MATERIALS AND METHODS: Male patients, ≤65 years old with severe haemophilia B (FIX activity ≤2%) requiring non-emergency surgery were enrolled in the surgical substudy of PROLONG-9FP. Dosing was based on World Federation of Hemophilia guidelines and patients' pharmacokinetics. Haemostatic efficacy was assessed on a 4-point scale. rIX-FP consumption and safety were monitored throughout the perioperative period.

RESULTS: This updated dataset reports on thirty (8 minor and 22 major) surgeries conducted in 21 patients. A single preoperative bolus was used in 96.7% (n = 29) of surgeries. After minor surgery, patients received a median (range) of 0 (0-3) infusions with a median (range) consumption of 0 (0-178.89) IU/kg in the 14-day postoperative period. In patients who underwent major surgery (including 15 patients undergoing joint replacement surgery), the median (range) number of infusions in the 14-day postoperative period was 5 (0-11) and median consumption was 221.7 (0-444.07) IU/kg. Haemostatic efficacy was rated as excellent or good in 87.5% (7/8) of minor surgeries and 95.5% (21/22) of major surgeries.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: An e-mail invitation to participate in an online survey was sent to hospital laboratories in Malaysia (n=140). Questions regarding methods for measuring creatinine, equations for calculating eGFR, eGFR reporting, the terminology used in reporting urine albumin, types of samples and the cut-off values used for normal albuminuria.

RESULTS: A total of 42/140 (30%) laboratories answered the questionnaire. The prevalent method used for serum creatinine measurement was the Jaffé method (88.1%) traceable to isotope-dilution mass spectrometry. eGFR was reported along with serum creatinine by 61.9% of laboratories while 33.3% of laboratories report eGFR on request. The formula used for eGFR reporting was mainly MDRD (64.3%) and results were reported as exact numbers even when the eGFR was <60 ml/min/1.73m2. The term microalbumin is still used by 83.3% of laboratories. There is a large heterogeneity among the labs regarding the type of sample recommended for measuring urine albumin, reference interval and reporting units.

METHODS: We included patients from a multicentre longitudinal cohort (recruited between May 1, 2013, and Dec 31, 2019) with active SLE (SLEDAI-2K ≥6) coinciding with an abnormality in at least one of 13 routine laboratory tests, at a visit designated as baseline. At 12 months, we analysed associations between thresholds of improvement in individual laboratory test results, measured as continuous variables, and five clinical outcomes using logistic regression. Primary outcomes were damage accrual and lupus low disease activity state (LLDAS), and secondary outcomes were modified SLE responder index (mSRI), physician global assessment (PGA) improvement of at least 0·3, and flare.

FINDINGS: We included 1525 patients (1415 [93%] women and 110 [7%] men, 1328 [87%] Asian ethnicity) in separate subsets for each laboratory test. The strongest associations with LLDAS and damage protection were seen with improvements in proteinuria (complete response: adjusted odds ratio [OR] 62·48, 95% CI 18·79-208·31 for LLDAS, OR 0·22, 95% CI 0·10-0·49 for damage accrual), albumin (complete response: adjusted OR 6·46, 95% CI 2·20-18·98 for LLDAS, OR 0·42, 95% CI 0·20-1·22 for damage accrual), haemoglobin (complete response: adjusted OR 1·97, 95% CI 1·09-3·53 for LLDAS, OR 0·33, 95% CI 0·15-0·71 for damage accrual), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (complete response: adjusted OR 1·71, 95% CI 1·10-2·67 for LLDAS, OR 0·53, 95% CI 0·30-0·94 for damage accrual), and platelets (complete response: adjusted OR 4·82, 95% CI 1·54-15·07 for LLDAS, OR 0·49, 95% CI 0·20-1·19 for damage accrual). Improvement in serological tests were mainly associated with PGA and mSRI. White cell and lymphocyte count improvements were least predictive.

INTERPRETATION: Improvements in several routine laboratory tests correspond with clinical outcomes in SLE over 12 months. Tests with the strongest associations were discrepant with laboratory tests included in current trial endpoints, and associations were observed across a range of improvement thresholds including incomplete resolution. These findings suggest the need to revise the use of laboratory test results in SLE trial endpoints.

METHODS: We studied 101 patients with pre-operative diabetes and albuminuria [defined as urine albumin:creatinine ratio (uACR) > 30 mg/g] who underwent bariatric surgery at an academic center from 2005 to 2014.

METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was conducted among stroke patients admitted to Jordan University Hospital from January 2015 to May 2021. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors for SAP. The predictive performance was assessed using C-statistics, described as the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC, ROC) with a 95% confidence interval.

METHODS: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, MEDLINE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Wanfang Database were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials up to March 2016. Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, assessed the methodological quality and rated the quality of evidence with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.

RESULTS: Twelve studies involving 655 participants were included. Evidence of low to moderate-quality showed that cordyceps plus conventional treatment compared to conventional treatment alone significantly improved C-reactive protein [standardized mean difference (SMD) －0.61; 95% confidence intervals (CI) －1.00 to －0.22], high-sensitivity C-reactive protein [weighted mean difference (WMD) －3.44 mg/L; 95% CI －3.89 to －2.99], serum albumin (WMD 3.07 g/L; 95% CI 1.59 to 4.55), malondialdehyde (WMD －1.95 nmol/L; 95% CI －2.24 to －1.66), and hemoglobin (WMD 9.56 g/L; 95% CI 3.65 to 15.47) levels. However, there was no significant improvement for serum creatinine and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Overall, most trials either did not monitor adverse events or poorly documented them.