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.

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.

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.

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.

Diagnostic Accuracy of MRI for Solid Renal Masses: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Biparametric (bp)-MRI and multiparametric (mp)-MRI may improve the diagnostic accuracy of renal mass histology. PURPOSE: To evaluate the available evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of bp-MRI and mp-MRI for solid renal masses in differentiating malignant from benign, aggressive from indolent, and clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) from other histology. STUDY TYPE: Systematic review. POPULATION: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL up to January 11, 2022 were searched. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 1.5 or 3 Tesla. ASSESSMENT: Eligible studies evaluated the accuracy of MRI (with at least two sequences: T2, T1, dynamic contrast and diffusion-weighted imaging) for diagnosis of solid renal masses in adult patients, using histology as reference standard. Risk of bias and applicability were assessed using QUADAS-2. STATISTICAL TESTS: Meta-analysis using a bivariate logitnormal random effects model. RESULTS: We included 10 studies (1239 masses from approximately 1200 patients). The risk of bias was high in three studies, unclear in five studies and low in two studies. The diagnostic accuracy of malignant (vs. benign) masses was assessed in five studies (64% [179/281] malignant). The summary estimate of sensitivity was 95% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 77%-99%), and specificity was 63% (95% CI: 46%-77%). No study assessed aggressive (vs. indolent) masses. The diagnostic accuracy of ccRCC (vs. other subtypes) was evaluated in six studies (47% [455/971] ccRCC): the summary estimate of sensitivity was 85% (95% CI: 77%-90%) and specificity was 77% (95% CI: 73%-81%). DATA CONCLUSION: Our study reveals deficits in the available evidence on MRI for diagnosis of renal mass histology. The number of studies was limited, at unclear/high risk of bias, with heterogeneous definitions of solid masses, imaging techniques, diagnostic criteria, and outcome measures. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.

Development of ileal adenomas after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis versus end ileostomy in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) undergo (procto)colectomy to prevent colorectal cancer from developing. Interestingly, after proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA), most patients develop adenomas in the pouch. This is not well described for patients with end ileostomy. We aimed to compare ileal adenoma development in patients with IPAA with those with end ileostomy. METHODS: This historical cohort study included FAP patients with IPAA or end ileostomy who underwent surveillance endoscopies between 2001 and 2021. Primary outcomes were the proportion of patients with ileal adenomas, location of adenomas, and proportion of patients undergoing surgical excision of pouch/end ileostomy. RESULTS: Overall, 144 patients with IPAA (n = 111) and end ileostomy (n = 33) were included. Five years after surgery, 15% of patients with IPAA had ileal adenomas versus 4% after ileostomy. At 10 years, these estimates were 48% versus 9% and at 20 years were 85% versus 43% (log-rank P < .001). Adenomas developed more often in the pouch body (95%) in the IPAA group and more often at the everted site of the ileostomy (77%) in the ileostomy group. Numbers for surgical excision of the pouch (n = 9) or ileostomy (n = 3) for polyposis or cancer were comparable. Taking into account potential confounders in a multivariable Cox regression analysis, having an IPAA was significantly associated with ileal adenoma development. CONCLUSIONS: After proctocolectomy, FAP patients with IPAA more often developed ileal adenomas than patients with end ileostomy. This could potentially affect long-term management, and patients with end ileostomy might benefit from less-frequent endoscopic surveillance.

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.

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.

TARGET-HF: developing a model for detecting incident heart failure among symptomatic patients in general practice using routine health care data.

BACKGROUND: Timely diagnosis of heart failure (HF) is essential to optimize treatment opportunities that improve symptoms, quality of life, and survival. While most patients consult their general practitioner (GP) prior to HF, the early stages of HF may be difficult to identify. An integrated clinical support tool may aid in identifying patients at high risk of HF. We therefore constructed a prediction model using routine health care data. METHODS: Our study involved a dynamic cohort of patients (≥35 years) who consulted their GP with either dyspnoea and/or peripheral oedema within the Amsterdam metropolitan area from 2011 to 2020. The outcome of interest was incident HF, verified by an expert panel. We developed a regularized, cause-specific multivariable proportional hazards model (TARGET-HF). The model was evaluated with bootstrapping on an isolated validation set and compared to an existing model developed with hospital insurance data as well as patient age as a sole predictor. RESULTS: Data from 31,905 patients were included (40% male, median age 60 years) of whom 1,301 (4.1%) were diagnosed with HF over 124,676 person-years of follow-up. Data were allocated to a development (n = 25,524) and validation (n = 6,381) set. TARGET-HF attained a C-statistic of 0.853 (95% CI, 0.834 to 0.872) on the validation set, which proved to provide a better discrimination than C = 0.822 for age alone (95% CI, 0.801 to 0.842, P < 0.001) and C = 0.824 for the hospital-based model (95% CI, 0.802 to 0.843, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The TARGET-HF model illustrates that routine consultation codes can be used to build a performant model to identify patients at risk for HF at the time of GP consultation.

Direct oral anticoagulants for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are an emerging treatment option for patients with cancer and acute venous thromboembolism (VTE), but studies have reported inconsistent results. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of DOACs and low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) in these patients. MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and conference proceedings were searched to identify relevant randomized controlled trials. Additional data were obtained from the original authors to homogenize definitions for all study outcomes. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were recurrent VTE and major bleeding, respectively. Other outcomes included the composite of recurrent VTE and major bleeding, clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (CRNMB), and all-cause mortality. Summary relative risks (RRs) were calculated in a random effects meta-analysis. In the primary analysis comprising 2607 patients, the risk of recurrent VTE was nonsignificantly lower with DOACs than with LMWHs (RR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.39-1.17). Conversely, the risks of major bleeding (RR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.55-3.35) and CRNMB (RR, 1.63; 95% CI, 0.73-3.64) were nonsignificantly higher. The risk of the composite of recurrent VTE or major bleeding was nonsignificantly lower with DOACs than with LMWHs (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.60-1.23). Mortality was comparable in both groups (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.68-1.36). Findings were consistent during the on-treatment period and in those with incidental VTE. In conclusion, DOACs are an effective treatment option for patients with cancer and acute VTE, although caution is needed in patients at high risk of bleeding.

Can hysterosalpingo-foam sonography replace hysterosalpingography as first-choice tubal patency test? A randomized non-inferiority trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Does hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) lead to similar pregnancy outcomes, compared with hysterosalpingography (HSG), as first-choice tubal patency test in infertile couples? SUMMARY ANSWER: HyFoSy and HSG produce similar findings in a majority of patients and clinical management based on the results of either HyFoSy or HSG, leads to comparable pregnancy outcomes. HyFoSy is experienced as significantly less painful. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Traditionally, tubal patency testing during fertility work-up is performed by HSG. HyFoSy is an alternative imaging technique lacking ionizing radiation and iodinated contrast medium exposure which is less expensive than HSG. Globally, there is a shift towards the use of office-based diagnostic methods, such as HyFoSy. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This multicentre, prospective, comparative study with a randomized design was conducted in 26 hospitals in The Netherlands. Participating women underwent both HyFoSy and HSG in randomized order. In case of discordant results, women were randomly allocated to either a management strategy based on HyFoSy or one based on HSG. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We included infertile women between 18 and 41 years old who were scheduled for tubal patency testing during their fertility work-up. Women with anovulatory cycles not responding to ovulation induction, endometriosis, severe male infertility or a known iodine contrast allergy were excluded. The primary outcome for the comparison of the HyFoSy- and HSG-based strategies was ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth within 12 months after inclusion in an intention-to-treat analysis. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Between May 2015 and January 2019, 1026 women underwent HyFoSy and HSG. HyFoSy was inconclusive in 97 of them (9.5%), HSG was inconclusive in 30 (2.9%) and both were inconclusive in 9 (0.9%). In 747 women (73%) conclusive tests results were concordant. Of the 143/1026 (14%) with discordant results, 105 were randomized to clinical management based on the results of either HyFoSy or HSG. In this group, 22 of the 54 women (41%) allocated to management based on HyFoSy and 25 of 51 women (49%) allocated to management based on HSG had an ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth (Difference -8%; 95% CI: -27% to 10%). In total, clinical management based on the results of HyFoSy was estimated to lead to a live birth in 474 of 1026 women (46%) versus 486 of 1026 (47%) for management based on HSG (Difference -1.2%; 95% CI: -3.4% to 1.5%). Given the pre-defined margin of -2%, statistically significant non-inferiority of HyFoSy relative to HSG could not be demonstrated (P = 0.27). The mean pain score for HyFoSy on the 1-10 Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was 3.1 (SD 2.2) and the mean VAS pain score for HSG was 5.4 (SD 2.5; P for difference < 0.001). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Since all women underwent both tubal patency tests, no conclusions on a direct therapeutic effect of tubal flushing could be drawn. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: HyFoSy or HSG produce similar tubal pathology findings in a majority of infertile couples and, where they differ, a difference in findings does not lead to substantial difference in pregnancy outcome, while HyFoSy is associated with significantly less pain. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The FOAM study was an investigator-initiated study funded by ZonMw, The Netherlands organization for Health Research and Development (project number 837001504). ZonMw funded the whole project. 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 speaker fees from Guerbet. F.J.M.B. reports personal fees as a member of the external advisory board for Merck Serono, The Netherlands, and a research support grant from Merck Serono, outside the submitted work. C.B.L. reports speakers' fee from Ferring in the past, and his department receives research grants from Ferring, Merck and Guerbet. J.S. reports a research agreement with Takeda on MR of motility outside the submitted work. M.V.W. reports leading The Netherlands Satellite of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. B.W.J.M. is supported by an NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT1176437). B.W.J.M. reports consultancy for Guerbet and research funding from Merck and Guerbet. V.M. reports non-financial support from IQ medicals ventures, during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from Guerbet, outside the submitted work. The other authors do not report conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR4746/NL4587 (https://www.trialregister.nl). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 19 August 2014. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 7 May 2015.

Novel classification for adverse events in GI endoscopy: the AGREE classification.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Standardized registration and evaluation of adverse events (AEs) are essential to assess the safety of endoscopic procedures. We propose a novel classification system, named adverse events in GI endoscopy (AGREE), adapted from a widely accepted surgical tool. METHODS: The Clavien-Dindo classification for surgical AEs was adapted for endoscopy. To validate the novel classification, we assessed if the severity of AEs, as perceived by 10 endoscopists, 10 endoscopy nurses, and 10 patients, corresponded with the severity grading used in the AGREE classification in 10 pairwise comparisons. We additionally assessed the correlation between the AGREE classification and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) classification. The acceptability of the AGREE classification was evaluated through an international questionnaire. RESULTS: The perception of endoscopists, endoscopy nurses, and patients corresponded with the severity grading of the AGREE classification in 80% of cases (238/299). The AGREE classification significantly correlated with the ASGE classification (ρ = .760). Fifty-seven of 84 experts (68%) completed a questionnaire regarding the acceptability of the AGREE classification. The experts consulted considered the AGREE classification as simple (86%), reproducible (98%), logical (98%), and useful (96%). Most case presentations (84%) were correctly graded according to the AGREE classification. CONCLUSIONS: The AGREE classification provides a standardized and reproducible approach to the assessment of AEs in diagnostic and therapeutic GI endoscopy. Broad implementation of the AGREE classification may facilitate the evaluation of AEs across different endoscopists, disciplines, endoscopy services, and regions. This standardization of AE reporting will support improved quality assurance in GI endoscopy.

QUADAS-C: A Tool for Assessing Risk of Bias in Comparative Diagnostic Accuracy Studies.

Comparative diagnostic test accuracy studies assess and compare the accuracy of 2 or more tests in the same study. Although these studies have the potential to yield reliable evidence regarding comparative accuracy, shortcomings in the design, conduct, and analysis may bias their results. The currently recommended quality assessment tool for diagnostic test accuracy studies, QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2), is not designed for the assessment of test comparisons. The QUADAS-C (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-Comparative) tool was developed as an extension of QUADAS-2 to assess the risk of bias in comparative diagnostic test accuracy studies. Through a 4-round Delphi study involving 24 international experts in test evaluation and a face-to-face consensus meeting, an initial version of the tool was developed that was revised and finalized following a pilot study among potential users. The QUADAS-C tool retains the same 4-domain structure of QUADAS-2 (Patient Selection, Index Test, Reference Standard, and Flow and Timing) and comprises additional questions to each QUADAS-2 domain. A risk-of-bias judgment for comparative accuracy requires a risk-of-bias judgment for the accuracy of each test (resulting from QUADAS-2) and additional criteria specific to test comparisons. Examples of such additional criteria include whether participants either received all index tests or were randomly assigned to index tests, and whether index tests were interpreted with blinding to the results of other index tests. The QUADAS-C tool will be useful for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy addressing comparative questions. Furthermore, researchers may use this tool to identify and avoid risk of bias when designing a comparative diagnostic test accuracy study.

Endoscopic management of duodenal adenomas in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Almost all patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) develop duodenal adenomas, with a 4% to 18% risk of progression into duodenal cancer. Prophylactic endoscopic resection of duodenal adenomas may prevent cancer and is considered safer than surgical alternatives; however, data are limited. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess safety and effectiveness of endoscopic duodenal interventions in patients with FAP. METHODS: We performed a historical cohort study including patients with FAP who underwent an endoscopic duodenal intervention between 2002 and 2018. Safety was defined as adverse event rate per intervention and effectiveness as duodenal surgery-free and duodenal cancer-free survival. Change in Spigelman stage was assessed as a secondary outcome. RESULTS: In 68 endoscopy sessions, 139 duodenal polypectomies were performed in 49 patients (20 men; median age, 43). Twenty-nine patients (14 men; median age, 49) underwent a papillectomy. After polypectomy, 9 (13%) bleedings and 1 (2%) perforation occurred, all managed endoscopically. Six (21%) bleedings (endoscopically managed), 4 (14%) cases of pancreatitis, and 1 (3%) perforation (conservatively treated) occurred after papillectomy. Duodenal surgery-free survival was 74% at 89 months after polypectomy and 71% at 71 months after papillectomy; no duodenal cancers were observed. After a median of 18 months (interquartile range, 10-40; range, 3-121) after polypectomy, Spigelman stages were significantly lower (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: In our FAP patients, prophylactic duodenal polypectomies were relatively safe. Papillectomies showed substantial adverse events, suggesting its benefits and risk should be carefully weighted. Both were effective, however, because surgical interventions were limited and none developed duodenal cancer.

Implementation of the new EU IVD regulation - urgent initiatives are needed to avert impending crisis.

Laboratory medicine in the European Union is at the dawn of a regulatory revolution as it reaches the end of the transition from IVDD 98/79/EC (https://eur-lex.eur-opa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A31998L0079&qid=1628781352814) to IVDR 2017/746 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2017/746. Without amendments and contingency plans, implementation of the IVDR in May 2022 will lead the healthcare sector into uncharted waters due to unpreparedness of the EU regulatory infrastructure. Prospective risk analyses were not made by the European Commission, and if nothing happens it can be anticipated that the consequences will impact all stakeholders of the medical test pipeline, may seriously harm patients and may prevent caregivers from making appropriate clinical decisions due to non-availability of medical tests. Finally, it also may discourage manufacturers and academia from developing specialty tests, thereby hampering innovation in medical diagnostic care. We hereby inform laboratory professionals about the imminent diagnostic collapse using testimonies from representative stakeholders of the diagnostic supply chain and from academia developing innovative in-house tests in domains of unmet clinical needs. Steps taken by the EFLM Task Force on European Regulatory Affairs, under the umbrella of the Biomedical Alliance in Europe, will be highlighted, as well as the search for solutions through dialogue with the European Commission. Although we recognize that the IVDR promotes positive goals such as increased clinical evidence, surveillance, and transparency, we need to ensure that the capabilities of the diagnostic sector are not damaged by infrastructural unpreparedness, while at the same time being forced to submit to a growing bureaucratic and unsupportive structure that will not support its "droit d'exister".

Addition of an online, validated family history questionnaire to the Dutch FIT-based screening programme did not improve its diagnostic yield.

BACKGROUND: Faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) is suboptimal in detecting advanced neoplasia (AN). To increase the sensitivity and yield of a FIT-based screening programme, FIT could be combined with risk factors for AN. We evaluated the incremental yield of adding a family history questionnaire (FHQ) on colorectal cancer (CRC) and Lynch syndrome-associated tumours to the Dutch FIT-based screening programme. METHODS: Six thousand screen-naive individuals, aged 59-75 years, were invited to complete a FIT (FOB-Gold, cut-off 47 µg Hb/g faeces) and a validated online FHQ. Participants with a positive FIT and/or positive FHQ, confirmed after genetic counselling, were referred for colonoscopy. Yield of detecting AN per 1000 invitees for the combined strategy was compared with the FIT-only strategy. RESULTS: Of the 5979 invitees, 1952 (32.6%) completed the FIT only, 2379 (39.8%) completed both the FIT and FHQ and 95 (1.6%) completed the FHQ only. Addition of the FHQ to FIT-based screening resulted in one extra case of AN detected after 16 additional colonoscopies, resulting in a yield of 19.6 (95% CI, 16.4-23.5) for the combined strategy versus 19.5 (95% CI, 16.3-23.3) for the FIT-only strategy (p = 1.0). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of an FHQ to one round of FIT screening did not increase the detection of AN compared with FIT only (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02698462).

Yield of Screening for COVID-19 in Asymptomatic Patients Before Elective or Emergency Surgery Using Chest CT and RT-PCR (SCOUT): Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the yield of preoperative screening for COVID-19 with chest CT and RT-PCR in patients without COVID-19 symptoms. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Many centers are currently screening surgical patients for COVID-19 using either chest CT, RT-PCR or both, due to the risk for worsened surgical outcomes and nosocomial spread. The optimal design and yield of such a strategy are currently unknown. METHODS: This multicenter study included consecutive adult patients without COVID-19 symptoms who underwent preoperative screening using chest CT and RT-PCR before elective or emergency surgery under general anesthesia. RESULTS: A total of 2093 patients without COVID-19 symptoms were included in 14 participating centers; 1224 were screened by CT and RT-PCR and 869 by chest CT only. The positive yield of screening using a combination of chest CT and RT-PCR was 1.5% [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.8-2.1]. Individual yields were 0.7% (95% CI: 0.2-1.1) for chest CT and 1.1% (95% CI: 0.6-1.7) for RT-PCR; the incremental yield of chest CT was 0.4%. In relation to COVID-19 community prevalence, up to ∼6% positive RT-PCR was found for a daily hospital admission rate >1.5 per 100,000 inhabitants, and around 1.0% for lower prevalence. CONCLUSIONS: One in every 100 patients without COVID-19 symptoms tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 with RT-PCR; this yield increased in conjunction with community prevalence. The added value of chest CT was limited. Preoperative screening allowed us to take adequate precautions for SARS-CoV-2 positive patients in a surgical population, whereas negative patients needed only routine procedures.

Diagnostic Yield of One-Time Colonoscopy vs One-Time Flexible Sigmoidoscopy vs Multiple Rounds of Mailed Fecal Immunohistochemical Tests in Colorectal Cancer Screening.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: We compared the diagnostic yields of colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. METHODS: A total of 30,007 asymptomatic persons, 50-74 years old, were invited for CRC screening in the Netherlands. Participants were assigned to groups that received 4 rounds of FIT (mailed to 15,046 participants), once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy (n = 8407), or once-only colonoscopy (n = 6600). Patients with positive results from the FIT (≥10 µg Hb/g feces) were referred for colonoscopy. Patients who underwent flexible sigmoidoscopy were referred for colonoscopy if they had a polyp of ≥10 mm; adenoma with ≥25% villous histology or high-grade dysplasia; sessile serrated adenoma; ≥3 adenomas; ≥20 hyperplastic polyps; or invasive CRC. The primary outcome was number of advanced neoplasia detected (diagnostic yield) by each test. Secondary outcomes were number of colonoscopies needed to detect advanced neoplasia and number of interval CRCs found during each primary screening test. Patients with interval CRCs were found through linkage with Netherlands Cancer Registry. Advanced neoplasia were defined as CRC, adenomas ≥ 10 mm, adenomas with high-grade dysplasia, or adenomas with a villous component of at least 25%. RESULTS: The cumulative participation rate was significantly higher for FIT screening (73%) than for flexible sigmoidoscopy (31%; P < .001) or colonoscopy (24%; P < .001). The percentage of colonoscopies among invitees was higher for colonoscopy (24%) compared to FIT (13%; P < .001) or flexible sigmoidoscopy (3%; P < .001). In the intention to screen analysis, the cumulative diagnostic yield of advanced neoplasia was higher with FIT screening (4.5%; 95% CI 4.2-4.9) than with colonoscopy (2.2%; 95% CI, 1.8-2.6) or flexible sigmoidoscopy (2.3%; 95% CI, 2.0-2.7). In the as-screened analysis, the cumulative yield of advanced neoplasia was higher for endoscopic screening with colonoscopy (9.1%; 95% CI, 7.7-10.7) or flexible sigmoidoscopy (7.4%; 95% CI, 6.5-8.5) than with the FIT (6.1%; 95% CI, 5.7-6.6). All 3 screening strategies detected a similar proportion of patients with CRC. Follow-up times differed for each test (median 8.3 years for FIT and flexible sigmoidoscopy and 5.8 years for colonoscopy). Proportions of patients that developed interval CRC were 0.13% for persons with a negative result from FIT, 0.09% for persons with a negative result from flexible sigmoidoscopy, and 0.01% for persons with a negative result from colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Mailed multiple-round FITs detect significantly more advanced neoplasia, on a population level, compared with once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy screening. Significantly fewer colonoscopies are required by individuals screened by multiple FITs. Trialregister.nl numbers: first round, NTR1096; second round and additional invitees, NTR1512; fourth round, NTR5874; COCOS trial NTR1829.

Diagnostic accuracy of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) to differentiate uric acid from non-uric acid calculi: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Uric acid stone diagnosis is presently done primarily with in vitro analysis of stones. In vivo diagnosis with dual-energy CT (DECT) would allow earlier initiation of therapy with urine alkalinization and avoid surgical intervention. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if DECT, using stone analysis as reference standard, is sufficiently accurate to replace stone analysis for diagnosis of uric acid stones. METHODS: Original studies in patients with urolithiasis examined with DECT with stone analysis as the reference standard were eligible for inclusion. MEDLINE (1946-2018), Embase (1947-2018), CENTRAL (August 2018), and multiple urology and radiology conferences were searched. QUADAS-2 was used to assess risk of bias and applicability. Meta-analyses were performed using a bivariate random-effects model. RESULTS: A total of 21 studies (1105 patients, 1442 stones) were included. Fourteen studies containing 662 patients (944 stones) were analyzed in the uric acid dominant target condition (majority of stone composition uric acid): mean sensitivity was 0.88 (95% CI 0.79-0.93) and specificity 0.98 (95% CI 0.96-0.99). Thirteen studies (674 patients, 760 stones) were analyzed in the uric acid-containing target condition (< majority of stone composition uric acid): mean sensitivity was 0.82 (95% CI 0.73-0.89) and specificity 0.97 (95% CI 0.94-0.98). Meta-regression showed no significant variability in test accuracy. Two studies had one or more domains at high risk of bias and there were no concerns regarding applicability. CONCLUSION: DECT is an accurate replacement test for diagnosis of uric acid calculi in vivo, such that stone analysis could be replaced in the diagnostic pathway. This would enable earlier initiation of urine alkalinization. KEY POINTS: • DECT for uric acid dominant stones has sensitivity of 0.88 (95% CI 0.79-0.93) and specificity of 0.98 (95% CI 0.96-0.99); uric acid-containing stones had mean sensitivity of 0.82 (95% CI 0.73-0.89) and specificity of 0.97 (95% CI 0.94-0.98). • Meta-regression did not identify any variables (study design, reference standard, dual-energy CT type, dose, risk of bias) that influenced test accuracy. • Only 2 of the 21 included studies had 1 or more domain considered to be at high risk of bias with the majority of domains considered at low risk of bias; there were no concerns regarding applicability in any of the included studies.