Christoph Becker336,
\nJ David Beckham1595, Pierre-Andr e B edard749, Patrick J Bednarski301, Thomas J Begley1135, Christian Behl1419,
\nChristian Behrends757, Georg MN Behrens406, Kevin E Behrns1627, Eloy Bejarano26, Amine Belaid490,
\nFrancesca Belleudi1041, Giovanni B enard497, Guy Berchem706, Daniele Bergamaschi983, Matteo Bergami1401,
\nBen Berkhout1441, Laura Berliocchi714, Am elie Bernard1749, Monique Bernard1354, Francesca Bernassola1880,
\nAnne Bertolotti791, Amanda S Bess272, S ebastien Besteiro1351, Saverio Bettuzzi1828, Savita Bhalla913,
\nShalmoli Bhattacharyya973, Sujit K Bhutia838, Caroline Biagosch1159, Michele Wolfe Bianchi520,1378,1381,
\nMartine Biard-Piechaczyk210, Viktor Billes298, Claudia Bincoletto1314, Baris Bingol350, Sara W Bird1128, Marc Bitoun1112,
\nIvana Bjedov1258, Craig Blackstone843, Lionel Blanc1183, Guillermo A Blanco1496, Heidi Kiil Blomhoff1812,
\nEmilio Boada-Romero1297, Stefan B€ockler1464, Marianne Boes1423, Kathleen Boesze-Battaglia1835, Lawrence H Boise286,287,
\nAlessandra Bolino2063, Andrea Boman693, Paolo Bonaldo1823, Matteo Bordi897, J€urgen Bosch608, Luis M Botana1308,
\nJoelle Botti1375, German Bou1405, Marina Bouch e1038, Marion Bouchecareilh1331, Marie-Jos ee Boucher1901,
\nMichael E Boulton481, Sebastien G Bouret1926, Patricia Boya133, Micha€el Boyer-Guittaut1345, Peter V Bozhkov1141,
\nNathan Brady374, Vania MM Braga469, Claudio Brancolini1997, Gerhard H Braus353, Jos e M Bravo-San Pedro299,393,508,1374,
\nLisa A Brennan322, Emery H Bresnick2022, Patrick Brest490, Dave Bridges1939, Marie-Agn es Bringer124, Marisa Brini1822,
\nGlauber C Brito1311, Bertha Brodin631, Paul S Brookes1872, Eric J Brown352, Karen Brown1690, Hal E Broxmeyer480,
\nAlain Bruhat486,1339, Patricia Chakur Brum1893, John H Brumell446, Nicola Brunetti-Pierri315,1171,
\nRobert J Bryson-Richardson781, Shilpa Buch1777, Alastair M Buchan1819, Hikmet Budak1022, Dmitry V Bulavin118,505,1789,
\nScott J Bultman1792, Geert Bultynck665, Vladimir Bumbasirevic1470, Yan Burelle1356, Robert E Burke216,217,
\nMargit Burmeister1750, Peter B€utikofer1473, Laura Caberlotto1987, Ken Cadwell896, Monika Cahova112, Dongsheng Cai24,
\nJingjing Cai2099, Qian Cai1018, Sara Calatayud2007, Nadine Camougrand1343, Michelangelo Campanella1700,
\nGrant R Campbell1525, Matthew Campbell1249, Silvia Campello556,1876, Robin Candau1769, Isabella Caniggia1983,
\nLavinia Cantoni560, Lizhi Cao116, Allan B Caplan1656, Michele Caraglia1051, Claudio Cardinali1043, Sandra Morais Cardoso1579, Jennifer S Carew208, Laura A Carleton874, Cathleen R Carlin101, Silvia Carloni2002,
\nSven R Carlsson1267, Didac Carmona-Gutierrez1643, Leticia AM Carneiro312, Oliana Carnevali971, Serena Carra1318,
\nAlice Carrier120, Bernadette Carroll900, Caty Casas1324, Josefina Casas1116, Giuliana Cassinelli324, Perrine Castets1462,
\nSusana Castro-Obregon214, Gabriella Cavallini1841, Isabella Ceccherini568, Francesco Cecconi253,555,1884,
\nArthur I Cederbaum459, Valent ın Ce~na199,1281, Simone Cenci1323,2064, Claudia Cerella444, Davide Cervia1996,
\nSilvia Cetrullo1478, Hassan Chaachouay2028, Han-Jung Chae187, Andrei S Chagin634, Chee-Yin Chai626,628,
\nGopal Chakrabarti1502, Georgios Chamilos1601, Edmond YW Chan1142, Matthew TV Chan181, Dhyan Chandra1003,
\nPallavi Chandra548, Chih-Peng Chang818, Raymond Chuen-Chung Chang1653, Ta Yuan Chang345, John C Chatham1434,
\nSaurabh Chatterjee1910, Santosh Chauhan527, Yongsheng Che62, Michael E Cheetham1263, Rajkumar Cheluvappa1783,
\nChun-Jung Chen1153, Gang Chen598,1676, Guang-Chao Chen9, Guoqiang Chen1078, Hongzhuan Chen1077, Jeff W Chen1514,
\nJian-Kang Chen370,371, Min Chen249, Mingzhou Chen2104, Peiwen Chen1823, Qi Chen1674, Quan Chen172,
\nShang-Der Chen138, Si Chen325, Steve S-L Chen10, Wei Chen2125, Wei-Jung Chen829, Wen Qiang Chen979, Wenli Chen1113,
\nXiangmei Chen1133, Yau-Hung Chen1157, Ye-Guang Chen1250, Yin Chen1447, Yingyu Chen953,955, Yongshun Chen2135,
\nYu-Jen Chen712, Yue-Qin Chen1145, Yujie Chen1208, Zhen Chen339, Zhong Chen2123, Alan Cheng1702,
\nChristopher HK Cheng184, Hua Cheng1728, Heesun Cheong814, Sara Cherry1836, Jason Chesney1703,
\nChun Hei Antonio Cheung817, Eric Chevet1359, Hsiang Cheng Chi140, Sung-Gil Chi656, Fulvio Chiacchiera308,
\nHui-Ling Chiang958, Roberto Chiarelli1826, Mario Chiariello235,567,577, Marcello Chieppa835, Lih-Shen Chin290,
\nMario Chiong1285, Gigi NC Chiu878, Dong-Hyung Cho676, Ssang-Goo Cho650, William C Cho982, Yong-Yeon Cho105,
\nYoung-Seok Cho1064, Augustine MK Choi2095, Eui-Ju Choi656, Eun-Kyoung Choi387,400,685, Jayoung Choi1563,
\nMary E Choi2093, Seung-Il Choi2116, Tsui-Fen Chou412, Salem Chouaib395, Divaker Choubey1574, Vinay Choubey1936,
\nKuan-Chih Chow822, Kamal Chowdhury730, Charleen T Chu1856, Tsung-Hsien Chuang827, Taehoon Chun657,
\nHyewon Chung652, Taijoon Chung978, Yuen-Li Chung1194, Yong-Joon Chwae18, Valentina Cianfanelli254,
\nRoberto Ciarcia1775, Iwona A Ciechomska886, Maria Rosa Ciriolo1876, Mara Cirone1042, Sofie Claerhout1694,
\nMichael J Clague1698, Joan Cl aria1457, Peter GH Clarke1687, Robert Clarke361, Emilio Clementi1045,1398, C edric Cleyrat1781,
\nMiriam Cnop1366, Eliana M Coccia574, Tiziana Cocco1459, Patrice Codogno1375, J€orn Coers271, Ezra EW Cohen1533,
\nDavid Colecchia235,567,577, Luisa Coletto25, N uria S Coll123, Emma Colucci-Guyon516, Sergio Comincini1829,
\nMaria Condello578, Katherine L Cook2073, Graham H Coombs1929, Cynthia D Cooper2076, J Mark Cooper1395,
\nIsabelle Coppens601, Maria Tiziana Corasaniti1387, Marco Corazzari485,1884, Ramon Corbalan1566,
\nElisabeth Corcelle-Termeau251, Mario D Cordero1899, Cristina Corral-Ramos1289, Olga Corti507,1109, Andrea Cossarizza1767,
\nPaola Costelli1993, Safia Costes1518, Susan L Cotman721, Ana Coto-Montes946, Sandra Cottet566,1688, Eduardo Couve1301,
\nLori R Covey1015, L Ashley Cowart762, Jeffery S Cox1536, Fraser P Coxon1427, Carolyn B Coyne1846, Mark S Cragg1919,
\nRolf J Craven1679, Tiziana Crepaldi1995, Jose L Crespo1300, Alfredo Criollo1285, Valeria Crippa558, Maria Teresa Cruz1576,
\nAna Maria Cuervo26, Jose M Cuezva1277, Taixing Cui1907, Pedro R Cutillas987, Mark J Czaja27, Maria F Czyzyk-Krzeska1572,
\nRuben K Dagda2068, Uta Dahmen1404, Chunsun Dai800, Wenjie Dai1187, Yun Dai2059, Kevin N Dalby1940,
\nLuisa Dalla Valle1822, Guillaume Dalmasso1340, Marcello D’Amelio557, Markus Damme188, Arlette Darfeuille-Michaud1340,
\nCatherine Dargemont950, Victor M Darley-Usmar1433, Srinivasan Dasarathy205, Biplab Dasgupta202, Srikanta Dash1254,
\nCrispin R Dass242, Hazel Marie Davey8, Lester M Davids1560, David D avila227, Roger J Davis1731, Ted M Dawson604,
\nValina L Dawson606, Paula Daza1898, Jackie de Belleroche470, Paul de Figueiredo1180,1182,
\nRegina Celia Bressan Queiroz de Figueiredo135, Jos e de la Fuente1023, Luisa De Martino1775,
\nAntonella De Matteis1171, Guido RY De Meyer1443, Angelo De Milito631, Mauro De Santi2002,

Importance: In December 2019, a novel coronavirus (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 [SARS-CoV-2]) emerged in China and has spread globally, creating a pandemic. Information about the clinical characteristics of infected patients who require intensive care is limited. Objective: To characterize patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requiring treatment in an intensive care unit (ICU) in the Lombardy region of Italy. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective case series of 1591 consecutive patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 referred for ICU admission to the coordinator center (Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy) of the COVID-19 Lombardy ICU Network and treated at one of the ICUs of the 72 hospitals in this network between February 20 and March 18, 2020. Date of final follow-up was March 25, 2020. Exposures: SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay of nasal and pharyngeal swabs. Main Outcomes and Measures: Demographic and clinical data were collected, including data on clinical management, respiratory failure, and patient mortality. Data were recorded by the coordinator center on an electronic worksheet during telephone calls by the staff of the COVID-19 Lombardy ICU Network. Results: Of the 1591 patients included in the study, the median (IQR) age was 63 (56-70) years and 1304 (82%) were male. Of the 1043 patients with available data, 709 (68%) had at least 1 comorbidity and 509 (49%) had hypertension. Among 1300 patients with available respiratory support data, 1287 (99% [95% CI, 98%-99%]) needed respiratory support, including 1150 (88% [95% CI, 87%-90%]) who received mechanical ventilation and 137 (11% [95% CI, 9%-12%]) who received noninvasive ventilation. The median positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) was 14 (IQR, 12-16) cm H2O, and Fio2 was greater than 50% in 89% of patients. The median Pao2/Fio2 was 160 (IQR, 114-220). The median PEEP level was not different between younger patients (n = 503 aged ≤63 years) and older patients (n = 514 aged ≥64 years) (14 [IQR, 12-15] vs 14 [IQR, 12-16] cm H2O, respectively; median difference, 0 [95% CI, 0-0]; P = .94). Median Fio2 was lower in younger patients: 60% (IQR, 50%-80%) vs 70% (IQR, 50%-80%) (median difference, -10% [95% CI, -14% to 6%]; P = .006), and median Pao2/Fio2 was higher in younger patients: 163.5 (IQR, 120-230) vs 156 (IQR, 110-205) (median difference, 7 [95% CI, -8 to 22]; P = .02). Patients with hypertension (n = 509) were older than those without hypertension (n = 526) (median [IQR] age, 66 years [60-72] vs 62 years [54-68]; P < .001) and had lower Pao2/Fio2 (median [IQR], 146 [105-214] vs 173 [120-222]; median difference, -27 [95% CI, -42 to -12]; P = .005). Among the 1581 patients with ICU disposition data available as of March 25, 2020, 920 patients (58% [95% CI, 56%-61%]) were still in the ICU, 256 (16% [95% CI, 14%-18%]) were discharged from the ICU, and 405 (26% [95% CI, 23%-28%]) had died in the ICU. Older patients (n = 786; age ≥64 years) had higher mortality than younger patients (n = 795; age ≤63 years) (36% vs 15%; difference, 21% [95% CI, 17%-26%]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this case series of critically ill patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 admitted to ICUs in Lombardy, Italy, the majority were older men, a large proportion required mechanical ventilation and high levels of PEEP, and ICU mortality was 26%.

Based on the recent literature and collective experience, an international consortium developed revised guidelines for the diagnosis of behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia. The validation process retrospectively reviewed clinical records and compared the sensitivity of proposed and earlier criteria in a multi-site sample of patients with pathologically verified frontotemporal lobar degeneration. According to the revised criteria, 'possible' behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia requires three of six clinically discriminating features (disinhibition, apathy/inertia, loss of sympathy/empathy, perseverative/compulsive behaviours, hyperorality and dysexecutive neuropsychological profile). 'Probable' behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia adds functional disability and characteristic neuroimaging, while behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia 'with definite frontotemporal lobar degeneration' requires histopathological confirmation or a pathogenic mutation. Sixteen brain banks contributed cases meeting histopathological criteria for frontotemporal lobar degeneration and a clinical diagnosis of behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia, Alzheimer's disease, dementia with Lewy bodies or vascular dementia at presentation. Cases with predominant primary progressive aphasia or extra-pyramidal syndromes were excluded. In these autopsy-confirmed cases, an experienced neurologist or psychiatrist ascertained clinical features necessary for making a diagnosis according to previous and proposed criteria at presentation. Of 137 cases where features were available for both proposed and previously established criteria, 118 (86%) met 'possible' criteria, and 104 (76%) met criteria for 'probable' behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia. In contrast, 72 cases (53%) met previously established criteria for the syndrome (P < 0.001 for comparison with 'possible' and 'probable' criteria). Patients who failed to meet revised criteria were significantly older and most had atypical presentations with marked memory impairment. In conclusion, the revised criteria for behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia improve diagnostic accuracy compared with previously established criteria in a sample with known frontotemporal lobar degeneration. Greater sensitivity of the proposed criteria may reflect the optimized diagnostic features, less restrictive exclusion features and a flexible structure that accommodates different initial clinical presentations. Future studies will be needed to establish the reliability and specificity of these revised diagnostic guidelines.

Improvements in sensor accuracy, greater convenience and ease of use, and expanding reimbursement have led to growing adoption of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). However, successful utilization of CGM technology in routine clinical practice remains relatively low. This may be due in part to the lack of clear and agreed-upon glycemic targets that both diabetes teams and people with diabetes can work toward. Although unified recommendations for use of key CGM metrics have been established in three separate peer-reviewed articles, formal adoption by diabetes professional organizations and guidance in the practical application of these metrics in clinical practice have been lacking. In February 2019, the Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes (ATTD) Congress convened an international panel of physicians, researchers, and individuals with diabetes who are expert in CGM technologies to address this issue. This article summarizes the ATTD consensus recommendations for relevant aspects of CGM data utilization and reporting among the various diabetes populations.

BACKGROUND: Many causes of vision impairment can be prevented or treated. With an ageing global population, the demands for eye health services are increasing. We estimated the prevalence and relative contribution of avoidable causes of blindness and vision impairment globally from 1990 to 2020. We aimed to compare the results with the World Health Assembly Global Action Plan (WHA GAP) target of a 25% global reduction from 2010 to 2019 in avoidable vision impairment, defined as cataract and undercorrected refractive error. METHODS: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based surveys of eye disease from January, 1980, to October, 2018. We fitted hierarchical models to estimate prevalence (with 95% uncertainty intervals [UIs]) of moderate and severe vision impairment (MSVI; presenting visual acuity from <6/18 to 3/60) and blindness (<3/60 or less than 10° visual field around central fixation) by cause, age, region, and year. Because of data sparsity at younger ages, our analysis focused on adults aged 50 years and older. FINDINGS: Global crude prevalence of avoidable vision impairment and blindness in adults aged 50 years and older did not change between 2010 and 2019 (percentage change -0·2% [95% UI -1·5 to 1·0]; 2019 prevalence 9·58 cases per 1000 people [95% IU 8·51 to 10·8], 2010 prevalence 96·0 cases per 1000 people [86·0 to 107·0]). Age-standardised prevalence of avoidable blindness decreased by -15·4% [-16·8 to -14·3], while avoidable MSVI showed no change (0·5% [-0·8 to 1·6]). However, the number of cases increased for both avoidable blindness (10·8% [8·9 to 12·4]) and MSVI (31·5% [30·0 to 33·1]). The leading global causes of blindness in those aged 50 years and older in 2020 were cataract (15·2 million cases [9% IU 12·7-18·0]), followed by glaucoma (3·6 million cases [2·8-4·4]), undercorrected refractive error (2·3 million cases [1·8-2·8]), age-related macular degeneration (1·8 million cases [1·3-2·4]), and diabetic retinopathy (0·86 million cases [0·59-1·23]). Leading causes of MSVI were undercorrected refractive error (86·1 million cases [74·2-101·0]) and cataract (78·8 million cases [67·2-91·4]). INTERPRETATION: Results suggest eye care services contributed to the observed reduction of age-standardised rates of avoidable blindness but not of MSVI, and that the target in an ageing global population was not reached. FUNDING: Brien Holden Vision Institute, Fondation Théa, The Fred Hollows Foundation, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lions Clubs International Foundation, Sightsavers International, and University of Heidelberg.

BACKGROUND: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), with or without targeted biopsy, is an alternative to standard transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy for prostate-cancer detection in men with a raised prostate-specific antigen level who have not undergone biopsy. However, comparative evidence is limited. METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial, we assigned men with a clinical suspicion of prostate cancer who had not undergone biopsy previously to undergo MRI, with or without targeted biopsy, or standard transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy. Men in the MRI-targeted biopsy group underwent a targeted biopsy (without standard biopsy cores) if the MRI was suggestive of prostate cancer; men whose MRI results were not suggestive of prostate cancer were not offered biopsy. Standard biopsy was a 10-to-12-core, transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy. The primary outcome was the proportion of men who received a diagnosis of clinically significant cancer. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of men who received a diagnosis of clinically insignificant cancer. RESULTS: A total of 500 men underwent randomization. In the MRI-targeted biopsy group, 71 of 252 men (28%) had MRI results that were not suggestive of prostate cancer, so they did not undergo biopsy. Clinically significant cancer was detected in 95 men (38%) in the MRI-targeted biopsy group, as compared with 64 of 248 (26%) in the standard-biopsy group (adjusted difference, 12 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4 to 20; P=0.005). MRI, with or without targeted biopsy, was noninferior to standard biopsy, and the 95% confidence interval indicated the superiority of this strategy over standard biopsy. Fewer men in the MRI-targeted biopsy group than in the standard-biopsy group received a diagnosis of clinically insignificant cancer (adjusted difference, -13 percentage points; 95% CI, -19 to -7; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of risk assessment with MRI before biopsy and MRI-targeted biopsy was superior to standard transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy in men at clinical risk for prostate cancer who had not undergone biopsy previously. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research and the European Association of Urology Research Foundation; PRECISION ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02380027 .).

The genetics underlying severe COVID-19 The immune system is complex and involves many genes, including those that encode cytokines known as interferons (IFNs). Individuals that lack specific IFNs can be more susceptible to infectious diseases. Furthermore, the autoantibody system dampens IFN response to prevent damage from pathogen-induced inflammation. Two studies now examine the likelihood that genetics affects the risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) through components of this system (see the Perspective by Beck and Aksentijevich). Q. Zhang et al. used a candidate gene approach and identified patients with severe COVID-19 who have mutations in genes involved in the regulation of type I and III IFN immunity. They found enrichment of these genes in patients and conclude that genetics may determine the clinical course of the infection. Bastard et al. identified individuals with high titers of neutralizing autoantibodies against type I IFN-α2 and IFN-ω in about 10% of patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. These autoantibodies were not found either in infected people who were asymptomatic or had milder phenotype or in healthy individuals. Together, these studies identify a means by which individuals at highest risk of life-threatening COVID-19 can be identified. Science , this issue p. eabd4570 , p. eabd4585 ; see also p. 404

Earlier detection is key to reducing cancer deaths. Here, we describe a blood test that can detect eight common cancer types through assessment of the levels of circulating proteins and mutations in cell-free DNA. We applied this test, called CancerSEEK, to 1005 patients with nonmetastatic, clinically detected cancers of the ovary, liver, stomach, pancreas, esophagus, colorectum, lung, or breast. CancerSEEK tests were positive in a median of 70% of the eight cancer types. The sensitivities ranged from 69 to 98% for the detection of five cancer types (ovary, liver, stomach, pancreas, and esophagus) for which there are no screening tests available for average-risk individuals. The specificity of CancerSEEK was greater than 99%: only 7 of 812 healthy controls scored positive. In addition, CancerSEEK localized the cancer to a small number of anatomic sites in a median of 83% of the patients.

autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.

BACKGROUND: mutations. The efficacy of niraparib in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer after a response to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy is unknown. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer in a 2:1 ratio to receive niraparib or placebo once daily after a response to platinum-based chemotherapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival in patients who had tumors with homologous-recombination deficiency and in those in the overall population, as determined on hierarchical testing. A prespecified interim analysis for overall survival was conducted at the time of the primary analysis of progression-free survival. RESULTS: Of the 733 patients who underwent randomization, 373 (50.9%) had tumors with homologous-recombination deficiency. Among the patients in this category, the median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the niraparib group than in the placebo group (21.9 months vs. 10.4 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31 to 0.59; P<0.001). In the overall population, the corresponding progression-free survival was 13.8 months and 8.2 months (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.76; P<0.001). At the 24-month interim analysis, the rate of overall survival was 84% in the niraparib group and 77% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.44 to 1.11). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or higher were anemia (in 31.0% of the patients), thrombocytopenia (in 28.7%), and neutropenia (in 12.8%). No treatment-related deaths occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer who had a response to platinum-based chemotherapy, those who received niraparib had significantly longer progression-free survival than those who received placebo, regardless of the presence or absence of homologous-recombination deficiency. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02655016.).

A group of European experts reappraised the guidelines on the therapeutic efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) previously published in 2014 [Lefaucheur et al., Clin Neurophysiol 2014;125:2150-206]. These updated recommendations take into account all rTMS publications, including data prior to 2014, as well as currently reviewed literature until the end of 2018. Level A evidence (definite efficacy) was reached for: high-frequency (HF) rTMS of the primary motor cortex (M1) contralateral to the painful side for neuropathic pain; HF-rTMS of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) using a figure-of-8 or a H1-coil for depression; low-frequency (LF) rTMS of contralesional M1 for hand motor recovery in the post-acute stage of stroke. Level B evidence (probable efficacy) was reached for: HF-rTMS of the left M1 or DLPFC for improving quality of life or pain, respectively, in fibromyalgia; HF-rTMS of bilateral M1 regions or the left DLPFC for improving motor impairment or depression, respectively, in Parkinson's disease; HF-rTMS of ipsilesional M1 for promoting motor recovery at the post-acute stage of stroke; intermittent theta burst stimulation targeted to the leg motor cortex for lower limb spasticity in multiple sclerosis; HF-rTMS of the right DLPFC in posttraumatic stress disorder; LF-rTMS of the right inferior frontal gyrus in chronic post-stroke non-fluent aphasia; LF-rTMS of the right DLPFC in depression; and bihemispheric stimulation of the DLPFC combining right-sided LF-rTMS (or continuous theta burst stimulation) and left-sided HF-rTMS (or intermittent theta burst stimulation) in depression. Level A/B evidence is not reached concerning efficacy of rTMS in any other condition. The current recommendations are based on the differences reached in therapeutic efficacy of real vs. sham rTMS protocols, replicated in a sufficient number of independent studies. This does not mean that the benefit produced by rTMS inevitably reaches a level of clinical relevance.

BACKGROUND: Fingolimod (FTY720), a sphingosine-1-phosphate-receptor modulator that prevents lymphocyte egress from lymph nodes, showed clinical efficacy and improvement on imaging in a phase 2 study involving patients with multiple sclerosis. METHODS: In this 12-month, double-blind, double-dummy study, we randomly assigned 1292 patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis who had a recent history of at least one relapse to receive either oral fingolimod at a daily dose of either 1.25 or 0.5 mg or intramuscular interferon beta-1a (an established therapy for multiple sclerosis) at a weekly dose of 30 microg. The primary end point was the annualized relapse rate. Key secondary end points were the number of new or enlarged lesions on T(2)-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans at 12 months and progression of disability that was sustained for at least 3 months. RESULTS: A total of 1153 patients (89%) completed the study. The annualized relapse rate was significantly lower in both groups receiving fingolimod--0.20 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.16 to 0.26) in the 1.25-mg group and 0.16 (95% CI, 0.12 to 0.21) in the 0.5-mg group--than in the interferon group (0.33; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.42; P<0.001 for both comparisons). MRI findings supported the primary results. No significant differences were seen among the study groups with respect to progression of disability. Two fatal infections occurred in the group that received the 1.25-mg dose of fingolimod: disseminated primary varicella zoster and herpes simplex encephalitis. Other adverse events among patients receiving fingolimod were nonfatal herpesvirus infections, bradycardia and atrioventricular block, hypertension, macular edema, skin cancer, and elevated liver-enzyme levels. CONCLUSIONS: This trial showed the superior efficacy of oral fingolimod with respect to relapse rates and MRI outcomes in patients with multiple sclerosis, as compared with intramuscular interferon beta-1a. Longer studies are needed to assess the safety and efficacy of treatment beyond 1 year. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00340834.)

Measurement of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) has been the traditional method for assessing glycemic control. However, it does not reflect intra- and interday glycemic excursions that may lead to acute events (such as hypoglycemia) or postprandial hyperglycemia, which have been linked to both microvascular and macrovascular complications. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), either from real-time use (rtCGM) or intermittently viewed (iCGM), addresses many of the limitations inherent in HbA1c testing and self-monitoring of blood glucose. Although both provide the means to move beyond the HbA1c measurement as the sole marker of glycemic control, standardized metrics for analyzing CGM data are lacking. Moreover, clear criteria for matching people with diabetes to the most appropriate glucose monitoring methodologies, as well as standardized advice about how best to use the new information they provide, have yet to be established. In February 2017, the Advanced Technologies &amp; Treatments for Diabetes (ATTD) Congress convened an international panel of physicians, researchers, and individuals with diabetes who are expert in CGM technologies to address these issues. This article summarizes the ATTD consensus recommendations and represents the current understanding of how CGM results can affect outcomes.

BACKGROUND: B cells influence the pathogenesis of multiple sclerosis. Ocrelizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that selectively depletes CD20+ B cells. METHODS: In two identical phase 3 trials, we randomly assigned 821 and 835 patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis to receive intravenous ocrelizumab at a dose of 600 mg every 24 weeks or subcutaneous interferon beta-1a at a dose of 44 μg three times weekly for 96 weeks. The primary end point was the annualized relapse rate. RESULTS: -weighted magnetic resonance scan was 0.02 with ocrelizumab versus 0.29 with interferon beta-1a in trial 1 (94% lower number of lesions with ocrelizumab, P<0.001) and 0.02 versus 0.42 in trial 2 (95% lower number of lesions, P<0.001). The change in the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite score (a composite measure of walking speed, upper-limb movements, and cognition; for this z score, negative values indicate worsening and positive values indicate improvement) significantly favored ocrelizumab over interferon beta-1a in trial 2 (0.28 vs. 0.17, P=0.004) but not in trial 1 (0.21 vs. 0.17, P=0.33). Infusion-related reactions occurred in 34.3% of the patients treated with ocrelizumab. Serious infection occurred in 1.3% of the patients treated with ocrelizumab and in 2.9% of those treated with interferon beta-1a. Neoplasms occurred in 0.5% of the patients treated with ocrelizumab and in 0.2% of those treated with interferon beta-1a. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis, ocrelizumab was associated with lower rates of disease activity and progression than interferon beta-1a over a period of 96 weeks. Larger and longer studies of the safety of ocrelizumab are required. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche; OPERA I and II ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT01247324 and NCT01412333 , respectively.).

peer reviewed

Speech comprehension and production are governed by control processes. We explore their nature and dynamics in bilingual speakers with a focus on speech production. Prior research indicates that individuals increase cognitive control in order to achieve a desired goal. In the adaptive control hypothesis we propose a stronger hypothesis: Language control processes themselves adapt to the recurrent demands placed on them by the interactional context. Adapting a control process means changing a parameter or parameters about the way it works (its neural capacity or efficiency) or the way it works in concert, or in cascade, with other control processes (e.g., its connectedness). We distinguish eight control processes (goal maintenance, conflict monitoring, interference suppression, salient cue detection, selective response inhibition, task disengagement, task engagement, opportunistic planning). We consider the demands on these processes imposed by three interactional contexts (single language, dual language, and dense code-switching). We predict adaptive changes in the neural regions and circuits associated with specific control processes. A dual-language context, for example, is predicted to lead to the adaptation of a circuit mediating a cascade of control processes that circumvents a control dilemma. Effective test of the adaptive control hypothesis requires behavioural and neuroimaging work that assesses language control in a range of tasks within the same individual.

Importance: Many patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are critically ill and require care in the intensive care unit (ICU). Objective: To evaluate the independent risk factors associated with mortality of patients with COVID-19 requiring treatment in ICUs in the Lombardy region of Italy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective, observational cohort study included 3988 consecutive critically ill patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 referred for ICU admission to the coordinating center (Fondazione IRCCS [Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico] Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy) of the COVID-19 Lombardy ICU Network from February 20 to April 22, 2020. Infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 was confirmed by real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction assay of nasopharyngeal swabs. Follow-up was completed on May 30, 2020. Exposures: Baseline characteristics, comorbidities, long-term medications, and ventilatory support at ICU admission. Main Outcomes and Measures: Time to death in days from ICU admission to hospital discharge. The independent risk factors associated with mortality were evaluated with a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression. Results: Of the 3988 patients included in this cohort study, the median age was 63 (interquartile range [IQR] 56-69) years; 3188 (79.9%; 95% CI, 78.7%-81.1%) were men, and 1998 of 3300 (60.5%; 95% CI, 58.9%-62.2%) had at least 1 comorbidity. At ICU admission, 2929 patients (87.3%; 95% CI, 86.1%-88.4%) required invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). The median follow-up was 44 (95% CI, 40-47; IQR, 11-69; range, 0-100) days; median time from symptoms onset to ICU admission was 10 (95% CI, 9-10; IQR, 6-14) days; median length of ICU stay was 12 (95% CI, 12-13; IQR, 6-21) days; and median length of IMV was 10 (95% CI, 10-11; IQR, 6-17) days. Cumulative observation time was 164 305 patient-days. Hospital and ICU mortality rates were 12 (95% CI, 11-12) and 27 (95% CI, 26-29) per 1000 patients-days, respectively. In the subgroup of the first 1715 patients, as of May 30, 2020, 865 (50.4%) had been discharged from the ICU, 836 (48.7%) had died in the ICU, and 14 (0.8%) were still in the ICU; overall, 915 patients (53.4%) died in the hospital. Independent risk factors associated with mortality included older age (hazard ratio [HR], 1.75; 95% CI, 1.60-1.92), male sex (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.31-1.88), high fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio2) (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.10-1.19), high positive end-expiratory pressure (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.06) or low Pao2:Fio2 ratio (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.74-0.87) on ICU admission, and history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.28-2.19), hypercholesterolemia (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.02-1.52), and type 2 diabetes (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.01-1.39). No medication was independently associated with mortality (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.97-1.42; angiotensin receptor blockers HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.85-1.29). Conclusions and Relevance: In this retrospective cohort study of critically ill patients admitted to ICUs in Lombardy, Italy, with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, most patients required IMV. The mortality rate and absolute mortality were high.

BACKGROUND: Patients with relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who have clinically significant coexisting medical conditions are less able to undergo standard chemotherapy. Effective therapies with acceptable side-effect profiles are needed for this patient population. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study, we assessed the efficacy and safety of idelalisib, an oral inhibitor of the delta isoform of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase, in combination with rituximab versus rituximab plus placebo. We randomly assigned 220 patients with decreased renal function, previous therapy-induced myelosuppression, or major coexisting illnesses to receive rituximab and either idelalisib (at a dose of 150 mg) or placebo twice daily. The primary end point was progression-free survival. At the first prespecified interim analysis, the study was stopped early on the recommendation of the data and safety monitoring board owing to overwhelming efficacy. RESULTS: The median progression-free survival was 5.5 months in the placebo group and was not reached in the idelalisib group (hazard ratio for progression or death in the idelalisib group, 0.15; P<0.001). Patients receiving idelalisib versus those receiving placebo had improved rates of overall response (81% vs. 13%; odds ratio, 29.92; P<0.001) and overall survival at 12 months (92% vs. 80%; hazard ratio for death, 0.28; P=0.02). Serious adverse events occurred in 40% of the patients receiving idelalisib and rituximab and in 35% of those receiving placebo and rituximab. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of idelalisib and rituximab, as compared with placebo and rituximab, significantly improved progression-free survival, response rate, and overall survival among patients with relapsed CLL who were less able to undergo chemotherapy. (Funded by Gilead; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01539512.).

The previous edition of the consensus guidelines of the International Workshop on Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (iwCLL), published in 2008, has found broad acceptance by physicians and investigators caring for patients with CLL. Recent advances including the discovery of the genomic landscape of the disease, the development of genetic tests with prognostic relevance, and the detection of minimal residual disease (MRD), coupled with the increased availability of novel targeted agents with impressive efficacy, prompted an international panel to provide updated evidence- and expert opinion-based recommendations. These recommendations include a revised version of the iwCLL response criteria, an update on the use of MRD status for clinical evaluation, and recommendations regarding the assessment and prophylaxis of viral diseases during management of CLL.