Genomic variants within chromosome 14q32.32 regulate bone mass through MARK3 signaling in osteoblasts

Bone mineral density (BMD) is a highly heritable predictor of osteoporotic fracture. GWAS have identified hundreds of loci influencing BMD, but few have been functionally analyzed. In this study, we show that SNPs within a BMD locus on chromosome 14q32.32 alter splicing and expression of PAR-1a/microtubule affinity regulating kinase 3 (MARK3), a conserved serine/threonine kinase known to regulate bioenergetics, cell division, and polarity. Mice lacking Mark3 either globally or selectively in osteoblasts have increased bone mass at maturity. RNA profiling from Mark3-deficient osteoblasts suggested changes in the expression of components of the Notch signaling pathway. Mark3-deficient osteoblasts exhibited greater matrix mineralization compared with controls that was accompanied by reduced Jag1/Hes1 expression and diminished downstream JNK signaling. Overexpression of Jag1 in Mark3-deficient osteoblasts both in vitro and in vivo normalized mineralization capacity and bone mass, respectively. Together, these findings reveal a mechanism whereby genetically regulated alterations in Mark3 expression perturb cell signaling in osteoblasts to influence bone mass.     

Existing fixation modalities for Jones type fifth metatarsal fracture fixation pose high rates of complications and nonunion

Jones type fifth metatarsal fractures pose a challenge to the foot and ankle surgeon, given documented high nonunion rates as well as high complication rates including hardware prominence, nerve injury, and screw breakage for existing treatment modalities including screw and plantar plate fixation. We call for the design of innovative Jones-fracture specific implants which contour to the natural curve of the fifth metatarsal. Future research should aim to expand upon existing literature for Jones fracture fixation and evaluate efficacy of novel implants which are designed to address unacceptably high complication rates for existing treatment modalities.     

Patient navigation across the cancer care continuum: An overview of systematic reviews and emerging literature

Patient navigation is a strategy for overcoming barriers to reduce disparities and to improve access and outcomes. The aim of this umbrella review was to identify, critically appraise, synthesize, and present the best available evidence to inform policy and planning regarding patient navigation across the cancer continuum. Systematic reviews examining navigation in cancer care were identified in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), Epistemonikos, and Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) databases and in the gray literature from January 1, 2012, to April 19, 2022. Data were screened, extracted, and appraised independently by two authors. The JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Systematic Review and Research Syntheses was used for quality appraisal. Emerging literature up to May 25, 2022, was also explored to capture primary research published beyond the coverage of included systematic reviews. Of the 2062 unique records identified, 61 systematic reviews were included. Fifty-four reviews were quantitative or mixed-methods reviews, reporting on the effectiveness of cancer patient navigation, including 12 reviews reporting costs or cost-effectiveness outcomes. Seven qualitative reviews explored navigation needs, barriers, and experiences. In addition, 53 primary studies published since 2021 were included. Patient navigation is effective in improving participation in cancer screening and reducing the time from screening to diagnosis and from diagnosis to treatment initiation. Emerging evidence suggests that patient navigation improves quality of life and patient satisfaction with care in the survivorship phase and reduces hospital readmission in the active treatment and survivorship care phases. Palliative care data were extremely limited. Economic evaluations from the United States suggest the potential cost-effectiveness of navigation in screening programs.     

Orientation and mobility outcome measures

Despite orientation and mobility (O&M) being a significant factor determining quality of life of people with low vision or blindness, there are no gold standard measures or agreement on how to measure O&M performance. In the first part of this systematic review, an inventory of O&M outcome measures used by recent studies to assess the performance of orientation and/or mobility of adults with vision impairment (low vision and blindness) is presented. A wide variety of O&M outcome measures have been implemented in different fields of study, such as epidemiologic research and interventional studies evaluating training, assistive technology, vision rehabilitation and vision restoration. The most frequent aspect of outcome measures is efficiency such as time, distance, speed and percentage of preferred walking speed, followed by obstacle contacts and avoidance, and dis/orientation and veering. Other less commonly used aspects are target identification, safety and social interaction and self-reported outcome measures. Some studies employ sophisticated equipment to capture and analyse O&M performance in a laboratory setting, while others carry out their assessment in real-world indoor or outdoor environments. In the second part of this review, the appropriateness of implementing the identified outcome measures to assess O&M performance in clinical and functional O&M practice is evaluated. Nearly a half of these outcome measures meet all four criteria of face validity (either clinical or functional), responsiveness, reliability and feasibility and have the potential to be implemented in clinical or functional O&M practice. The findings of this review confirm the complicated and dynamic nature of O&M. Multiple measures are required in any evaluation of O&M performance to facilitate holistic assessment of O&M abilities and limitations of each individual.     

Current state of biologic pharmacovigilance in the European Union: improvements are needed

Introduction: Pharmacovigilance is essential to monitoring the safety profiles of authorized medicines. Compared with small-molecule drugs, biological drugs are more complex, more susceptible to structural variability due to manufacturing processes, and have the potential to induce immune-related reactions, underscoring the importance of safety monitoring for these products. Although highly similar to reference products, biosimilars are not expected to be structurally identical. For these reasons, proper reporting of potential adverse drug reactions (ADRs) using distinguishable names and batch numbers is essential for accurate tracing of all biological drugs. To address the need for robust pharmacovigilance, the European Parliament and Council of the European Union provided legislation regarding pharmacovigilance of biologics in 2010.

Areas covered: This narrative review examines the current state of pharmacovigilance for biologics in the European Union (EU) and discusses relevant information on pharmacovigilance of biosimilars, the current EU pharmacovigilance system, and areas that could be improved.

Expert opinion: Although steps have been taken to improve pharmacovigilance of biologics in the EU, several enhancements can still be made, including additional training for healthcare professionals on ADR reporting, the use of 2D barcodes that enhance traceability, and an open discussion of potentially missed opportunities in the pharmacovigilance of biosimilars.