A targeted review of worldwide indirect treatment comparison (ITC) guidelines and best practices.

OBJECTIVES: Controls and governance over the methodology and reporting of indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) have been introduced to minimize bias and ensure scientific credibility and transparency in healthcare decision-making. The objective of this study was to highlight ITC techniques that are key to conducting objective and analytically-sound analyses, and to ascertain circumstantial suitability of ITCs as a source of comparative evidence for healthcare interventions. METHODS: Ovid MEDLINE® was searched from January 2010 through August 2023 to identify publicly available ITC-related documents (i.e., guidelines and best practices) in the English language. This was supplemented with hand-searches of websites of various international organizations, regulatory agencies, and reimbursement agencies of Europe, North America, and Asia-Pacific. The jurisdiction-specific ITC methodology and reporting recommendations were reviewed. RESULTS: Sixty-eight guidelines from 10 authorities worldwide were included for synthesis. Many of the included guidelines were updated within the last five years and commonly cited the absence of direct comparative studies as primary justification for employing ITCs. Most jurisdictions favored population-adjusted or anchored ITC techniques opposed to naïve comparisons. Recommendations on the reporting and presentation of these ITCs varied across authorities; however, there was some overlap among the key elements. CONCLUSIONS: Given the challenges of conducting head-to-head randomized controlled trials, comparative data from ITCs offer valuable insights into clinical effectiveness. As such, multiple ITC guidelines have emerged worldwide. According to the most recent versions of the guidelines, the suitability and subsequent acceptability of the ITC technique employed depends on the data sources, available evidence, and magnitude of benefit/uncertainty.

Economic Evaluations of Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapies for Hematologic and Solid Malignancies: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to systematically review evidence on the cost-effectiveness of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapies for patients with cancer. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched in October 2022 and updated in September 2023. Systematic reviews, health technology assessments, and economic evaluations that compared costs and effects of CAR-T therapy in patients with cancer were included. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, synthesized results, and critically appraised studies using the Philips checklist. Cost data were presented in 2022 US dollars. RESULTS: Our search yielded 1809 records, 47 of which were included. Most of included studies were cost-utility analysis, published between 2018 and 2023, and conducted in the United States. Tisagenlecleucel, axicabtagene ciloleucel, idecabtagene vicleucel, ciltacabtagene autoleucel, lisocabtagene maraleucel, brexucabtagene autoleucel, and relmacabtagene autoleucel were compared with various standard of care chemotherapies. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for CAR-T therapies ranged from $9424 to $4 124 105 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in adults and from $20 784 to $243 177 per QALY in pediatric patients. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were found to improve over longer time horizons or when an earlier cure point was assumed. Most studies failed to meet the Philips checklist due to a lack of head-to-head comparisons and uncertainty surrounding CAR-T costs and curative effects. CONCLUSIONS: CAR-T therapies were more expensive and generated more QALYs than comparators, but their cost-effectiveness was uncertain and dependent on patient population, cancer type, and model assumptions. This highlights the need for more nuanced economic evaluations and continued research to better understand the value of CAR-T therapies in diverse patient populations.

Intraoperative pharmacologic opioid minimisation strategies and patient-centred outcomes after surgery: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative patient-centred outcome measures are essential to capture the patient's experience after surgery. Although a large number of pharmacologic opioid minimisation strategies (i.e. opioid alternatives) are used for patients undergoing surgery, it remains unclear which strategies are most promising in terms of patient-centred outcome improvements. This scoping review had two main objectives: (1) to map and describe evidence from clinical trials assessing the patient-centred effectiveness of pharmacologic intraoperative opioid minimisation strategies in adult surgical patients, and (2) to identify promising pharmacologic opioid minimisation strategies. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases from inception to February 2023. We included trials investigating the use of opioid minimisation strategies in adult surgical patients and reporting at least one patient-centred outcome. Study screening and data extraction were conducted independently by at least two reviewers. RESULTS: Of 24,842 citations screened for eligibility, 2803 trials assessed the effectiveness of intraoperative opioid minimisation strategies. Of these, 457 trials (67,060 participants) met eligibility criteria, reporting at least one patient-centred outcome. In the 107 trials that included a patient-centred primary outcome, patient wellbeing was the most frequently used domain (55 trials). Based on aggregate findings, dexmedetomidine, systemic lidocaine, and COX-2 inhibitors were promising strategies, while paracetamol, ketamine, and gabapentinoids were less promising. Almost half of the trials (253 trials) did not report a protocol or registration number. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers should prioritise and include patient-centred outcomes in the assessment of opioid minimisation strategy effectiveness. We identified three potentially promising pharmacologic intraoperative opioid minimisation strategies that should be further assessed through systematic reviews and multicentre trials. Findings from our scoping review may be influenced by selective outcome reporting bias. STUDY REGISTRATION: OSF - https://osf.io/7kea3.

Indefinite Anticoagulant Therapy for First Unprovoked Venous Thromboembolism : A Cost-Effectiveness Study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines recommend indefinite anticoagulation for a first unprovoked venous thromboembolism (VTE). OBJECTIVE: To estimate the benefit-harm tradeoffs of indefinite anticoagulation in patients with a first unprovoked VTE. DESIGN: Markov modeling study. DATA SOURCES: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses for the long-term risks and case-fatality rates of recurrent VTE and major bleeding. Published literature for costs, quality of life, and other clinical events. TARGET POPULATION: Patients with a first unprovoked VTE who have completed 3 to 6 months of initial anticoagulant treatment. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Canadian health care public payer. INTERVENTION: Indefinite anticoagulation with direct oral anticoagulants. OUTCOME MEASURES: Recurrent VTE events, major bleeding events, costs in 2022 Canadian dollars (CAD), and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: When compared with discontinuing anticoagulation after initial treatment in a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients aged 55 years, indefinite anticoagulation prevented 368 recurrent VTE events, which included 14 fatal pulmonary emboli, but induced an additional 114 major bleeding events, which included 30 intracranial hemorrhages and 11 deaths from bleeding. Indefinite anticoagulation cost CAD $16 014 more per person and did not increase QALYs (-0.075 per person). RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Model results were most sensitive to the case-fatality rate of major bleeding and the annual risk for major bleeding during extended anticoagulation. LIMITATION: The model assumed that risks for recurrent VTE and major bleeding measured in clinical trials at 1 year remained constant during extended anticoagulation. CONCLUSION: Clinicians should use shared decision making to incorporate individual patient preferences and values when considering treatment duration for unprovoked VTE. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

A systematic review of the efficacy and safety of turmeric in the treatment of digestive disorders.

Turmeric has been gaining popularity as a treatment option for digestive disorders, although a rigorous synthesis of efficacy has not been conducted. This study aimed to summarize the evidence for the efficacy and safety of turmeric in the treatment of digestive disorders, including inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), dyspepsia, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and peptic ulcers. Literature searches were conducted in Medline, EMBASE, AMED, the Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials, and Dissertation Abstracts from inception to November 15, 2021. Dual independent screening of citations and full texts was conducted and studies meeting inclusion criteria were retained: randomized controlled trials (RCT) and comparative observational studies evaluating turmeric use in people of any age with one of the digestive disorders of interest. Extraction of relevant data and risk of bias assessments were performed by two reviewers independently. Meta-analysis was not conducted due to high heterogeneity. From 1136 citations screened, 26 eligible studies were retained. Most studies were assessed to have a high risk of bias, and many had methodological limitations. Descriptive summaries suggest that turmeric is safe, with possible efficacy in patients with IBD or IBS, but its effects were inconsistent for other conditions. The efficacy of turmeric in digestive disorders remains unclear due to the high risk of bias and methodological limitations of the included studies. Future studies should be designed to include larger sample sizes, use rigorous statistical methods, employ core outcome sets, and adhere to reporting guidance for RCTs of herbal interventions to facilitate more meaningful comparisons and robust conclusions.

How to Critically Appraise and Interpret Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Diagnostic Accuracy: A User Guide.

Systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies can provide the best available evidence to inform decisions regarding the use of a diagnostic test. In this guide, the authors provide a practical approach for clinicians to appraise diagnostic accuracy systematic reviews and apply their results to patient care. The first step is to identify an appropriate systematic review with a research question matching the clinical scenario. The user should evaluate the rigor of the review methods to evaluate its credibility (Did the review use clearly defined eligibility criteria, a comprehensive search strategy, structured data collection, risk of bias and applicability appraisal, and appropriate meta-analysis methods?). If the review is credible, the next step is to decide whether the diagnostic performance is adequate for clinical use (Do sensitivity and specificity estimates exceed the threshold that makes them useful in clinical practice? Are these estimates sufficiently precise? Is variability in the estimates of diagnostic accuracy across studies explained?). Diagnostic accuracy systematic reviews that are judged to be credible and provide diagnostic accuracy estimates with sufficient certainty and relevance are the most useful to inform patient care. This review discusses comparative, noncomparative, and emerging approaches to systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy using a clinical scenario and examples based on recent publications.

A systematic review of perioperative clinical practice guidelines for care of older adults living with frailty.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative frailty is prevalent and requires complex management, which could be guided by clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). The objective of this systematic review was to identify and synthesise CPGs that provide perioperative recommendations specific to older adults living with frailty. METHODS: After protocol registration, we performed a systematic review of CPGs. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and 14 grey literature databases were searched (January 1, 2000 until December 22, 2021). We included all CPGs that contained at least one frailty-specific recommendation related to any phase of the perioperative period. We compiled all relevant recommendations, extracted underlying strength of evidence, and categorised them by perioperative phase of care. Within each phase, recommendations were synthesised inductively into themes. Quality of CPGs was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. RESULTS: From 4707 citations, 13 guidelines were included; 8/13 were focused on the perioperative care of older surgical patients in general. Among 110 recommendations extracted, 37 themes were generated, with the majority pertaining to preoperative care. Four themes were supported by strong evidence: performing preoperative frailty assessments, using multidimensional frailty instruments, reducing urinary catheter use, and following multidisciplinary care and communication throughout the perioperative period. Per AGREE II, most guidelines (8/13; 62%) were recommended for use with modifications. CONCLUSIONS: Despite increasing numbers of patients living with frailty, few guidelines exist that address frailty-specific perioperative care. Given the lack of strong evidence-based recommendations, particularly outside the preoperative period, high-quality primary research is required to underpin future guidelines and better inform the care of older surgical patients with frailty. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL: PROSPERO CRD42022320149.

Management of genitourinary symptoms in patients with breast cancer: an updated systematic review of available evidence from randomized trials.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review update is to synthesize available data on management of genitourinary symptoms (GUS) in breast cancer patients, a common and challenging clinical scenario. METHODS: EMBASE, Ovid Medline, and the Cochrane Library were searched from September 2014 to December 2021 for randomized controlled trials which examined various interventions for GUS in breast cancer patients. Outcomes of interest included improvements in vaginal symptoms (e.g., dryness, pain, dyspareunia, itching), vaginal hormone response measured by validated scales (e.g., Vaginal Health Index, and Vaginal Maturation Index), and Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI). A team of reviewers participated in the processes of study selection, data collection, and risk of bias appraisal. A descriptive approach to synthesis was used. RESULTS: Of 842 unique citations identified (412 from this update, 430 from previous review), eight studies (n = 539) met inclusion criteria. Interventions included 0.005% estriol gel (EG; n = 50), intravaginal testosterone (IVT; n = 21), intravaginal prebiotic (n = 13), hyaluronic acid (HA; n = 12), polyacrylic acid (PA; n = 25), pH-balanced gel (n = 118), Replens® (n = 24), and Lidocaine (n = 22). These were compared to placebo/saline/lubricants/usual care (n = 228). FSFI total score was significantly improved by all interventions except IVT and lidocaine, and not measured for Replens®. Significant improvements in vaginal hormone responses were reported for EG and pH-balanced gel; however, no significant effects were found for IVT, HA, or prebiotics. Vaginal symptoms were significantly improved by EG, IVT, PA, and PH-balanced gel. CONCLUSION: Treatment of GUS remains a challenging issue. It is evident that more prospective trials are needed.

Patient- and family-centred care transition interventions for adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs.

Although patient centredness is part of providing high-quality health care, little is known about the effectiveness of care transition interventions that involve patients and their families on readmissions to the hospital or emergency visits post-discharge. This systematic review (SR) aimed to examine the evidence on patient- and family-centred (PFC) care transition interventions and evaluate their effectiveness on adults' hospital readmissions and emergency department (ED) visits after discharge. Searches of Medline, CINAHL, and Embase databases were conducted from the earliest available online year of indexing up to and including 14 March 2021. The studies included: (i) were about care transitions (hospital to home) of ≥18-year-old patients; (ii) had components of patient-centred care and care transition frameworks; (iii) reported on one or more outcomes were among hospital readmissions and ED visits after discharge; and (iv) were cluster-, pilot- or randomized-controlled trials published in English or French. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were completed by two independent reviewers. A narrative synthesis was performed, and pooled odd ratios, standardized mean differences, and mean differences were calculated using a random-effects meta-analysis. Of the 10,021 citations screened, 50 trials were included in the SR and 44 were included in the meta-analyses. Care transition intervention types included health assessment, symptom and disease management, medication reconciliation, discharge planning, risk management, complication detection, and emotional support. Results showed that PFC care transition interventions significantly reduced the risk of hospital readmission rates compared to usual care [incident rate ratio (IRR), 0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.75-0.98; I2 = 73%] regardless of time elapsed since discharge. However, these same interventions had minimal impact on the risk of ED visit rates compared to usual care group regardless of time passed after discharge (IRR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.85-1.18; I2 = 29%). PFC care transition interventions containing a greater number of patient-centred care (IRR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57-0.94; I2 = 59%) and care transition components (IRR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.64-0.91; I2 = 4%) significantly decreased the risk of patients being readmitted. However, these interventions did not significantly increase the risk of patients visiting the ED after discharge (IRR, 1.54; CI 95%, 0.91-2.61). Future interventions should focus on patients' and families' values, beliefs, needs, preferences, race, age, gender, and social determinants of health to improve the quality of adults' care transitions.

Effects of acute and preventive therapies for episodic and chronic cluster headache: A scoping review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Cluster headache is the most common primary headache disorder of the trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias, and it is highly disabling. OBJECTIVE: We undertake a scoping review to characterize therapies to prevent and acutely treat cluster headache, characterize trial methodology utilized in studies, and recommend future trial "good practices." We also assess homogeneity of studies and feasibility for future network meta-analyses (NMAs) to compare acute and preventive treatments for cluster headache. METHODS: A priori protocol for this scoping review was registered and available on Open Science Forum. We sought studies that enrolled adult patients with cluster headache as identified by accepted diagnostic criteria. Both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (with a control group) were included. The interventions of interest were medications, procedures, devices, surgeries, and behavioral/psychological interventions, whereas comparators of interest were placebo, sham, or other active treatments. Outcomes were predefined; however, we did not exclude studies lacking these outcomes. A systemic search was conducted in Ovid Medline, Embase, and Cochrane. We performed a targeted search for conference abstracts from journals prominent in the field. RESULTS: We identified 56 studies: 45 RCTs, four studies only available in clinical trial registries, and seven observational studies. Of the 45 RCTs, 20 focused on acute therapies and 25 on preventive therapies. Overall, we determined that it is feasible to pursue a NMA for acute therapy focusing on 15 or 30-min headache reduction for acute trials, as we identified 11 trials in the combined population of patients with either episodic or chronic cluster headache (2 trials in populations with chronic cluster headache were also found). For preventive therapy of cluster headache, we identified trials with common outcomes that may be considered for NMA, however, as these trials had differences in treatment effect modifiers that could not be corrected, NMAs appear infeasible for this indication. We identified new studies looking at noninvasive vagal nerve stimulation, sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation, prednisone, and oxygen published since the most recent systematic review in the field, although these acute treatments were previously identified as effective. However, for calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies, galcanezumab demonstrated effectiveness in episodic cluster headache, but a lack of effectiveness in chronic cluster headache, and fremanezumab was not effective for episodic nor chronic cluster headache. This finding highlights that CGRP monoclonal antibodies may not show a class effect in cluster headache prevention and need to be considered individually. CONCLUSIONS: We describe the treatment landscape of cluster headache for both acute and preventive treatments. Last, we present the NMAs we will undertake in acute therapies of cluster headache.

Network meta-analysis of therapies for cluster headache: Effects of acute therapies for episodic and chronic cluster.

OBJECTIVE: We used network meta-analysis (NMA) to characterize the relative effectiveness and harms of acute treatment options for cluster headache. BACKGROUND: There are few evidence-based acute treatments available for cluster headache. As most treatments were compared only against placebos in clinical trials, few head-to-head comparisons of treatments are available. METHODS: An a priori registered scoping review was performed to identify randomized controlled trials evaluating treatments in adult patients (>18 years old) with cluster headache per accepted diagnostic criteria. Bayesian NMAs were performed to compare treatments in terms of headache relief at 15 or 30 min, and also the occurrence of adverse events. We report odds ratios (ORs) of relative treatment effects along with corresponding 95% credible intervals (CrIs), as well as measures of treatment ranking. RESULTS: A total of 13 randomized controlled trials informed NMAs. We found high flow oxygen to be the most effective therapy for headache response at 15 and 30 min (OR 9.0, 95% CrI 5.3 to 15.9 vs. placebo), with injectable sumatriptan demonstrating the next highest effect (OR 6.4, 95% CrI 3.75 to 11.1 vs. placebo). High flow oxygen was also more effective than low flow oxygen (OR 2.55, 95% CrI 1.13 to 5.8), nasal spray zolmitriptan (OR 3.75, 95% CrI 1.72 to 8.4), octreotide (OR 4.5, 95% CrI 1.64 to 12.5), and non-invasive vagal nerve stimulation (nVNS; OR 5.2, 95% CrI 2.29 to 11.9). Sumatriptan injectable was also effective for headache relief and was found to be better than nasal spray zolmitriptan (OR 2.67, 95% CrI 1.21 to 5.9), octreotide (OR 3.20, 95% CrI 1.17 to 8.8), and nVNS (OR 3.69, 95% CrI 1.63 to 8.4). Octreotide (OR 4.1, 95% CrI 1.71 to 10.5) and sumatriptan (OR 2.40, 95% CrI 1.39 to 4.2) were associated with greater risk of adverse events compared to placebo, while other treatments did not demonstrate increased risk. When focusing on patients with episodic cluster headache, nVNS was significantly better than placebo (OR 4.9, 95% CrI 1.89 to 14.1). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that high flow oxygen is more efficacious when compared to low flow oxygen for headache relief. When low flow oxygen fails in patients who can tolerate oxygen, increased flow rates should be tried. Additionally, high flow oxygen is likely more effective than zolmitriptan nasal spray, nVNS, and octreotide. Sumatriptan injectable is more likely to be effective when compared to zolmitriptan nasal spray, octreotide, and nVNS.

Prehabilitation in adult patients undergoing surgery: an umbrella review of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: The certainty that prehabilitation improves postoperative outcomes is not clear. The objective of this umbrella review (i.e. systematic review of systematic reviews) was to synthesise and evaluate evidence for prehabilitation in improving health, experience, or cost outcomes. METHODS: We performed an umbrella review of prehabilitation systematic reviews. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, Joanna Briggs Institute's database, and Web of Science were searched (inception to October 20, 2020). We included all systematic reviews of elective, adult patients undergoing surgery and exposed to a prehabilitation intervention, where health, experience, or cost outcomes were reported. Evidence certainty was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Primary syntheses of any prehabilitation were stratified by surgery type. RESULTS: From 1412 titles, 55 systematic reviews were included. For patients with cancer undergoing surgery who participate in any prehabilitation, moderate certainty evidence supports improvements in functional recovery. Low to very low certainty evidence supports reductions in complications (mixed, cardiovascular, and cancer surgery), non-home discharge (orthopaedic surgery), and length of stay (mixed, cardiovascular, and cancer surgery). There was low to very low certainty evidence that exercise prehabilitation reduces the risk of complications, non-home discharge, and length of stay. There was low to very low certainty evidence that nutritional prehabilitation reduces risk of complications, mortality, and length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: Low certainty evidence suggests that prehabilitation may improve postoperative outcomes. Future low risk of bias, randomised trials, synthesised using recommended standards, are required to inform practice. Optimal patient selection, intervention design, and intervention duration must also be determined.

Using machine learning to predict individual patient toxicities from cancer treatments.

PURPOSE: Machine learning (ML) is a powerful tool for interrogating datasets and learning relationships between multiple variables. We utilized a ML model to identify those early breast cancer (EBC) patients at highest risk of developing severe vasomotor symptoms (VMS). METHODS: A gradient boosted decision model utilizing cross-sectional survey data from 360 EBC patients was created. Seventeen patient- and treatment-specific variables were considered in the model. The outcome variable was based on the Hot Flush Night Sweats (HFNS) Problem Rating Score, and individual scores were dichotomized around the median to indicate individuals with high and low problem scores. Model accuracy was assessed using the area under the receiver operating curve, and conditional partial dependence plots were constructed to illustrate relationships between variables and the outcome of interest. RESULTS: The model area under the ROC curve was 0.731 (SD 0.074). The most important variables in the model were as follows: the number of hot flashes per week, age, the prescription, or use of drug interventions to manage VMS, whether patients were asked about VMS in routine follow-up visits, and the presence or absence of changes to breast cancer treatments due to VMS. A threshold of 17 hot flashes per week was identified as being more predictive of severe VMS. Patients between the ages of 49 and 63 were more likely to report severe symptoms. CONCLUSION: Machine learning is a unique tool for predicting severe VMS. The use of ML to assess other treatment-related toxicities and their management requires further study.

Vasomotor symptoms in early breast cancer-a "real world" exploration of the patient experience.

BACKGROUND: Despite the frequency of vasomotor symptoms (VMS) in patients with early breast cancer (EBC), their optimal management remains unknown. A patient survey was performed to determine perspectives on this important clinical challenge. METHODS: Patients with EBC experiencing VMS participated in an anonymous survey. Patients reported on the frequency and severity of VMS using the validated Hot Flush Rating Scale (HFRS) and ranked their most bothersome symptoms. Respondents were also asked to determine endpoints that defined effective treatment of VMS and report on the effectiveness of previously tried interventions. RESULTS: Responses were received from 373 patients, median age 56 years (range 23-83), who experienced an average of 5.0 hot flashes per day (SD 6.57). Patients reported the most bothersome symptoms to be feeling hot/sweating (155/316, 49%) and sleeping difficulties (86/316, 27%). Fifty-five percent (201/365) of patients would consider a treatment to be effective if it reduced night-time awakenings. While 68% of respondents were interested in trying interventions from their healthcare team to manage VMS, only 18% actually did so. Of the 137 patients who had tried an intervention for VMS, pharmacological treatments, exercise, and relaxation strategies were more likely to be effective, while therapies such as melatonin and black cohosh were deemed less effective. CONCLUSION: VMS are a common and bothersome problem for EBC patients, with a minority receiving interventions to manage these symptoms. Further research is needed to identify patient-centered strategies for managing these distressing symptoms.

Long-Term Risk for Major Bleeding During Extended Oral Anticoagulant Therapy for First Unprovoked Venous Thromboembolism : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The long-term risk for major bleeding in patients receiving extended (beyond the initial 3 to 6 months) anticoagulant therapy for a first unprovoked venous thromboembolism (VTE) is uncertain. PURPOSE: To determine the incidence of major bleeding during extended anticoagulation of up to 5 years among patients with a first unprovoked VTE, overall, and in clinically important subgroups. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to 23 July 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies reporting major bleeding among patients with a first unprovoked VTE who were to receive oral anticoagulation for a minimum of 6 additional months after completing at least 3 months of initial anticoagulant treatment. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently abstracted data and assessed study quality. Unpublished data required for analyses were obtained from authors of included studies. DATA SYNTHESIS: Among the 14 RCTs and 13 cohort studies included in the analysis, 9982 patients received a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) and 7220 received a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC). The incidence of major bleeding per 100 person-years was 1.74 events (95% CI, 1.34 to 2.20 events) with VKAs and 1.12 events (CI, 0.72 to 1.62 events) with DOACs. The 5-year cumulative incidence of major bleeding with VKAs was 6.3% (CI, 3.6% to 10.0%). Among patients receiving either a VKA or a DOAC, the incidence of major bleeding was statistically significantly higher among those who were older than 65 years or had creatinine clearance less than 50 mL/min, a history of bleeding, concomitant use of antiplatelet therapy, or a hemoglobin level less than 100 g/L. The case-fatality rate of major bleeding was 8.3% (CI, 5.1% to 12.2%) with VKAs and 9.7% (CI, 3.2% to 19.2%) with DOACs. LIMITATION: Data were insufficient to estimate incidence of major bleeding beyond 1 year of extended anticoagulation with DOACs. CONCLUSION: In patients with a first unprovoked VTE, the long-term risks and consequences of anticoagulant-related major bleeding are considerable. This information will help inform patient prognosis and guide decision making about treatment duration for unprovoked VTE. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Canadian Institutes of Health Research. (PROSPERO: CRD42019128597).

Validation of a combined image derived input function and venous sampling approach for the quantification of [18F]GE-179 PET binding in the brain.

Blood-based kinetic analysis of PET data relies on an accurate estimate of the arterial plasma input function (PIF). An alternative to invasive measurements from arterial sampling is an image-derived input function (IDIF). However, an IDIF provides the whole blood radioactivity concentration, rather than the required free tracer radioactivity concentration in plasma. To estimate the tracer PIF, we corrected an IDIF from the carotid artery with estimates of plasma parent fraction (PF) and plasma-to-whole blood (PWB) ratio obtained from five venous samples. We compared the combined IDIF+venous approach to gold standard data from arterial sampling in 10 healthy volunteers undergoing [18F]GE-179 brain PET imaging of the NMDA receptor. Arterial and venous PF and PWB ratio estimates determined from 7 patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) were also compared to assess the potential effect of medication. There was high agreement between areas under the curves of the estimates of PF (r = 0.99, p<0.001), PWB ratio (r = 0.93, p<0.001), and the PIF (r = 0.92, p<0.001) as well as total distribution volume (VT) in 11 regions across the brain (r = 0.95, p<0.001). IDIF+venous VT had a mean bias of -1.7% and a comparable regional coefficient of variation (arterial: 21.3 ± 2.5%, IDIF+venous: 21.5 ± 2.0%). Simplification of the IDIF+venous method to use only one venous sample provided less accurate VT estimates (mean bias 9.9%; r = 0.71, p<0.001). A version of the method that avoids the need for blood sampling by combining the IDIF with population-based PF and PWB ratio estimates systematically underestimated VT (mean bias -20.9%), and produced VT estimates with a poor correlation to those obtained using arterial data (r = 0.45, p<0.001). Arterial and venous blood data from 7 TBI patients showed high correlations for PF (r = 0.92, p = 0.003) and PWB ratio (r = 0.93, p = 0.003). In conclusion, the IDIF+venous method with five venous samples provides a viable alternative to arterial sampling for quantification of [18F]GE-179 VT.

Adjuvant bisphosphonate use in patients with early stage breast cancer: a physician survey.

PURPOSE: Despite the increasing use of adjuvant bone-modifying agents (BMAs) such as zoledronate and clodronate in the treatment of patients with early stage breast cancer (EBC), little is known about real world practice patterns. A physician survey was performed to address this deficit and determine interest in clinical trials of alternative strategies for BMA administration. METHODS: Canadian oncologists treating patients with EBC were surveyed via an anonymized online survey. The survey collected information on: physician demographics, knowledge and interpretation of adjuvant bisphosphonate guidelines, and real world prescribing practices. Questions also determined thoughts around the design of future adjuvant BMA trials. RESULTS: Of 127 surveyed physicians, 53 eligible invitees responded (response rate 42%). The majority of physicians are offering high-risk postmenopausal patients adjuvant BMAs. The most common BMA regimen was adjuvant zoledronate (45/53, 85%) every 6 months for 3 years. Concerns around toxicities and repeated visits to the cancer centre were perceived as the greatest barriers to adjuvant bisphosphonate use. Respondents were interested in future trials of de-escalation of BMAs comparing a single infusion of zoledronate vs. 6-monthly zoledronate for 3 years. The most favoured primary endpoints for such a trial included disease recurrence and fragility fracture rates. CONCLUSION: Questions around optimal use of adjuvant bisphosphonates in patients with EBC still exist. There is interest among physicians in performing trials of de-escalation of these agents. The results of this survey will assist in designing pragmatic clinical trials to address this question.

Developing patient-centred strategies to optimize the management of vasomotor symptoms in breast cancer patients: a survey of health care providers.

PURPOSE: Vasomotor symptoms (VMS) such as hot flashes and night sweats are common in breast cancer patients and can affect both quality of life and treatment adherence. However, there is limited practical data to guide clinicians in the optimal selection of therapeutic strategies. A survey of health care providers was performed to better understand perspectives and prescribing practices for managing this problem. METHODS: Canadian health care providers who treat patients with early stage breast cancer (EBC) participated in an anonymous electronic survey. Participants provided their perspectives on the prevalence and severity of VMS among patients with EBC, outlined their management strategies, and provided feedback on the perceived efficacy of interventions for VMS. RESULTS: Responses were received from 65 providers including breast oncologists (36/65, 55%) and nurses with oncology expertise (29/65, 45%). Seventy-seven percent of participants reported regularly asking patients about VMS, and most indicated that bothersome VMS occurred in the majority of patients. Health care providers cited hot flash severity and sleep disruption as the most important issues for patients. The most common first- and second-line interventions recommended were lifestyle modifications (n = 32/65, 49.2%) and pharmacologic strategies (n = 27/65, 41.5%), respectively. Most respondents felt that interventions, including pharmacologic, over-the-counter, and complementary therapies, were only "somewhat effective". Overall, half of respondents (n = 35/65, 54%) reported being "confident" in managing VMS. CONCLUSION: Given the variability of treatment recommendations, and health care provider uncertainty around the benefits of therapies for VMS, more 'real-world' trials are needed to optimize patient care.

A scoping review characterizing "Choosing Wisely®" recommendations for breast cancer management.

PURPOSE: Choosing Wisely (CW)® was created by the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) to promote patient-physician conversations about unnecessary medical interventions. Similarly, other countries created their own panels of experts called "CW® campaigns" which review recommendations submitted by that country's oncology societies. We performed a scoping review to consolidate CW® recommendations from different groups with respect to breast cancer care. METHODS: A systematic search of Medline and Embase was designed by an information specialist for publications presenting CW® recommendations for breast cancer care practices from 2011-2020. We also reviewed the websites of all CW® campaigns and reference sections of each CW® recommendation. Two reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion and performed data extraction. Findings were summarized narratively. RESULTS: Review of ABIM CW® recommendations showed 19 breast cancer-related recommendations pertaining to; screening (n = 4), radiological staging (n = 2), treatment (n = 10), surveillance (n = 2), and miscellaneous (genetic testing; n = 1). Of 22 countries with CW® campaigns, 10 published recommendations for breast cancer. Over half (57%) of recommendations were supported by more than one country. No recommendations were refuted between campaigns. Two campaigns developed 3 novel recommendations on new topics, including chemotherapy in ductal carcinoma in situ (Italy) and comparison of screening imaging modalities (Portugal). CONCLUSIONS: CW® recommendations focus on reducing overutilization of investigations and treatments. There was a high rate of consensus between different CW® campaigns. As health care systems globally move attention to reduce low-value care, further studies are required to address adherence to these current recommendations and develop new recommendations.

Guidance for using artificial intelligence for title and abstract screening while conducting knowledge syntheses.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews are the cornerstone of evidence-based medicine. However, systematic reviews are time consuming and there is growing demand to produce evidence more quickly, while maintaining robust methods. In recent years, artificial intelligence and active-machine learning (AML) have been implemented into several SR software applications. As some of the barriers to adoption of new technologies are the challenges in set-up and how best to use these technologies, we have provided different situations and considerations for knowledge synthesis teams to consider when using artificial intelligence and AML for title and abstract screening. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated the implementation and performance of AML across a set of ten historically completed systematic reviews. Based upon the findings from this work and in consideration of the barriers we have encountered and navigated during the past 24 months in using these tools prospectively in our research, we discussed and developed a series of practical recommendations for research teams to consider in seeking to implement AML tools for citation screening into their workflow. RESULTS: We developed a seven-step framework and provide guidance for when and how to integrate artificial intelligence and AML into the title and abstract screening process. Steps include: (1) Consulting with Knowledge user/Expert Panel; (2) Developing the search strategy; (3) Preparing your review team; (4) Preparing your database; (5) Building the initial training set; (6) Ongoing screening; and (7) Truncating screening. During Step 6 and/or 7, you may also choose to optimize your team, by shifting some members to other review stages (e.g., full-text screening, data extraction). CONCLUSION: Artificial intelligence and, more specifically, AML are well-developed tools for title and abstract screening and can be integrated into the screening process in several ways. Regardless of the method chosen, transparent reporting of these methods is critical for future studies evaluating artificial intelligence and AML.