METHODS: This observational study involved data from 5612 ACLF patients with documented 90-day outcomes. We identified 2096 patients with ALD-ACLF precipitated by alcoholic hepatitis. Patients with non-ALD etiologies, mixed etiologies, or non-alcoholic precipitants were excluded. Diabetic and non-diabetic patients were compared using 1:2 propensity score matching based on key baseline covariates. Survival outcomes were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis and multivariable Cox regression.
RESULTS: After matching, 109 diabetic patients were compared with 218 well-matched non-diabetic controls. Diabetic patients had significantly lower overall survival (32 vs. 57%) and transplant-free survival (31 vs. 50%) compared to non-diabetics (log-rank p
STUDY DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a large dataset multi-country observational study.
METHODS: We used a four-pronged analysis approach to investigate whether personal history of infectious and parasitic diseases is related to self-reported health, measured with a single item.
RESULTS: Three of the four analyses found a small positive effect on self-reported health among those reporting a history of pathogen exposure. The meta-analysis found no support but large heterogeneity that was not reduced by two classifications of countries.
CONCLUSION: Personal history of infectious and parasitic diseases does not reduce self-reported health across a global sample.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the degree to which using data-driven methods to simultaneously select an optimal Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) cutoff score and estimate accuracy yields (1) optimal cutoff scores that differ from the population-level optimal cutoff score and (2) biased accuracy estimates.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This study used cross-sectional data from an existing individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA) database on PHQ-9 screening accuracy to represent a hypothetical population. Studies in the IPDMA database compared participant PHQ-9 scores with a major depression classification. From the IPDMA population, 1000 studies of 100, 200, 500, and 1000 participants each were resampled.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: For the full IPDMA population and each simulated study, an optimal cutoff score was selected by maximizing the Youden index. Accuracy estimates for optimal cutoff scores in simulated studies were compared with accuracy in the full population.
RESULTS: The IPDMA database included 100 primary studies with 44 503 participants (4541 [10%] cases of major depression). The population-level optimal cutoff score was 8 or higher. Optimal cutoff scores in simulated studies ranged from 2 or higher to 21 or higher in samples of 100 participants and 5 or higher to 11 or higher in samples of 1000 participants. The percentage of simulated studies that identified the true optimal cutoff score of 8 or higher was 17% for samples of 100 participants and 33% for samples of 1000 participants. Compared with estimates for a cutoff score of 8 or higher in the population, sensitivity was overestimated by 6.4 (95% CI, 5.7-7.1) percentage points in samples of 100 participants, 4.9 (95% CI, 4.3-5.5) percentage points in samples of 200 participants, 2.2 (95% CI, 1.8-2.6) percentage points in samples of 500 participants, and 1.8 (95% CI, 1.5-2.1) percentage points in samples of 1000 participants. Specificity was within 1 percentage point across sample sizes.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study of cross-sectional data found that optimal cutoff scores and accuracy estimates differed substantially from population values when data-driven methods were used to simultaneously identify an optimal cutoff score and estimate accuracy. Users of diagnostic accuracy evidence should evaluate studies of accuracy with caution and ensure that cutoff score recommendations are based on adequately powered research or well-conducted meta-analyses.
METHODS: A global collaboration of 109 experts employed a systematic methodology to address key aspects of ACLF care. Sections were drafted by specialist teams, with recommendations developed using the GRADE system. Draft statements underwent iterative review and refinement, followed by an expert panel consensus process consisting of open show-of-hands voting during the APASL Annual Conference in March 2025 in Beijing and a subsequent anonymous online voting round.
RESULTS: The consensus delivers 104 position statements. Key recommendations include using prognostic scores (AARC, CLIF-C ACLF, GIC) for ICU transfer and treatment decisions, and aggressively managing precipitating factors or complications like infections. It details organ-specific support for liver, kidney, and brain failure, advocating for early, targeted antibiotics and careful fluid management. The role of bridging therapies (plasma exchange, artificial liver systems) and nutritional support is emphasized. For transplantation, the guidelines provide criteria for patient selection and timing, particularly for alcohol-related ACLF.
CONCLUSIONS: The APASL ACLF Beijing Position Paper provides a comprehensive, standardized framework for managing critically sick ACLF patients. Integrating multidisciplinary expertise and current evidence, these guidelines aim to optimize care, inform clinical decisions, and improve survival for this high-risk population. As a few recommendations are supported predominantly by data from different continents, they should therefore be interpreted in local contexts.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty practicing urologists/andrologists from 23 countries contributed 382 multiple-choice-questions pertaining to varicocele management. These were condensed into an online questionnaire that was forwarded to clinicians involved in male infertility management through direct invitation. The results were analyzed for disagreement and agreement in practice patterns and, compared with the latest guidelines of international professional societies (American Urological Association [AUA], American Society for Reproductive Medicine [ASRM], and European Association of Urology [EAU]), and with evidence emerging from recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Additionally, an expert opinion on each topic was provided based on the consensus of 16 experts in the field.
RESULTS: The questionnaire was answered by 574 clinicians from 59 countries. The majority of respondents were urologists/uro-andrologists. A wide diversity of opinion was seen in every aspect of varicocele diagnosis, indications for repair, choice of technique, management of sub-clinical varicocele and the role of VR in azoospermia. A significant proportion of the responses were at odds with the recommendations of AUA, ASRM, and EAU. A large number of clinical situations were identified where no guidelines are available.
CONCLUSIONS: This study is the largest global survey performed to date on the clinical management of varicocele for male infertility. It demonstrates: 1) a wide disagreement in the approach to varicocele management, 2) large gaps in the clinical practice guidelines from professional societies, and 3) the need for further studies on several aspects of varicocele management in infertile men.
METHODS: We used Mendelian randomization approaches to evaluate the association of height and BMI on breast cancer risk, using data from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 with 14 676 BRCA1 and 7912 BRCA2 mutation carriers, including 11 451 cases of breast cancer. We created a height genetic score using 586 height-associated variants and a BMI genetic score using 93 BMI-associated variants. We examined both observed and genetically determined height and BMI with breast cancer risk using weighted Cox models. All statistical tests were two-sided.
RESULTS: Observed height was positively associated with breast cancer risk (HR = 1.09 per 10 cm increase, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.0 to 1.17; P = 1.17). Height genetic score was positively associated with breast cancer, although this was not statistically significant (per 10 cm increase in genetically predicted height, HR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.93 to 1.17; P = .47). Observed BMI was inversely associated with breast cancer risk (per 5 kg/m2 increase, HR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.90 to 0.98; P = .007). BMI genetic score was also inversely associated with breast cancer risk (per 5 kg/m2 increase in genetically predicted BMI, HR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.76 to 0.98; P = .02). BMI was primarily associated with premenopausal breast cancer.
CONCLUSION: Height is associated with overall breast cancer and BMI is associated with premenopausal breast cancer in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Incorporating height and BMI, particularly genetic score, into risk assessment may improve cancer management.
METHODS: Using data from a genome-wide map of SNPs associated with allelic expression, we assessed the association of ~320 SNPs located in the vicinity of these genes with breast and ovarian cancer risks in 15,252 BRCA1 and 8211 BRCA2 mutation carriers ascertained from 54 studies participating in the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2.
RESULTS: We identified a region on 11q22.3 that is significantly associated with breast cancer risk in BRCA1 mutation carriers (most significant SNP rs228595 p = 7 × 10-6). This association was absent in BRCA2 carriers (p = 0.57). The 11q22.3 region notably encompasses genes such as ACAT1, NPAT, and ATM. Expression quantitative trait loci associations were observed in both normal breast and tumors across this region, namely for ACAT1, ATM, and other genes. In silico analysis revealed some overlap between top risk-associated SNPs and relevant biological features in mammary cell data, which suggests potential functional significance.
CONCLUSION: We identified 11q22.3 as a new modifier locus in BRCA1 carriers. Replication in larger studies using estrogen receptor (ER)-negative or triple-negative (i.e., ER-, progesterone receptor-, and HER2-negative) cases could therefore be helpful to confirm the association of this locus with breast cancer risk.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We present a detailed step-by-step protocol for performing and interpretating PVSA testing, along with recommendations for proficiency testing, competency assessment for performing PVSA, and clinical and laboratory scenarios. Moreover, we conducted an analysis of 1,114 PVSA performed at the Cleveland Clinic's Andrology Laboratory and an online survey to understand clinician responses to the PVSA results in various countries.
RESULTS: Results from our clinical experience showed that 92.1% of patients passed PVSA, with 7.9% being further tested. A total of 78 experts from 19 countries participated in the survey, and the majority reported to use time from vasectomy rather than the number of ejaculations as criterion to request PVSA. A high percentage of responders reported permitting unprotected intercourse only if PVSA samples show azoospermia while, in the presence of few non-motile sperm, the majority of responders suggested using alternative contraception, followed by another PVSA. In the presence of motile sperm, the majority of participants asked for further PVSA testing. Repeat vasectomy was mainly recommended if motile sperm were observed after multiple PVSA's. A large percentage reported to recommend a second PVSA due to the possibility of legal actions.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlighted varying clinical practices around the globe, with controversy over the significance of non-motile sperm in the PVSA sample. Our data suggest that less stringent AUA guidelines would help improve test compliance. A large longitudinal multi-center study would clarify various doubts related to timing and interpretation of PVSA and would also help us to understand, and perhaps predict, recanalization and the potential for future failure of a vasectomy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinicians managing male infertility were invited to complete an online survey on practices related to SDF diagnostic and treatment approaches. Their responses related to the technical aspects of SDF testing, current professional society guidelines, and the literature were used to generate expert recommendations via the Delphi method. Finally, challenges related to SDF that the clinicians encounter in their daily practice were captured.
RESULTS: The survey was completed by 436 reproductive clinicians. Overall, terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase deoxyuridine triphosphate Nick-End Labeling (TUNEL) is the most commonly used assay chosen by 28.6%, followed by the sperm chromatin structure assay (24.1%), and the sperm chromatin dispersion (19.1%). The choice of the assay was largely influenced by availability (70% of respondents). A threshold of 30% was the most selected cut-off value for elevated SDF by 33.7% of clinicians. Of respondents, 53.6% recommend SDF testing after 3 to 5 days of abstinence. Although 75.3% believe SDF testing can provide an explanation for many unknown causes of infertility, the main limiting factors selected by respondents are a lack of professional society guideline recommendations (62.7%) and an absence of globally accepted references for SDF interpretation (50.3%).
CONCLUSIONS: This study represents the largest global survey on the technical aspects of SDF testing as well as the barriers encountered by clinicians. Unified global recommendations regarding clinician implementation and standard laboratory interpretation of SDF testing are crucial.