Karen Burns

Bio: Karen Burns is an academic researcher from Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center. The author has contributed to research in topics: Population & Fertility preservation. The author has an hindex of 9, co-authored 27 publications receiving 266 citations. Previous affiliations of Karen Burns include University of Cincinnati Academic Health Center & University of Cincinnati.

Hereditary cancer risk assessment in a pediatric oncology follow-up clinic.

Abstract: Background Pediatric cancer survivors are at risk for multiple late effects including second malignancies, some a direct consequence of genetic susceptibility. Appropriate surveillance and management for the survivor and at-risk family members can often be established if the genetic predisposition is recognized and/or diagnosed. Numerous published guidelines outline which adult cancer patients and survivors should be referred for hereditary cancer risk assessment. In the pediatric oncology setting, minimal guidance exists for healthcare providers to determine which patients and families to refer for genetic evaluation. Procedure The aim of this project was to determine what percentage of childhood cancer survivors are appropriate for further evaluation in a hereditary cancer program or genetics clinic and characterize indications for referral. Participants included pediatric cancer survivors seen for follow-up in a large cancer survivor center. Medical and family histories were obtained and reviewed by a certified genetic counselor at the survivor's annual visit. Eligibility for genetics referral was determined based on personal/family medical history and published literature. Results Of 370 survivors of childhood cancer, 109 (29%) were considered eligible for genetics follow-up or referral. Family history of cancer is the most prevalent reason identified for eligibility for further genetics evaluation (61%) followed by tumor type (18%), medical history (16%), and family history of another condition (6%). Conclusions This project provides evidence that inclusion of genetic evaluation is feasible and relevant in the care of childhood cancer survivors. Further study is warranted to determine optimal timing and clinical utility of this multidisciplinary and family-centered approach. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2012; 58: 85–89. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Fertility preservation for male patients with childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer: recommendations from the PanCareLIFE Consortium and the International Late Effects of Childhood Cancer Guideline Harmonization Group.

Abstract: Female patients with childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer are at increased risk for fertility impairment when treatment adversely affects the function of reproductive organs Patients and their families desire biological children but substantial variations in clinical practice guidelines reduce consistent and timely implementation of effective interventions for fertility preservation across institutions As part of the PanCareLIFE Consortium, and in collaboration with the International Late Effects of Childhood Cancer Guideline Harmonization Group, we reviewed the current literature and developed a clinical practice guideline for fertility preservation in female patients who were diagnosed with childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer at age 25 years or younger, including guidance on risk assessment and available methods for fertility preservation The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used to grade the available evidence and to form the recommendations This clinical practice guideline leverages existing evidence and international expertise to develop transparent recommendations that are easy to use to facilitate the care of female patients with childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer who are at high risk for fertility impairment A complete review of the existing evidence, including a quality assessment, transparent reporting of the guideline panel's decisions, and achievement of global interdisciplinary consensus, is an important result of this intensive collaboration

Germline Mutations in Predisposition Genes in Pediatric Cancer

Abstract: BackgroundThe prevalence and spectrum of predisposing mutations among children and adolescents with cancer are largely unknown. Knowledge of such mutations may improve the understanding of tumorigenesis, direct patient care, and enable genetic counseling of patients and families. MethodsIn 1120 patients younger than 20 years of age, we sequenced the whole genomes (in 595 patients), whole exomes (in 456), or both (in 69). We analyzed the DNA sequences of 565 genes, including 60 that have been associated with autosomal dominant cancer-predisposition syndromes, for the presence of germline mutations. The pathogenicity of the mutations was determined by a panel of medical experts with the use of cancer-specific and locus-specific genetic databases, the medical literature, computational predictions, and second hits identified in the tumor genome. The same approach was used to analyze data from 966 persons who did not have known cancer in the 1000 Genomes Project, and a similar approach was used to analyze data...

A living WHO guideline on drugs for covid-19

Abstract: Clinical question What is the role of drug interventions in the treatment of patients with covid-19? New recommendation Increased attention on ivermectin as a potential treatment for covid-19 triggered this recommendation. The panel made a recommendation against ivermectin in patients with covid-19 regardless of disease severity, except in the context of a clinical trial. Prior recommendations (a) a strong recommendation against the use of hydroxychloroquine in patients with covid-19, regardless of disease severity; (b) a strong recommendation against the use of lopinavir-ritonavir in patients with covid-19, regardless of disease severity; (c) a strong recommendation for systemic corticosteroids in patients with severe and critical covid-19; (d) a conditional recommendation against systemic corticosteroids in patients with non-severe covid-19, and (e) a conditional recommendation against remdesivir in hospitalised patients with covid-19. How this guideline was created This living guideline is from the World Health Organization (WHO) and provides up to date covid-19 guidance to inform policy and practice worldwide. Magic Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. A living systematic review with network analysis informed the recommendations. An international guideline development group (GDG) of content experts, clinicians, patients, an ethicist and methodologists produced recommendations following standards for trustworthy guideline development using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Understanding the new recommendation There is insufficient evidence to be clear to what extent, if any, ivermectin is helpful or harmful in treating covid-19. There was a large degree of uncertainty in the evidence about ivermectin on mortality, need for mechanical ventilation, need for hospital admission, time to clinical improvement, and other patient-important outcomes. There is potential for harm with an increased risk of adverse events leading to study drug discontinuation. Applying pre-determined values and preferences, the panel inferred that almost all well informed patients would want to receive ivermectin only in the context of a randomised trial, given that the evidence left a very high degree of uncertainty on important effects. Updates This is a living guideline. It replaces earlier versions (4 September, 20 November, and 17 December 2020) and supersedes the BMJ Rapid Recommendations on remdesivir published on 2 July 2020. The previous versions can be found as data supplements. New recommendations will be published as updates to this guideline. Readers note This is the fourth version (update 3) of the living guideline (BMJ 2020;370:m3379). When citing this article, please consider adding the update number and date of access for clarity.

Drug treatments for covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Abstract: Objective To compare the effects of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). Design Living systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sources WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, up to 1 March 2021 and six additional Chinese databases up to 20 February 2021. Studies identified as of 12 February 2021 were included in the analysis. Study selection Randomised clinical trials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 were randomised to drug treatment or to standard care or placebo. Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles. Methods After duplicate data abstraction, a bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. For each outcome, interventions were classified in groups from the most to the least beneficial or harmful following GRADE guidance. Results 196 trials enrolling 76 767 patients were included; 111 (56.6%) trials and 35 098 (45.72%) patients are new from the previous iteration; 113 (57.7%) trials evaluating treatments with at least 100 patients or 20 events met the threshold for inclusion in the analyses. Compared with standard care, corticosteroids probably reduce death (risk difference 20 fewer per 1000 patients, 95% credible interval 36 fewer to 3 fewer, moderate certainty), mechanical ventilation (25 fewer per 1000, 44 fewer to 1 fewer, moderate certainty), and increase the number of days free from mechanical ventilation (2.6 more, 0.3 more to 5.0 more, moderate certainty). Interleukin-6 inhibitors probably reduce mechanical ventilation (30 fewer per 1000, 46 fewer to 10 fewer, moderate certainty) and may reduce length of hospital stay (4.3 days fewer, 8.1 fewer to 0.5 fewer, low certainty), but whether or not they reduce mortality is uncertain (15 fewer per 1000, 30 fewer to 6 more, low certainty). Janus kinase inhibitors may reduce mortality (50 fewer per 1000, 84 fewer to no difference, low certainty), mechanical ventilation (46 fewer per 1000, 74 fewer to 5 fewer, low certainty), and duration of mechanical ventilation (3.8 days fewer, 7.5 fewer to 0.1 fewer, moderate certainty). The impact of remdesivir on mortality and most other outcomes is uncertain. The effects of ivermectin were rated as very low certainty for all critical outcomes, including mortality. In patients with non-severe disease, colchicine may reduce mortality (78 fewer per 1000, 110 fewer to 9 fewer, low certainty) and mechanical ventilation (57 fewer per 1000, 90 fewer to 3 more, low certainty). Azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir-ritonavir, and interferon-beta do not appear to reduce risk of death or have an effect on any other patient-important outcome. The certainty in effects for all other interventions was low or very low. Conclusion Corticosteroids and interleukin-6 inhibitors probably confer important benefits in patients with severe covid-19. Janus kinase inhibitors appear to have promising benefits, but certainty is low. Azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir-ritonavir, and interferon-beta do not appear to have any important benefits. Whether or not remdesivir, ivermectin, and other drugs confer any patient-important benefit remains uncertain. Systematic review registration This review was not registered. The protocol is publicly available in the supplementary material. Readers’ note This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This is the fourth version of the original article published on 30 July 2020 (BMJ 2020;370:m2980), and previous versions can be found as data supplements. When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity.

Liposomes: Clinical Applications and Potential for Image-Guided Drug Delivery.

Abstract: Liposomes have been extensively studied and are used in the treatment of several diseases. Liposomes improve the therapeutic efficacy by enhancing drug absorption while avoiding or minimizing rapid degradation and side effects, prolonging the biological half-life and reducing toxicity. The unique feature of liposomes is that they are biocompatible and biodegradable lipids, and are inert and non-immunogenic. Liposomes can compartmentalize and solubilize both hydrophilic and hydrophobic materials. All these properties of liposomes and their flexibility for surface modification to add targeting moieties make liposomes more attractive candidates for use as drug delivery vehicles. There are many novel liposomal formulations that are in various stages of development, to enhance therapeutic effectiveness of new and established drugs that are in preclinical and clinical trials. Recent developments in multimodality imaging to better diagnose disease and monitor treatments embarked on using liposomes as diagnostic tool. Conjugating liposomes with different labeling probes enables precise localization of these liposomal formulations using various modalities such as PET, SPECT, and MRI. In this review, we will briefly review the clinical applications of liposomal formulation and their potential imaging properties.

Management of hospitalised adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a European Respiratory Society living guideline.

Abstract: INTRODUCTION: Hospitalised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as a result of SARS-CoV-2 infection have a high mortality rate and frequently require noninvasive respiratory support or invasive ventilation. Optimising and standardising management through evidence-based guidelines may improve quality of care and therefore patient outcomes. METHODS: A task force from the European Respiratory Society and endorsed by the Chinese Thoracic Society identified priority interventions (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) for the initial version of this "living guideline" using the PICO (population, intervention, comparator, outcome) format. The GRADE approach was used for assessing the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Systematic literature reviews were performed, and data pooled by meta-analysis where possible. Evidence tables were presented and evidence to decision frameworks were used to formulate recommendations. RESULTS: Based on the available evidence at the time of guideline development (20 February, 2021), the panel makes a strong recommendation in favour of the use of systemic corticosteroids in patients requiring supplementary oxygen or ventilatory support, and for the use of anticoagulation in hospitalised patients. The panel makes a conditional recommendation for interleukin (IL)-6 receptor antagonist monoclonal antibody treatment and high-flow nasal oxygen or continuous positive airway pressure in patients with hypoxaemic respiratory failure. The panel make strong recommendations against the use of hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir. Conditional recommendations are made against the use of azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine combined with azithromycin, colchicine, and remdesivir, in the latter case specifically in patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. No recommendation was made for remdesivir in patients requiring supplemental oxygen. Further recommendations for research are made. CONCLUSION: The evidence base for management of COVID-19 now supports strong recommendations in favour and against specific interventions. These guidelines will be regularly updated as further evidence becomes available.