Displaying publications 21 - 31 of 31 in total

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Johnson CD, Haldeman S, Chou R, Nordin M, Green BN, Côté P, et al.
    Eur Spine J, 2018 09;27(Suppl 6):925-945.
    PMID: 30151805 DOI: 10.1007/s00586-018-5720-z
    PURPOSE: Spine-related disorders are a leading cause of global disability and are a burden on society and to public health. Currently, there is no comprehensive, evidence-based model of care for spine-related disorders, which includes back and neck pain, deformity, spine injury, neurological conditions, spinal diseases, and pathology, that could be applied in global health care settings. The purposes of this paper are to propose: (1) principles to transform the delivery of spine care; (2) an evidence-based model that could be applied globally; and (3) implementation suggestions.

    METHODS: The Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) meetings and literature reviews were synthesized into a seed document and distributed to spine care experts. After three rounds of a modified Delphi process, all participants reached consensus on the final model of care and implementation steps.

    RESULTS: Sixty-six experts representing 24 countries participated. The GSCI model of care has eight core principles: person-centered, people-centered, biopsychosocial, proactive, evidence-based, integrative, collaborative, and self-sustaining. The model of care includes a classification system and care pathway, levels of care, and a focus on the patient's journey. The six steps for implementation are initiation and preparation; assessment of the current situation; planning and designing solutions; implementation; assessment and evaluation of program; and sustain program and scale up.

    CONCLUSION: The GSCI proposes an evidence-based, practical, sustainable, and scalable model of care representing eight core principles with a six-step implementation plan. The aim of this model is to help transform spine care globally, especially in low- and middle-income countries and underserved communities. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

  2. Haldeman S, Nordin M, Chou R, Côté P, Hurwitz EL, Johnson CD, et al.
    Eur Spine J, 2018 09;27(Suppl 6):776-785.
    PMID: 30151809 DOI: 10.1007/s00586-018-5722-x
    PURPOSE: Spinal disorders, including back and neck pain, are major causes of disability, economic hardship, and morbidity, especially in underserved communities and low- and middle-income countries. Currently, there is no model of care to address this issue. This paper provides an overview of the papers from the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI), which was convened to develop an evidence-based, practical, and sustainable, spinal healthcare model for communities around the world with various levels of resources.

    METHODS: Leading spine clinicians and scientists around the world were invited to participate. The interprofessional, international team consisted of 68 members from 24 countries, representing most disciplines that study or care for patients with spinal symptoms, including family physicians, spine surgeons, rheumatologists, chiropractors, physical therapists, epidemiologists, research methodologists, and other stakeholders.

    RESULTS: Literature reviews on the burden of spinal disorders and six categories of evidence-based interventions for spinal disorders (assessment, public health, psychosocial, noninvasive, invasive, and the management of osteoporosis) were completed. In addition, participants developed a stratification system for surgical intervention, a classification system for spinal disorders, an evidence-based care pathway, and lists of resources and recommendations to implement the GSCI model of care.

    CONCLUSION: The GSCI proposes an evidence-based model that is consistent with recent calls for action to reduce the global burden of spinal disorders. The model requires testing to determine feasibility. If it proves to be implementable, this model holds great promise to reduce the tremendous global burden of spinal disorders. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

  3. Wise SK, Damask C, Roland LT, Ebert C, Levy JM, Lin S, et al.
    Int Forum Allergy Rhinol, 2023 Apr;13(4):293-859.
    PMID: 36878860 DOI: 10.1002/alr.23090
    BACKGROUND: In the 5 years that have passed since the publication of the 2018 International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2018), the literature has expanded substantially. The ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update presents 144 individual topics on allergic rhinitis (AR), expanded by over 40 topics from the 2018 document. Originally presented topics from 2018 have also been reviewed and updated. The executive summary highlights key evidence-based findings and recommendation from the full document.

    METHODS: ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 employed established evidence-based review with recommendation (EBRR) methodology to individually evaluate each topic. Stepwise iterative peer review and consensus was performed for each topic. The final document was then collated and includes the results of this work.

    RESULTS: ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 includes 10 major content areas and 144 individual topics related to AR. For a substantial proportion of topics included, an aggregate grade of evidence is presented, which is determined by collating the levels of evidence for each available study identified in the literature. For topics in which a diagnostic or therapeutic intervention is considered, a recommendation summary is presented, which considers the aggregate grade of evidence, benefit, harm, and cost.

    CONCLUSION: The ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update provides a comprehensive evaluation of AR and the currently available evidence. It is this evidence that contributes to our current knowledge base and recommendations for patient evaluation and treatment.

  4. Travis RC, Perez-Cornago A, Appleby PN, Albanes D, Joshu CE, Lutsey PL, et al.
    Cancer Res, 2019 Jan 01;79(1):274-285.
    PMID: 30425058 DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-18-2318
    Previous prospective studies assessing the relationship between circulating concentrations of vitamin D and prostate cancer risk have shown inconclusive results, particularly for risk of aggressive disease. In this study, we examine the association between prediagnostic concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] and 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D [1,25(OH)2D] and the risk of prostate cancer overall and by tumor characteristics. Principal investigators of 19 prospective studies provided individual participant data on circulating 25(OH)D and 1,25(OH)2D for up to 13,462 men with incident prostate cancer and 20,261 control participants. ORs for prostate cancer by study-specific fifths of season-standardized vitamin D concentration were estimated using multivariable-adjusted conditional logistic regression. 25(OH)D concentration was positively associated with risk for total prostate cancer (multivariable-adjusted OR comparing highest vs. lowest study-specific fifth was 1.22; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.31; P trend < 0.001). However, this association varied by disease aggressiveness (P heterogeneity = 0.014); higher circulating 25(OH)D was associated with a higher risk of nonaggressive disease (OR per 80 percentile increase = 1.24, 1.13-1.36) but not with aggressive disease (defined as stage 4, metastases, or prostate cancer death, 0.95, 0.78-1.15). 1,25(OH)2D concentration was not associated with risk for prostate cancer overall or by tumor characteristics. The absence of an association of vitamin D with aggressive disease does not support the hypothesis that vitamin D deficiency increases prostate cancer risk. Rather, the association of high circulating 25(OH)D concentration with a higher risk of nonaggressive prostate cancer may be influenced by detection bias. SIGNIFICANCE: This international collaboration comprises the largest prospective study on blood vitamin D and prostate cancer risk and shows no association with aggressive disease but some evidence of a higher risk of nonaggressive disease.
  5. Watts EL, Perez-Cornago A, Appleby PN, Albanes D, Ardanaz E, Black A, et al.
    Int J Cancer, 2019 Dec 15;145(12):3244-3256.
    PMID: 30873591 DOI: 10.1002/ijc.32276
    Insulin-like growth factors (IGFs) and insulin-like growth factor binding proteins (IGFBPs) have been implicated in the aetiology of several cancers. To better understand whether anthropometric, behavioural and sociodemographic factors may play a role in cancer risk via IGF signalling, we examined the cross-sectional associations of these exposures with circulating concentrations of IGFs (IGF-I and IGF-II) and IGFBPs (IGFBP-1, IGFBP-2 and IGFBP-3). The Endogenous Hormones, Nutritional Biomarkers and Prostate Cancer Collaborative Group dataset includes individual participant data from 16,024 male controls (i.e. without prostate cancer) aged 22-89 years from 22 prospective studies. Geometric means of protein concentrations were estimated using analysis of variance, adjusted for relevant covariates. Older age was associated with higher concentrations of IGFBP-1 and IGFBP-2 and lower concentrations of IGF-I, IGF-II and IGFBP-3. Higher body mass index was associated with lower concentrations of IGFBP-1 and IGFBP-2. Taller height was associated with higher concentrations of IGF-I and IGFBP-3 and lower concentrations of IGFBP-1. Smokers had higher concentrations of IGFBP-1 and IGFBP-2 and lower concentrations of IGFBP-3 than nonsmokers. Higher alcohol consumption was associated with higher concentrations of IGF-II and lower concentrations of IGF-I and IGFBP-2. African Americans had lower concentrations of IGF-II, IGFBP-1, IGFBP-2 and IGFBP-3 and Hispanics had lower IGF-I, IGF-II and IGFBP-3 than non-Hispanic whites. These findings indicate that a range of anthropometric, behavioural and sociodemographic factors are associated with circulating concentrations of IGFs and IGFBPs in men, which will lead to a greater understanding of the mechanisms through which these factors influence cancer risk.
  6. Darst BF, Shen J, Madduri RK, Rodriguez AA, Xiao Y, Sheng X, et al.
    Am J Hum Genet, 2023 Jul 06;110(7):1200-1206.
    PMID: 37311464 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2023.05.010
    Genome-wide polygenic risk scores (GW-PRSs) have been reported to have better predictive ability than PRSs based on genome-wide significance thresholds across numerous traits. We compared the predictive ability of several GW-PRS approaches to a recently developed PRS of 269 established prostate cancer-risk variants from multi-ancestry GWASs and fine-mapping studies (PRS269). GW-PRS models were trained with a large and diverse prostate cancer GWAS of 107,247 cases and 127,006 controls that we previously used to develop the multi-ancestry PRS269. Resulting models were independently tested in 1,586 cases and 1,047 controls of African ancestry from the California Uganda Study and 8,046 cases and 191,825 controls of European ancestry from the UK Biobank and further validated in 13,643 cases and 210,214 controls of European ancestry and 6,353 cases and 53,362 controls of African ancestry from the Million Veteran Program. In the testing data, the best performing GW-PRS approach had AUCs of 0.656 (95% CI = 0.635-0.677) in African and 0.844 (95% CI = 0.840-0.848) in European ancestry men and corresponding prostate cancer ORs of 1.83 (95% CI = 1.67-2.00) and 2.19 (95% CI = 2.14-2.25), respectively, for each SD unit increase in the GW-PRS. Compared to the GW-PRS, in African and European ancestry men, the PRS269 had larger or similar AUCs (AUC = 0.679, 95% CI = 0.659-0.700 and AUC = 0.845, 95% CI = 0.841-0.849, respectively) and comparable prostate cancer ORs (OR = 2.05, 95% CI = 1.87-2.26 and OR = 2.21, 95% CI = 2.16-2.26, respectively). Findings were similar in the validation studies. This investigation suggests that current GW-PRS approaches may not improve the ability to predict prostate cancer risk compared to the PRS269 developed from multi-ancestry GWASs and fine-mapping.
  7. Darst BF, Shen J, Madduri RK, Rodriguez AA, Xiao Y, Sheng X, et al.
    medRxiv, 2023 May 15.
    PMID: 37292833 DOI: 10.1101/2023.05.12.23289860
    Genome-wide polygenic risk scores (GW-PRS) have been reported to have better predictive ability than PRS based on genome-wide significance thresholds across numerous traits. We compared the predictive ability of several GW-PRS approaches to a recently developed PRS of 269 established prostate cancer risk variants from multi-ancestry GWAS and fine-mapping studies (PRS 269 ). GW-PRS models were trained using a large and diverse prostate cancer GWAS of 107,247 cases and 127,006 controls used to develop the multi-ancestry PRS 269 . Resulting models were independently tested in 1,586 cases and 1,047 controls of African ancestry from the California/Uganda Study and 8,046 cases and 191,825 controls of European ancestry from the UK Biobank and further validated in 13,643 cases and 210,214 controls of European ancestry and 6,353 cases and 53,362 controls of African ancestry from the Million Veteran Program. In the testing data, the best performing GW-PRS approach had AUCs of 0.656 (95% CI=0.635-0.677) in African and 0.844 (95% CI=0.840-0.848) in European ancestry men and corresponding prostate cancer OR of 1.83 (95% CI=1.67-2.00) and 2.19 (95% CI=2.14-2.25), respectively, for each SD unit increase in the GW-PRS. However, compared to the GW-PRS, in African and European ancestry men, the PRS 269 had larger or similar AUCs (AUC=0.679, 95% CI=0.659-0.700 and AUC=0.845, 95% CI=0.841-0.849, respectively) and comparable prostate cancer OR (OR=2.05, 95% CI=1.87-2.26 and OR=2.21, 95% CI=2.16-2.26, respectively). Findings were similar in the validation data. This investigation suggests that current GW-PRS approaches may not improve the ability to predict prostate cancer risk compared to the multi-ancestry PRS 269 constructed with fine-mapping.
  8. Conti DV, Darst BF, Moss LC, Saunders EJ, Sheng X, Chou A, et al.
    Nat Genet, 2021 Jan;53(1):65-75.
    PMID: 33398198 DOI: 10.1038/s41588-020-00748-0
    Prostate cancer is a highly heritable disease with large disparities in incidence rates across ancestry populations. We conducted a multiancestry meta-analysis of prostate cancer genome-wide association studies (107,247 cases and 127,006 controls) and identified 86 new genetic risk variants independently associated with prostate cancer risk, bringing the total to 269 known risk variants. The top genetic risk score (GRS) decile was associated with odds ratios that ranged from 5.06 (95% confidence interval (CI), 4.84-5.29) for men of European ancestry to 3.74 (95% CI, 3.36-4.17) for men of African ancestry. Men of African ancestry were estimated to have a mean GRS that was 2.18-times higher (95% CI, 2.14-2.22), and men of East Asian ancestry 0.73-times lower (95% CI, 0.71-0.76), than men of European ancestry. These findings support the role of germline variation contributing to population differences in prostate cancer risk, with the GRS offering an approach for personalized risk prediction.
  9. Wang A, Shen J, Rodriguez AA, Saunders EJ, Chen F, Janivara R, et al.
    Nat Genet, 2023 Dec;55(12):2065-2074.
    PMID: 37945903 DOI: 10.1038/s41588-023-01534-4
    The transferability and clinical value of genetic risk scores (GRSs) across populations remain limited due to an imbalance in genetic studies across ancestrally diverse populations. Here we conducted a multi-ancestry genome-wide association study of 156,319 prostate cancer cases and 788,443 controls of European, African, Asian and Hispanic men, reflecting a 57% increase in the number of non-European cases over previous prostate cancer genome-wide association studies. We identified 187 novel risk variants for prostate cancer, increasing the total number of risk variants to 451. An externally replicated multi-ancestry GRS was associated with risk that ranged from 1.8 (per standard deviation) in African ancestry men to 2.2 in European ancestry men. The GRS was associated with a greater risk of aggressive versus non-aggressive disease in men of African ancestry (P = 0.03). Our study presents novel prostate cancer susceptibility loci and a GRS with effective risk stratification across ancestry groups.
  10. Klionsky DJ, Abdel-Aziz AK, Abdelfatah S, Abdellatif M, Abdoli A, Abel S, et al.
    Autophagy, 2021 Jan;17(1):1-382.
    PMID: 33634751 DOI: 10.1080/15548627.2020.1797280
    In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide 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.
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator ([email protected])

External Links