More than one third of clinical practice guidelines on low back pain overlap in AGREE II appraisals. Research wasted?

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews can apply the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II tool to critically appraise clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for treating low back pain (LBP); however, when appraisals differ in CPG quality rating, stakeholders, clinicians, and policy-makers will find it difficult to discern a unique judgement of CPG quality. We wanted to determine the proportion of overlapping CPGs for LBP in appraisals that applied AGREE II. We also compared inter-rater reliability and variability across appraisals. METHODS: For this meta-epidemiological study we searched six databases for appraisals of CPGs for LBP. The general characteristics of the appraisals were collected; the unit of analysis was the CPG evaluated in each appraisal. The inter-rater reliability and the variability of AGREE II domain scores for overall assessment were measured using the intraclass correlation coefficient and descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Overall, 43 CPGs out of 106 (40.6%) overlapped in seventeen appraisals. Half of the appraisals (53%) reported a protocol registration. Reporting of AGREE II assessment was heterogeneous and generally of poor quality: overall assessment 1 (overall CPG quality) was rated in 11 appraisals (64.7%) and overall assessment 2 (recommendation for use) in four (23.5%). Inter-rater reliability was substantial/perfect in 78.3% of overlapping CPGs. The domains with most variability were Domain 6 (mean interquartile range [IQR] 38.6), Domain 5 (mean IQR 28.9), and Domain 2 (mean IQR 27.7). CONCLUSIONS: More than one third of CPGs for LBP have been re-appraised in the last six years with CPGs quality confirmed in most assessments. Our findings suggest that before conducting a new appraisal, researchers should check systematic review registers for existing appraisals. Clinicians need to rely on updated CPGs of high quality and confirmed by perfect agreement in multiple appraisals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Protocol Registration OSF: https://osf.io/rz7nh/.

Cannabis and cannabinoids for symptomatic treatment for people with multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Spasticity and chronic neuropathic pain are common and serious symptoms in people with multiple sclerosis (MS). These symptoms increase with disease progression and lead to worsening disability, impaired activities of daily living and quality of life. Anti-spasticity medications and analgesics are of limited benefit or poorly tolerated. Cannabinoids may reduce spasticity and pain in people with MS. Demand for symptomatic treatment with cannabinoids is high. A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and harms of these drugs is required. OBJECTIVES: To assess benefit and harms of cannabinoids, including synthetic, or herbal and plant-derived cannabinoids, for reducing symptoms for adults with MS. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases from inception to December 2021: MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library), CINAHL (EBSCO host), LILACS, the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the US National Institutes of Health clinical trial register, the European Union Clinical Trials Register, the International Association for Cannabinoid Medicines databank. We hand searched citation lists of included studies and relevant reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised parallel or cross-over trials (RCTs) evaluating any cannabinoid (including herbal Cannabis, Cannabis flowers, plant-based cannabinoids, or synthetic cannabinoids) irrespective of dose, route, frequency, or duration of use for adults with MS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane Risk of bias 2 tool for parallel RCTs and crossover trials. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: reduction of 30% in the spasticity Numeric Rating Scale, pain relief of 50% or greater in the Numeric Rating Scale-Pain Intensity, much or very much improvement in the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL), withdrawals due to adverse events (AEs) (tolerability), serious adverse events (SAEs), nervous system disorders, psychiatric disorders, physical dependence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 25 RCTs with 3763 participants of whom 2290 received cannabinoids. Age ranged from 18 to 60 years, and between 50% and 88% participants across the studies were female.  The included studies were 3 to 48 weeks long and compared nabiximols, an oromucosal spray with a plant derived equal (1:1) combination of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) (13 studies), synthetic cannabinoids mimicking THC (7 studies), an oral THC extract of Cannabis sativa (2 studies), inhaled herbal Cannabis (1 study) against placebo. One study compared dronabinol, THC extract of Cannabis sativa and placebo, one compared inhaled herbal Cannabis, dronabinol and placebo. We identified eight ongoing studies. Critical outcomes • Spasticity: nabiximols probably increases the number of people who report an important reduction of perceived severity of spasticity compared with placebo (odds ratio (OR) 2.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.56 to 4.04; 5 RCTs, 1143 participants; I2 = 67%; moderate-certainty evidence). The absolute effect was 216 more people (95% CI 99 more to 332 more) per 1000 reporting benefit with cannabinoids than with placebo. • Chronic neuropathic pain: we found only one small trial that measured the number of participants reporting substantial pain relief with a synthetic cannabinoid compared with placebo (OR 4.23, 95% CI 1.11 to 16.17; 1 study, 48 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether cannabinoids reduce chronic neuropathic pain intensity. • Treatment discontinuation due to AEs: cannabinoids may increase slightly the number of participants who discontinue treatment compared with placebo (OR 2.41, 95% CI 1.51 to 3.84; 21 studies, 3110 participants; I² = 17%; low-certainty evidence); the absolute effect is 39 more people (95% CI 15 more to 76 more) per 1000 people. Important outcomes • PGIC: cannabinoids probably increase the number of people who report 'very much' or 'much' improvement in health status compared with placebo (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.36; 8 studies, 1215 participants; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). The absolute effect is 113 more people (95% CI 57 more to 175 more) per 1000 people reporting improvement. • HRQoL: cannabinoids may have little to no effect on HRQoL (SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.02; 8 studies, 1942 participants; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence); • SAEs: cannabinoids may result in little to no difference in the number of participants who have SAEs compared with placebo (OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.99; 20 studies, 3124 participants; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence); • AEs of the nervous system: cannabinoids may increase nervous system disorders compared with placebo (OR 2.61, 95% CI 1.53 to 4.44; 7 studies, 1154 participants; I² = 63%; low-certainty evidence); • Psychiatric disorders: cannabinoids may increase psychiatric disorders compared with placebo (OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.88; 6 studies, 1122 participants; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence); • Drug tolerance: the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of cannabinoids on drug tolerance (OR 3.07, 95% CI 0.12 to 75.95; 2 studies, 458 participants; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared with placebo, nabiximols probably reduces the severity of spasticity in the short-term in people with MS. We are uncertain about the effect on chronic neurological pain and health-related quality of life. Cannabinoids may increase slightly treatment discontinuation due to AEs, nervous system and psychiatric disorders compared with placebo. We are uncertain about the effect on drug tolerance. The overall certainty of evidence is limited by short-term duration of the included studies.

IMRT versus 2D/3D conformal RT in oropharyngeal cancer: A review of the literature and meta-analysis.

Based on literature, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) provides less related toxicity compared with conventional 2D/3D-RT with no impact on oncological outcomes for oropharyngeal cancer. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess whether IMRT might provide similar clinical outcomes with reduced related toxicity in comparison with conventional 2D/3D RT in patients treated for clinically advanced oropharyngeal cancer (OPC). Inclusion criteria for paper selection included: squamous OPC patients, treatment performed by concomitant CRT or RT alone, four treatment performed for curative intent, and presence of clinical outcome of interest, namely, overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) and full paper available in English. Acute and late toxicities were retrieved together with OS and DFS. Crude relative risk estimates of relapse and death comparing 2D/3D-RT versus IMRT were calculated from tabular data, extracting events at 2-3 years of follow-up. Eight studies were selected. Six of them were included in the meta-analysis considering summary relative risk. Considering both acute and late toxicities, the considered studies evidenced advantages for IMRT populations, with the 2D/3D-RT population showing higher frequencies than the IMRT one. No statistical difference between IMRT and 2D/3D-RT in terms of death (SRR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.83-1.04 with no heterogeneity I2  = 0%) and relapse (SRR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.83-1.03, with no heterogeneity I2  = 0%) was found. Results of our study suggest the improvement in the therapeutic index with IMRT with evidenced reduced toxicity without any worsening in clinical outcome when compared to 2D/3DCRT.

Introduction and methods of the evidence-based guidelines for the diagnosis and management of autism spectrum disorder by the Italian National Institute of Health.

BACKGROUND: Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a neuro-developmental disorder that affects communication and behavior with a prevalence of approximately 1% worldwide. Health outcomes of interventions for ASD are largely Participant Reported Outcomes (PROs). Specific guidelines can help support the best care for people with ASD to optimize these health outcomes but they have to adhere to standards for their development to be trustworthy. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this article is to describe the new methodological standards of the Italian National Institute of Health and novel aspects of this guideline development process. This article will serve as a reference standard for future guideline development in the Italian setting. METHODS: We applied the new standards of the Italian National Institute of Health to the two guidelines on diagnosis and management of children/adolescents and adults with ASD, with a focus on the scoping, panel composition, management of conflict of interest, generation and prioritization of research questions, early stakeholders' involvement, and PROs. Recommendations are based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence-to-Decision frameworks. RESULTS: Following a public application process, the ISS established two multidisciplinary panels including people with ASD and/or their caregivers. Seventy-nine research questions were identified as potentially relevant for the guideline on children and adolescents with ASD and 31 for the one on adults with ASD. Questions deemed to have the highest priority were selected for inclusion in the guidelines. Other stakeholders valued their early involvement in the process which will largely focus on PROs. The panels then successfully piloted the development of recommendations using the methodological standards and process set by the ISS with a focus on PROs. CONCLUSIONS: In this article, we describe the development of practice guidelines that focus on PROs for the diagnosis and management of ASD based on novel methods for question prioritization and stakeholder involvement. The recommendations allow for the adoption or adaptation to international settings.

Insufficient uptake of systematic search methods in oncological clinical practice guideline: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The use of systematic review methods are widely recognized to be essential in the development of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines to prove their trustworthiness. The objective of this study was to assess the use of systematic search methods by authors of guidelines published in the oncology field. METHODS: We analyzed 590 guidance documents identified in PubMed, NGC, GIN and web sites for guidelines in 2009-2015 in oncology. The main outcome measure used was incidence of guidance documents supported by a systematic search of the literature. In addition to descriptive analyses, logistic regression was used to evaluate if adequate search methods were explained by guideline characteristics. RESULTS: Of 590 guidance documents included in the study, 305 (51.7%) declared the use of systematic search methods but only 168 (28.5%) applied methods meeting minimum standards for quality and provided sufficient details to allow classification. 164 (27.8%) guidance documents did not report any use of literature evaluation. Guidance documents produced by a Government Agency in North America (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.16-4.17) and those with a focused scope (OR 2.35, 95% CI 0.97-5.56) were positively associated with the use of systematic search methods. We found no association between the year of publication and use of systematic search methods. CONCLUSIONS: A relatively small number of guidance documents was informed by scientific evidence identified through adequate systematic search methods. We observed substantial room for improvement of applied methods and reporting, especially in documents with a broad focus, or those produced by professional societies or independent expert panels in other continents than North America.

Epidemiologic evidence of slow growing, nonprogressive or regressive breast cancer: A systematic review.

The general aim of this systematic review is to mitigate breast cancer (BC) overdiagnosis and overtreatment. The specific aim is to summarize available data on the occurrence and features of indolent invasive or in situ (DCIS) BC, and precisely survival of untreated cases, prevalence of occult cancers found in autopsies, frequency of regressive BC. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were systematically searched up to 3/31/2014. Eligibility criteria were: cohort studies, case-control studies, uncontrolled case series assessing survival in women with a diagnosis of BC who did not receive treatment compared to treated women; case series of autopsies estimating the prevalence of undiagnosed BC; cohort studies, case-control studies, uncontrolled case series, case reports assessing the occurrence of spontaneous regression of BC in women with a confirmed histology diagnosis. Untreated BC: 8 cohort studies and 12 case series (3593 BC) were included. In three controlled cohort studies (diagnoses 1978-2006), the 5-years overall survival was 19-43%. Occult BC: 8 case series (2279 autopsies) were included. The prevalence of invasive BC undiagnosed during lifetime range was 0-1.5%, while for DCIS the range was 0.2-14.7%. Spontaneous regression: 2 cohort studies, 3 case reports, 1 case series included. In the cohort studies the relative risk of regression for screen detected compared with nonscreened BC was estimated as 1.2 and 1.1. It seems plausible that around 10% of invasive BC are not symptomatic during life, and that one fith of BC patients if untreated would be alive after 5 years. Around 1 of 10 screen-detected BC may regress according two studies.

Follow-up strategies for women treated for early breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Follow-up examinations are commonly performed after primary treatment for women with breast cancer. They are used to detect recurrences at an early (asymptomatic) stage. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2000. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of different policies of follow-up for distant metastases on mortality, morbidity and quality of life in women treated for stage I, II or III breast cancer. SEARCH METHODS: For this 2014 review update, we searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register (4 July 2014), MEDLINE (4 July 2014), Embase (4 July 2014), CENTRAL (2014, Issue 3), the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (4 July 2014) and ClinicalTrials.gov (4 July 2014). References from retrieved articles were also checked. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of different policies of follow-up after primary treatment were reviewed for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility for inclusion in the review and risk of bias. Data were pooled in an individual patient data meta-analysis for the two RCTs testing the effectiveness of different follow-up schemes. Subgroup analyses were conducted by age, tumour size and lymph node status. MAIN RESULTS: Since 2000, one new trial has been published; the updated review now includes five RCTs involving 4023 women with breast cancer (clinical stage I, II or III).Two trials involving 2563 women compared follow-up based on clinical visits and mammography with a more intensive scheme including radiological and laboratory tests. After pooling the data, no significant differences in overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.15, two studies, 2563 participants, high-quality evidence), or disease-free survival (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.00, two studies, 2563 participants, low-quality evidence) emerged. No differences in overall survival and disease-free survival emerged in subgroup analyses according to patient age, tumour size and lymph node status before primary treatment. In 1999, 10-year follow-up data became available for one trial of these trials, and no significant differences in overall survival were found. No difference was noted in quality of life measures (one study, 639 participants, high-quality evidence).The new included trial, together with a previously included trial involving 1264 women compared follow-up performed by a hospital-based specialist versus follow-up performed by general practitioners. No significant differences were noted in overall survival (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.78, one study, 968 participants, moderate-quality evidence), time to detection of recurrence (HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.47, two studies, 1264 participants, moderate-quality evidence), and quality of life (one study, 356 participants, high-quality evidence). Patient satisfaction was greater among patients treated by general practitioners. One RCT involving 196 women compared regularly scheduled follow-up visits versus less frequent visits restricted to the time of mammography. No significant differences emerged in interim use of telephone and frequency of general practitioners's consultations. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This updated review of RCTs conducted almost 20 years ago suggests that follow-up programs based on regular physical examinations and yearly mammography alone are as effective as more intensive approaches based on regular performance of laboratory and instrumental tests in terms of timeliness of recurrence detection, overall survival and quality of life.In two RCTs, follow-up care performed by trained and not trained general practitioners working in an organised practice setting had comparable effectiveness to that delivered by hospital-based specialists in terms of overall survival, recurrence detection, and quality of life.

Anticonvulsants for cocaine dependence.

BACKGROUND: Cocaine dependence is a major public health problem that is characterised by recidivism and a host of medical and psychosocial complications. Although effective pharmacotherapy is available for alcohol and heroin dependence, none is currently available for cocaine dependence, despite two decades of clinical trials primarily involving antidepressant, anticonvulsivant and dopaminergic medications. Extensive consideration has been given to optimal pharmacological approaches to the treatment of individuals with cocaine dependence, and both dopamine antagonists and agonists have been considered. Anticonvulsants have been candidates for use in the treatment of addiction based on the hypothesis that seizure kindling-like mechanisms contribute to addiction. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of anticonvulsants for individuals with cocaine dependence. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Trials Register (June 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, Issue 6), MEDLINE (1966 to June 2014), EMBASE (1988 to June 2014), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to June 2014), Web of Science (1991 to June 2014) and the reference lists of eligible articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials that focus on the use of anticonvulsant medications to treat individuals with cocaine dependence. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 20 studies with 2068 participants. We studied the anticonvulsant drugs carbamazepine, gabapentin, lamotrigine, phenytoin, tiagabine, topiramate and vigabatrin. All studies compared anticonvulsants versus placebo. Only one study had one arm by which the anticonvulsant was compared with the antidepressant desipramine. Upon comparison of anticonvulsant versus placebo, we found no significant differences for any of the efficacy and safety measures. Dropouts: risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.05, 17 studies, 20 arms, 1695 participants, moderate quality of evidence. Use of cocaine: RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.02, nine studies, 11 arms, 867 participants, moderate quality of evidence; side effects: RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.90, eight studies, 775 participants; craving: standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.25, 95% CI -0.59 to 0.09, seven studies, eight arms, 428 participants, low quality of evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although caution is needed when results from a limited number of small clinical trials are assessed, no current evidence supports the clinical use of anticonvulsant medications in the treatment of patients with cocaine dependence. Although the findings of new trials will improve the quality of study results, especially in relation to specific medications, anticonvulsants as a category cannot be considered first-, second- or third-line treatment for cocaine dependence.

Implantable hearing devices in clinical practice. Systematic review and consensus statements.

Objective: Implantable hearing devices represent a modern and innovative solution for hearing restoration. Over the years, these high-tech devices have increasingly evolved but their use in clinical practice is not universally agreed in the scientific literature. Congresses, meetings, conferences, and consensus statements to achieve international agreement have been made. This work follows this line and aims to answer unsolved questions regarding examinations, selection criteria and surgery for implantable hearing devices. Materials and methods: A Consensus Working Group was established by the Italian Society of Otorhinolaryngology. A method group performed a systematic review for each single question to identify the current best evidence on the topic and to guide a multidisciplinary panel in developing the statements. Results: Twenty-nine consensus statements were approved by the Italian Society of Otorhinolaryngology. These were associated with 4 key area subtopics regarding pre-operative tests, otological, audiological and surgical indications. Conclusions: This consensus can be considered a further step forward to establish realistic guidelines on the debated topic of implantable hearing devices.

Multidisciplinary treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma in 2023: Italian practice Treatment Guidelines of the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver (AISF), Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM), Italian Association of Hepato-Bilio-Pancreatic Surgery (AICEP), Italian Association of Hospital Gastroenterologists (AIGO), Italian Association of Radiology and Clinical Oncology (AIRO), Italian Society of Pathological Anatomy and Diagnostic Cytology (SIAPeC-IAP), Italian Society of Surgery (SIC), Italian Society of Gastroenterology (SIGE), Italian Society of Medical and Interventional Radiology (SIRM), Italian Organ Transplant Society (SITO), and Association of Patients with Hepatitis and Liver Disease (EpaC) - Part II - Non-surgical treatments.

Worldwide, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the third most common cause of cancer-related death. The remarkable improvements in treating HCC achieved in the last years have increased the complexity of its management. Following the need to have updated guidelines on the multidisciplinary treatment management of HCC, the Italian Scientific Societies involved in the management of this cancer have promoted the drafting of a new dedicated document. This document was drawn up according to the GRADE methodology needed to produce guidelines based on evidence. Here is presented the second part of guidelines, focused on the multidisciplinary tumor board of experts and non-surgical treatments of HCC.

Laparoscopic treatment of ventral hernias: the Italian national guidelines.

Primary and incisional ventral hernias are significant public health issues for their prevalence, variability of professional practices, and high costs associated with the treatment In 2019, the Board of Directors of the Italian Society for Endoscopic Surgery (SICE) promoted the development of new guidelines on the laparoscopic treatment of ventral hernias, according to the new national regulation. In 2022, the guideline was accepted by the government agency, and it was published, in Italian, on the SNLG website. Here, we report the adopted methodology and the guideline's recommendations, as established in its diffusion policy. This guideline is produced according to the methodology indicated by the SNGL and applying the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) methodology. Fifteen recommendations were produced as a result of 4 PICO questions. The level of recommendation was conditional for 12 of them and conditional to moderate for one. This guideline's strengths include relying on an extensive systematic review of the literature and applying a rigorous GRADE method. It also has several limitations. The literature on the topic is continuously and rapidly evolving; our results are based on findings that need constant re-appraisal. It is focused only on minimally invasive techniques and cannot consider broader issues (e.g., diagnostics, indication for surgery, pre-habilitation).

Should Acellular Dermal Matrices Be Used for Implant-based Breast Reconstruction after Mastectomy? Clinical Recommendation Based on the GRADE Approach.

Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) entered the market in the early 2000s and their use has increased thereafter. Several retrospective cohort studies and single surgeon series reported benefits with the use of ADMs. However, robust evidence supporting these advantages is lacking. There is the need to define the role for ADMs in implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) after mastectomy. Methods: A panel of world-renowned breast specialists was convened to evaluate evidence, express personal viewpoints, and establish recommendation for the use of ADMs for subpectoral one-/two-stage IBBR (compared with no ADM use) for adult women undergoing mastectomy for breast cancer treatment or risk reduction using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results: Based on the voting outcome, the following recommendation emerged as a consensus statement: the panel members suggest subpectoral one- or two-stage IBBR either with ADMs or without ADMs for adult women undergoing mastectomy for breast cancer treatment or risk reduction (with very low certainty of evidence). Conclusions: The systematic review has revealed a very low certainty of evidence for most of the important outcomes in ADM-assisted IBBR and the absence of standard tools for evaluating clinical outcomes. Forty-five percent of panel members expressed a conditional recommendation either in favor of or against the use of ADMs in subpectoral one- or two-stages IBBR for adult women undergoing mastectomy for breast cancer treatment or risk reduction. Future subgroup analyses could help identify relevant clinical and pathological factors to select patients for whom one technique could be preferable to another.

A systematic review and meta-analysis on the optimal treatment duration of checkpoint inhibitoRS in solid tumors: The OTHERS study.

No clear evidence supports the advantage of fixed (up to two years (2yICI)) or continuous treatment (more than two years (prolonged ICI)) in cancer patients achieving stable disease or response on immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials reporting the duration of ICIs (alone or in combination with standard of care (SoC)) across various solid tumors. Overall, we identified 28,417 records through database searching. Based on the eligibility criteria, 57 studies were identified for the quantitative synthesis, including 22,977 patients receiving ICIs (with or without SoC). Prolonged ICI correlated with better overall survival (OS) than 2yICI in patients with melanoma (HR:1.55; 95%CI: 1.22,1.98), while 2yICI-SoC led to better OS than prolonged ICI-SoC in patients with NSCLC (HR: 0.84; 95%CI: 0.68,0.89). Prospective randomized trials are needed to assess the most appropriate duration of ICIs. OBJECTIVE: No clear evidence supports the advantage of fixed (up to two years (2yICI)) or continuous treatment (more than two years (prolonged ICI)) in cancer patients achieving stable disease or response on immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Here, we assessed the optimal treatment duration for ICIs in solid tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged ICIs administration does not seem to improve the outcomes of patients with NSCLC an RCC.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of immune checkpoint inhibitors as single agent or in combination with chemotherapy in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer: Impact of clinicopathological factors and indirect comparison between treatment strategies.

BACKGROUND: In non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) revolution is rapidly moving from metastatic to early-stage, however, the impact of clinicopathological variables and optimal treatment sequencing remain unclear. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in patients with early-stage NSCLC treated with ICI as single agent or in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy (PCT) were included. Primary outcomes were pathological complete response (pCR), event free survival (EFS) (neoadjuvant/perioperative), and disease-free survival (DFS) (adjuvant). Secondary outcomes were major pathological response (MPR), overall survival (OS), toxicity, surgical outcomes (neoadjuvant/perioperative); OS and toxicity (adjuvant). An additional secondary endpoint was to compare EFS and OS between neoadjuvant and perioperative strategies. RESULTS: 8 RCTs (2 neoadjuvant, 4 perioperative, 2 adjuvant) (4661 participants) were included. Neoadjuvant/perioperative ICI+PCT significantly improved pCR, EFS, OS, MPR and R0 resection compared to PCT. Adjuvant ICI significantly improved DFS compared to placebo. There was a significant subgroup interaction by PD-L1 status (χ2 = 10.72, P = 0.005), pCR (χ2 = 17.80, P < 0.0001), and stage (χ2 = 4.46, P = 0.003) for EFS. No difference according to PD-L1 status was found for pCR, with 14% of patients having PD-L1 negative tumors still experiencing a pCR. No interaction by PD-L1 status was found for DFS upon adjuvant ICI. Indirect comparison showed no difference in EFS and OS between neoadjuvant and perioperative ICI+PCT. CONCLUSIONS: PD-L1 status, pCR and stage impact on survival upon neoadjuvant/perioperative ICI. The restriction of neoadjuvant/perioperative ICI to PD-L1 + patients could preclude pCR and long-term benefit in the PD-L1- subgroup. Neoadjuvant and perioperative could be equivalent strategies.

A mono-institutional prospective study on the effectiveness of a specialist psychotherapeutic intervention (POI) started at the diagnosis of cancer.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the effectiveness of an early POI in newly diagnosed cancer patients in reducing the occurrence of psychiatric disturbances. METHODS: We designed a mono-institutional prospective study involving all new patients admitted to the Oncology Department of Fatebenefratelli and Ophtalmic Hospital in Milan from January 2005 until September 2008. During the first visit, the oncologist could offer support with a psycho-oncologist. The patients who accepted had a first interview (T0), during which they took a self-evaluation test (HADS, Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale). On the basis of the score, the psycho-oncologist could offer psychotherapy and/or pharmacological intervention, if necessary. At the end of the eight sessions (T1), the patient repeated the self-evaluation test with the HADS, and we analysed both the difference in the HADS score between T0 and T1 and the clinical evaluation of the psycho-oncologist. RESULTS: Three hundred eighteen patients were evaluated with a psychoanalytical psychotherapy approach by two psycho-oncologists through a first interview and 90 of them were eligible for the present study also for the evaluation of HADS. The average HADS score in T0 was 15.26 for depression (sd=3.21) and 13.86 for anxiety (sd = 2.05). The reassessment at the end of the psychotherapy (T1) showed an average HADS score of 5.94 for depression (sd = 3.11) and 6.58 for anxiety (sd = 2.88). Only five patients were treated with a pharmacological approach alone. CONCLUSIONS: Considering all the limits of our study, we may conclude that an early POI significantly reduces patients' psychiatric symptoms and the risk of a negative evolution of pathological situations in those patients who are motivated and express a need for psychological help.

Effects of goal-oriented care for adults with multimorbidity: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the evidence from randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of goal-oriented care against standard care for multimorbid adults. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: The literature presenting the results of randomized trials assessing the outcomes of goal-oriented care compared with usual care for adults with multimorbidity. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CENTRAL), EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINHAL, trial registries such as ClinicalTrial.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and the references of eligible trials and relevant reviews. Goal-oriented care was defined as an approach that engages patients, establishes personal goals, and sets targets for patients and clinicians to plan a course of action and measure outcome. We reviewed 228 trials, and 12 were included. We extracted outcome data on quality of life, hospital admission, patients' satisfaction, patient and caregiver burden. Risk of bias was assessed and certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: No study was fully free of bias. No effect was found on quality of life (standardized mean difference [SMD]: 0.05; 95% CI: -0.05 to 0.16) and hospital admission (risk ratio [RR]: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.65 to 1.17). There was a very small effect for patients' satisfaction (SMD: 0.15; 95% CI: 0.00 to 0.29) and caregiver burden (SMD: -0.13; 95% CI: -0.26 to 0.00). Certainty of evidence was low for all outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: No firm conclusions can be reached about the effects of goal-oriented care for multimorbid adults. Future research should overcome the shortcomings of trials assessed in this meta-analysis. Sound application of the indications for research of complex healthcare interventions is warranted.

Adherence of systematic reviews to Cochrane RoB2 guidance was frequently poor: a meta epidemiological study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether the use of the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (RoB2) in systematic reviews (SRs) adheres to RoB2 guidance. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library from 2019 to May 2021 to identify SRs using RoB2. We analyzed methods and results sections to see whether risk of bias was assessed at outcome measure level and applied to primary outcomes of the SR as per RoB2 guidance. The relation between SR characteristics and adequacy of RoB2 use was examined by logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Two hundred-eight SRs were included. We could assess adherence in 137 SRs as 12 declared using RoB2 but actually used RoB1 and 59 did not report the number of primary outcomes. The tool usage was adherent in 69.3% SRs. Considering SRs with multiple primary outcomes, adherence dropped to 28.8%. We found a positive association between RoB2 guidance adherence and the methodological quality of the reviews assessed by AMSTAR2 (p-for-trend 0.007). Multivariable regression analysis suggested journal impact factor [first quartile vs. other quartiles] was associated with RoB2 adherence (OR 0.34; 95% CI: 0.16-0.72). CONCLUSIONS: Many SRs did not adhere to RoB2 guidance as they applied the tool at the study level rather than at the outcome measure level. Lack of adherence was more likely among low and very low quality reviews.

PARP-inhibitors for BRCA1/2-related advanced HER2-negative breast cancer: A meta-analysis and GRADE recommendations by the Italian Association of Medical Oncology.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 5-10% of unselected breast cancer (BC) patients retain a hereditary predisposition related to a germline mutation in BRCA1/2 genes. The poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP)-inhibitors olaparib and talazoparib have been granted marketing authorization by both FDA and EMA for adults with BRCA1/2 germline mutations and HER2-negative (HER2-) advanced BC based on the results from the phase III OlympiAd and EMBRACA trials. METHODS: The panel of the Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM) Clinical Practice Guidelines on Breast Cancer addressed two critical clinical questions, adopting the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach and the Evidence to Decision framework (EtD), to develop recommendations on the use of PARP-inhibitors, with respect to single-agent chemotherapy, in patients with BRCA-related triple-negative (clinical question 1) and hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/HER2- (clinical question 2) advanced BC. RESULTS: Two studies were eligible (OlympiAd and EMBRACA). For both clinical questions, the Panel judged the benefit/harm balance probably in favor of the intervention, given the favorable impact in terms of PFS, ORR, and QoL at an acceptable cost in terms of toxicity; the overall certainty of the evidence was low. The panel's final recommendations were conditional in favor of PARP-inhibitors over single-agent chemotherapy in both HR+/HER2-and triple-negative BC. Finally, the Panel identified and discussed areas of uncertainty calling for further exploration. CONCLUSIONS: The Panel of AIOM BC Clinical Practice Guideline provided clinical recommendations on the use of PARP-inhibitors, with respect to single-agent chemotherapy, in patients with BRCA-related HER2-advanced BC by adopting the GRADE methodology.

[10 years of stagnant clinical research in the Italian academic context.] / Dieci anni di stagnazione della ricerca, non solo clinica, nel contesto accademico italiano.

This article is about current challenges to evidence-based medicine (EMB) in Italy. The authors, who share a 20-year commitment to the field of clinical research, discuss what they define as a phase of "stagnation" in practicing and teaching methods and research tactics, both in clinical and academic settings. Early success of EBM cultural movement was not persistent. The authors reason about how the teaching of EBM has remained a niche, concerning few professionals compared to the needs of the country. The authors identify some reasons that might have led to inconsistent attention to research methodology and address ways to strengthen the contribution of academic medicine to clinical research.

Comparative assessment of early mortality risk upon immune checkpoint inhibitors alone or in combination with other agents across solid malignancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The early crossing of survival curves in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) with immune checkpoint blockers suggests an excess of mortality in the first months of treatment. However, the exact estimation of the early death (ED) rate, the comparison between ED upon immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) alone or in combination with other agents and the impact of tumour type, and PD-L1 expression on ED are unknown. METHODS: RCTs comparing ICI alone (ICI-only group) or in combination with other non-ICI therapies (ICI-OT group) (experimental arms) versus non-ICI treatments (control arm) were included. ED was defined as death within the first 3 months of treatment. The primary outcome was the comparison of ED between experimental and control arms, and the secondary outcome was the comparison of ED risk between ICI-only and ICI-OT. ED rates estimated by risk ratio (RR) were pooled by random effect model. RESULTS: A total of 56 RCTs (40,215 participants, 14 cancer types) were included. ED occurred in 14.2% and 6.7% of patients in ICI-only and ICI-OT groups, respectively. ED risk significantly increased with ICI-only (RR: 1.29, 95% CI 1.05-1.57) versus non-ICI therapies, while it was lower with ICI-OT versus non-ICI treatments (RR: 0.81, 95% CI 0.73-0.90). ED risk was significantly higher upon ICI-only compared to ICI-OT (RR: 1.57, 95% CI 1.26-1.95). Gastric and urothelial carcinoma were at higher risk of ED. PD-L1 expression and ICI drug classes were not associated with ED. CONCLUSIONS: ED upon first-line ICI is a clinically relevant phenomenon across solid malignancies, not predictable by PD-L1 expression but preventable through the addition of other treatments to ICI.