VA Nebraska Western Iowa Health Care System

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,

OBJECTIVE: To develop updated guidelines for the pharmacologic management of rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes (PICO) questions. After conducting a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the certainty of evidence. A voting panel comprising clinicians and patients achieved consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations. RESULTS: The guideline addresses treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), including conventional synthetic DMARDs, biologic DMARDs, and targeted synthetic DMARDs, use of glucocorticoids, and use of DMARDs in certain high-risk populations (i.e., those with liver disease, heart failure, lymphoproliferative disorders, previous serious infections, and nontuberculous mycobacterial lung disease). The guideline includes 44 recommendations (7 strong and 37 conditional). CONCLUSION: This clinical practice guideline is intended to serve as a tool to support clinician and patient decision-making. Recommendations are not prescriptive, and individual treatment decisions should be made through a shared decision-making process based on patients' values, goals, preferences, and comorbidities.

OBJECTIVE: To develop updated guidelines for the pharmacologic management of rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes (PICO) questions. After conducting a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the certainty of evidence. A voting panel comprising clinicians and patients achieved consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations. RESULTS: The guideline addresses treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), including conventional synthetic DMARDs, biologic DMARDs, and targeted synthetic DMARDs, use of glucocorticoids, and use of DMARDs in certain high-risk populations (i.e., those with liver disease, heart failure, lymphoproliferative disorders, previous serious infections, and nontuberculous mycobacterial lung disease). The guideline includes 44 recommendations (7 strong and 37 conditional). CONCLUSION: This clinical practice guideline is intended to serve as a tool to support clinician and patient decision-making. Recommendations are not prescriptive, and individual treatment decisions should be made through a shared decision-making process based on patients' values, goals, preferences, and comorbidities.

Objective To provide guidance for the management of gout, including indications for and optimal use of urate‐lowering therapy ( ULT ), treatment of gout flares, and lifestyle and other medication recommendations. Methods Fifty‐seven population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions were developed, followed by a systematic literature review, including network meta‐analyses with ratings of the available evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation ( GRADE ) methodology, and patient input. A group consensus process was used to compose the final recommendations and grade their strength as strong or conditional. Results Forty‐two recommendations (including 16 strong recommendations) were generated. Strong recommendations included initiation of ULT for all patients with tophaceous gout, radiographic damage due to gout, or frequent gout flares; allopurinol as the preferred first‐line ULT , including for those with moderate‐to‐severe chronic kidney disease ( CKD ; stage > 3); using a low starting dose of allopurinol (≤100 mg/day, and lower in CKD ) or febuxostat ( < 40 mg/day); and a treat‐to‐target management strategy with ULT dose titration guided by serial serum urate ( SU ) measurements, with an SU target of <6 mg/dl. When initiating ULT , concomitant antiinflammatory prophylaxis therapy for a duration of at least 3–6 months was strongly recommended. For management of gout flares, colchicine, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, or glucocorticoids (oral, intraarticular, or intramuscular) were strongly recommended. Conclusion Using GRADE methodology and informed by a consensus process based on evidence from the current literature and patient preferences, this guideline provides direction for clinicians and patients making decisions on the management of gout.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer is a devastating disease; however, several therapeutic advances have recently been made, wherein EGFR and its family members have emerged as useful biomarkers and therapeutic targets. EGFR, a transmembrane glycoprotein is a member of the ERBB receptor tyrosine kinase superfamily. EGFR binds to its cognate ligand EGF, which further induces tyrosine phosphorylation and receptor dimerization with other family members leading to enhanced uncontrolled proliferation. Several anti-EGFR therapies such as monoclonal antibodies and tyrosine kinase inhibitors have been developed, which has enabled clinicians to identify and treat specific patient cohorts. AREAS COVERED: This review covers the basic mechanism of EGFR activation and the role of EGFR signaling in cancer progression. Furthermore, current developments made toward targeting the EGFR signaling pathway for the treatment of epithelial cancers and a summary of the various anti-EGFR therapeutic agents that are currently in use are also presented in this review. EXPERT OPINION: EGFR signaling is a part of a complex network that has been the target of effective cancer therapies. However, a further understanding of the system is required to develop an effective anticancer regimen. A combination therapy that comprises an anti-EGFR and a chemotherapeutic/chemopreventive agent will exhibit a multi-pronged approach that can be developed into a highly attractive and specific molecular oriented remedy.

Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), including Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, are complex diseases that result from the chronic dysregulated immune response in the gastrointestinal tract. The exact etiology is not fully understood, but it is accepted that it occurs when an inappropriate aggressive inflammatory response in a genetically susceptible host due to inciting environmental factors occurs. To investigate the pathogenesis and etiology of human IBD, various animal models of IBD have been developed that provided indispensable insights into the histopathological and morphological changes as well as factors associated with the pathogenesis of IBD and evaluation of therapeutic options in the last few decades. The most widely used experimental model employs dextran sodium sulfate (DSS) to induce epithelial damage. The DSS colitis model in IBD research has advantages over other various chemically induced experimental models due to its rapidity, simplicity, reproducibility and controllability. In this manuscript, we review the newer publicized advances of research in murine colitis models that focus upon the disruption of the barrier function of the intestine, effects of mucin on the development of colitis, alterations found in microbial balance and resultant changes in the metabolome specifically in the DSS colitis murine model and its relation to the pathogenesis of IBD.

OBJECTIVE: To provide guidance for the management of gout, including indications for and optimal use of urate-lowering therapy (ULT), treatment of gout flares, and lifestyle and other medication recommendations. METHODS: Fifty-seven population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions were developed, followed by a systematic literature review, including network meta-analyses with ratings of the available evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, and patient input. A group consensus process was used to compose the final recommendations and grade their strength as strong or conditional. RESULTS: Forty-two recommendations (including 16 strong recommendations) were generated. Strong recommendations included initiation of ULT for all patients with tophaceous gout, radiographic damage due to gout, or frequent gout flares; allopurinol as the preferred first-line ULT, including for those with moderate-to-severe chronic kidney disease (CKD; stage >3); using a low starting dose of allopurinol (≤100 mg/day, and lower in CKD) or febuxostat (<40 mg/day); and a treat-to-target management strategy with ULT dose titration guided by serial serum urate (SU) measurements, with an SU target of <6 mg/dl. When initiating ULT, concomitant antiinflammatory prophylaxis therapy for a duration of at least 3-6 months was strongly recommended. For management of gout flares, colchicine, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, or glucocorticoids (oral, intraarticular, or intramuscular) were strongly recommended. CONCLUSION: Using GRADE methodology and informed by a consensus process based on evidence from the current literature and patient preferences, this guideline provides direction for clinicians and patients making decisions on the management of gout.

IMPORTANCE: Updated estimates of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the US are needed. OBJECTIVE: To calculate the most recent epidemiologic estimates of NSCLC in the US. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional epidemiological analysis used the most recently released data from US cancer registries. The population-based US Cancer Statistics (USCS) database (2010-2017), comprised of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program and the National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) (collectively, SEER-NPCR) provided the NSCLC incidence estimate. The SEER-18 database provided data for incidence, prevalence, survival, and initial treatment by NSCLC stage. Adults aged 18 years or older diagnosed with NSCLC identified by International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, Third Edition, morphology codes were included. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Annual age-adjusted NSCLC incidence per 100 000 persons; annual prevalence per 100 000 persons; survival rate; initial treatment. Due to database release delays, incidence data were available through 2017, and other parameters through 2016. The analysis was conducted from June 2020 to July 2020. RESULTS: There were 1.28 million new NSCLC cases recorded during 2010 to 2017 in the US (SEER-NPCR: 53% male; 67% ≥ 65 years). From 2010 to 2017, NSCLC incidence per 100 000 decreased from 46.4 to 40.9 overall (age <65 years: 15.5 to 13.5; age ≥65 years: 259.9 to 230.0); the incidence of stage II, IIIA, and IIIB NSCLC was stable, and stage IV decreased slightly from 21.7 to 19.6, whereas stage I incidence increased from 10.8 to 13.2. From 2010 to 2016, NSCLC prevalence per 100 000 increased from 175.3 to 198.3 (nationwide projection of SEER-18); prevalence increased among younger patients (77.5 to 87.9) but decreased among older patients (825.1 to 812.4). Period survival analysis found that 26.4% of patients survived 5 years, which is higher than previously reported. The proportion of stage I NSCLC treated with radiation as single initial treatment rose markedly from 14.7% in 2010 to 25.7% in 2016. Patients with stage IV NSCLC aged 65 years or older were most likely to be untreated (38.3%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The findings of this cross-sectional epidemiological analysis suggest that the increased incidence of stage I NSCLC at diagnosis likely reflected improved evaluation of incidental nodules. A smaller proportion of patients aged 65 years or older with stage IV NSCLC were treated. Earlier detection and availability of effective treatments may underlie increased overall NSCLC prevalence, and higher than previously reported survival.

Excessive alcohol consumption is a global healthcare problem. The liver sustains the greatest degree of tissue injury by heavy drinking because it is the primary site of ethanol metabolism. Chronic and excessive alcohol consumption produces a wide spectrum of hepatic lesions, the most characteristic of which are steatosis, hepatitis, and fibrosis/cirrhosis. Steatosis is the earliest response to heavy drinking and is characterized by the deposition of fat in hepatocytes. Steatosis can progress to steatohepatitis, which is a more severe, inflammatory type of liver injury. This stage of liver disease can lead to the development of fibrosis, during which there is excessive deposition of extracellular matrix proteins. The fibrotic response begins with active pericellular fibrosis, which may progress to cirrhosis, characterized by excessive liver scarring, vascular alterations, and eventual liver failure. Among problem drinkers, about 35 percent develop advanced liver disease because a number of disease modifiers exacerbate, slow, or prevent alcoholic liver disease progression. There are still no FDA-approved pharmacological or nutritional therapies for treating patients with alcoholic liver disease. Cessation of drinking (i.e., abstinence) is an integral part of therapy. Liver transplantation remains the life-saving strategy for patients with end-stage alcoholic liver disease.

Rheumatoid arthritis is a systemic autoimmune disease characterized by excess morbidity and mortality from cardiovascular disease. Mechanisms linking rheumatoid arthritis and cardiovascular disease include shared inflammatory mediators, post-translational modifications of peptides/proteins and subsequent immune responses, alterations in the composition and function of lipoproteins, increased oxidative stress, and endothelial dysfunction. Despite a growing understanding of these mechanisms and their complex interplay with conventional cardiovascular risk factors, optimal approaches of risk stratification, prevention, and treatment in the context of rheumatoid arthritis remain unknown. A multifaceted approach to reduce the burden posed by cardiovascular disease requires optimal management of traditional risk factors in addition to those intrinsic to rheumatoid arthritis such as increased disease activity. Treatments for rheumatoid arthritis seem to exert differential effects on cardiovascular risk as well as the mechanisms linking these conditions. More research is needed to establish whether preferential rheumatoid arthritis therapies exist in terms of prevention of cardiovascular disease. Ultimately, understanding the unique mechanisms for cardiovascular disease in rheumatoid arthritis will aid in risk stratification and the identification of novel targets for meaningful reduction of cardiovascular risk in this patient population.

Importance: Growing consensus suggests that frailty-associated risks should inform shared surgical decision making. However, it is not clear how best to screen for frailty in preoperative surgical populations. Objective: To develop and validate the Risk Analysis Index (RAI), a 14-item instrument used to measure surgical frailty. It can be calculated prospectively (RAI-C), using a clinical questionnaire, or retrospectively (RAI-A), using variables from the surgical quality improvement databases (Veterans Affairs or American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Projects). Design, Setting, and Participants: Single-site, prospective cohort from July 2011 to September 2015 at the Veterans Affairs Nebraska-Western Iowa Heath Care System, a Level 1b Veterans Affairs Medical Center. The study included all patients presenting to the medical center for elective surgery. Exposures: We assessed the RAI-C for all patients scheduled for surgery, linking these scores to administrative and quality improvement data to calculate the RAI-A and the modified Frailty Index. Main Outcomes and Measures: Receiver operator characteristics and C statistics for each measure predicting postoperative mortality and morbidity. Results: Of the participants, the mean (SD) age was 60.7 (13.9) years and 249 participants (3.6%) were women. We assessed the RAI-C 10 698 times, from which we linked 6856 unique patients to mortality data. The C statistic predicting 180-day mortality for the RAI-C was 0.772. Of these 6856 unique patients, we linked 2785 to local Veterans Affairs Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Projects data and calculated the C statistic for both the RAI-A (0.823) and RAI-C (0.824), along with the correlation between the 2 scores (r = 0.478; P < .001). Of these 2785 patients, there were sufficient data to calculate the modified Frailty Index for 1021, in which the C statistics were 0.865 (RAI-A), 0.797 (RAI-C), and 0.811 (modified Frailty Index). The correlation between the RAI-A and RAI-C was 0.547, and the correlations of the modified Frailty Index to the RAI-A and RAI-C were 0.301 and 0.269, respectively (all P < .001). A cutoff of RAI-C of at least 21 classified 18.3% patients as "frail" with a sensitivity of 0.50 and specificity of 0.82, whereas the RAI-A was less sensitive (0.25) and more specific (0.97), classifying only 3.7% as "frail." Conclusions and Relevance: The RAI-C and RAI-A represent effective tools for measuring frailty in surgical populations with predictive ability on par with other frailty tools. Moderate correlation between the measures suggests convergent validity. The RAI-C offers the advantage of prospective, preoperative assessment that is proved feasible for large-scale screening in clinical practice. However, further efforts should be directed at determining the optimal components of preoperative frailty assessment.

Autophagy has emerged as a critical lysosomal pathway that maintains cell function and survival through the degradation of cellular components such as organelles and proteins. Investigations specifically employing the liver or hepatocytes as experimental models have contributed significantly to our current knowledge of autophagic regulation and function. The diverse cellular functions of autophagy, along with unique features of the liver and its principal cell type the hepatocyte, suggest that the liver is highly dependent on autophagy for both normal function and to prevent the development of disease states. However, instances have also been identified in which autophagy promotes pathological changes such as the development of hepatic fibrosis. Considerable evidence has accumulated that alterations in autophagy are an underlying mechanism of a number of common hepatic diseases including toxin-, drug- and ischemia/reperfusion-induced liver injury, fatty liver, viral hepatitis and hepatocellular carcinoma. This review summarizes recent advances in understanding the roles that autophagy plays in normal hepatic physiology and pathophysiology with the intent of furthering the development of autophagy-based therapies for human liver diseases.

Electrospun nanofibers represent a novel class of materials that show great potential in many biomedical applications including biosensing, regenerative medicine, tissue engineering, drug delivery and wound healing. In this work, we review recent advances in electrospun nanofibers for wound healing. This article begins with a brief introduction on the wound, and then discusses the unique features of electrospun nanofibers critical for wound healing. It further highlights recent studies that have used electrospun nanofibers for wound healing applications and devices, including sutures, multifunctional dressings, dermal substitutes, engineered epidermis and full-thickness skin regeneration. Finally, we finish with conclusions and future perspective in this field.

Importance: Patients with frailty have higher risk for postoperative mortality and complications; however, most research has focused on small groups of high-risk procedures. The associations among frailty, operative stress, and mortality are poorly understood. Objective: To assess the association between frailty and mortality at varying levels of operative stress as measured by the Operative Stress Score, a novel measure created for this study. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included veterans in the Veterans Administration Surgical Quality Improvement Program from April 1, 2010, through March 31, 2014, who underwent a noncardiac surgical procedure at Veterans Health Administration Hospitals and had information available on vital status (whether the patient was alive or deceased) at 1 year postoperatively. A Delphi consensus method was used to stratify surgical procedures into 5 categories of physiologic stress. Exposures: Frailty as measured by the Risk Analysis Index and operative stress as measured by the Operative Stress Score. Main Outcomes and Measures: Postoperative mortality at 30, 90, and 180 days. Results: Of 432 828 unique patients (401 453 males [92.8%]; mean (SD) age, 61.0 [12.9] years), 36 579 (8.5%) were frail and 9113 (2.1%) were very frail. The 30-day mortality rate among patients who were frail and underwent the lowest-stress surgical procedures (eg, cystoscopy) was 1.55% (95% CI, 1.20%-1.97%) and among patients with frailty who underwent the moderate-stress surgical procedures (eg, laparoscopic cholecystectomy) was 5.13% (95% CI, 4.79%-5.48%); these rates exceeded the 1% mortality rate often used to define high-risk surgery. Among patients who were very frail, 30-day mortality rates were higher after the lowest-stress surgical procedures (10.34%; 95% CI, 7.73%-13.48%) and after the moderate-stress surgical procedures (18.74%; 95% CI, 17.72%-19.80%). For patients who were frail and very frail, mortality continued to increase at 90 and 180 days, reaching 43.00% (95% CI, 41.69%-44.32%) for very frail patients at 180 days after moderate-stress surgical procedures. Conclusions and Relevance: We developed a novel operative stress score to quantify physiologic stress for surgical procedures. Patients who were frail and very frail had high rates of postoperative mortality across all levels of the Operative Stress Score. These findings suggest that frailty screening should be applied universally because low- and moderate-stress procedures may be high risk among patients who are frail.

BACKGROUND: Few blinded trials have compared conventional therapy consisting of a combination of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs with biologic agents in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who have active disease despite treatment with methotrexate--a common scenario in the management of rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: We conducted a 48-week, double-blind, noninferiority trial in which we randomly assigned 353 participants with rheumatoid arthritis who had active disease despite methotrexate therapy to a triple regimen of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (methotrexate, sulfasalazine, and hydroxychloroquine) or etanercept plus methotrexate. Patients who did not have an improvement at 24 weeks according to a prespecified threshold were switched in a blinded fashion to the other therapy. The primary outcome was improvement in the Disease Activity Score for 28-joint counts (DAS28, with scores ranging from 2 to 10 and higher scores indicating more disease activity) at week 48. RESULTS: Both groups had significant improvement over the course of the first 24 weeks (P=0.001 for the comparison with baseline). A total of 27% of participants in each group required a switch in treatment at 24 weeks. Participants in both groups who switched therapies had improvement after switching (P<0.001), and the response after switching did not differ significantly between the two groups (P=0.08). The change between baseline and 48 weeks in the DAS28 was similar in the two groups (-2.1 with triple therapy and -2.3 with etanercept and methotrexate, P=0.26); triple therapy was noninferior to etanercept and methotrexate, since the 95% upper confidence limit of 0.41 for the difference in change in DAS28 was below the margin for noninferiority of 0.6 (P=0.002). There were no significant between-group differences in secondary outcomes, including radiographic progression, pain, and health-related quality of life, or in major adverse events associated with the medications. CONCLUSIONS: With respect to clinical benefit, triple therapy, with sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine added to methotrexate, was noninferior to etanercept plus methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who had active disease despite methotrexate therapy. (Funded by the Cooperative Studies Program, Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Research and Development, and others; CSP 551 RACAT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00405275.)

Importance: As the US population ages, the number of operations performed on elderly patients will likely increase. Frailty predicts postoperative mortality and morbidity more than age alone, thus presenting opportunities to identify the highest-risk surgical patients and improve their outcomes. Objective: To examine the effect of the Frailty Screening Initiative (FSI) on mortality and complications by comparing the surgical outcomes of a cohort of surgical patients treated before and after implementation of the FSI. Design, Setting, and Participants: This single-site, facility-wide, prospective cohort quality improvement project studied all 9153 patients from a level 1b Veterans Affairs medical center who presented for major, elective, noncardiac surgery from October 1, 2007, to July 1, 2014. Interventions: Assessment of preoperative frailty in all patients scheduled for elective surgery began in July 2011. Frailty was assessed with the Risk Analysis Index (RAI), and the records of all frail patients (RAI score, ≥21) were flagged for administrative review by the chief of surgery (or designee) before the scheduled operation. On the basis of this review, clinicians from surgery, anesthesia, critical care, and palliative care were notified of the patient's frailty and associated surgical risks; if indicated, perioperative plans were modified based on team input. Main Outcomes and Measures: Postoperative mortality at 30, 180, and 365 days. Results: From October 1, 2007, to July 1, 2014, a total of 9153 patients underwent surgery (mean [SD] age, 60.3 [13.5] years; female, 653 [7.1%]; and white, 7096 [79.8%]). Overall 30-day mortality decreased from 1.6% (84 of 5275 patients) to 0.7% (26 of 3878 patients, P < .001) after FSI implementation. Improvement was greatest among frail patients (12.2% [24 of 197 patients] to 3.8% [16 of 424 patients], P < .001), although mortality rates also decreased among the robust patients (1.2% [60 of 5078 patients] to 0.3% [10 of 3454 patients], P < .001). The magnitude of improvement among frail patients increased at 180 (23.9% [47 of 197 patients] to 7.7% [30 of 389 patients], P < .001) and 365 days (34.5% [68 of 197 patients] to 11.7% [36 of 309 patients], P < .001). Multivariable models revealed improved survival after FSI implementation, controlling for age, frailty, and predicted mortality (adjusted odds ratio for 180-day survival, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.98-4.16). Conclusions and Relevance: Implementation of the FSI was associated with reduced mortality, suggesting the feasibility of widespread screening of patients preoperatively to identify frailty and the efficacy of system-level initiatives aimed at improving their surgical outcomes. Additional investigation is required to establish a causal connection.

Over the past two decades a growing body of evidence has demonstrated an important role of tight junction (TJ) proteins in the physiology and disease biology of GI and liver disease. On one side, TJ proteins exert their functional role as integral proteins of TJs in forming barriers in the gut and the liver. Furthermore, TJ proteins can also be expressed outside TJs where they play important functional roles in signalling, trafficking and regulation of gene expression. A hallmark of TJ proteins in disease biology is their functional role in epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition. A causative role of TJ proteins has been established in the pathogenesis of colorectal cancer and gastric cancer. Among the best characterised roles of TJ proteins in liver disease biology is their function as cell entry receptors for HCV-one of the most common causes of hepatocellular carcinoma. At the same time TJ proteins are emerging as targets for novel therapeutic approaches for GI and liver disease. Here we review our current knowledge of the role of TJ proteins in the pathogenesis of GI and liver disease biology and discuss their potential as therapeutic targets.

Lipid droplet (LD) catabolism in hepatocytes is mediated by a combination of lipolysis and a selective autophagic mechanism called lipophagy, but the relative contributions of these seemingly distinct pathways remain unclear. We find that inhibition of lipolysis, lipophagy, or both resulted in similar overall LD content but dramatic differences in LD morphology. Inhibition of the lipolysis enzyme adipose triglyceride lipase (ATGL) resulted in large cytoplasmic LDs, whereas lysosomal inhibition caused the accumulation of numerous small LDs within the cytoplasm and degradative acidic vesicles. Combined inhibition of ATGL and LAL resulted in large LDs, suggesting that lipolysis targets these LDs upstream of lipophagy. Consistent with this, ATGL was enriched in larger-sized LDs, whereas lipophagic vesicles were restricted to small LDs as revealed by immunofluorescence, electron microscopy, and Western blot of size-separated LDs. These findings provide new evidence indicating a synergistic relationship whereby lipolysis targets larger-sized LDs to produce both size-reduced and nascently synthesized small LDs that are amenable for lipophagic internalization.

Scavenger receptors constitute a large family of proteins that are structurally diverse and participate in a wide range of biological functions. These receptors are expressed predominantly by myeloid cells and recognize a diverse variety of ligands including endogenous and modified host-derived molecules and microbial pathogens. There are currently eight classes of scavenger receptors, many of which have multiple names, leading to inconsistencies and confusion in the literature. To address this problem, a workshop was organized by the United States National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, to help develop a clear definition of scavenger receptors and a standardized nomenclature based on that definition. Fifteen experts in the scavenger receptor field attended the workshop and, after extensive discussion, reached a consensus regarding the definition of scavenger receptors and a proposed scavenger receptor nomenclature. Scavenger receptors were defined as cell surface receptors that typically bind multiple ligands and promote the removal of nonself or altered-self targets. They often function by mechanisms that include endocytosis, phagocytosis, adhesion, and signaling that ultimately lead to the elimination of degraded or harmful substances. Based on this definition, nomenclature and classification of these receptors into 10 classes were proposed. This classification was discussed at three national meetings and input from participants at these meetings was requested. The following manuscript is a consensus statement that combines the recommendations of the initial workshop and incorporates the input received from the participants at the three national meetings.

Post-transplant diabetes mellitus (PTDM) is a frequent consequence of solid organ transplantation. PTDM has been associated with greater mortality and increased infections in different transplant groups using different diagnostic criteria. An international consensus panel recommended a consistent set of guidelines in 2003 based on American Diabetes Association glucose criteria but did not exclude the immediate post-transplant hospitalization when many patients receive large doses of corticosteroids. Greater glucose monitoring during all hospitalizations has revealed significant glucose intolerance in the majority of recipients immediately after transplant. As a result, the international consensus panel reviewed its earlier guidelines and recommended delaying screening and diagnosis of PTDM until the recipient is on stable doses of immunosuppression after discharge from initial transplant hospitalization. The group cautioned that whereas hemoglobin A1C has been adopted as a diagnostic criterion by many, it is not reliable as the sole diabetes screening method during the first year after transplant. Risk factors for PTDM include many of the immunosuppressant medications themselves as well as those for type 2 diabetes. The provider managing diabetes and associated dyslipidemia and hypertension after transplant must be careful of the greater risk for drug-drug interactions and infections with immunosuppressant medications. Treatment goals and therapies must consider the greater risk for fluctuating and reduced kidney function, which can cause hypoglycemia. Research is actively focused on strategies to prevent PTDM, but until strategies are found, it is imperative that immunosuppression regimens are chosen based on their evidence to prolong graft survival, not to avoid PTDM.