Newer Pharmacologic Treatments in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis for the American College of Physicians.

BACKGROUND: Newer diabetes medications may have beneficial effects on mortality, cardiovascular outcomes, and renal outcomes. PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness, comparative effectiveness, and harms of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP1) agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors, and long-acting insulins as monotherapy or combination therapy in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from 2010 through January 2023. STUDY SELECTION: RCTs lasting at least 52 weeks that included at least 500 adults with T2DM receiving eligible medications and reported any outcomes of interest. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were abstracted by 1 reviewer and verified by a second. Independent, dual assessments of risk of bias and certainty of evidence (CoE) were done. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 130 publications from 84 RCTs were identified. CoE was appraised using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria for direct, indirect, and network meta-analysis (NMA); the highest CoE was reported. Compared with usual care, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists reduce all-cause mortality (high CoE) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (moderate to high CoE), SGLT2 inhibitors reduce progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and heart failure hospitalizations and GLP1 agonists reduce stroke (high CoE), and SGLT2 inhibitors reduce serious adverse events and severe hypoglycemia (high CoE). The threshold for minimally important differences, which was predefined with the American College of Physicians Clinical Guidelines Committee, was not met for these outcomes. Compared with usual care, insulin, tirzepatide, and DPP4 inhibitors do not reduce all-cause mortality (low to high CoE). Compared with insulin, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists reduce all-cause mortality (low to moderate CoE). Compared with DPP4 inhibitors, GLP1 agonists reduce all-cause mortality (moderate CoE). Compared with DPP4 inhibitors and sulfonylurea (SU), SGLT2 inhibitors reduce MACE (moderate to high CoE). Compared with SU and insulin, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists reduce severe hypoglycemia (low to high CoE). LIMITATIONS: Infrequent direct comparisons between drugs of interest; sparse data for NMA on most outcomes; possible incoherence due to differences in baseline patient characteristics and usual care; insufficient data on predefined subgroups, including demographic subgroups, patients with prior cardiovascular disease, and treatment-naive persons. CONCLUSION: In adults with T2DM, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists (but not DPP4 inhibitors, insulin, or tirzepatide) reduce all-cause mortality and MACE compared with usual care. SGLT2 inhibitors reduce CKD progression and heart failure hospitalization and GLP1 agonists reduce stroke compared with usual care. Serious adverse events and severe hypoglycemia are less frequent with SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists than with insulin or SU. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42022322129).

Cost-Effectiveness of Newer Pharmacologic Treatments in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Studies for the American College of Physicians.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, costs of antidiabetes medications exceed $327 billion. PURPOSE: To systematically review cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of newer antidiabetes medications for type 2 diabetes. DATA SOURCES: Bibliographic databases from 1 January 2010 through 13 July 2023, limited to English. STUDY SELECTION: Nonindustry-funded CEAs, done from a U.S. perspective that estimated cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for newer antidiabetic medications. Two reviewers screened the literature; disagreements were resolved with a third reviewer. DATA EXTRACTION: Cost-effectiveness analyses were reviewed for treatment comparisons, model inputs, and outcomes. Risk of bias (RoB) of the CEAs was assessed using Drummond criteria and certainty of evidence (CoE) was assessed using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluations). Certainty of evidence was determined using cost per QALY thresholds predetermined by the American College of Physicians Clinical Guidelines Committee; low (>$150 000), intermediate ($50 to $150 000), or high (<$50 000) value per QALY compared with the alternative. DATA SYNTHESIS: Nine CEAs were eligible (2 low, 1 high, and 6 some concerns RoB), evaluating glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists (GLP1a), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide agonist (GIP/GLP1a), and insulin. Comparators were metformin, sulfonylureas, neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin, and others. Compared with metformin, GLP1a and SGLT2i are low value as first-line therapy (high CoE) but may be of intermediate value when added to metformin or background therapy compared with adding nothing (low CoE). Insulin analogues may be similarly effective but more expensive than NPH insulin (low CoE). The GIP/GLP1a value is uncertain (insufficient CoE). LIMITATIONS: Cost-effectiveness analyses varied in methodological approach, assumptions, and drug comparisons. Risk of bias and GRADE method for CEAs are not well established. CONCLUSION: Glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists and SGLT2i are of low value as first-line therapy but may be of intermediate value when added to metformin or other background therapy compared with adding nothing. Other drugs and comparisons are of low or uncertain value. Results are sensitive to drug effectiveness and cost assumptions. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42022382315).

Estimating the Effect of Radical Prostatectomy: Combining Data From the SPCG4 and PIVOT Randomized Trials With Contemporary Cohorts.

PURPOSE: Two randomized trials (SPCG4 and PIVOT) have compared surgery to conservative management for localized prostate cancer. The applicability of these trials to contemporary practice remains uncertain. We aimed to develop an individualized prediction model for prostate cancer mortality comparing immediate surgery at a high-volume center to active surveillance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We determined whether the relative risk of prostate cancer mortality with surgery vs observation varied by baseline risk. We then used various estimates of relative risk to estimate 15-year mortality with and without surgery using, as a predictor, risk of biochemical recurrence calculated from a model. RESULTS: We saw no evidence that relative risk varied by baseline risk, supporting the use of a constant relative risk. Compared with observation, surgery was associated with negligible benefit for patients with Grade Group (GG) 1 disease (0.2% mortality reduction at 15 years) and small benefit for patients with GG2 with lower PSA and stage (≤5% mortality reduction). Benefit was greater (6%-9%) for patients with GG3 or GG4 though still modest, but effect estimates varied widely depending on choice of hazard ratio for surgery (6%-36% absolute risk reduction). CONCLUSIONS: Surgery should be avoided for men with low-risk (GG1) prostate cancer and for many men with GG2 disease. Surgical benefits are greater in men with higher-risk disease. Integration of findings with a life expectancy model will allow patients to make informed treatment decisions given their oncologic risk, risk of death from other causes, and estimated effects of surgery.

Management of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Attributed to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH): AUA Guideline Amendment 2023.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this American Urological Association (AUA) Guideline amendment is to provide a useful reference on the effective evidence-based management of male lower urinary tract symptoms secondary/attributed to BPH (LUTS/BPH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Minnesota Evidence Review Team searched Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) database to identify studies relevant to the management of BPH. The guideline was updated in 2023 to capture eligible literature published between September 2020 and October 2022. When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence was assigned a strength rating of A (high), B (moderate), or C (low) for support of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendations. In the absence of sufficient evidence, additional information is provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions. RESULTS: The BPH amendment resulted in changes to statements/supporting text on combination therapy, photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP), water vapor thermal therapy (WVTT), laser enucleation, and prostate artery embolization (PAE). A new statement on temporary implanted prostatic devices (TIPD) was added. In addition, statements on transurethral needle ablation (TUNA) and transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT) were removed and information regarding these legacy technologies was added to the background section. References and the accompanying treatment algorithms were updated to align with the updated text. CONCLUSION: This guideline seeks to improve clinicians' ability to evaluate and treat patients with BPH/LUTS based on currently available evidence. Future studies will be essential to further support these statements to improve patient care.

Reimagining How We Synthesize Information to Impact Clinical Care, Policy, and Research Priorities in Real Time: Examples and Lessons Learned from COVID-19.

Real-time clinical care, policy, and research decisions need real-time evidence synthesis. However, as we found during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is challenging to rapidly address key clinical and policy questions through rigorous, relevant, and usable evidence. Our objective is to present three exemplar cases of rapid evidence synthesis products from the Veterans Healthcare Administration Evidence Synthesis Program (ESP) and, in the context of these examples, outline ESP products, challenges, and lessons learned. We faced challenges in (1) balancing scientific rigor with the speed in which evidence synthesis was needed, (2) sorting through rapidly evolving large bodies of evidence, and (3) assessing the impact of evidence synthesis products on clinical care, policy, and research. We found solutions in (1) engaging stakeholders early, (2) utilizing artificial intelligence capabilities, (3) building infrastructure to establish living reviews, and (4) planning for dissemination to maximize impact.

Screening for Colorectal Cancer in Asymptomatic Average-Risk Adults: A Guidance Statement From the American College of Physicians (Version 2).

DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this updated guidance statement is to guide clinicians on screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) in asymptomatic average-risk adults. The intended audience is all clinicians. The population is asymptomatic adults at average risk for CRC. METHODS: This updated guidance statement was developed using recently published and critically appraised clinical guidelines from national guideline developers since the publication of the American College of Physicians' 2019 guidance statement, "Screening for Colorectal Cancer in Asymptomatic Average-Risk Adults." The authors searched for national guidelines from the United States and other countries published in English using PubMed and the Guidelines International Network library from 1 January 2018 to 24 April 2023. The authors also searched for updates of guidelines included in the first version of our guidance statement. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument was used to assess the quality of eligible guidelines. Two guidelines were selected for adoption and adaptation by raters on the basis of the highest average overall AGREE II quality scores. The evidence reviews and modeling studies for these 2 guidelines were also used to synthesize the evidence of diagnostic test accuracy, effectiveness, and harms of CRC screening interventions and to develop our guidance statements. GUIDANCE STATEMENT 1: Clinicians should start screening for colorectal cancer in asymptomatic average-risk adults at age 50 years. GUIDANCE STATEMENT 2: Clinicians should consider not screening asymptomatic average-risk adults between the ages of 45 to 49 years. Clinicians should discuss the uncertainty around benefits and harms of screening in this population. GUIDANCE STATEMENT 3: Clinicians should stop screening for colorectal cancer in asymptomatic average-risk adults older than 75 years or in asymptomatic average-risk adults with a life expectancy of 10 years or less. GUIDANCE STATEMENT 4A: Clinicians should select a screening test for colorectal cancer in consultation with their patient based on a discussion of benefits, harms, costs, availability, frequency, and patient values and preferences. GUIDANCE STATEMENT 4B: Clinicians should select among a fecal immunochemical or high-sensitivity guaiac fecal occult blood test every 2 years, colonoscopy every 10 years, or flexible sigmoidoscopy every 10 years plus a fecal immunochemical test every 2 years as a screening test for colorectal cancer. GUIDANCE STATEMENT 4C: Clinicians should not use stool DNA, computed tomography colonography, capsule endoscopy, urine, or serum screening tests for colorectal cancer.

Nonpharmacologic and Pharmacologic Treatments of Adults in the Acute Phase of Major Depressive Disorder: A Living Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians.

DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this guideline from the American College of Physicians (ACP) is to present updated clinical recommendations on nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic interventions as initial and second-line treatments during the acute phase of a major depressive disorder (MDD) episode, based on the best available evidence on the comparative benefits and harms, consideration of patient values and preferences, and cost. METHODS: The ACP Clinical Guidelines Committee based these recommendations on an updated systematic review of the evidence. AUDIENCE AND PATIENT POPULATION: The audience for this guideline includes clinicians caring for adult patients in the acute phase of MDD in ambulatory care. The patient population includes adults in the acute phase of MDD. RECOMMENDATION 1A: ACP recommends monotherapy with either cognitive behavioral therapy or a second-generation antidepressant as initial treatment in patients in the acute phase of moderate to severe major depressive disorder (strong recommendation; moderate-certainty evidence). RECOMMENDATION 1B: ACP suggests combination therapy with cognitive behavioral therapy and a second-generation antidepressant as initial treatment in patients in the acute phase of moderate to severe major depressive disorder (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence). The informed decision on the options of monotherapy with cognitive behavioral therapy versus second-generation antidepressants or combination therapy should be personalized and based on discussion of potential treatment benefits, harms, adverse effect profiles, cost, feasibility, patients' specific symptoms (such as insomnia, hypersomnia, or fluctuation in appetite), comorbidities, concomitant medication use, and patient preferences. RECOMMENDATION 2: ACP suggests monotherapy with cognitive behavioral therapy as initial treatment in patients in the acute phase of mild major depressive disorder (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence). RECOMMENDATION 3: ACP suggests one of the following options for patients in the acute phase of moderate to severe major depressive disorder who did not respond to initial treatment with an adequate dose of a second-generation antidepressant: • Switching to or augmenting with cognitive behavioral therapy (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence) • Switching to a different second-generation antidepressant or augmenting with a second pharmacologic treatment (see Clinical Considerations) (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence) The informed decision on the options should be personalized and based on discussion of potential treatment benefits, harms, adverse effect profiles, cost, feasibility, patients' specific symptoms (such as insomnia, hypersomnia, or fluctuation in appetite), comorbidities, concomitant medication use, and patient preferences.

Evaluation of Implementation Strategies for Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), and Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR): a Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Improving access to evidence-based psychotherapies (EBPs) is a Veterans Health Administration (VHA) priority. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), and mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) are effective for chronic pain and several mental health conditions. We synthesized evidence on implementation strategies to increase EBP access and use. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL from inception until March 2021 for articles on EBP implementation within integrated health systems to treat chronic pain or chronic mental health conditions. Reviewers independently screened articles, extracted results, coded qualitative findings, and rated quality using modified criteria from Newcastle-Ottawa (quantitative results) or Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (qualitative results). We categorized implementation strategies using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) framework and classified outcomes using RE-AIM domains (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance). RESULTS: Twelve articles (reporting results from 10 studies) evaluated CBT (k = 11) and ACT (k = 1) implementation strategies in large integrated healthcare systems. No studies evaluated MBSR implementation. Eight articles evaluated strategies within VHA. Six articles reported on national VHA EBP implementation programs; all involved training/education, facilitation, and audit/feedback. CBT and ACT implementation demonstrated moderate to large improvements in patient symptoms and quality of life. Trainings increased mental health provider self-efficacy in delivering EBPs, improved provider EBP perceptions, and increased provider EBP use during programs, but had unclear impacts on Reach. It was unclear whether external facilitation added benefit. Provider EBP maintenance was modest; barriers included competing professional time demands and patient barriers. DISCUSSION: Multi-faceted CBT and ACT implementation programs increased provider EBP Adoption but had unclear impacts on Reach. Future implementation efforts should further evaluate Reach, Adoption, and Maintenance; assess the added value of external facilitation; and consider strategies targeting patient barriers. Future work should use implementation frameworks to guide evaluations of barriers and facilitators, processes of change, and outcomes. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD42021252038.

Major Update 2: Remdesivir for Adults With COVID-19: A Living Systematic Review and Meta-analysis for the American College of Physicians Practice Points.

BACKGROUND: Remdesivir is approved for the treatment of adults hospitalized with COVID-19. PURPOSE: To update a living review of remdesivir for adults with COVID-19. DATA SOURCES: Several electronic U.S. Food and Drug Administration, company, and journal websites from 1 January 2020 through 19 October 2021. STUDY SELECTION: English-language, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of remdesivir for COVID-19. DATA EXTRACTION: One reviewer abstracted, and a second reviewer verified data. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method were used. DATA SYNTHESIS: Since the last update (search date 9 August 2021), 1 new RCT and 1 new subtrial comparing a 10-day course of remdesivir with control (placebo or standard care) were identified. This review summarizes and updates the evidence on the cumulative 5 RCTs and 2 subtrials for this comparison. Our updated results confirm a 10-day course of remdesivir, compared with control, probably results in little to no mortality reduction (5 RCTs). Updated results also confirm that remdesivir probably results in a moderate increase in the proportion of patients recovered by day 29 (4 RCTs) and may reduce time to clinical improvement (2 RCTs) and hospital length of stay (4 RCTs). New RCTs, by increasing the strength of evidence, lead to an updated conclusion that remdesivir probably results in a small reduction in the proportion of patients receiving ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation at specific follow-up times (4 RCTs). New RCTs also alter the conclusions for harms-remdesivir, compared with control, may lead to a small reduction in serious adverse events but may lead to a small increase in any adverse event. LIMITATION: The RCTs differed in definitions of COVID-19 severity and outcomes reported. CONCLUSION: In hospitalized adults with COVID-19, the findings confirm that remdesivir probably results in little to no difference in mortality and increases the proportion of patients recovered. Remdesivir may reduce time to clinical improvement and may lead to small reductions in serious adverse events but may result in a small increase in any adverse event. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

Colonoscopy for Diagnostic Evaluation and Interventions to Prevent Recurrence After Acute Left-Sided Colonic Diverticulitis: A Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians.

DESCRIPTION: The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to provide clinical recommendations on the role of colonoscopy for diagnostic evaluation of colorectal cancer (CRC) after a presumed diagnosis of acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis and on the role of pharmacologic, nonpharmacologic, and elective surgical interventions to prevent recurrence after initial treatment of acute complicated and uncomplicated left-sided colonic diverticulitis. This guideline is based on the current best available evidence about benefits and harms, taken in the context of costs and patient values and preferences. METHODS: The ACP Clinical Guidelines Committee (CGC) based these recommendations on a systematic review on the role of colonoscopy after acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis and pharmacologic, nonpharmacologic, and elective surgical interventions after initial treatment. The systematic review evaluated outcomes rated by the CGC as critical or important. This guideline was developed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method. TARGET AUDIENCE AND PATIENT POPULATION: The target audience is all clinicians, and the target patient population is adults with recent episodes of acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis. RECOMMENDATION 1: ACP suggests that clinicians refer patients for a colonoscopy after an initial episode of complicated left-sided colonic diverticulitis in patients who have not had recent colonoscopy (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence). RECOMMENDATION 2: ACP recommends against clinicians using mesalamine to prevent recurrent diverticulitis (strong recommendation; high-certainty evidence). RECOMMENDATION 3: ACP suggests that clinicians discuss elective surgery to prevent recurrent diverticulitis after initial treatment in patients who have either uncomplicated diverticulitis that is persistent or recurs frequently or complicated diverticulitis (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence). The informed decision whether or not to undergo surgery should be personalized based on a discussion of potential benefits, harms, costs, and patient's preferences.

Diagnosis and Management of Acute Left-Sided Colonic Diverticulitis: A Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians.

DESCRIPTION: The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to provide clinical recommendations on the diagnosis and management of acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis in adults. This guideline is based on current best available evidence about benefits and harms, taken in the context of costs and patient values and preferences. METHODS: The ACP Clinical Guidelines Committee (CGC) developed this guideline based on a systematic review on the use of computed tomography (CT) for the diagnosis of acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis and on management via hospitalization, antibiotic use, and interventional percutaneous abscess drainage. The systematic review evaluated outcomes that the CGC rated as critical or important. This guideline was developed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology. TARGET AUDIENCE AND PATIENT POPULATION: The target audience is all clinicians, and the target patient population is adults with suspected or known acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis. RECOMMENDATION 1: ACP suggests that clinicians use abdominal CT imaging when there is diagnostic uncertainty in a patient with suspected acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence). RECOMMENDATION 2: ACP suggests that clinicians manage most patients with acute uncomplicated left-sided colonic diverticulitis in an outpatient setting (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence). RECOMMENDATION 3: ACP suggests that clinicians initially manage select patients with acute uncomplicated left-sided colonic diverticulitis without antibiotics (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence).

Implementation of Evidence-Based Psychotherapies for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: A Systematic Review.

Guidelines strongly recommend trauma-focused therapies to treat posttraumatic stress disorder. Implementation of cognitive processing therapy (CPT) and prolonged exposure (PE) in Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and non-VHA settings began in 2006. We conducted a systematic review of implementation facilitators and challenges and strategies to address barriers. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL from inception until March 2021 for English-language articles. Two individuals reviewed eligibility and rated quality. Quantitative results were abstracted by one reviewer and verified by a second. Qualitative results were independently coded by two reviewers and finalized through consensus. We used RE-AIM and CFIR frameworks to synthesize findings. 29 eligible studies addressed CPT/PE, mostly conducted in VHA. Training/education with audit/feedback was the primary implementation strategy and was linked to improved provider CPT/PE perceptions and self-efficacy. Use was not widespread. Only six studies tested other implementation strategies with mixed impact. Following VHA implementation, strong support for training, perceived effectiveness for patients and benefits for clinics, and positive patient experiences and relationships with providers were reported. However, barriers persisted including perceived protocol inflexibility, complex referral processes and patient complexity and competing needs. In non-VHA settings, providers perceived fewer barriers, but few were CPT/PE trained. Across both settings, fewer studies targeted patient factors. Training/education with audit/feedback improved perceptions and the availability of CPT/PE, but not consistent use. Studies testing implementation strategies to address post-training challenges, including patient-level factors, are needed. A few studies are underway in VHA to test patient-focused and other implementation strategies. Research assessing actual vs perceived barriers in non-VHA settings is needed to elucidate unique challenges experienced.

Care Coordination Models and Tools-Systematic Review and Key Informant Interviews.

BACKGROUND: Care coordination (CC) interventions involve systematic strategies to address fragmentation and enhance continuity of care. However, it remains unclear whether CC can sufficiently address patient needs and improve outcomes. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, AHRQ Evidence-based Practice Center, and VA Evidence Synthesis Program, from inception to September 2019. Two individuals reviewed eligibility and rated quality using modified AMSTAR 2. Eligible systematic reviews (SR) examined diverse CC interventions for community-dwelling adults with ambulatory care sensitive conditions and/or at higher risk for acute care. From eligible SR and relevant included primary studies, we abstracted the following: study and intervention characteristics; target population(s); effects on hospitalizations, emergency department (ED) visits, and/or patient experience; setting characteristics; and tools and approaches used. We also conducted semi-structured interviews with individuals who implemented CC interventions. RESULTS: Of 2324 unique citations, 16 SR were eligible; 14 examined case management or transitional care interventions; and 2 evaluated intensive primary care models. Two SR highlighted selection for specific risk factors as important for effectiveness; one of these also indicated high intensity (e.g., more patient contacts) and/or multidisciplinary plans were key. Most SR found inconsistent effects on reducing hospitalizations or ED visits; few reported on patient experience. Effective interventions were implemented in multiple settings, including rural community hospitals, academic medical centers (in urban settings), and public hospitals serving largely poor, uninsured populations. Primary studies reported variable approaches to improve patient-provider communication, including health coaching and role-playing. SR, primary studies, and key informant interviews did not identify tools for measuring patient trust or care team integration. Sustainability of CC interventions varied and some were adapted over time. DISCUSSION: CC interventions have inconsistent effects on reducing hospitalizations and ED visits. Future work should address how they should be adapted to different healthcare settings and which tools or approaches are most helpful for implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO #CRD42020156359.

Major Update: Remdesivir for Adults With COVID-19 : A Living Systematic Review and Meta-analysis for the American College of Physicians Practice Points.

BACKGROUND: Remdesivir is being studied and used for treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). PURPOSE: To update a previous review of remdesivir for adults with COVID-19, including new meta-analyses of patients with COVID-19 of any severity compared with control. DATA SOURCES: Several sources from 1 January 2020 through 7 December 2020. STUDY SELECTION: English-language, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of remdesivir for COVID-19. New evidence is incorporated by using living review methods. DATA EXTRACTION: 1 reviewer abstracted data; a second reviewer verified the data. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method were used. DATA SYNTHESIS: The update includes 5 RCTs, incorporating data from a new large RCT and the final results of a previous RCT. Compared with control, a 10-day course of remdesivir probably results in little to no reduction in mortality (risk ratio [RR], 0.93 [95% CI, 0.82 to 1.06]; 4 RCTs) but may result in a small reduction in the proportion of patients receiving mechanical ventilation (RR, 0.71 [CI, 0.56 to 0.90]; 3 RCTs). Remdesivir probably results in a moderate increase in the percentage of patients who recovered and a moderate decrease in serious adverse events and may result in a large reduction in time to recovery. Effect on hospital length of stay or percentage remaining hospitalized is mixed. Compared with a 10-day course for those not requiring ventilation at baseline, a 5-day course may reduce mortality, the need for ventilation, and serious adverse events while increasing the percentage of patients who recovered or clinically improved. LIMITATION: Summarizing findings was challenging because of varying disease severity definitions and outcomes. CONCLUSION: In hospitalized adults with COVID-19, remdesivir probably results in little to no mortality difference but probably improves the percentage recovered and reduces serious harms and may result in a small reduction in the proportion receiving ventilation. For patients not receiving ventilation, a 5-day course may provide greater benefits and fewer harms with lower drug costs than a 10-day course. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

Remdesivir for Adults With COVID-19 : A Living Systematic Review for American College of Physicians Practice Points.

BACKGROUND: Few treatments exist for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness and harms of remdesivir for COVID-19. DATA SOURCES: Several databases, tables of contents of journals, and U.S. Food and Drug Administration and company websites were searched from 1 January through 31 August 2020. STUDY SELECTION: English-language, randomized trials of remdesivir treatments for adults with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. New evidence will be incorporated using living review methods. DATA EXTRACTION: Single-reviewer abstraction and risk-of-bias assessment verified by a second reviewer; GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methods used for certainty-of-evidence assessments. DATA SYNTHESIS: Four randomized trials were included. In adults with severe COVID-19, remdesivir compared with placebo probably improves recovery by a large amount (absolute risk difference [ARD] range, 7% to 10%) and may result in a small reduction in mortality (ARD range, -4% to 1%) and a shorter time to recovery or clinical improvement. Remdesivir may have little to no effect on hospital length of stay. Remdesivir probably reduces serious adverse events by a moderate amount (ARD range, -6% to -8%). Compared with a 10-day remdesivir course, a 5-day course may reduce mortality, increase recovery or clinical improvement by small to moderate amounts, reduce time to recovery, and reduce serious adverse events among hospitalized patients not requiring mechanical ventilation. Recovery due to remdesivir may not vary by age, sex, symptom duration, or disease severity. LIMITATIONS: Low-certainty evidence with few published trials, including 1 preliminary report and 2 open-label trials. Trials excluded pregnant women and adults with severe kidney or liver disease. CONCLUSION: In hospitalized adults with COVID-19, remdesivir probably improves recovery and reduces serious adverse events and may reduce mortality and time to clinical improvement. For adults not receiving mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, a 5-day course of remdesivir may provide similar benefits to and fewer harms than a 10-day course. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration Office of Research and Development, Health Services Research and Development Service, and Evidence Synthesis Program.

Effectiveness and Harms of High-Flow Nasal Oxygen for Acute Respiratory Failure: An Evidence Report for a Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians.

BACKGROUND: Use of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) for treatment of adults with acute respiratory failure (ARF) has increased. PURPOSE: To assess HFNO versus noninvasive ventilation (NIV) or conventional oxygen therapy (COT) for ARF in hospitalized adults. DATA SOURCES: English-language searches of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library from January 2000 to July 2020; systematic review reference lists. STUDY SELECTION: 29 randomized controlled trials evaluated HFNO versus NIV (k = 11) or COT (k = 21). DATA EXTRACTION: Data extraction by a single investigator was verified by a second, 2 investigators assessed risk of bias, and evidence certainty was determined by consensus. DATA SYNTHESIS: Results are reported separately for HFNO versus NIV, for HFNO versus COT, and by initial or postextubation management. Compared with NIV, HFNO may reduce all-cause mortality, intubation, and hospital-acquired pneumonia and improve patient comfort in initial ARF management (low-certainty evidence) but not in postextubation management. Compared with COT, HFNO may reduce reintubation and improve patient comfort in postextubation ARF management (low-certainty evidence). LIMITATIONS: Trials varied in populations enrolled, ARF causes, and treatment protocols. Trial design, sample size, duration of treatment and follow-up, and results reporting were often insufficient to adequately assess many outcomes. Protocols, clinician and health system training, cost, and resource use were poorly characterized. CONCLUSION: Compared with NIV, HFNO as initial ARF management may improve several clinical outcomes. Compared with COT, HFNO as postextubation management may reduce reintubations and improve patient comfort; HFNO resulted in fewer harms than NIV or COT. Broad applicability, including required clinician and health system experience and resource use, is not well known. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42019146691).

Appropriate Use of Point-of-Care Ultrasonography in Patients With Acute Dyspnea in Emergency Department or Inpatient Settings: A Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians.

DESCRIPTION: The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to provide clinical recommendations on the appropriate use of point-of-care ultrasonography (POCUS) in patients with acute dyspnea in emergency department (ED) or inpatient settings to improve the diagnostic, treatment, and health outcomes of those with suspected congestive heart failure, pneumonia, pulmonary embolism, pleural effusion, or pneumothorax. METHODS: The ACP Clinical Guidelines Committee based this guideline on a systematic review on the benefits, harms, and diagnostic test accuracy of POCUS; patient values and preferences; and costs of POCUS. The systematic review evaluated health outcomes, diagnostic timeliness, treatment decisions, and test accuracy. The critical health, diagnostic, and treatment outcomes evaluated were in-hospital mortality, time to diagnosis, and time to treatment. The important outcomes evaluated were intensive care unit admissions, correctness of diagnosis, disease-specific outcomes, hospital readmissions, length of hospital stay, and quality of life. The critical test accuracy outcomes included false-positive results for suspected pneumonia, pneumothorax, and pulmonary embolism and false-negative results for suspected congestive heart failure, pneumonia, pneumothorax, and pulmonary embolism. Important test accuracy outcomes included false-positive results for suspected congestive heart failure and false-negative and false-positive results for suspected pleural effusion. This guideline was developed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method. TARGET AUDIENCE AND PATIENT POPULATION: The target audience is all clinicians, and the target patient population is adult patients with acute dyspnea in ED or inpatient settings. RECOMMENDATION: ACP suggests that clinicians may use point-of-care ultrasonography in addition to the standard diagnostic pathway when there is diagnostic uncertainty in patients with acute dyspnea in emergency department or inpatient settings (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence).

Therapies for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: A Comparative Effectiveness Review.

PURPOSE: We sought to identify new information evaluating clinically localized prostate cancer therapies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Bibliographic databases (2013-January 2020), ClinicalTrials.gov and systematic reviews were searched for controlled studies of treatments for clinically localized prostate cancer with duration ≥5 years for mortality and metastases, and ≥1 year for harms. RESULTS: We identified 67 eligible references. Among patients with clinically, rather than prostate specific antigen, detected localized prostate cancer, watchful waiting may increase mortality and metastases but decreases urinary and erectile dysfunction vs radical prostatectomy. Comparative mortality effect may vary by tumor risk and age but not by race, health status, comorbidities or prostate specific antigen. Active monitoring probably results in little to no mortality difference in prostate specific antigen detected localized prostate cancer vs radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation plus androgen deprivation regardless of tumor risk. Metastases were slightly higher with active monitoring. Harms were greater with radical prostatectomy than active monitoring and mixed between external beam radiation plus androgen deprivation vs active monitoring. 3-Dimensional conformal radiation and androgen deprivation plus low dose rate brachytherapy provided small mortality reductions vs 3-dimensional conformal radiation and androgen deprivation but little to no difference on metastases. External beam radiation plus androgen deprivation vs external beam radiation alone may result in small mortality and metastasis reductions in higher risk disease but may increase sexual harms. Few new data exist on other treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Radical prostatectomy reduces mortality vs watchful waiting in clinically detected localized prostate cancer but causes more harms. Effectiveness may be limited to younger men and those with intermediate risk disease. Active monitoring results in little to no mortality difference vs radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation plus androgen deprivation. Few new data exist on other treatments.

Management of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Attributed to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: AUA GUIDELINE PART II-Surgical Evaluation and Treatment.

PURPOSE: Surgical therapies for symptomatic bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) are many, and vary from minimally invasive office based to high-cost operative approaches. This Guideline presents effective evidence-based surgical management of male lower urinary tract symptoms secondary/attributed to BPH (LUTS/BPH). See accompanying algorithm for a detailed summary of procedures (figure[Figure: see text]). MATERIALS/METHODS: The Minnesota Evidence Review Team searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and AHRQ databases to identify eligible studies published between January 2007 and September 2020, which includes the initial publication (2018) and amendments (2019, 2020). The Team also reviewed articles identified by Guideline Panel Members. When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence was assigned a strength rating of A (high), B (moderate), or C (low) for support of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendations. In the absence of sufficient evidence, information is provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions (table[Table: see text]). RESULTS: Twenty-four guideline statements pertinent to pre-operative and surgical management were developed. Appropriate levels of evidence and supporting text were created to direct urologic providers towards suitable and safe operative interventions for individual patient characteristics. A re-treatment section was created to direct attention to longevity and outcomes with individual approaches to help guide patient counselling and therapeutic decisions. CONCLUSION: Pre-operative and surgical management of BPH requires attention to individual patient characteristics and procedural risk. Clinicians should adhere to recommendations and familiarize themselves with criteria that yields the highest likelihood of surgical success when choosing a particular approach for a particular patient.

Management of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Attributed to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: AUA GUIDELINE PART I-Initial Work-up and Medical Management.

PURPOSE: Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a histologic diagnosis describing proliferation of smooth muscle and epithelial cells within the prostatic transition zone. The prevalence and severity of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in aging men are progressive and impact the health and welfare of society. This revised Guideline provides a useful reference on effective evidence-based management of male LUTS/BPH. See the accompanying algorithm for a summary of the procedures detailed in the Guideline (figures 1 and 2[Figure: see text][Figure: see text]). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Minnesota Evidence Review Team searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and AHRQ databases to identify eligible English language studies published between January 2008 and April 2019, then updated through December 2020. Search terms included Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and keywords for pharmacological therapies, drug classes, and terms related to LUTS or BPH. When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence was assigned a strength rating of A (high), B (moderate), or C (low) for support of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendations. In the absence of sufficient evidence, information is provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions (table 1[Table: see text]). RESULTS: Nineteen guideline statements pertinent to evaluation, work-up, and medical management were developed. Appropriate levels of evidence and supporting text were created to direct both primary care and urologic providers towards streamlined and suitable practices. CONCLUSIONS: The work up and medical management of BPH requires attention to individual patient characteristics, while also respecting common principles. Clinicians should adhere to recommendations and familiarize themselves with standards of BPH management.