Dynamic LVOT Obstruction and Aortic Stenosis in the Same Patient: A Case of Challenging Doppler Hemodynamics

We present a patient with both dynamic left ventricular outflow tract obstruction and valvular aortic stenosis. The aortic valve was calcified, and velocities and gradients measured by continuous‐wave Doppler met standard criteria for severe aortic stenosis. The increased subvalvular velocities invalidated assumptions of the simplified Bernoulli equation; correction using the longer form of the Bernoulli equation suggested a lower but still significant gradient. The complex shape of the subvalvular spectral Doppler envelope indicated supranormal systolic function and dynamic left ventricular outflow obstruction. Left heart catheterization with an end‐hole catheter was required to determine the subvalvular and valvular components of the obstruction.     

Lifitegrast clinical efficacy for treatment of signs and symptoms of dry eye disease across three randomized controlled trials

Objective: Report efficacy findings from three clinical trials (one phase 2 and two phase 3 [OPUS-1, OPUS-2]) of lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5.0% for treatment of dry eye disease (DED).

Research design and methods: Three 84-day, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled trials. Adults (≥18 years) with DED were randomized (1:1) to lifitegrast 5.0% or matching placebo. Changes from baseline to day 84 in signs and symptoms of DED were analyzed.

Main outcome measures: Phase 2, pre-specified endpoint: inferior corneal staining score (ICSS; 0–4); OPUS-1, coprimary endpoints: ICSS and visual-related function subscale (0–4 scale); OPUS-2, coprimary endpoints: ICSS and eye dryness score (EDS, VAS; 0–100).

Results: Fifty-eight participants were randomized to lifitegrast 5.0% and 58 to placebo in the phase 2 trial; 293 to lifitegrast and 295 to placebo in OPUS-1; 358 to lifitegrast and 360 to placebo in OPUS-2. In participants with mild-to-moderate baseline DED symptomatology, lifitegrast improved ICSS versus placebo in the phase 2 study (treatment effect, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.05–0.65; p?=?0.0209) and OPUS-1 (effect, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.10–0.38; p?=?0.0007). Among more symptomatic participants (baseline EDS ≥40, recent artificial tear use), lifitegrast improved EDS versus placebo in a post hoc analysis of OPUS-1 (effect, 13.34; 95% CI, 2.35–24.33; nominal p?=?0.0178) and in OPUS-2 (effect, 12.61; 95% CI, 8.51–16.70; p?<?0.0001).

Limitations: Trials were conducted over 12 weeks; efficacy beyond this period was not assessed.

Conclusions: Across three trials, lifitegrast improved ICSS in participants with mild-to-moderate baseline symptomatology in two studies, and EDS in participants with moderate-to-severe baseline symptomatology in two studies. Based on the overall findings from these trials, lifitegrast shows promise as a new treatment option for signs and symptoms of DED.     

An overview of existing mesothelioma registries worldwide,and the need for a US Registry

The association between asbestos exposure, mainly in occupational settings, and malignant mesothelioma has been well established; this has prompted several countries to establish mesothelioma epidemiologic surveillance programs often at the request of national agencies. This review compares currently existing mesothelioma registries worldwide to develop a concept model for a US real-time case capture mesothelioma registry. Five countries were identified with a mesothelioma specific registry, including Italy, France, UK, Australia, and South Korea. All, except the UK, used interviews to collect exposure data. Linkage with the national death index was available or was in future plans for all registries. The registries have limited information on treatment, quality of life, and other patient-centered outcomes such as symptoms and pain management. To thoroughly collect exposure data, “real-time” enrollment is preferable; to maximize the capture of mesothelioma cases, optimal coverage, and a simplified consent process are needed.