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.

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.

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.

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.

Reactions to Recommendations and Evidence About Prostate Cancer Screening Among White and Black Male Veterans.

U.S. clinical guidelines recommend that prior to screening for prostate cancer with Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA), men should have an informed discussion about the potential benefits and harms of screening. Prostate cancer disproportionately affects Black men. To understand how White and Black men reacted to a draft educational pamphlet about the benefits and harms of PSA screening, we conducted race-specific focus groups at a midwestern VA medical center in 2013 and 2015. White and Black men who had been previously screened reviewed the draft pamphlet using a semistructured focus group facilitator guide. Forty-four men, ages 55-81, participated in four White and two Black focus groups. Three universal themes were: low baseline familiarity with prostate cancer, surprise and resistance to the recommendations not to test routinely, and negative emotions in response to ambiguity. Discussions of benefits and harms of screening, as well as intentions for exercising personal agency in prevention and screening, diverged between White and Black focus groups. Discussion in White groups highlighted the potential benefits of screening, minimized the harms, and emphasized personal choice in screening decisions. Participants in Black groups devoted almost no discussion to benefits, considered harms significant, and emphasized personal and collective responsibility for preventing cancer through diet, exercise, and alternative medicine. Discussion in Black groups also included the role of racism and discrimination in healthcare and medical research. These findings contribute to our understanding of how men's varied perspectives and life experiences affect their responses to prostate cancer screening information.

Orthobiologics in Foot and Ankle Arthrodesis: A Systematic Review.

Orthobiologics are biologically-derived materials intended to promote bone formation and union. We review evidence on effectiveness and harms of orthobiologics compared to no orthobiologics for foot and ankle arthrodesis. We searched multiple databases (1995-2019) and included clinical trials and other studies with concurrent controls, English language, and reporting patient-centered outcomes, union/time to union, costs/resource utilization, or harms. Studies were organized by orthobiologic used. We describe quality and limitations of available evidence but did not formally rate risk of bias or certainty of evidence. Most of the 21 studies included were retrospective chart reviews with orthobiologics used at surgeon's discretion for patients considered at higher risk for nonunion. Ten studies compared autologous bone graft versus no graft and 2 compared remote versus local graft with few studies of other orthobiologics. All studies reported a measure of fusion and about half reported on function/quality of life. Few studies reported harms. Due to limited reporting, we were unable to assess whether effectiveness varies by risk factors for nonunion (eg, age, gender, smoking status, obesity, diabetes) or whether orthobiologics were cost-effective. Available evidence is of poor quality with small sample sizes, inadequate reporting of risk factors for nonunion, variations in orthobiologics, surgical techniques used, and outcome assessment, and potential selection bias. Research is needed to adequately inform surgeons about benefits and harms and guide patient selection for use, or type, of orthobiologics. Careful assessment of individual patient risk for nonunion is critical prior to orthobiologic use.

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.

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.

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.

Deprescribing for Community-Dwelling Older Adults: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy and use of inappropriate medications have been linked to increased risk of falls, hospitalizations, cognitive impairment, and death. The primary objective of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness, comparative effectiveness, and harms of deprescribing interventions among community-dwelling older adults. METHODS: We searched OVID MEDLINE Embase, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library from 1990 through February 2019 for controlled clinical trials comparing any deprescribing intervention to usual care or another intervention. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, hospitalizations, health-related quality of life, and falls. The secondary outcome was use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs). Interventions were categorized as comprehensive medication review, educational initiatives, and computerized decision support. Data abstracted by one investigator were verified by another. We used the Cochrane criteria to rate risk of bias for each study and the GRADE system to determine certainty of evidence (COE) for primary outcomes. RESULTS: Thirty-eight low and medium risk of bias clinical trials were included. Comprehensive medication review may have reduced all-cause mortality (OR 0.74, 95% CI: 0.58 to 0.95, I2 = 0, k = 12, low COE) but probably had little to no effect on falls, health-related quality of life, or hospitalizations (low to moderate COE). Nine of thirteen trials reported fewer PIMs in the intervention group. Educational interventions probably had little to no effect on all-cause mortality, hospitalizations, or health-related quality of life (low to moderate COE). The effect on falls was uncertain (very low COE). All 11 education trials that included PIMs reported fewer in the intervention than in the control groups. Two of 4 computerized decision support trials reported fewer PIMs in the intervention arms; none included any primary outcomes. DISCUSSION: In community-dwelling people aged 65 years and older, medication deprescribing interventions may provide small reductions in mortality and use of potentially inappropriate medications. REGISTRY INFORMATION: PROSPERO - CRD42019132420.

Surgical Management of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Attributed to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: AUA Guideline Amendment 2020.

PURPOSE: The AUA Guideline panel provides evidence-based recommendations for the surgical management of male lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Panel amended the Guideline in 2020 to reflect additional literature published through September 2019. When sufficient evidence existed, the Panel assigned the body of evidence 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, the Panel provided additional information as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions (See table 1[Table: see text]). RESULTS: Amendments to these Guidelines include: 1) an amended statement (Guideline 1) to include conducting a physical examination; 2) a new statement (Guideline 6) discussing concepts of treatment failure and retreatment; 3) an amended statement (Guideline 15) with updated supporting text for prostatic urethral lift (PUL); 4) an amended statement (Guideline 16) for PUL; 5) an amended statement (Guideline 17) with updated supporting text for transurethral microwave therapy (TUMT); 6) an amended statement (Guideline 18) with updated supporting text for water vapor thermal therapy; 7) updated supporting text for water vapor thermal therapy (Guideline 19); 8) an amended statement (Guideline 21) with updated supporting text for laser enucleation; 9) an amended statement (Guideline 22) with updated supporting text for Aquablation; and 10) an amended statement (Guideline 23) with updated supporting text for Prostate Artery Embolization (PAE). CONCLUSIONS: These evidence-based updates to the AUA Guidelines further inform the surgical management of LUTS/BPH.