The effect of prior hysterosalpingo-foam sonography or hysterosalpingography on tubal patency: a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Does hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) prior to hysterosalpingography (HSG) or HSG prior to HyFoSy affect visible tubal patency when compared HSG or HyFoSy alone? SUMMARY ANSWER: Undergoing either HyFoSy or HSG prior to tubal patency testing by the alternative method does not demonstrate a significant difference in visible tubal patency when compared to HyFoSy or HSG alone. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: HyFoSy and HSG are two commonly used visual tubal patency tests with a high and comparable diagnostic accuracy for evaluating tubal patency. These tests may also improve fertility, although the underlying mechanism is still not fully understood. One of the hypotheses points to a dislodgment of mucus plugs that may have disrupted the patency of the Fallopian tubes. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This is a secondary analysis of the randomized controlled FOAM study, in which women underwent tubal patency testing by HyFoSy and HSG, randomized for order of the procedure. Participants either had HyFoSy first and then HSG, or vice versa. Here, we evaluate the relative effectiveness of tubal patency testing by HyFoSy or HSG prior to the alternative tubal patency testing method on visible tubal patency, compared to each method alone. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Infertile women aged between 18 and 41 years scheduled for tubal patency testing were eligible for participating in the FOAM study. Women with anovulatory cycles, endometriosis, or with a partner with male infertility were excluded. To evaluate the effect HyFoSy on tubal patency, we relied on HSG results by comparing the proportion of women with bilateral tubal patency visible on HSG in those who underwent and who did not undergo HyFoSy prior to their HSG (HyFoSy prior to HSG versus HSG alone). To evaluate the effect of HSG on tubal patency, we relied on HyFoSy results by comparing the proportion of women with bilateral tubal patency visible on HyFoSy in those who underwent and who did not undergo HSG prior to their HyFoSy (HSG prior to HyFoSy versus HyFoSy alone). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Between May 2015 and January 2019, we randomized 1160 women (576 underwent HyFoSy first followed by HSG, and 584 underwent HSG first followed by HyFoSy). Among the women randomized to HyFoSy prior to HSG, bilateral tubal patency was visible on HSG in 467/537 (87%) women, compared with 472/544 (87%) women who underwent HSG alone (risk difference 0.2%; 95% CI: -3.8% to 4.2%). Among the women randomized to HSG prior to HyFoSy, bilateral tubal patency was visible on HyFoSy in 394/471 (84%) women, compared with 428/486 (88%) women who underwent HyFoSy alone (risk difference -4.4%; 95% CI: -8.8% to 0.0%). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The results of this secondary analysis should be interpreted as exploratory and cannot be regarded as definitive evidence. Furthermore, it has to be noted that pregnancy outcomes were not considered in this analysis. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Tubal patency testing by either HyFoSy or HSG, prior to the alternative tubal patency testing method does not significantly affect visible tubal patency, when compared to alternative method alone. This suggests that both methods may have comparable abilities to dislodge mucus plugs in the Fallopian tubes. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The FOAM study was an investigator-initiated study, funded by ZonMw, a Dutch organization for Health Research and Development (project number 837001504). IQ Medical Ventures provided the ExEm®-FOAM kits free of charge. The funders had no role in study design, collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data. H.R.V. reports consultancy fees from Ferring. M.v.W. received a travel grant from Oxford University Press in the role of Deputy Editor for Human Reproduction and participates in a Data Safety and Monitoring Board as an independent methodologist in obstetrics studies in which she has no other role. M.v.W. is coordinating editor of Cochrane Fertility and Gynaecology. B.W.J.M. received an investigator grant from NHMRC (GNT1176437) and research funding from Merck KGaA. B.W.J.M. reports consultancy for Organon and Merck KGaA, and travel support from Merck KGaA. B.W.J.M. reports holding stocks of ObsEva. V.M. received research grants from Guerbet, Merck and Ferring and travel and speaker fees from Guerbet. The other authors do not report conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: International Clinical Trials Registry Platform No. NTR4746.

Polyp size measurement during colonoscopy using a virtual scale: variability and systematic differences.

BACKGROUND : Accurate polyp size measurement is important for polyp risk stratification and decision-making regarding polypectomy and surveillance. Recently, a virtual scale (VS) function has been developed that allows polyp size measurement through projection of an adaptive VS onto colorectal polyps during real-time endoscopy. We aimed to evaluate the VS in terms of variability and systematic differences. METHODS : We conducted a video-based study with 120 colorectal polyps, measured by eight dedicated colorectal gastroenterologists (experts) and nine gastroenterology residents following endoscopy training (trainees). Three endoscopic measurement methods were compared: (1) visual, (2) snare and (3) VS measurement. We evaluated the method-specific variance (as measure of variability) in polyp size measurements and systematic differences between these methods. RESULTS : Variance in polyp size measurements was significantly lower for VS measurements compared to visual and snare measurements for both experts (0.52 vs. 1.59 and 1.96, p < 0.001) and trainees (0.59 vs. 2.21 and 2.53, p < 0.001). VS measurement resulted in a higher percentage of polyps assigned to the same size category by all endoscopists compared to visual and snare measurements (experts: 69 % vs. 55 % and 59 %; trainees: 67 % vs. 51 % and 47 %) and reduced the maximum difference between individual endoscopists regarding the percentage of polyps assigned to the ≥ 10 mm size category (experts: 1.7 % vs. 10.0 % and 5.0 %; trainees: 2.5 % vs. 6.7 % and 11.7 %). Systematic differences between methods were < 0.5 mm. CONCLUSIONS : Use of the VS leads to lower polyp size measurement variability and more uniform polyp sizing by individual endoscopists compared to visual and snare measurements.

Development of Desmoid Tumors After Ileorectal Anastomosis Versus Ileal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis in Familial Adenomatous Polyposis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Desmoid tumors (DT) are an important cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). DT development might be related to the type and approach of colectomy. We aimed to compare DT development after colectomy with ileorectal anastomosis (IRA) and proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA). METHODS: We performed an international historical cohort study in patients with FAP who underwent IRA or IPAA between 1961 and 2020. The primary outcome was the incidence of abdominal DT (either mesenteric, retroperitoneal, or abdominal wall). Patients with a DT diagnosis before or at colectomy were excluded. Time to DT was considered censored at an eventual secondary proctectomy after IRA. We used multivariable Cox regression modelling to adjust for potential confounders. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 852 patients: 514 after IRA and 338 after IPAA (median follow-up, 21 and 16 years, respectively). DTs were diagnosed in 64 IRA patients (12%) and 66 IPAA patients (20%). The cumulative DT incidence at 5 and 10 years was 7.5% and 9.3% after open IRA and 4.7% and 10.9% after laparoscopic IRA. These estimates were 13.6% and 15.4% after open IPAA and 8.4% and 10.0% after laparoscopic IPAA. The postoperative risk was significantly higher after IPAA (P < .01) in multivariable analysis, whereas approach did not significantly influence the risk. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of developing an abdominal DT was found to be significantly higher after IPAA than after IRA. Postoperative DT risk should be taken into account when choosing between IRA and IPAA in FAP.

Required knowledge for guideline panel members to develop healthcare related testing recommendations: a developmental study.

OBJECTIVES: To define the minimum knowledge required for guideline panel members (healthcare professionals and consumers) involved in developing recommendations about healthcare related testing. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A developmental study with a multistaged approach. We derived a first set of knowledge components from literature and subsequently performed semistructured interviews with 9 experts. We refined the set of knowledge components and checked it with the interviewees for final approval. RESULTS: Understanding the test-management pathway, for example, how test results should be used in context of decisions about interventions, is the key knowledge component. The final list includes 26 items on the following topics: health question, test-management pathway, target population, test, test result, interpretation of test results and subsequent management, and impact on people important outcomes. For each item, the required level of knowledge is defined. CONCLUSION: We developed a list of knowledge components required for guideline panels to formulate recommendations on healthcare related testing. The list could be used to design specific training programs for guideline panel members when developing recommendations about tests and testing strategies in healthcare.

Risk assessment tools for bleeding in patients with unprovoked venous thromboembolism: an analysis of the PLATO-VTE study.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines suggest indefinite anticoagulation after unprovoked venous thromboembolism (VTE) unless the bleeding risk is high, yet there is no consistent guidance on assessing bleeding risk. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the performance of 5 bleeding risk tools (RIETE, VTE-BLEED, CHAP, VTE-PREDICT, and ABC-Bleeding). METHODS: PLATO-VTE, a prospective cohort study, included patients aged ≥40 years with a first unprovoked VTE. Risk estimates were calculated at VTE diagnosis and after 3 months of treatment. Primary outcome was clinically relevant bleeding, as per International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria, during 24-month follow-up. Discrimination was assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Patients were classified as having a "high risk" and "non-high risk" of bleeding according to predefined thresholds; bleeding risk in both groups was compared by hazard ratios (HRs). RESULTS: Of 514 patients, 38 (7.4%) had an on-treatment bleeding. AUROCs were 0.58 (95% CI, 0.48-0.68) for ABC-Bleeding, 0.56 (95% CI, 0.46-0.66) for RIETE, 0.53 (95% CI, 0.43-0.64) for CHAP, 0.50 (95% CI, 0.41-0.59) for VTE-BLEED, and 0.50 (95% CI, 0.40-0.60) for VTE-PREDICT. The proportion of high-risk patients ranged from 1.4% with RIETE to 36.9% with VTE-BLEED. The bleeding incidence in the high-risk groups ranged from 0% with RIETE to 13.0% with ABC-Bleeding, and in the non-high-risk groups, it varied from 7.7% with ABC-Bleeding to 9.6% with RIETE. HRs ranged from 0.93 (95% CI, 0.46-1.9) for VTE-BLEED to 1.67 (95% CI, 0.86-3.2) for ABC-Bleeding. Recalibration at 3-month follow-up did not alter the results. CONCLUSION: In this cohort, discrimination of currently available bleeding risk tools was poor. These data do not support their use in patients with unprovoked VTE.

The LEADING Guideline. Reporting Standards for Expert Panel, Best-Estimate Diagnosis, and Longitudinal Expert All Data (LEAD) Studies.

Background: Accurate assessments of symptoms and illnesses are essential for health research and clinical practice but face many challenges. The absence of a single error-free measure is currently addressed by assessment methods involving experts reviewing several sources of information to achieve a more accurate or best-estimate assessment. Three bodies of work spanning medicine, psychiatry, and psychology propose similar assessment methods: The Expert Panel, the Best-Estimate Diagnosis, and the Longitudinal Expert All Data (LEAD) method. However, the quality of such best-estimate assessments is typically very difficult to evaluate due to poor reporting of the assessment methods and when they are reported, the reporting quality varies substantially. Here, we tackle this gap by developing reporting guidelines for such best-estimate assessment studies. Methods: The development of the reporting guidelines followed a four-stage approach: 1) drafting reporting standards accompanied by rationales and empirical evidence, which were further developed with a patient organization for depression, 2) incorporating expert feedback through a two-round Delphi procedure, 3) refining the guideline based on an expert consensus meeting, and 4) testing the guideline by i) having two researchers test it and ii) using it to examine the extent previously published studies report the standards. The last step also provides evidence for the need for the guideline: 10 to 63% (Mean = 33%) of the standards were not reported across thirty randomly selected studies. Results: The LEADING guideline comprises 20 reporting standards related to four groups: The Longitudinal design (four standards); the Appropriate data (four standards); the Evaluation - experts, materials, and procedures (ten standards); and the Validity group (two standards). Conclusions: We hope that the LEADING guideline will be useful in assisting researchers in planning, conducting, reporting, and evaluating research aiming to achieve best-estimate assessments.

Hysterosalpingo-foam sonography versus hysterosalpingography during fertility work-up: an economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the costs and effects of tubal patency testing by hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) compared to hysterosalpingography (HSG) in infertile women during the fertility work-up? SUMMARY ANSWER: During the fertility work-up, clinical management based on the test results of HyFoSy leads to slightly lower, though not statistically significant, live birth rates, at lower costs, compared to management based on HSG results. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Traditionally, tubal patency testing during the fertility work-up is performed by HSG. The FOAM trial, formally a non-inferiority study, showed that management decisions based on the results of HyFoSy resulted in a comparable live birth rate at 12 months compared to HSG (46% versus 47%; difference -1.2%, 95% CI: -3.4% to 1.5%; P = 0.27). Compared to HSG, HyFoSy is associated with significantly less pain, it lacks ionizing radiation and exposure to iodinated contrast medium. Moreover, HyFoSy can be performed by a gynaecologist during a one-stop fertility work-up. To our knowledge, the costs of both strategies have never been compared. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed an economic evaluation alongside the FOAM trial, a randomized multicenter study conducted in the Netherlands. Participating infertile women underwent, both HyFoSy and HSG, in a randomized order. The results of both tests were compared and women with discordant test results were randomly allocated to management based on the results of one of the tests. The follow-up period was twelve months. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We studied 1160 infertile women (18-41 years) scheduled for tubal patency testing. The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth. The economic evaluation compared costs and effects of management based on either test within 12 months. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs): the difference in total costs and chance of live birth. Data were analyzed using the intention to treat principle. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Between May 2015 and January 2019, 1026 of the 1160 women underwent both tubal tests and had data available: 747 women with concordant results (48% live births), 136 with inconclusive results (40% live births), and 143 with discordant results (41% had a live birth after management based on HyFoSy results versus 49% with live birth after management based on HSG results). When comparing the two strategies-management based on HyfoSy results versus HSG results-the estimated chance of live birth was 46% after HyFoSy versus 47% after HSG (difference -1.2%; 95% CI: -3.4% to 1.5%). For the procedures itself, HyFoSy cost €136 and HSG €280. When costs of additional fertility treatments were incorporated, the mean total costs per couple were €3307 for the HyFoSy strategy and €3427 for the HSG strategy (mean difference €-119; 95% CI: €-125 to €-114). So, while HyFoSy led to lower costs per couple, live birth rates were also slightly lower. The ICER was €10 042, meaning that by using HyFoSy instead of HSG we would save €10 042 per each additional live birth lost. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: When interpreting the results of this study, it needs to be considered that there was a considerable uncertainty around the ICER, and that the direct fertility enhancing effect of both tubal patency tests was not incorporated as women underwent both tubal patency tests in this study. WIDER IMPLICATION OF THE FINDINGS: Compared to clinical management based on HSG results, management guided by HyFoSy leads to slightly lower live birth rates (though not statistically significant) at lower costs, less pain, without ionizing radiation and iodinated contrast exposure. Further research on the comparison of the direct fertility-enhancing effect of both tubal patency tests is needed. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): FOAM trial was an investigator-initiated study, funded by ZonMw, a Dutch organization for Health Research and Development (project number 837001504). IQ Medical Ventures provided the ExEm®-FOAM kits free of charge. The funders had no role in study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data. K.D. reports travel-and speakers fees from Guerbet and her department received research grants from Guerbet outside the submitted work. H.R.V. received consulting-and travel fee from Ferring. A.M.v.P. reports received consulting fee from DEKRA and fee for an expert meeting from Ferring, both outside the submitted work. C.H.d.K. received travel fee from Merck. F.J.M.B. received a grant from Merck and speakers fee from Besins Healthcare. F.J.M.B. is a member of the advisory board of Merck and Ferring. J.v.D. reported speakers fee from Ferring. J.S. reports a research agreement with Takeda and consultancy for Sanofi on MR of motility outside the submitted work. M.v.W. received a travel grant from Oxford Press in the role of deputy editor for Human Reproduction and participates in a DSMB as independent methodologist in obstetrics studies in which she has no other role. B.W.M. received an investigator grant from NHMRC GNT1176437. B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck, Guerbet, iGenomix, and Merck KGaA and travel support from Merck KGaA. V.M. received research grants from Guerbet, Merck, and Ferring and travel and speakers fees from Guerbet. The other authors do not report conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: International Clinical Trials Registry Platform No. NTR4746.

External Validation of the 2023 Duke-International Society for Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases Diagnostic Criteria for Infective Endocarditis.

BACKGROUND: The 2023 Duke-International Society of Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases (ISCVID) criteria for infective endocarditis (IE) were introduced to improve classification of IE for research and clinical purposes. External validation studies are required. METHODS: We studied consecutive patients with suspected IE referred to the IE team of Amsterdam University Medical Center (from October 2016 to March 2021). An international expert panel independently reviewed case summaries and assigned a final diagnosis of "IE" or "not IE," which served as the reference standard, to which the "definite" Duke-ISCVID classifications were compared. We also evaluated accuracy when excluding cardiac surgical and pathologic data ("clinical" criteria). Finally, we compared the 2023 Duke-ISCVID with the 2000 modified Duke criteria and the 2015 and 2023 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) criteria. RESULTS: A total of 595 consecutive patients with suspected IE were included: 399 (67%) were adjudicated as having IE; 111 (19%) had prosthetic valve IE, and 48 (8%) had a cardiac implantable electronic device IE. The 2023 Duke-ISCVID criteria were more sensitive than either the modified Duke or 2015 ESC criteria (84.2% vs 74.9% and 80%, respectively; P < .001) without significant loss of specificity. The 2023 Duke-ISCVID criteria were similarly sensitive but more specific than the 2023 ESC criteria (94% vs 82%; P < .001). The same pattern was seen for the clinical criteria (excluding surgical/pathologic results). New modifications in the 2023 Duke-ISCVID criteria related to "major microbiological" and "imaging" criteria had the most impact. CONCLUSIONS: The 2023 Duke-ISCVID criteria represent a significant advance in the diagnostic classification of patients with suspected IE.

Cold snare polypectomy for duodenal adenomas in familial adenomatous polyposis: a prospective international cohort study.

Background and study aims In patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP), endoscopic resection of duodenal adenomas is commonly performed to prevent cancer and prevent or defer duodenal surgery. However, based on studies using different resection techniques, adverse events (AEs) of polypectomy in the duodenum can be significant. We hypothesized that cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is a safe technique for duodenal adenomas in FAP and evaluated its outcomes in our centers. Patients and methods We performed a prospective international cohort study including FAP patients who underwent CSP for one or more superficial non-ampullary duodenal adenomas of any size between 2020 and 2022. At that time, this technique was common practice in our centers for superficial duodenal adenomas. The primary outcome was the occurrence of intraprocedural and post-procedural AEs. Results In total, 133 CSPs were performed in 39 patients with FAP (1-18 per session). Median adenoma size was 10 mm (interquartile range 8-15 mm), ranging from 5 to 40 mm; 27 adenomas were ≥20 mm (20%). Of the 133 polypectomies, 109 (82%) were performed after submucosal injection. Sixty-one adenomas (46%) were resected en bloc and 72 (54%) piecemeal. Macroscopic radical resection was achieved for 129 polypectomies (97%). Deep mural injury type II occurred in three polyps (2%) with no delayed perforation after prophylactic clipping. There were no clinically significant bleeds, perforations or other post-procedural AEs. Histopathology showed low-grade dysplasia in all 133 adenomas. Conclusions CSP for (multiple) superficial non-ampullary duodenal adenomas in FAP seems feasible and safe. Long-term prospective research is needed to evaluate whether protocolized duodenal polypectomies prevent cancer and surgery.

Pneumonia pattern recognition on ultra-low-dose CT does not allow for a reliable differentiation between viral and bacterial pneumonia: A multicentre observer study.

PURPOSE: While a reliable differentiation between viral and bacterial pneumonia is not possible with chest X-ray, this study investigates whether ultra-low-dose chest-CT (ULDCT) could be used for this purpose. METHODS: In the OPTIMACT trial 281 patients had a final diagnosis of pneumonia, and 96/281 (34%) had one or more positive microbiology results: 60 patients viral pathogens, 48 patients bacterial pathogens. These 96 ULDCT's were blindly and independently evaluated by two chest radiologists, who reported CT findings, pneumonia pattern, and most likely type of pathogen. Differences between groups were analysed for each radiologist separately, diagnostic accuracy was evaluated by calculating sensitivity. RESULTS: The dominant CT finding significantly differed between the viral and bacterial pathogen groups (p = 0.04; p = 0.04). Consolidation was the most frequent dominant CT finding in both patients with viral and bacterial pathogens, but was observed significantly more often in those with a bacterial pathogen: 32/60 and 22/60 versus 38/48 and 31/48 (p = 0.005; p = 0.004). The lobar pneumonia pattern was more frequently observed in patients with a bacterial pathogen: 23/48 and 18/48, versus 10/60 and 8/60 for viral pathogens (p < 0.001; p = 0.004). For the bronchopneumonia and interstitial pneumonia patterns the proportions of viral and bacterial pathogens were not significantly different. Both radiologists suggested a viral pathogen correctly (sensitivity) in 6/60 (10%), for a bacterial pathogen this was 34/48 (71%). CONCLUSION: Reliable differentiation between viral and bacterial pneumonia could not be made by pattern recognition on ULDCT, although a lobar pneumonia pattern was significantly more often observed in bacterial infection.

An efficient strategy for evaluating new non-invasive screening tests for colorectal cancer: the guiding principles.

OBJECTIVE: New screening tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) are rapidly emerging. Conducting trials with mortality reduction as the end point supporting their adoption is challenging. We re-examined the principles underlying evaluation of new non-invasive tests in view of technological developments and identification of new biomarkers. DESIGN: A formal consensus approach involving a multidisciplinary expert panel revised eight previously established principles. RESULTS: Twelve newly stated principles emerged. Effectiveness of a new test can be evaluated by comparison with a proven comparator non-invasive test. The faecal immunochemical test is now considered the appropriate comparator, while colonoscopy remains the diagnostic standard. For a new test to be able to meet differing screening goals and regulatory requirements, flexibility to adjust its positivity threshold is desirable. A rigorous and efficient four-phased approach is proposed, commencing with small studies assessing the test's ability to discriminate between CRC and non-cancer states (phase I), followed by prospective estimation of accuracy across the continuum of neoplastic lesions in neoplasia-enriched populations (phase II). If these show promise, a provisional test positivity threshold is set before evaluation in typical screening populations. Phase III prospective studies determine single round intention-to-screen programme outcomes and confirm the test positivity threshold. Phase IV studies involve evaluation over repeated screening rounds with monitoring for missed lesions. Phases III and IV findings will provide the real-world data required to model test impact on CRC mortality and incidence. CONCLUSION: New non-invasive tests can be efficiently evaluated by a rigorous phased comparative approach, generating data from unbiased populations that inform predictions of their health impact.

Diagnostic testing in children: A qualitative study of pediatricians' considerations.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Studies in adult medicine have shown that physicians base testing decisions on the patient's clinical condition but also consider other factors, including local practice or patient expectations. In pediatrics, physicians and parents jointly decide on behalf of a (young) child. This might demand more explicit and more complex deliberations, with sometimes conflicting interests. We explored pediatricians' considerations in diagnostic test ordering and the factors that influence their deliberation. METHOD: We performed in-depth, semistructured interviews with a purposively selected heterogeneous sample of 20 Dutch pediatricians. We analyzed transcribed interviews inductively using a constant comparative approach, and clustered data across interviews to derive common themes. RESULTS: Pediatricians perceived test-related burden in children higher compared with adults, and reported that avoiding an unjustified burden causes them to be more restrictive and deliberate in test ordering. They felt conflicted when parents desired testing or when guidelines recommended diagnostic tests pediatricians perceived as unnecessary. When parents demanded testing, they would explore parental concern, educate parents about harms and alternative explanations of symptoms, and advocate watchful waiting. Yet they reported sometimes performing tests to appease parents or to comply with guidelines, because of feared personal consequences in the case of adverse outcomes. CONCLUSION: We obtained an overview of the considerations that are weighed in pediatric test decisions. The comparatively strong focus on prevention of harm motivates pediatricians to critically appraise the added value of testing and drivers of low-value testing. Pediatricians' relatively restrictive approach to testing could provide an example for other disciplines. Improved guidelines and physician and patient education could help to withstand the perceived pressure to test.

Limited Clinical Impact of Ultralow-Dose Computed Tomography in Suspected Community-Acquired Pneumonia.

Patients clinically suspected of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) were randomized between ultralow-dose chest computed tomography ([ULDCT] 261 patients) and chest radiograph ([CXR] 231 patients). We did not find evidence that performing ULDCT instead of CXR affects antibiotic treatment policy or patient outcomes. However, in a subgroup of afebrile patients, there were more patients diagnosed with CAP in the ULDCT group (ULDCT, 106 of 608 patients; CXR, 71 of 654 patients; P = .001).

[The role of effectiveness in coverage decisions]. / Effectiviteit als criterium bij pakketbeheer.

Since the introduction of the Health Insurance Act, effectiveness has been one of the criteria for coverage decisions in the Netherlands. The Health Insurance Board, later succeeded by Zorginstituut Nederland, elaborated that criterion: when assessing whether care meets the "state of science and practice", it uses the principles of evidence-based medicine. In recent years, several organisations have called for the structural evaluation of health care interventions and the removal of non-effective care from the benefits package. This intention was also reflected in the Integral Care Agreement concluded last year.

The yield of chest X-ray or ultra-low-dose chest-CT in emergency department patients suspected of pulmonary infection without respiratory symptoms or signs.

OBJECTIVE: The yield of pulmonary imaging in patients with suspected infection but no respiratory symptoms or signs is probably limited, ultra-low-dose CT (ULDCT) is known to have a higher sensitivity than Chest X-ray (CXR). Our objective was to describe the yield of ULDCT and CXR in patients clinically suspected of infection, but without respiratory symptoms or signs, and to compare the diagnostic accuracy of ULDCT and CXR. METHODS: In the OPTIMACT trial, patients suspected of non-traumatic pulmonary disease at the emergency department (ED) were randomly allocated to undergo CXR (1210 patients) or ULDCT (1208 patients). We identified 227 patients in the study group with fever, hypothermia, and/or elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) but no respiratory symptoms or signs, and estimated ULDCT and CXR sensitivity and specificity in detecting pneumonia. The final day-28 diagnosis served as the clinical reference standard. RESULTS: In the ULDCT group, 14/116 (12%) received a final diagnosis of pneumonia, versus 8/111 (7%) in the CXR group. ULDCT sensitivity was significantly higher than that of CXR: 13/14 (93%) versus 4/8 (50%), a difference of 43% (95% CI: 6 to 80%). ULDCT specificity was 91/102 (89%) versus 97/103 (94%) for CXR, a difference of - 5% (95% CI: - 12 to 3%). PPV was 54% (13/24) for ULDCT versus 40% (4/10) for CXR, NPV 99% (91/92) versus 96% (97/101). CONCLUSION: Pneumonia can be present in ED patients without respiratory symptoms or signs who have a fever, hypothermia, and/or elevated CRP. ULDCT's sensitivity is a significant advantage over CXR when pneumonia has to be excluded. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Pulmonary imaging in patients with suspected infection but no respiratory symptoms or signs can result in the detection of clinically significant pneumonia. The increased sensitivity of ultra-low-dose chest CT compared to CXR is of added value in vulnerable and immunocompromised patients. KEY POINTS: • Clinical significant pneumonia does occur in patients who have a fever, low core body temperature, or elevated CRP without respiratory symptoms or signs. • Pulmonary imaging should be considered in patients with unexplained symptoms or signs of infections. • To exclude pneumonia in this patient group, ULDCT's improved sensitivity is a significant advantage over CXR.

Personalized endoscopic surveillance and intervention protocols for patients with familial adenomatous polyposis: the European FAP Consortium strategy.

Background and study aims Patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) undergo colectomy and lifelong endoscopic surveillance to prevent colorectal, duodenal and gastric cancer. Endoscopy has advanced significantly in recent years, including both detection technology as well as treatment options. For the lower gastrointestinal tract, current guidelines do not provide clear recommendations for surveillance intervals. Furthermore, the Spigelman staging system for duodenal polyposis has its limitations. We present a newly developed personalized endoscopic surveillance strategy for the lower and upper gastrointestinal tract, aiming to improve the care for patients with FAP. We aim to inform centers caring for FAP patients and encourage the discussion on optimizing endoscopic surveillance and treatment in this high-risk population. Methods The European FAP Consortium, consisting of endoscopists with expertise in FAP, collaboratively developed new surveillance protocols. The proposed strategy was consensus-based and a result of several consortium meetings, discussing current evidence and limitations of existing systems. This strategy provides clear indications for endoscopic polypectomy in the rectum, pouch, duodenum and stomach and defines new criteria for surveillance intervals. This strategy will be evaluated in a 5-year prospective study in nine FAP expert centers in Europe. Results We present a newly developed personalized endoscopic surveillance and endoscopic treatment strategy for patients with FAP aiming to prevent cancer, optimize endoscopic resources and limit the number of surgical interventions. Following this new strategy, prospectively collected data in a large cohort of patients will inform us on the efficacy and safety of the proposed approaches.

Platelet RNA sequencing for cancer screening in patients with unprovoked venous thromboembolism: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Platelet RNA sequencing has been shown to accurately detect cancer in previous studies. OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of platelet RNA sequencing with standard-of-care limited cancer screening in patients with unprovoked venous thromboembolism (VTE). METHODS: Patients aged ≥40 years with unprovoked VTE were recruited at 13 centers and followed for 12 months for cancer. Participants underwent standard-of-care limited cancer screening, and platelet RNA sequencing analysis was performed centrally at study end for cases and selected controls. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated, using the predefined primary positivity threshold of 0.54 for platelet RNA sequencing aiming at 86% test sensitivity, and an additional predefined threshold of 0.89 aiming at 99% test specificity. RESULTS: A total of 476 participants were enrolled, of whom 25 (5.3%) were diagnosed with cancer during 12-month follow-up. For each cancer patient, 3 cancer-free patients were randomly selected for the analysis. The sensitivity of limited screening was 72% (95% CI, 52-86) at a specificity of 91% (95% CI, 82-95). The area under the receiver operator characteristic for platelet RNA sequencing was 0.54 (95% CI, 0.41-0.66). At the primary positivity threshold, all patients had a positive test, for a sensitivity estimated at 100% (95% CI, 87-99) and a specificity of 8% (95% CI, 3.7-16.4). At the secondary threshold, sensitivity was 68% (95% CI, 48-83; p value compared with limited screening 0.71) at a specificity of 36% (95% CI, 26-47). CONCLUSION: Platelet RNA sequencing had poor diagnostic accuracy for detecting occult cancer in patients with unprovoked VTE with the current algorithm.

ISO 15189 is a sufficient instrument to guarantee high-quality manufacture of laboratory developed tests for in-house-use conform requirements of the European In-Vitro-Diagnostics Regulation.

The EU In-Vitro Diagnostic Device Regulation (IVDR) aims for transparent risk-and purpose-based validation of diagnostic devices, traceability of results to uniquely identified devices, and post-market surveillance. The IVDR regulates design, manufacture and putting into use of devices, but not medical services using these devices. In the absence of suitable commercial devices, the laboratory can resort to laboratory-developed tests (LDT) for in-house use. Documentary obligations (IVDR Art 5.5), the performance and safety specifications of ANNEX I, and development and manufacture under an ISO 15189-equivalent quality system apply. LDTs serve specific clinical needs, often for low volume niche applications, or correspond to the translational phase of new tests and treatments, often extremely relevant for patient care. As some commercial tests may disappear with the IVDR roll-out, many will require urgent LDT replacement. The workload will also depend on which modifications to commercial tests turns them into an LDT, and on how national legislators and competent authorities (CA) will handle new competences and responsibilities. We discuss appropriate interpretation of ISO 15189 to cover IVDR requirements. Selected cases illustrate LDT implementation covering medical needs with commensurate management of risk emanating from intended use and/or design of devices. Unintended collateral damage of the IVDR comprises loss of non-profitable niche applications, increases of costs and wasted resources, and migration of innovative research to more cost-efficient environments. Taking into account local specifics, the legislative framework should reduce the burden on and associated opportunity costs for the health care system, by making diligent use of existing frameworks.

Ultra-low-dose CT versus chest X-ray for patients suspected of pulmonary disease at the emergency department: a multicentre randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Chest CT displays chest pathology better than chest X-ray (CXR). We evaluated the effects on health outcomes of replacing CXR by ultra-low-dose chest-CT (ULDCT) in the diagnostic work-up of patients suspected of non-traumatic pulmonary disease at the emergency department. METHODS: Pragmatic, multicentre, non-inferiority randomised clinical trial in patients suspected of non-traumatic pulmonary disease at the emergency department. Between 31 January 2017 and 31 May 2018, every month, participating centres were randomly allocated to using ULDCT or CXR. Primary outcome was functional health at 28 days, measured by the Short Form (SF)-12 physical component summary scale score (PCS score), non-inferiority margin was set at 1 point. Secondary outcomes included hospital admission, hospital length of stay (LOS) and patients in follow-up because of incidental findings. RESULTS: 2418 consecutive patients (ULDCT: 1208 and CXR: 1210) were included. Mean SF-12 PCS score at 28 days was 37.0 for ULDCT and 35.9 for CXR (difference 1.1; 95% lower CI: 0.003). After ULDCT, 638/1208 (52.7%) patients were admitted (median LOS of 4.8 days; IQR 2.1-8.8) compared with 659/1210 (54.5%) patients after CXR (median LOS 4.6 days; IQR 2.1-8.8). More ULDCT patients were in follow-up because of incidental findings: 26 (2.2%) versus 4 (0.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Short-term functional health was comparable between ULDCT and CXR, as were hospital admissions and LOS, but more incidental findings were found in the ULDCT group. Our trial does not support routine use of ULDCT in the work-up of patients suspected of non-traumatic pulmonary disease at the emergency department. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR6163.