Purpose: Panic disorder (PD) and PD with comorbid agoraphobia (PDA) share similar clinical characteristics but possess distinct symptom structures. However, studies specifically investigating the differences between PD and PDA are rare. Thus, the present study conducted a network analysis to examine the clinical networks of PD and PDA, focusing on panic symptom severity, anxiety sensitivity, anticipatory fear, and avoidance responses. By comparing the differences in network structures between PD and PDA, with the goal of identifying the central and bridge, we suggest clinical implications for the development of targeted interventions. Materials and Methods: A total sample (n=147; 55 male, 92 female) was collected from the psychiatric outpatient clinic of the university hospital. We conducted network analysis to examine crucial nodes in the PD and PDA networks and compared the two networks to investigate disparities and similarities in symptom structure. Results The most influential node within the PD network was Anxiety Sensitivity Index-Revised (ASI-R1; fear of respiratory symptom), whereas Panic Disorder Severity Scale (PDSS5; phobic avoidance of physical sensations) had the highest influence in the PDA network. Additionally, bridge centrality estimates indicated that each of the two nodes met the criteria for “bridge nodes” within their respective networks: ASI-R1 (fear of respiratory symptom) and Albany Panic and Phobic Questionnaire (APPQ3; interoceptive fear) for the PD group, and PDSS5 (phobic avoidance of physical sensation) and APPQ1 (panic frequency) for the PDA group Conclusion: Although the network comparison test did not reveal statistical differences between the two networks, disparities in community structure, as well as central and bridging symptoms, were observed, suggesting the possibility of distinct etiologies and treatment targets for each group. The clinical implications derived from the similarities and differences between PD and PDA networks are discussed.

Purpose: Panic disorder (PD) and PD with comorbid agoraphobia (PDA) share similar clinical characteristics but possess distinct symptom structures. However, studies specifically investigating the differences between PD and PDA are rare. Thus, the present study conducted a network analysis to examine the clinical networks of PD and PDA, focusing on panic symptom severity, anxiety sensitivity, anticipatory fear, and avoidance responses. By comparing the differences in network structures between PD and PDA, with the goal of identifying the central and bridge, we suggest clinical implications for the development of targeted interventions. Materials and Methods: A total sample (n=147; 55 male, 92 female) was collected from the psychiatric outpatient clinic of the university hospital. We conducted network analysis to examine crucial nodes in the PD and PDA networks and compared the two networks to investigate disparities and similarities in symptom structure. Results The most influential node within the PD network was Anxiety Sensitivity Index-Revised (ASI-R1; fear of respiratory symptom), whereas Panic Disorder Severity Scale (PDSS5; phobic avoidance of physical sensations) had the highest influence in the PDA network. Additionally, bridge centrality estimates indicated that each of the two nodes met the criteria for “bridge nodes” within their respective networks: ASI-R1 (fear of respiratory symptom) and Albany Panic and Phobic Questionnaire (APPQ3; interoceptive fear) for the PD group, and PDSS5 (phobic avoidance of physical sensation) and APPQ1 (panic frequency) for the PDA group Conclusion: Although the network comparison test did not reveal statistical differences between the two networks, disparities in community structure, as well as central and bridging symptoms, were observed, suggesting the possibility of distinct etiologies and treatment targets for each group. The clinical implications derived from the similarities and differences between PD and PDA networks are discussed.

Purpose: Panic disorder (PD) and PD with comorbid agoraphobia (PDA) share similar clinical characteristics but possess distinct symptom structures. However, studies specifically investigating the differences between PD and PDA are rare. Thus, the present study conducted a network analysis to examine the clinical networks of PD and PDA, focusing on panic symptom severity, anxiety sensitivity, anticipatory fear, and avoidance responses. By comparing the differences in network structures between PD and PDA, with the goal of identifying the central and bridge, we suggest clinical implications for the development of targeted interventions. Materials and Methods: A total sample (n=147; 55 male, 92 female) was collected from the psychiatric outpatient clinic of the university hospital. We conducted network analysis to examine crucial nodes in the PD and PDA networks and compared the two networks to investigate disparities and similarities in symptom structure. Results The most influential node within the PD network was Anxiety Sensitivity Index-Revised (ASI-R1; fear of respiratory symptom), whereas Panic Disorder Severity Scale (PDSS5; phobic avoidance of physical sensations) had the highest influence in the PDA network. Additionally, bridge centrality estimates indicated that each of the two nodes met the criteria for “bridge nodes” within their respective networks: ASI-R1 (fear of respiratory symptom) and Albany Panic and Phobic Questionnaire (APPQ3; interoceptive fear) for the PD group, and PDSS5 (phobic avoidance of physical sensation) and APPQ1 (panic frequency) for the PDA group Conclusion: Although the network comparison test did not reveal statistical differences between the two networks, disparities in community structure, as well as central and bridging symptoms, were observed, suggesting the possibility of distinct etiologies and treatment targets for each group. The clinical implications derived from the similarities and differences between PD and PDA networks are discussed.

Purpose: Panic disorder (PD) and PD with comorbid agoraphobia (PDA) share similar clinical characteristics but possess distinct symptom structures. However, studies specifically investigating the differences between PD and PDA are rare. Thus, the present study conducted a network analysis to examine the clinical networks of PD and PDA, focusing on panic symptom severity, anxiety sensitivity, anticipatory fear, and avoidance responses. By comparing the differences in network structures between PD and PDA, with the goal of identifying the central and bridge, we suggest clinical implications for the development of targeted interventions. Materials and Methods: A total sample (n=147; 55 male, 92 female) was collected from the psychiatric outpatient clinic of the university hospital. We conducted network analysis to examine crucial nodes in the PD and PDA networks and compared the two networks to investigate disparities and similarities in symptom structure. Results The most influential node within the PD network was Anxiety Sensitivity Index-Revised (ASI-R1; fear of respiratory symptom), whereas Panic Disorder Severity Scale (PDSS5; phobic avoidance of physical sensations) had the highest influence in the PDA network. Additionally, bridge centrality estimates indicated that each of the two nodes met the criteria for “bridge nodes” within their respective networks: ASI-R1 (fear of respiratory symptom) and Albany Panic and Phobic Questionnaire (APPQ3; interoceptive fear) for the PD group, and PDSS5 (phobic avoidance of physical sensation) and APPQ1 (panic frequency) for the PDA group Conclusion: Although the network comparison test did not reveal statistical differences between the two networks, disparities in community structure, as well as central and bridging symptoms, were observed, suggesting the possibility of distinct etiologies and treatment targets for each group. The clinical implications derived from the similarities and differences between PD and PDA networks are discussed.

Purpose: Panic disorder (PD) and PD with comorbid agoraphobia (PDA) share similar clinical characteristics but possess distinct symptom structures. However, studies specifically investigating the differences between PD and PDA are rare. Thus, the present study conducted a network analysis to examine the clinical networks of PD and PDA, focusing on panic symptom severity, anxiety sensitivity, anticipatory fear, and avoidance responses. By comparing the differences in network structures between PD and PDA, with the goal of identifying the central and bridge, we suggest clinical implications for the development of targeted interventions. Materials and Methods: A total sample (n=147; 55 male, 92 female) was collected from the psychiatric outpatient clinic of the university hospital. We conducted network analysis to examine crucial nodes in the PD and PDA networks and compared the two networks to investigate disparities and similarities in symptom structure. Results The most influential node within the PD network was Anxiety Sensitivity Index-Revised (ASI-R1; fear of respiratory symptom), whereas Panic Disorder Severity Scale (PDSS5; phobic avoidance of physical sensations) had the highest influence in the PDA network. Additionally, bridge centrality estimates indicated that each of the two nodes met the criteria for “bridge nodes” within their respective networks: ASI-R1 (fear of respiratory symptom) and Albany Panic and Phobic Questionnaire (APPQ3; interoceptive fear) for the PD group, and PDSS5 (phobic avoidance of physical sensation) and APPQ1 (panic frequency) for the PDA group Conclusion: Although the network comparison test did not reveal statistical differences between the two networks, disparities in community structure, as well as central and bridging symptoms, were observed, suggesting the possibility of distinct etiologies and treatment targets for each group. The clinical implications derived from the similarities and differences between PD and PDA networks are discussed.

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the association between the use of statins and the occurrence of delirium in a large cohort of patients in the intensive care unit (ICU), considering disease severity and statin properties. Methods: We obtained clinical and demographical information from 3,604 patients admitted to the ICU from January 2013 to April 2020. This included information on daily statin use and delirium state, as assessed by the Confusion Assessment Method for ICU. We used inverse probability of treatment weighting and categorized the patients into four groups based on the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score (group 1: 0−10 - mild; group 2: 11−20 -mild to moderate; group 3: 21−30 - moderate to severe; group 4: ＞ 30 - severe). We analyzed the association between the use of statin and the occurrence of delirium in each group, while taking into account the properties of statins. Results: Comparisons between statin and non-statin patient groups revealed that only in group 2, patients who were administered statin showed significantly higher occurrence of delirium (p = 0.004, odds ratio [OR] = 1.58) compared to the patients who did not receive statin. Regardless of whether statins were lipophilic (p = 0.036, OR = 1.47) or hydrophilic (p = 0.032, OR = 1.84), the occurrence of delirium was higher only in patients from group 2. Conclusion The use of statins may be associated with the increases in the risk of delirium occurrence in patients with mild to moderate disease severity, irrespective of statin properties.

Methods: Patients undergoing primary, elective 1–3 level ACDF for radiculopathy at a single academic center between 2015 and 2021 were identified retrospectively. Cervical FS was evaluated using axial T2-weighted MRI images via a validated grading scale. The maximum degree of stenosis was used for multilevel disease. Motor symptoms were classified using encounters at their final preoperative and first postoperative visits, with examinations ≤3/5 indicating weakness. PROMs were obtained preoperatively and at 1-year follow-up. Bivariate analysis was used to compare outcomes based on stenosis severity, followed by multivariable analysis. Results: This study included 354 patients, 157 with moderate stenosis and 197 with severe stenosis. Overall, 58 patients (16.4%) presented with upper extremity weakness ≤3/5. A similar number of patients in both groups presented with baseline motor weakness (13.5% vs. 16.55, p =0.431). Postoperatively, 97.1% and 87.0% of patients with severe and moderate FS, respectively, experienced full motor recovery (p =0.134). At 1-year, patients with severe neuroforaminal stenosis presented with significantly worse 12-item Short Form Survey Physical Component Score (PCS-12) (33.3 vs. 37.3, p =0.049) but demonstrated a greater magnitude of improvement (Δ PCS-12: 5.43 vs. 0.87, p =0.048). Worse stenosis was independently associated with greater ΔPCS-12 at 1-year (β =5.59, p =0.022). Conclusions Patients with severe FS presented with worse preoperative physical health. While ACDF improved outcomes and conferred similar motor recovery in all patients, those with severe FS reported much better improvement in physical function.

Background: As the demand for cosmetic surgery continues to rise, plastic surgery programs and the training core curriculum have evolved to reflect these changes. This study aims to evaluate the perceived quality of current cosmetic surgery training in terms of case exposure and educational methods. Methods: A 16-question survey was sent to graduates who completed their training at a U.S. plastic surgery training program in 2017. The survey assessed graduates’ exposure to cosmetic surgery, teaching modalities employed and their overall perceived competence. Case complexity was characterized by the minimum number of cases needed by the graduate to feel confident in performing the procedure. Results: There was a 25% response rate. The majority of respondents were residents (83%, n=92) and the remaining were fellows (17%, n=18). Almost three quarters of respondents were satisfied with their cosmetic training. Respondents rated virtual training as the most effective learning modality and observing attendings’ patients/cases as least effective. Perceived competence was more closely aligned with core curriculum status than case complexity, i.e. graduates feel more prepared for core cosmetic procedures despite being more technically difficult than non-core procedures. Conclusions Despite the variability in cosmetic exposure during training, most plastic surgery graduates are satisfied with their aesthetic training. Incorporation of teaching modalities, such as virtual training, can increase case exposure and allow trainees more autonomy. The recommended core curriculum is adequately training plastic surgery graduates for common procedures and more specialized procedures should be consigned to aesthetic fellowship training.

Background: Ovarian cancer has the highest mortality among gynecologic cancers, primarily because it typically is diagnosed at a late stage and because of the development of chemoresistance in recurrent disease. Improving outcomes in women with platinumresistant ovarian cancer is a substantial unmet need. Activation of the glucocorticoidreceptor (GR) by cortisol has been shown to suppress the apoptotic pathways used by cytotoxic agents, limiting their efficacy. Selective GR modulation may be able to counteract cortisol’s antiapoptotic effects, enhancing chemotherapy’s efficacy. A previous phase 2 study has shown that adding intermittently dosed relacorilant, a selective GR modulator, to nab-paclitaxel improved outcomes, including progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), with minimal added toxicity, in women with recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. The ROSELLA study aims to confirm and expand on these findings in a larger population. Methods ROSELLA is a phase 3, randomized, 2-arm, open-label, global multicenter study in women with recurrent, platinum-resistant, high-grade serous epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer. Eligible participants have received 1 to 3 lines of prior systemic anticancer therapy, including ≥1 prior line of platinum therapy and prior treatment with bevacizumab, with documented progressive disease or intolerance to the most recent therapy. There is no biomarker-based requirement for participant selection. Participants are randomized 1:1 to receive intermittently dosed relacorilant in combination with nabpaclitaxel or nab-paclitaxel monotherapy. The study’s primary efficacy endpoint is PFS as assessed by blinded independent central review. Secondary efficacy endpoints include OS, investigator-assessed PFS, objective response rate, best overall response, duration of response, clinical benefit rate at 24 weeks, and cancer antigen 125 response. The study is also evaluating safety and patient-reported outcomes.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05257408; European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database Identifier: 2022-000662-18

Background: Ovarian cancer has the highest mortality among gynecologic cancers, primarily because it typically is diagnosed at a late stage and because of the development of chemoresistance in recurrent disease. Improving outcomes in women with platinumresistant ovarian cancer is a substantial unmet need. Activation of the glucocorticoidreceptor (GR) by cortisol has been shown to suppress the apoptotic pathways used by cytotoxic agents, limiting their efficacy. Selective GR modulation may be able to counteract cortisol’s antiapoptotic effects, enhancing chemotherapy’s efficacy. A previous phase 2 study has shown that adding intermittently dosed relacorilant, a selective GR modulator, to nab-paclitaxel improved outcomes, including progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), with minimal added toxicity, in women with recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. The ROSELLA study aims to confirm and expand on these findings in a larger population. Methods ROSELLA is a phase 3, randomized, 2-arm, open-label, global multicenter study in women with recurrent, platinum-resistant, high-grade serous epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer. Eligible participants have received 1 to 3 lines of prior systemic anticancer therapy, including ≥1 prior line of platinum therapy and prior treatment with bevacizumab, with documented progressive disease or intolerance to the most recent therapy. There is no biomarker-based requirement for participant selection. Participants are randomized 1:1 to receive intermittently dosed relacorilant in combination with nabpaclitaxel or nab-paclitaxel monotherapy. The study’s primary efficacy endpoint is PFS as assessed by blinded independent central review. Secondary efficacy endpoints include OS, investigator-assessed PFS, objective response rate, best overall response, duration of response, clinical benefit rate at 24 weeks, and cancer antigen 125 response. The study is also evaluating safety and patient-reported outcomes.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05257408; European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database Identifier: 2022-000662-18