Sickle cell disease (SCD) is a hereditary hemoglobinopathy resulting from a β-globin chain mutation that causes abnormal hemoglobin (HbS) polymerization and leads to severe complications. Current treatment options primarily focus on symptom management, with limited curative potential. Recently, Casgevy, the first CRISPR/Cas9-based gene therapy for SCD, has received breakthrough FDA approval. Clinical trials have shown that Casgevy administered to patients aged older than or equal to 12 years enables precise modifications in hematopoietic stem cells, resulting in elevated fetal hemoglobin (HbF) levels and a significant reduction in vaso-occlusive events. Unlike conventional treatments, this therapy offers a curative approach and eliminates the need for recurrent transfusions and transplants, thereby improving the quality of life of patients with SCD. Casgevy has emerged as a beacon of hope for SCD patients and signifies a potential paradigm shift in SCD management due to its safety, curative potential, and transformative impact, positioning it as a groundbreaking intervention. Nevertheless, ethical considerations surrounding CRISPR technology and regulatory frameworks must be addressed to ensure responsible application and equitable access to this one-time gene editing therapy. As the authors celebrate this scientific advancement, sustained interdisciplinary collaboration and ethical scrutiny are essential to navigating the evolving landscape of CRISPR technology in medicine. This review aims to provide a detailed insight into the application of Casgevy, challenges associated with its application, future prospects of this therapy, and its comparison with existing treatment options for SCD.

Background and Aims: Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a transformative force in laboratory medicine, promising significant advancements in healthcare delivery. This study explores the potential impact of AI on diagnostics and patient management within the context of laboratory medicine, with a particular focus on low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs).Methods: In writing this article, we conducted a thorough search of databases such as PubMed, ResearchGate, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar within 20 years. The study examines AI's capabilities, including learning, reasoning, and decision‐making, mirroring human cognitive processes. It highlights AI's adeptness at processing vast data sets, identifying patterns, and expediting the extraction of actionable insights, particularly in medical imaging interpretation and laboratory test data analysis. The research emphasizes the potential benefits of AI in early disease detection, therapeutic interventions, and personalized treatment strategies.Results: In the realm of laboratory medicine, AI demonstrates remarkable precision in interpreting medical images such as radiography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging. Its predictive analytical capabilities extend to forecasting patient trajectories and informing personalized treatment strategies using comprehensive data sets comprising clinical outcomes, patient records, and laboratory results. The study underscores the significance of AI in addressing healthcare challenges, especially in resource‐constrained LMICs.Conclusion: While acknowledging the profound impact of AI on laboratory medicine in LMICs, the study recognizes challenges such as inadequate data availability, digital infrastructure deficiencies, and ethical considerations. Successful implementation necessitates substantial investments in digital infrastructure, the establishment of data‐sharing networks, and the formulation of regulatory frameworks. The study concludes that collaborative efforts among stakeholders, including international organizations, governments, and nongovernmental entities, are crucial for overcoming obstacles and responsibly integrating AI into laboratory medicine in LMICs. A comprehensive, coordinated approach is essential for realizing AI's transformative potential and advancing health care in LMICs.

Objectives: Trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) is a novel antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) promising in treating metastatic HER2+ and HER2-low breast cancer. This updated systematic review and meta-analysis, integrating data from the latest clinical trials, aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of T-DXd in this patient population. Methods: We adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science up to January 2024, focusing on clinical trials that assessed T-DXd’s efficacy and safety. Eligibility criteria were based on the PICOS framework, and selected studies underwent rigorous quality assessment and data extraction. The primary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and the incidence of adverse events. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to synthesize the data. Results: Seven studies involving 2,201 patients met the inclusion criteria. The pooled analysis revealed that T-DXd significantly improved PFS (OR=0.37, 95% CI: 0.27-0.52), indicating a robust efficacy in slowing disease progression. However, treatment was associated with an increased risk of anemia (OR=2.10, 95% CI: 1.36-3.25), fatigue (OR=1.56, 95% CI: 1.21-2.02), nausea (OR=6.42, 95% CI: 4.37-9.42), vomiting (OR=6.21, 95% CI: 3.14-12.25), constipation (OR=2.26, 95% CI: 1.53-3.34), and notably, drug-related interstitial lung disease (OR=10.89, 95% CI: 3.81-31.12). The efficacy outcomes demonstrated significant heterogeneity, which was addressed through sensitivity analysis. Conclusions: T-DXd shows significant efficacy in treating metastatic HER2+ and HER2-low breast cancer, offering a valuable therapeutic option for patients with advanced disease. However, the treatment is associated with notable adverse events, including a heightened risk of ILD. These findings underscore the need for careful patient selection, monitoring, and management strategies to mitigate risks. Future research should focus on optimizing treatment protocols and exploring methods to enhance safety profiles.

Background: Infective endocarditis (IE) is a life‐threatening infection requiring prolonged intravenous antimicrobial therapy. Outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy (OPAT) has emerged as an alternative to prolonged hospitalization, but its safety and efficacy in IE remain debated.Hypothesis: This systematic review and meta‐analysis aimed to evaluate the outcomes of OPAT in IE patients.Methods: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Google Scholar, and Scopus for studies assessing OPAT in IE. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials and observational studies reporting at least one relevant outcome (mortality, relapse, readmission, valve surgery, and adverse events). Pooled estimates were calculated using a random‐effects model, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic. Risk of bias was evaluated using the ROBINS‐I tool.Results: A total of 25 studies involving 2654 patients were included in the analysis. Patients treated with OPAT had a mortality rate of 0% during the treatment period and 5% during follow‐up. The readmission rate was 16% during the treatment period, 4% of the patients had relapse, while 16% of patients underwent cardiac surgery. During follow‐up, the readmission rate was 19%, with a relapse rate of 2%, and 14% of patients underwent cardiac surgery. Sensitivity analyses did not significantly affect the results, highlighting the robustness of the findings.Conclusion: OPAT appears to be safe and effective for IE patients, with low mortality and relapse rates. However, increased readmission rates and IV‐line complications warrant careful patient selection and monitoring. Further prospective trials are needed to refine OPAT protocols.

Background and Aim: Glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonists (GLP‐1RAs) were initially developed for type 2 diabetes but have gained widespread use for weight management, including among non‐diabetic individuals. This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of GLP‐1RA use, describe usage patterns, and explore healthcare providers' (HCPs) perceptions of their efficacy and safety.Methods: A cross‐sectional study was conducted among 657 HCPs from 10 countries using a structured online survey between September and December 2023. Convenience sampling was employed, statistical analyses were performed using STATA 17. Associations between demographic characteristics and perceptions of GLP‐1RAs were analyzed using the chi‐square test.Results: Among 657 HCPs, 59.2% were female and 40.8% were male, with a median age of 36.0 years (IQR: 29.0–44.0) and a median BMI of 26.7 (IQR: 23.8–30.7). Among professional groups, nurses accounted for 44.7%, followed by physicians (36.2%) and allied health professionals (18.7%). Semaglutide (45.7%, 95% CI: 41.8%−49.5%) was the most commonly used GLP‐1RA, followed by Liraglutide (36.9%, 95% CI: 33.2%−40.8%). Other GLP‐1RAs were used less frequently, including Dulaglutide (17.0%, 95% CI: 14.2%−20.1%), Exenatide (14.1%, 95% CI: 11.5%−17.0%), Albiglutide (7.0%, 95% CI: 5.1%−9.2%), and Lixisenatide (8.5%, 95% CI: 6.5%−10.9%. Regarding perceived safety, 68.6% considered GLP‐1RAs safe. Safety perceptions were significantly associated with educational level (p = 0.022), with participants holding higher degrees being more likely to perceive GLP‐1RAs as unsafe (18.3%) compared to those with a bachelor's degree or lower (10.8%). No associations were found with age (p = 0.487), sex (p = 0.729), or BMI (p = 0.089). Similarly, 73.5% of participants considered GLP‐1RAs effective for perceived efficacy. No associations were found with sex (p = 0.663) or BMI (p = 0.446). Older participants (p = 0.011) and those with higher education (p = 0.006) were more likely to perceive GLP‐1RAs as ineffective.Conclusion: This study provides the first prevalence estimate of GLP‐1RA use among HCPs and GLP1‐Ras users and explores the associations between demographic characteristics and perceptions of safety and efficacy. The findings highlight the self‐prescribing practices of these medications for weight management and underscore the need for appropriate monitoring to avoid potential health risks.