BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is increasing unmet need for solid organ donation. Alternative donor sources, such as donation after circulatory determination of death (DCDD), are needed. The objective of this study was to examine the impact of DCDD on trends in pediatric organ donation and transplantation. METHODS: Data were obtained from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network for US organ recipients and donors from 2001 to 2010 stratified according to age, organ, and deceased donor type (DCDD or donation after neurologic determination of death). Additional data included transplant wait-list removals due to death. RESULTS: From 2001 to 2010, pediatric organ transplant recipients increased from 1170 to 1475. Organs from DCDD donors were transplanted into children infrequently but increased from 1 to 31. Pediatric donation after neurologic determination of death decreased by 13% whereas DCDD increased by 174% (50 to 137). Recipients of pediatric grafts decreased from 3042 to 2751. Adults receiving grafts from pediatric donors decreased from 2243 to 1780; children receiving pediatric grafts increased from 799 to 971. Transplant recipients receiving pediatric DCDD grafts were few but increased annually from 50 to 128 adults and 0 to 9 children. Pediatric candidates dying waiting for an organ decreased from 262 to 110. CONCLUSIONS: From 2001 to 2010, children received more solid organ transplants and fewer children died waiting. Organ recovery from pediatric and adult DCDD donors increased. The number of pediatric recipients of DCDD grafts remains small. Adults primarily receive the direct benefit from pediatric DCDD but other changes in organ allocation have directly benefited children.

Treatment for pediatric septic shock in compliance with the Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommendations was not associated with better outcomes compared with children whose initial therapies in the emergency department were administered more slowly. However, all patients were treated rapidly and we report low morbidity and mortality. This underscores the importance of rapid recognition and treatment of septic shock.

Objective To evaluate the nature and burden of residual disease in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in patients who meet treatment targets. Second, for those who did not meet targets, to evaluate how much is due to patient symptoms. Methods Prospective and retrospective studies were searched in Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library in the English language from January 1, 2008 to April 18, 2018; conference abstracts (from January 2016 to April 2018) and reference lists of relevant studies were also screened. Results Of 8,339 records identified, 55 were included in the review; 53 were unique studies, including 10 randomized controlled trials. Of these, 48 reported on patients who achieved low disease activity (LDA) or remission. Studies varied in population, treatment goals, and outcome reporting. The proportions of patients with residual symptoms in these studies varied by the definitions used for LDA or remission and were more often reported in patients with LDA than those in remission. The most commonly reported outcome measures were functional disability (n = 34 studies), tender or swollen joints (n = 18), pain (n = 17), patient global assessment (n = 15), and fatigue (n = 14). However, few studies reported the percentage of patients achieving a specific threshold, which could then be used to easily define the presence of residual symptoms. Conclusion Residual symptoms are present in some patients despite their achieving LDA or remission, highlighting an unmet need, especially with respect to improving pain, fatigue, and function. Standardized reporting in future observational studies would facilitate better understanding of this issue in defined RA populations.

Background Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used to track symptoms and to assess disease activity, quality of life, and treatment effectiveness. It is therefore important to understand which PROs patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease consider most important to track for disease management. Methods Adult US patients within the ArthritisPower registry with ankylosing spondylitis, fibromyalgia syndrome, osteoarthritis, osteoporosis, psoriatic arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and systemic lupus erythematosus were invited to select between 3 and 10 PRO symptom measures they felt were important to digitally track for their condition via the ArthritisPower app. Over the next 3 months, participants (pts) were given the option to continue tracking their previously selected measures or to remove/add measures at 3 subsequent monthly time points (month [m] 1, m2, m3). At m3, pts prioritized up to 5 measures. Measures were rank-ordered, summed, and weighted based on pts rating to produce a summary score for each PRO measure. Results Among pts who completed initial selection of PRO assessments at baseline (N = 253), 140 pts confirmed or changed PRO selections across m1–3 within the specified monthly time window (28 days ± 7). PROs ranked as most important for tracking were PROMIS Fatigue, Physical Function, Pain Intensity, Pain Interference, Duration of Morning Joint Stiffness, and Sleep Disturbance. Patient’s preferences regarding the importance of these PROs were stable over time. Conclusion The symptoms that rheumatology patients prioritized for longitudinal tracking using a smartphone app were fatigue, physical function, pain, and morning joint stiffness.

The objective of this work was to conduct a systematic literature review (SLR) and metaanalysis (MA) to evaluate the relative risk (RR) of venous thromboembolism (VTE) events, including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) compared with patients without SLE, as well as the absolute risk (AR) (measured by incidence proportion) and incidence rate (IR) of VTE events in patients with SLE. The SLR was conducted using Embase, MEDLINE, and MEDLINE In-Process to identify observational studies evaluating the risk of VTE, DVT, and PE events in adult patients with SLE compared with the general population, published January 2000 to September 2020. Random-effects models were used as the primary approach in the MA. Heterogeneity was assessed on the basis of the I 2 value. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of results to various conditions, and subgroup analysis was performed for the AR of VTE by antiphospholipid status (aPLs) and antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). Of the 50 publications included for data extraction, 44 contained data for consideration in the MA of any one of the measures of interest (RR, AR, or IR) for VTE, DVT, or PE. The pooled RR indicates statistically significantly higher risk of VTE (RR 4.38, 95% confidence interval 2.63-7.29) in patients with SLE compared with the general population. Considerable heterogeneity was present in nearly all MA (I 2 = 75-100%). Moreover, a higher pooled AR of VTE was estimated in patients with SLE with aPLs (n/N = 0.13) and APS (n/N = 0.63) compared with patients with SLE without aPLs/APS (n/N = 0.07). Overall, there was evidence of an increased risk of VTE, DVT, and PE in patients with SLE compared with the general population.