Congress of Neurological Surgeons systematic review and evidence-based guidelines update on the role of targeted therapies and immunotherapies in the management of progressive glioblastoma.

The following questions and recommendations are pertinent to the following: TARGET POPULATION: These recommendations apply to adults with progressive GBM who have undergone standard primary treatment with surgery and/or chemoradiation. QUESTION 1: In adults with progressive glioblastoma is the use of bevacizumab as monotherapy superior to standard salvage cytotoxic chemotherapy as measured by progression free survival and overall survival? RECOMMENDATION: Level III: Treatment with bevacizumab is suggested in the treatment of progressive GBM, as it provides improved disease control compared to historical controls as measured by best imaging response and progression free survival at 6 months, while not providing evidence for improvement in overall survival. QUESTION 2: In adults with progressive glioblastoma is the use of bevacizumab as combination therapy with cytotoxic agents superior to standard salvage cytotoxic chemotherapy as measured by progression free survival and overall survival? RECOMMENDATION: Level III: There is insufficient evidence to show benefit or harm of bevacizumab in combination with cytotoxic therapies in progressive glioblastoma due to a lack of evidence supporting a clearly defined benefit without significant toxicity. QUESTION 3: In adults with progressive glioblastoma is the use of bevacizumab as a combination therapy with targeted agents superior to standard salvage cytotoxic chemotherapy as measured by progression free survival and overall survival? RECOMMENDATION: There is insufficient evidence to support a recommendation regarding this question. QUESTION 4: In adults with progressive glioblastoma is the use of targeted agents as monotherapy superior to standard salvage cytotoxic chemotherapy as measured by progression free survival and overall survival? RECOMMENDATION: There is insufficient evidence to support a recommendation regarding this question. QUESTION 5: In adults with progressive glioblastoma is the use of targeted agents in combination with cytotoxic therapies superior to standard salvage cytotoxic chemotherapy as measured by progression free survival and overall survival? RECOMMENDATION: There is insufficient evidence to support a recommendation regarding this question. QUESTION 6: In adults with progressive glioblastoma is the use of immunotherapy monotherapy superior to standard salvage cytotoxic chemotherapy as measured by progression free survival and overall survival? RECOMMENDATION: There is insufficient evidence to support a recommendation regarding this question. QUESTION 7: In adults with progressive glioblastoma is the use of immunotherapy in combination with targeted agents superior to standard salvage cytotoxic chemotherapy as measured by progression free survival and overall survival? RECOMMENDATION: There is insufficient evidence to support a recommendation regarding this question. QUESTION 8: In adults with progressive glioblastoma is the use of immunotherapy in combination with bevacizumab superior to standard salvage cytotoxic chemotherapy as measured by progression free survival and overall survival? RECOMMENDATION: There is insufficient evidence to support a recommendation regarding this question.

Impact of the 2016 ASE/EACVI Guidelines on diastolic function reporting in routine clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of 2016 ASE/EACVI guidelines on Diastolic Function (DF) reporting during routine clinical practice. METHODS: Transthoracic echos performed 9 months before and 18 months after the 2016 guidelines (DF2016) were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: Twenty thousand eight hundred forty three echos performed between July 1, 2015, and September 30, 2017, were analyzed. Quarterly trends showed a stable proportion of normal DF (nDF), diastolic dysfunction (DD), indeterminate DF (DF-I), and nonreported DF (DF-NR) for 3 quarters preceding DF2016. After DF2016 release, reporting of DD decreased by 57% (P < .001), nDF increased by 76% (P < .001), DF-NR increased by 266% (P < .001), and DF-I did not change significantly (P = .40). Grade 1 DD decreased by 64% (P < .001), grade 2 DD decreased by 51% (P < .001), and grade 3 DD did not change significantly (P = .18). Provider level analysis showed increased heterogeneity in grade 1 DD reporting and decreased heterogeneity in DD grades 2 or higher, after DF2016. Systolic dysfunction reporting remained relatively stable (22%→21%→20%) compared to a significant decrease in isolated DD (35%→21%→10%). CONCLUSION: The 2016 guidelines update has impacted DF reporting patterns significantly. The likelihood of reporting DD decreased significantly, especially for grades 1 and 2. Inter-provider heterogeneity in DF reporting improved for grades 2 and 3 but worsened for grade 1. There was more than threefold increase in failure to report DF, suggesting a decrease in provider confidence.

Efficiency and comparability of using new evidence platforms for updating recommendations: Experience with a type-2 diabetes guideline in Colombia.

Introduction: Updating recommendations for guidelines requires a comprehensive and efficient literature search. Although new information platforms are available for developing groups, their relative contributions to this purpose remain uncertain. Methods: As part of a review/update of eight selected evidence-based recommendationsfor type 2 diabetes, we evaluated the following five literature search approaches (targeting systematic reviews, using predetermined criteria): PubMed for MEDLINE, Epistemonikos database basic search, Epistemonikos database using a structured search strategy, Living overview of evidence (L.OVE) platform, and TRIP database. Three reviewers independently classified the retrieved references as definitely eligible, probably eligible, or not eligible. Those falling in the same "definitely" categories for all reviewers were labelled as "true" positives/negatives. The rest went to re-assessment and if found eligible/not eligible by consensus became "false" negatives/positives, respectively. We described the yield for each approach and computed "diagnostic accuracy" measures and agreement statistics. Results: Altogether, the five approaches identified 318 to 505 references for the eight recommendations, from which reviewers considered 4.2 to 9.4% eligible after the two rounds. While Pubmed outperformed the other approaches (diagnostic odds ratio 12.5 versus 2.6 to 5.3), no single search approach returned eligible references for all recommendations. Individually, searches found up to 40% of all eligible references (n = 71), and no combination of any three approaches could find over 80% of them. Kappa statistics for retrieval between searches were very poor (9 out of 10 paired comparisons did not surpass the chance-expected agreement). Conclusion: Among the information platforms assessed, PubMed appeared to be more efficient in updating this set of recommendations. However, the very poor agreement among search approaches in the reference yield demands that developing groups add information from several (probably more than three) sources for this purpose. Further research is needed to replicate our findings and enhance our understanding of how to efficiently update recommendations.

Introducción: La actualización de recomendaciones de las guías de práctica clínica requiere búsquedas bibliográficas exhaustivas y eficientes. Aunque están disponibles nuevas plataformas de información para grupos desarrolladores, su contribución a este propósito sigue siendo incierta. Métodos: Como parte de una revisión/actualización de 8 recomendaciones basadas en evidencia seleccionadas sobre diabetes tipo 2, evaluamos las siguientes cinco aproximaciones de búsqueda bibliográfica (dirigidas a revisiones sistemáticas, utilizando criterios predeterminados): PubMed para MEDLINE; Epistemonikos utilizando una búsqueda básica; Epistemonikos utilizando una estrategia de búsqueda estructurada; plataforma (L.OVE) y TRIP . Tres revisores clasificaron de forma independiente las referencias recuperadas como definitivamente o probablemente elegibles/no elegibles. Aquellas clasificadas en las mismas categorías "definitivas" para todos los revisores, se etiquetaron como "verdaderas" positivas/negativas. El resto se sometieron a una nueva evaluación y, si se consideraban por consenso elegibles/no elegibles, se convirtieron en "falsos" negativos/positivos, respectivamente. Describimos el rendimiento de cada aproximación, junto a sus medidas de "precisión diagnóstica" y las estadísticas de acuerdo. Resultados: En conjunto, las cinco aproximaciones identificaron 318-505 referencias para las 8 recomendaciones, de las cuales los revisores consideraron elegibles el 4,2 a 9,4% tras las dos rondas. Mientras que Pubmed superó a las otras aproximaciones (odds ratio de diagnóstico 12,5 versus 2,6 a 53), ninguna aproximación de búsqueda identificó por sí misma referencias elegibles para todas las recomendaciones. Individualmente, las búsquedas identificaron hasta el 40% de todas las referencias elegibles (n=71), y ninguna combinación de cualquiera de los tres enfoques pudo identificar más del 80% de ellas. Las estadísticas Kappa para la recuperación entre búsquedas fueron muy pobres (9 de cada 10 comparaciones pareadas no superaron el acuerdo esperado por azar). Conclusiones: Entre las plataformas de información evaluadas, Pubmed parece ser la más eficiente para actualizar este conjunto de recomendaciones. Sin embargo, la escasa concordancia en el rendimiento de las referencias exige que los grupos desarrolladores incorporen información de varias fuentes (probablemente más de tres) para este fin. Es necesario seguir investigando para replicar nuestros hallazgos y mejorar nuestra comprensión de cómo actualizar recomendaciones de forma eficiente.

Reclassification of Adolescent Ambulatory Prehypertension and Unclassified Blood Pressures by 2022 American Heart Association Pediatric Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring Guidelines.

Background: The 2022 American Heart Association (AHA) pediatric ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) guidelines eliminated the prehypertension phenotype and blood pressure loads in ABPM interpretation criteria. Adolescents who were prehypertensive or unclassified according to the 2014 AHA pediatric ABPM guidelines will be reclassified as having hypertension or normotension. The epidemiology and association of reclassification phenotype with target organ damage (TOD) is not yet known. Methods: A single center retrospective review of adolescents ages 13-21 years old between 2015-2022 was performed. Adolescents diagnosed with prehypertension or unclassified by the 2014 AHA pediatric ABPM guidelines were reclassified by the 2022 definitions. Logistic regression models adjusted for body mass index z-score evaluated the association of reclassification phenotype with left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH). Results: Among 88 adolescents with prehypertension, 68% (N = 60) were reclassified as hypertensive. The majority (58%, N = 35) of hypertensive reclassification was based on isolated nocturnal blood pressures ≥ 110/65 mmHg. Taller males were more likely to reclassify as hypertensive. Adolescents reclassified as hypertensive had a greater-than-six-fold increased odds of LVH in adjusted models [OR 6.4 95%CI 1.2-33.0, p = 0.027]. Of 40 adolescents with unclassified blood pressures, 37.5% (N = 15) reclassified to normotension. There were no significant clinical or demographic variables associated with reclassification category nor was there an association with LVH. Conclusions: The new ABPM guidelines effectively reclassify adolescents who were previously prehypertensive as normotensive or hypertensive based on risk of TOD. Further studies are needed to describe the long-term outcomes of ABPM phenotypes with the implementation of these guidelines.

Efficiency and comparability of using new evidence platforms for updating recommendations: Experience with a type-2 diabetes guideline in Colombia / Eficiencia y comparabilidad del uso de nuevas plataformas de evidencia para la actualización de recomendaciones: experiencia con una guía de diabetes tipo 2 en Colombia

Introduction Updating recommendations for guidelines requires a comprehensive and efficient literature search. Although new information platforms are available for developing groups, their relative contributions to this purpose remain uncertain. Methods As part of a review/update of eight selected evidence-based recommendationsfor type 2 diabetes, we evaluated the following five literature search approaches (targeting systematic reviews, using predetermined criteria): PubMed for MEDLINE, Epistemonikos database basic search, Epistemonikos database using a structured search strategy, Living overview of evidence (L.OVE) platform, and TRIP database. Three reviewers independently classified the retrieved references as definitely eligible, probably eligible, or not eligible. Those falling in the same "definitely" categories for all reviewers were labelled as "true" positives/negatives. The rest went to re-assessment and if found eligible/not eligible by consensus became "false" negatives/positives, respectively. We described the yield for each approach and computed "diagnostic accuracy" measures and agreement statistics. Results Altogether, the five approaches identified 318 to 505 references for the eight recommendations, from which reviewers considered 4.2 to 9.4% eligible after the two rounds. While Pubmed outperformed the other approaches (diagnostic odds ratio 12.5 versus 2.6 to 5.3), no single search approach returned eligible references for all recommendations. Individually, searches found up to 40% of all eligible references (n = 71), and no combination of any three approaches could find over 80% of them. Kappa statistics for retrieval between searches were very poor (9 out of 10 paired comparisons did not surpass the chance-expected agreement). Conclusion Among the information platforms assessed, PubMed appeared to be more efficient in updating this set of recommendations. However, the very poor agreement among search approaches in the reference yield demands that developing groups add information from several (probably more than three) sources for this purpose. Further research is needed to replicate our findings and enhance our understanding of how to efficiently update recommendations.

Introducción La actualización de recomendaciones de las guías de práctica clínica requiere búsquedas bibliográficas exhaustivas y eficientes. Aunque están disponibles nuevas plataformas de información para grupos desarrolladores, su contribución a este propósito sigue siendo incierta. Métodos Como parte de una revisión/actualización de 8 recomendaciones basadas en evidencia seleccionadas sobre diabetes tipo 2, evaluamos las siguientes cinco aproximaciones de búsqueda bibliográfica (dirigidas a revisiones sistemáticas, utilizando criterios predeterminados): PubMed para MEDLINE; Epistemonikos utilizando una búsqueda básica; Epistemonikos utilizando una estrategia de búsqueda estructurada; plataforma (L.OVE) y TRIP . Tres revisores clasificaron de forma independiente las referencias recuperadas como definitivamente o probablemente elegibles/no elegibles. Aquellas clasificadas en las mismas categorías "definitivas" para todos los revisores, se etiquetaron como "verdaderas" positivas/negativas. El resto se sometieron a una nueva evaluación y, si se consideraban por consenso elegibles/no elegibles, se convirtieron en "falsos" negativos/positivos, respectivamente. Describimos el rendimiento de cada aproximación, junto a sus medidas de "precisión diagnóstica" y las estadísticas de acuerdo. Resultados En conjunto, las cinco aproximaciones identificaron 318-505 referencias para las 8 recomendaciones, de las cuales los revisores consideraron elegibles el 4,2 a 9,4% tras las dos rondas. Mientras que Pubmed superó a las otras aproximaciones (odds ratio de diagnóstico 12,5 versus 2,6 a 53), ninguna aproximación de búsqueda identificó por sí misma referencias elegibles para todas las recomendaciones. Individualmente, las búsquedas identificaron hasta el 40% de todas las referencias elegibles (n=71), y ninguna combinación de cualquiera de los tres enfoques pudo identificar más del 80% de ellas. Las estadísticas Kappa para la recuperación entre búsquedas fueron muy pobres (9 de cada 10 comparaciones pareadas no superaron el acuerdo esperado por azar). Conclusiones Entre las plataformas de información evaluadas, Pubmed parece ser la más eficiente para actualizar este conjunto de recomendaciones. Sin embargo, la escasa concordancia en el rendimiento de las referencias exige que los grupos desarrolladores incorporen información de varias fuentes (probablemente más de tres) para este fin. Es necesario seguir investigando para replicar nuestros hallazgos y mejorar nuestra comprensión de cómo actualizar recomendaciones de forma eficiente.