Long-chain omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid (LC n-3 PUFA) supplements, rich in eicosapentaenoic acid and/or docosahexaenoic acid, are increasingly being recommended within athletic institutions. However, the wide range of doses, durations and study designs implemented across trials makes it difficult to provide clear recommendations. The importance of study design characteristics in LC n-3 PUFA trials has been detailed in cardiovascular disease research, and these considerations may guide LC n-3 PUFA study design in healthy cohorts. This systematic review examined the quality of studies and study design considerations used in evaluating the evidence for LC n-3 PUFA improving performance in physically trained adults. SCOPUS, PubMed and Web of Science electronic databases were searched to identify studies that supplemented LC n-3 PUFA in physically trained participants. Forty-six (n = 46) studies met inclusion. Most studies used a randomised control design. Risk of bias, assessed using the design-appropriate Cochrane Collaboration tool, revealed that studies had a predominant judgment of ‘some concerns’, ‘high risk’ or ‘moderate risk’ in randomised controlled, randomised crossover or non-randomised studies, respectively. A custom five-point quality assessment scale demonstrated that no study satisfied all recommendations for LC n-3 PUFA study design. This review has highlighted that the disparate range of study designs is likely contributing to the inconclusive state of outcomes pertaining to LC n-3 PUFA as a potential ergogenic aid. Further research must adequately account for the specific LC n-3 PUFA study design considerations, underpinned by a clear hypothesis, to achieve evidence-based dose, duration and composition recommendations for physically trained individuals.

In view of the increasing complexity of both cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and patients in the current era, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. This document is an expert consensus statement that has been developed to update and further delineate indications and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, and is intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease categories. The document also highlights variations between previously published adult and pediatric CIED recommendations and provides rationale for underlying important differences. The document addresses some of the deterrents to CIED access in low- and middle-income countries and strategies to circumvent them. The document sections were divided up and drafted by the writing committee members according to their expertise. The recommendations represent the consensus opinion of the entire writing committee, graded by class of recommendation and level of evidence. Several questions addressed in this document either do not lend themselves to clinical trials or are rare disease entities, and in these instances recommendations are based on consensus expert opinion. Furthermore, specific recommendations, even when supported by substantial data, do not replace the need for clinical judgment and patient-specific decision-making. The recommendations were opened for public comment to Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) members and underwent external review by the scientific and clinical document committee of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the science advisory and coordinating committee of the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). The document received endorsement by all the collaborators and the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS). This document is expected to provide support for clinicians and patients to allow for appropriate CIED use, appropriate CIED management, and appropriate CIED follow-up in pediatric patients.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer typically have poor outcomes, with a median survival of ~16 months. Novel methods to improve local control are needed. Nab-paclitaxel (abraxane) has shown efficacy in pancreatic cancer and is FDA approved for metastatic disease in combination with gemcitabine. Nab-paclitaxel is also a promising radiosensitizer based on laboratory studies, but it has never been clinically tested with definitive radiotherapy for locally advanced disease. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We performed a phase 1 study using a 3+3 dose-escalation strategy to determine the safety and tolerability of dose escalated nab-paclitaxel with fractionated radiotherapy for patients with unresectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. Following induction chemotherapy with 2 cycles of nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine, patients were treated with weekly nab-paclitaxel and daily radiotherapy to a dose of 52.5 Gy in 25 fractions. Final dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) determination was performed at day 65 after the start of radiotherapy. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Nine patients received nab-paclitaxel at a dose level of either 100 mg/m2 (n=3) or 125 mg/m2 (n=6). One DLT (grade 3 neuropathy) was observed in a patient who received 125 mg/m2 of nab-paclitaxel. Other grade 3 toxicities included fatigue (11%), anemia (11%), and neutropenia (11%). No grade 4 toxicities were observed. With a median follow-up of 8 months (range 5–28 months), median survival was 19 months and median progression-free survival was 10 months. Following chemoradiation, 3 patients underwent surgical resection, all with negative margins and limited tumor viability. Of the 3 patients, 2 initially had borderline resectable tumors and 1 had an unresectable tumor. Tumor (SMAD-4, Caveolin-1) and peripheral (circulating tumor cells and microvesicles) biomarkers were collected and are being analyzed. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The combination of fractionated radiation and weekly nab-paclitaxel was safe and well tolerated. This regimen represents a potentially promising therapy for patients with unresectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer and warrants further investigation.