Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19: Serologic Testing.

BACKGROUND: The role of serologic testing for SARS-CoV-2 has evolved during the pandemic as seroprevalence in global populations has increased. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) convened an expert panel to perform a systematic review of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) serology literature and construct updated best practice guidance related to SARS-CoV-2 serologic testing. This guideline is an update to the fourth in a series of rapid, frequently updated COVID-19 guidelines developed by IDSA. OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence-based recommendations and identify unmet research needs pertaining to the use of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests for diagnosis, decisions related to vaccination and administration of monoclonal antibodies or convalescent plasma in immunocompromised patients, and identification of a serologic correlate of immunity. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists and experts in systematic literature reviewed, identified, and prioritized clinical questions related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 serologic tests. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. RESULTS: The panel recommends against serologic testing to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 infection in the first two weeks after symptom onset (strong recommendations, low certainty of evidence). Serologic testing should not be used to provide evidence of COVID-19 in symptomatic patients with a high clinical suspicion and repeatedly negative nucleic acid amplification test results (strong recommendation, very low certainty of evidence). Serologic testing may assist with the diagnosis of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (strong recommendation, very low certainty of evidence). To seek evidence for prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, the panel suggests testing for IgG, IgG/IgM, or total antibodies to nucleocapsid protein three to five weeks after symptom onset (conditional recommendation, low certainty of evidence). In individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination, we suggest against routine serologic testing given no demonstrated benefit to improving patient outcomes (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence.) The panel acknowledges further that a negative spike antibody test may be a useful metric to identify immunocompromised patients who are candidates for immune therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The high seroprevalence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 worldwide limits the utility of detecting anti-SARS CoV-2 antibody. The certainty of available evidence supporting the use of serology for diagnosis was graded as very low to low. Future studies should use serologic assays calibrated to a common reference standard.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19: Molecular Diagnostic Testing (December 2023).

Accurate molecular diagnostic tests are necessary for confirming a diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and for identifying asymptomatic carriage of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The number of available SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection tests continues to increase as does the COVID-19 diagnostic literature. Thus, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) developed an evidence-based diagnostic guideline to assist clinicians, clinical laboratorians, patients, and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification tests. In addition, we provide a conceptual framework for understanding molecular diagnostic test performance, discuss nuances of test result interpretation in a variety of practice settings, and highlight important unmet research needs related to COVID-19 diagnostic testing. IDSA convened a multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists, and experts in systematic literature review to identify and prioritize clinical questions and outcomes related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostics. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. The panel agreed on 12 diagnostic recommendations. Access to accurate SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid testing is critical for patient care, hospital infection prevention, and the public health response to COVID-19 infection. Information on the clinical performance of available tests continues to grow, but the quality of evidence of the current literature to support this updated molecular diagnostic guideline remains moderate to very low. Recognizing these limitations, the IDSA panel weighed available diagnostic evidence and recommends nucleic acid testing for all symptomatic individuals suspected of having COVID-19. In addition, testing is suggested for asymptomatic individuals with known or suspected contact with a COVID-19 case when the results will impact isolation/quarantine/personal protective equipment (PPE) usage decisions. Evidence in support of rapid testing and testing of upper respiratory specimens other than nasopharyngeal swabs, which offer logistical advantages, is sufficient to warrant conditional recommendations in favor of these approaches.

Failure of scabies treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Treatment failure is considered to be an important factor in relation to the increase in scabies incidence over the last decade. However, the regional and temporal differences, in addition to the predictors of therapy failure, are unclear. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to conduct a systematic review of the prevalence of treatment failure in patients with scabies and investigation of associated factors. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, Global Health and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to August 2021 for randomized and quasi-randomized trials, in addition to observational studies that enrolled children or adults diagnosed with confirmed or clinical scabies treated with permethrin, ivermectin, crotamiton, benzyl benzoate, malathion, sulfur or lindane, and measured treatment failure or factors associated with treatment failure. We performed a random effects meta-analysis for all outcomes reported by at least two studies. RESULTS: A total of 147 studies were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review. The overall prevalence of treatment failure was 15.2% [95% confidence interval (CI) 12.9-17.6; I2 = 95.3%, moderate-certainty evidence] with regional differences between World Health Organization regions (P = 0.003) being highest in the Western Pacific region (26.9%, 95% CI 14.5-41.2). Oral ivermectin (11.8%, 95% CI 8.4-15.4), topical ivermectin (9.3%, 95% CI 5.1-14.3) and permethrin (10.8%, 95% CI 7.5-14.5) had relatively lower failure prevalence compared with the overall prevalence. Failure prevalence was lower in patients treated with two doses of oral ivermectin (7.1%, 95% CI 3.1-12.3) compared with those treated with one dose (15.2%, 95% CI 10.8-20.2; P = 0.021). Overall and permethrin treatment failure prevalence in the included studies (1983-2021) increased by 0.27% and 0.58% per year, respectively. Only three studies conducted a multivariable risk factor analysis; no studies assessed resistance. CONCLUSIONS: A second dose of ivermectin showed lower failure prevalence than single-dose ivermectin, which should be considered in all guidelines. The increase in treatment failure over time hints at decreasing mite susceptibility for several drugs, but reasons for failure are rarely assessed. Ideally, scabicide susceptibility testing should be implemented in future studies.

Use of the Pfizer Pentavalent Meningococcal Vaccine Among Persons Aged ≥10 Years: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices - United States, 2023.

Meningococcal disease is a life-threatening invasive infection caused by Neisseria meningitidis. Two quadrivalent (serogroups A, C, W, and Y) meningococcal conjugate vaccines (MenACWY) (MenACWY-CRM [Menveo, GSK] and MenACWY-TT [MenQuadfi, Sanofi Pasteur]) and two serogroup B meningococcal vaccines (MenB) (MenB-4C [Bexsero, GSK] and MenB-FHbp [Trumenba, Pfizer Inc.]), are licensed and available in the United States and have been recommended by CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). On October 20, 2023, the Food and Drug Administration approved the use of a pentavalent meningococcal vaccine (MenACWY-TT/MenB-FHbp [Penbraya, Pfizer Inc.]) for prevention of invasive disease caused by N. meningitidis serogroups A, B, C, W, and Y among persons aged 10-25 years. On October 25, 2023, ACIP recommended that MenACWY-TT/MenB-FHbp may be used when both MenACWY and MenB are indicated at the same visit for the following groups: 1) healthy persons aged 16-23 years (routine schedule) when shared clinical decision-making favors administration of MenB vaccine, and 2) persons aged ≥10 years who are at increased risk for meningococcal disease (e.g., because of persistent complement deficiencies, complement inhibitor use, or functional or anatomic asplenia). Different manufacturers' serogroup B-containing vaccines are not interchangeable; therefore, when MenACWY-TT/MenB-FHbp is used, subsequent doses of MenB should be from the same manufacturer (Pfizer Inc.). This report summarizes evidence considered for these recommendations and provides clinical guidance for the use of MenACWY-TT/MenB-FHbp.

An Assessment of National Strategic Action Plans for Viral Hepatitis Elimination, 2016-2021.

In 2016, the World Health Organization (WHO) released the Global Health Sector Strategy (GHSS) setting goals for global hepatitis elimination. To inform new or revised viral hepatitis national strategic action plans (NSAPs) for 2022-2030, NSAPs developed during 2016-2021 were assessed for alignment with the WHO GHSS. Country NSAPs were assessed to determine if they included components in the 2016 GHSS. Of 55 country NSAPs, 19 (35%) did not include hepatitis B and C virus elimination goals, only 18 (33%) included targets for needles and syringes for persons who inject drugs, and 21 (38%) had a national budget or financing plan for hepatitis activities. Gaps identified indicate need for technical support in NSAP development.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19: Antigen Testing.

BACKGROUND: Immunoassays designed to detect SARS-CoV-2 protein antigens (Ag) are commonly used to diagnose COVID-19. The most widely used tests are lateral flow assays that generate results in approximately 15 minutes for diagnosis at the point-of-care. Higher throughput, laboratory-based SARS-CoV-2 Ag assays have also been developed. The number of commercially available SARS-CoV-2 Ag detection tests has increased rapidly, as has the COVID-19 diagnostic literature. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) convened an expert panel to perform a systematic review of the literature and develop best practice guidance related to SARS-CoV-2 Ag testing. This guideline is an update to the third in a series of frequently updated COVID-19 diagnostic guidelines developed by the IDSA. OBJECTIVE: The IDSA's goal was to develop evidence-based recommendations or suggestions that assist clinicians, clinical laboratories, patients, public health authorities, administrators and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests in both medical and non-medical settings. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists and experts in systematic literature review identified and prioritized clinical questions related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests. A review of relevant, peer-reviewed published literature was conducted through April 1, 2022. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. RESULTS: The panel made ten diagnostic recommendations. These recommendations address Ag testing in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals and assess single versus repeat testing strategies. CONCLUSIONS: U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests with Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) have high specificity and low to moderate sensitivity compared to nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT). Ag test sensitivity is dependent on the presence or absence of symptoms, and in symptomatic patients, on timing of testing after symptom onset. In contrast, Ag tests have high specificity, and, in most cases, positive Ag results can be acted upon without confirmation. Results of point-of-care testing are comparable to those of laboratory-based testing, and observed or unobserved self-collection of specimens for testing yields similar results. Modeling suggests that repeat Ag testing increases sensitivity compared to testing once, but no empirical data were available to inform this question. Based on these observations, rapid RT-PCR or laboratory-based NAAT remains the testing method of choice for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, when timely molecular testing is not readily available or is logistically infeasible, Ag testing helps identify individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data were insufficient to make a recommendation about the utility of Ag testing to guide release of patients with COVID-19 from isolation. The overall quality of available evidence supporting use of Ag testing was graded as very low to moderate.

European Respiratory Society guideline on various aspects of quality in lung cancer care.

This European Respiratory Society guideline is dedicated to the provision of good quality recommendations in lung cancer care. All the clinical recommendations contained were based on a comprehensive systematic review and evidence syntheses based on eight PICO (Patients, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes) questions. The evidence was appraised in compliance with the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Evidence profiles and the GRADE Evidence to Decision frameworks were used to summarise results and to make the decision-making process transparent. A multidisciplinary Task Force panel of lung cancer experts formulated and consented the clinical recommendations following thorough discussions of the systematic review results. In particular, we have made recommendations relating to the following quality improvement measures deemed applicable to routine lung cancer care: 1) avoidance of delay in the diagnostic and therapeutic period, 2) integration of multidisciplinary teams and multidisciplinary consultations, 3) implementation of and adherence to lung cancer guidelines, 4) benefit of higher institutional/individual volume and advanced specialisation in lung cancer surgery and other procedures, 5) need for pathological confirmation of lesions in patients with pulmonary lesions and suspected lung cancer, and histological subtyping and molecular characterisation for actionable targets or response to treatment of confirmed lung cancers, 6) added value of early integration of palliative care teams or specialists, 7) advantage of integrating specific quality improvement measures, and 8) benefit of using patient decision tools. These recommendations should be reconsidered and updated, as appropriate, as new evidence becomes available.

Guidelines for the Management of Adult Acute and Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure in the ICU: Neurology, Peri-Transplant Medicine, Infectious Disease, and Gastroenterology Considerations.

OBJECTIVES: To develop evidence-based recommendations for clinicians caring for adults with acute liver failure (ALF) or acute on chronic liver failure (ACLF) in the ICU. DESIGN: The guideline panel comprised 27 members with expertise in aspects of care of the critically ill patient with liver failure or methodology. We adhered to the Society of Critical Care Medicine standard operating procedures manual and conflict-of-interest policy. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among the panel, as well as within subgroups, served as an integral part of the guideline development. INTERVENTIONS: In part 2 of this guideline, the panel was divided into four subgroups: neurology, peri-transplant, infectious diseases, and gastrointestinal groups. We developed and selected Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes (PICO) questions according to importance to patients and practicing clinicians. For each PICO question, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis where applicable. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We used the evidence to decision framework to facilitate recommendations formulation as strong or conditional. We followed strict criteria to formulate best practice statements. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We report 28 recommendations (from 31 PICO questions) on the management ALF and ACLF in the ICU. Overall, five were strong recommendations, 21 were conditional recommendations, two were best-practice statements, and we were unable to issue a recommendation for five questions due to insufficient evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Multidisciplinary, international experts formulated evidence-based recommendations for the management ALF and ACLF patients in the ICU, acknowledging that most recommendations were based on low quality and indirect evidence.

Prevention and Control of Seasonal Influenza with Vaccines: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices - United States, 2022-23 Influenza Season.

THIS REPORT UPDATES THE 2021-22 RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON IMMUNIZATION PRACTICES (ACIP) CONCERNING THE USE OF SEASONAL INFLUENZA VACCINES IN THE UNITED STATES: (MMWR Recomm Rep 2021;70[No. RR-5]:1-24). Routine annual influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged ≥6 months who do not have contraindications. For each recipient, a licensed and age-appropriate vaccine should be used. With the exception of vaccination for adults aged ≥65 years, ACIP makes no preferential recommendation for a specific vaccine when more than one licensed, recommended, and age-appropriate vaccine is available. All seasonal influenza vaccines expected to be available in the United States for the 2022-23 season are quadrivalent, containing hemagglutinin (HA) derived from one influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 virus, one influenza A(H3N2) virus, one influenza B/Victoria lineage virus, and one influenza B/Yamagata lineage virus. Inactivated influenza vaccines (IIV4s), recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV4), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV4) are expected to be available. Trivalent influenza vaccines are no longer available, but data that involve these vaccines are included for reference. INFLUENZA VACCINES MIGHT BE AVAILABLE AS EARLY AS JULY OR AUGUST, BUT FOR MOST PERSONS WHO NEED ONLY 1 DOSE OF INFLUENZA VACCINE FOR THE SEASON, VACCINATION SHOULD IDEALLY BE OFFERED DURING SEPTEMBER OR OCTOBER. HOWEVER, VACCINATION SHOULD CONTINUE AFTER OCTOBER AND THROUGHOUT THE SEASON AS LONG AS INFLUENZA VIRUSES ARE CIRCULATING AND UNEXPIRED VACCINE IS AVAILABLE. FOR MOST ADULTS (PARTICULARLY ADULTS AGED ≥65 YEARS) AND FOR PREGNANT PERSONS IN THE FIRST OR SECOND TRIMESTER, VACCINATION DURING JULY AND AUGUST SHOULD BE AVOIDED UNLESS THERE IS CONCERN THAT VACCINATION LATER IN THE SEASON MIGHT NOT BE POSSIBLE. CERTAIN CHILDREN AGED 6 MONTHS THROUGH 8 YEARS NEED 2 DOSES; THESE CHILDREN SHOULD RECEIVE THE FIRST DOSE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AFTER VACCINE IS AVAILABLE, INCLUDING DURING JULY AND AUGUST. VACCINATION DURING JULY AND AUGUST CAN BE CONSIDERED FOR CHILDREN OF ANY AGE WHO NEED ONLY 1 DOSE FOR THE SEASON AND FOR PREGNANT PERSONS WHO ARE IN THE THIRD TRIMESTER IF VACCINE IS AVAILABLE DURING THOSE MONTHS: UPDATES DESCRIBED IN THIS REPORT REFLECT DISCUSSIONS DURING PUBLIC MEETINGS OF ACIP THAT WERE HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 2021; JANUARY 12, 2022; FEBRUARY 23, 2022; AND JUNE 22, 2022. PRIMARY UPDATES TO THIS REPORT INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING THREE TOPICS: 1) THE COMPOSITION OF 2022-23 U.S. SEASONAL INFLUENZA VACCINES; 2) UPDATES TO THE DESCRIPTION OF INFLUENZA VACCINES EXPECTED TO BE AVAILABLE FOR THE 2022-23 SEASON, INCLUDING ONE INFLUENZA VACCINE LABELING CHANGE THAT OCCURRED AFTER THE PUBLICATION OF THE 2021-22 ACIP INFLUENZA RECOMMENDATIONS; AND 3) UPDATES TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING VACCINATION OF ADULTS AGED ≥65 YEARS. FIRST, THE COMPOSITION OF 2022-23 U.S. INFLUENZA VACCINES INCLUDES UPDATES TO THE INFLUENZA A(H3N2) AND INFLUENZA B/VICTORIA LINEAGE COMPONENTS. U.S.-LICENSED INFLUENZA VACCINES WILL CONTAIN HA DERIVED FROM AN INFLUENZA A/VICTORIA/2570/2019 (H1N1)PDM09-LIKE VIRUS (FOR EGG-BASED VACCINES) OR AN INFLUENZA A/WISCONSIN/588/2019 (H1N1)PDM09-LIKE VIRUS (FOR CELL CULTURE-BASED OR RECOMBINANT VACCINES); AN INFLUENZA A/DARWIN/9/2021 (H3N2)-LIKE VIRUS (FOR EGG-BASED VACCINES) OR AN INFLUENZA A/DARWIN/6/2021 (H3N2)-LIKE VIRUS (FOR CELL CULTURE-BASED OR RECOMBINANT VACCINES); AN INFLUENZA B/AUSTRIA/1359417/2021 (VICTORIA LINEAGE)-LIKE VIRUS; AND AN INFLUENZA B/PHUKET/3073/2013 (YAMAGATA LINEAGE)-LIKE VIRUS. SECOND, THE APPROVED AGE INDICATION FOR THE CELL CULTURE-BASED INACTIVATED INFLUENZA VACCINE, FLUCELVAX QUADRIVALENT (CCIIV4), WAS CHANGED IN OCTOBER 2021 FROM ≥2 YEARS TO ≥6 MONTHS. THIRD, RECOMMENDATIONS FOR VACCINATION OF ADULTS AGED ≥65 YEARS HAVE BEEN MODIFIED. ACIP RECOMMENDS THAT ADULTS AGED ≥65 YEARS PREFERENTIALLY RECEIVE ANY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING HIGHER DOSE OR ADJUVANTED INFLUENZA VACCINES: QUADRIVALENT HIGH-DOSE INACTIVATED INFLUENZA VACCINE (HD-IIV4), QUADRIVALENT RECOMBINANT INFLUENZA VACCINE (RIV4), OR QUADRIVALENT ADJUVANTED INACTIVATED INFLUENZA VACCINE (AIIV4). IF NONE OF THESE THREE VACCINES IS AVAILABLE AT AN OPPORTUNITY FOR VACCINE ADMINISTRATION, THEN ANY OTHER AGE-APPROPRIATE INFLUENZA VACCINE SHOULD BE USED: THIS REPORT FOCUSES ON RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE USE OF VACCINES FOR THE PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF SEASONAL INFLUENZA DURING THE 2022-23 INFLUENZA SEASON IN THE UNITED STATES. A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND A LINK TO THE MOST RECENT BACKGROUND DOCUMENT CONTAINING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ARE AVAILABLE AT: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/vacc-specific/flu.html. These recommendations apply to U.S.-licensed influenza vaccines used according to Food and Drug Administration-licensed indications. Updates and other information are available from CDC's influenza website (https://www.cdc.gov/flu). Vaccination and health care providers should check this site periodically for additional information.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on endoscopic submucosal dissection for the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers: methodology and review of evidence.

This document from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides a full description of the methodology used in the review of the evidence used to inform the final guidance outlined in the accompanying Summary and Recommendations document regarding the role of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers. This guideline used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and specifically addresses the role of ESD versus EMR and/or surgery, where applicable, for the management of early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), and gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) and their corresponding precursor lesions. For ESCC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >15 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions ≤15 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for such patients with ESCC, whenever possible. For EAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >20 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions measuring ≤20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. For GAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well or moderately differentiated, nonulcerated intestinal type cancer measuring 20 to 30 mm, whereas for patients with similar lesions <20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for patients with such lesions measuring ≤30 mm, whereas for lesions that are poorly differentiated, regardless of size, the ASGE suggests surgical evaluation over endosic approaches.

Effect of sleep disturbance on biomarkers related to the development of adverse health outcomes: A systematic review of the human literature.

Literature suggests that unrestricted and undisturbed sleep is vital for basic human function and performance; however, it is unclear as to what amount of sleep disturbance leads to dysregulation in biomarkers, which may underscore the development of adverse health effects. This systematic review aims to identify the amount of sleep disturbance that contributes to biomarker changes as a potential precursor to the development of adverse health effects. English-language comparative studies available in PubMed, Cochrane Central, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases from 1 January 1980 to 31 July 2021 were searched. Where possible, random-effects meta-analyses were used to examine the effect of sleep disturbances on adverse health effects. The risk of bias of individual studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and the Risk of Bias of Nonrandomised Studies - of Exposures instruments and the certainty of the body of evidence for each outcome was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. The search identified 92 primary studies reporting on blood pressure, hypertension, heart rate, cardiac arrhythmia, cardiac output, waist circumference, cortisol, adrenaline, noradrenaline, immune system markers, glucose, insulin, cholesterol, and triglyceride levels. Although some meta-analyses suggested there may be an association between sleep disturbances and certain outcomes, the certainty in the evidence was very low due to concerns with risk of bias, inconsistency across exposures, populations, and imprecision in the estimates of effects. Further research is needed to explore the point at which types, levels and duration of sleep disturbances may begin to increase the risk of developing adverse health outcomes to inform and tailor health interventions.

Climate disasters and oncology care: a systematic review of effects on patients, healthcare professionals, and health systems.

PURPOSE: Climate disasters have devastating effects on communities and society that encompass all aspects of daily life, including healthcare. Patients with cancer are particularly vulnerable when disaster strikes. As the number and intensity of disasters increases, it is important to understand the effects across the cancer care continuum. This systematic review investigates the effect of climate disasters on patients, the oncology healthcare workforce, and healthcare systems. METHODS: A medical librarian conducted a literature search in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science from January 1, 2016, through May 11, 2022. Eligible studies included any published report on a climate disaster globally reporting on patient-, oncology healthcare workforce-, or healthcare systems-level outcomes. Study quality was assessed, and findings were narratively synthesized, given the diversity of reported evidence. RESULTS: The literature search identified 3618 records, of which 46 publications were eligible for inclusion. The most frequent climate disaster was hurricanes (N = 27) followed by tsunami (N = 10). Eighteen publications were from disasters that occurred in the mainland USA with 13 from Japan and 12 from Puerto Rico. Patient-level outcomes included treatment interruptions and inability to communicate with the healthcare team. At the workforce level, findings included distressed clinicians caring for others when their own lives have been affected by a disaster along with lack of disaster preparedness training. Health systems reported closures or shifting services post-disaster and a need to have improved emergency response plans. CONCLUSION: Response to climate disasters necessitates a holistic approach at the patient, workforce, and health systems levels. Specifically, interventions should focus on mitigating interruptions in care for patients, advanced coordination and planning for workforce and health systems, and contingency planning for allocation of resources by health systems.

Components of Outpatient Child and Youth Concurrent Disorders Programs: A Critical Interpretive Synthesis: Composantes des programmes de troubles concomitants des enfants et des jeunes ambulatoires : une synthèse interprétative critique.

OBJECTIVE: Co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders (concurrent disorders) lead to significant morbidity in children and youth. Programs for integrated treatment of concurrent disorders have been developed; however, there exists little guidance outlining their structure and activities. Our objective was to synthesize available information on outpatient child and youth concurrent disorders programs and produce a comprehensive framework detailing the components of such programs. METHODS: We used a four-stage critical interpretive synthesis design: (1) systematic review of published and grey literature, (2) data abstraction to identify program components and purposive sampling to fill identified gaps, (3) organization of components into a structured framework, (4) feedback from programs. We employed an iterative process by which programs reviewed data abstraction and framework development and provided feedback. RESULTS: Through systematic review (yielding 1,408 records total and 7 records eligible for inclusion) and outreach strategies (yielding an additional 7 eligible records), we identified 11 programs (4 American, 7 Canadian) and 2 theoretical models from which data could be abstracted. Program activities were categorized into 12 overarching constructs that make up the components of the framework: accessibility, engagement, family involvement, integrated assessment, psychotherapy for patients, psychotherapy for families, medication management, health promotion, case management, vocational support, recreation and social support, and transition services. Program components are informed by the philosophical orientation of the program and models of care. This framework considers health system factors, clinical service factors, program development, and community partnership that impact program structure and activities. Multidisciplinary teams provide care and include addiction medicine, psychiatry, psychology, nursing, social work, occupational therapy, recreation therapy, peer support, and program evaluation. CONCLUSION: We developed a comprehensive framework describing components of child and youth outpatient concurrent disorders programs. This framework may assist programs currently operating, and those in development, to reflect on their structure and activities.

Syndrome of Combined Pulmonary Fibrosis and Emphysema: An Official ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT Research Statement.

Background: The presence of emphysema is relatively common in patients with fibrotic interstitial lung disease. This has been designated combined pulmonary fibrosis and emphysema (CPFE). The lack of consensus over definitions and diagnostic criteria has limited CPFE research. Goals: The objectives of this task force were to review the terminology, definition, characteristics, pathophysiology, and research priorities of CPFE and to explore whether CPFE is a syndrome. Methods: This research statement was developed by a committee including 19 pulmonologists, 5 radiologists, 3 pathologists, 2 methodologists, and 2 patient representatives. The final document was supported by a focused systematic review that identified and summarized all recent publications related to CPFE. Results: This task force identified that patients with CPFE are predominantly male, with a history of smoking, severe dyspnea, relatively preserved airflow rates and lung volumes on spirometry, severely impaired DlCO, exertional hypoxemia, frequent pulmonary hypertension, and a dismal prognosis. The committee proposes to identify CPFE as a syndrome, given the clustering of pulmonary fibrosis and emphysema, shared pathogenetic pathways, unique considerations related to disease progression, increased risk of complications (pulmonary hypertension, lung cancer, and/or mortality), and implications for clinical trial design. There are varying features of interstitial lung disease and emphysema in CPFE. The committee offers a research definition and classification criteria and proposes that studies on CPFE include a comprehensive description of radiologic and, when available, pathological patterns, including some recently described patterns such as smoking-related interstitial fibrosis. Conclusions: This statement delineates the syndrome of CPFE and highlights research priorities.

Physical activity interventions for cancer-related fatigue: A scoping review of randomized controlled trials from a Nursing Science Precision Health Model perspective.

BACKGROUND: The Nursing Science Precision Health (NSPH) Model has the potential to guide research on the development, testing, and targeting of interventions. PURPOSE: This scoping review examines the relationship between physical activity (PA) and cancer-related fatigue (CRF) within the context of the NSPH Model. METHODS: The Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews guided this review. We included randomized controlled trials in people with cancer that investigated PA interventions and measured change in CRF as an outcome. DISCUSSION: A total of 181 studies met the eligibility criteria. Over 20 different instruments were used to measure CRF. The most common PA interventions were strength training (48%), walking (36%), cycling (26%), and yoga (15%). A limited number of studies reported phenotypic characteristics (32/181, 17%) or biomarkers (31/181, 17%) associated with CRF. CONCLUSION: This scoping review identified the body of existing research exploring CRF and PA from a precision health perspective.

Lessons Learned from Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Therapies: Critical Perspectives From the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) COVID-19 Treatment Guideline Panel.

Despite the challenges of the pandemic, there has been substantial progress with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) therapies. Pivotal COVID-19 trials like SOLIDARITY, RECOVERY, and ACCT-1 were rapidly conducted and data disseminated to support effective therapies. However, critical shortcomings remain on trial conduct, dissemination and interpretation of study results, and regulatory guidance in pandemic settings. The lessons that we learned have implications for both the current pandemic and future emerging infectious diseases. There is a need for establishing and standardizing clinical meaningful outcomes in therapeutic trials and for targeting defined populations and phenotypes that will most benefit from specific therapies. Standardized processes should be established for rapid and critical data review and dissemination to ensure scientific integrity. Clarity around the evidence standards needed for issuance of both emergency use authorization (EUA) and biologic license application (BLA) should be established and an infrastructure for executing rapid trials in epidemic settings maintained.

Therapeutic Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) During Pandemics: Double-edged Swords.

Given the urgent need for treatments during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, the US Food and Drug Administration issued emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for multiple therapies. In several instances, however, these EUAs were issued before sufficient evidence of a given therapy's efficacy and safety were available, potentially promoting ineffective or even harmful therapies and undermining the generation of definitive evidence. We describe the strengths and weaknesses of the different therapeutic EUAs issued during this pandemic. We also contrast them to the vaccine EUAs and suggest a framework and criteria for an evidence-based, trustworthy, and publicly transparent therapeutic EUA process for future pandemics.

Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Treatment and Management of Patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: There are many pharmacologic therapies that are being used or considered for treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with rapidly changing efficacy and safety evidence from trials. OBJECTIVE: Develop evidence-based, rapid, living guidelines intended to support patients, clinicians, and other healthcare professionals in their decisions about treatment and management of patients with COVID-19. METHODS: In March 2020, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel of infectious disease clinicians, pharmacists, and methodologists with varied areas of expertise to regularly review the evidence and make recommendations about the treatment and management of persons with COVID-19. The process used a living guideline approach and followed a rapid recommendation development checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. A systematic review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature was conducted at regular intervals. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations. RESULTS: Based on the most recent search conducted on May 31, 2022, the IDSA guideline panel has made 30 recommendations for the treatment and management of the following groups/populations: pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis, ambulatory with mild-to-moderate disease, hospitalized with mild-to-moderate, severe but not critical, and critical disease. As these are living guidelines, the most recent recommendations can be found online at: https://idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: At the inception of its work, the panel has expressed the overarching goal that patients be recruited into ongoing trials. Since then, many trials were done which provided much needed evidence for COVID-19 therapies. There still remain many unanswered questions as the pandemic evolved which we hope future trials can answer.

Use of Ebola Vaccine: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, United States, 2020.

This report summarizes the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) for use of the rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP Ebola vaccine (Ervebo) in the United States. The vaccine contains rice-derived recombinant human serum albumin and live attenuated recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) in which the gene encoding the glycoprotein of VSV was replaced with the gene encoding the glycoprotein of Ebola virus species Zaire ebolavirus. Persons with a history of severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis) to rice protein should not receive Ervebo. This is the first and only vaccine currently licensed by the Food and Drug Administration for the prevention of Ebola virus disease (EVD). These guidelines will be updated based on availability of new data or as new vaccines are licensed to protect against EVD.ACIP recommends preexposure vaccination with Ervebo for adults aged ≥18 years in the U.S. population who are at highest risk for potential occupational exposure to Ebola virus species Zaire ebolavirus because they are responding to an outbreak of EVD, work as health care personnel at federally designated Ebola treatment centers in the United States, or work as laboratorians or other staff at biosafety level 4 facilities in the United States. Recommendations for use of Ervebo in additional populations at risk for exposure and other settings will be considered and discussed by ACIP in the future.

An International Needs Assessment Survey of Guideline Developers Demonstrates Variability in Resources and Challenges to Collaboration between Organizations.

BACKGROUND: The development of rigorous, high-quality clinical guidelines increases the need for resources and skilled personnel within guideline-producing organizations. While collaboration between organizations provides a unique opportunity to pool resources and save time and effort, the collaboration presents its own unique challenges. OBJECTIVE: To assess the perceived needs and current challenges of guideline producers worldwide related to guideline development and collaboration efforts. DESIGN: Survey questions were developed by the Guidelines International Network and the US GRADE Network, pilot-tested among attendees of a guideline development workshop, and disseminated electronically using convenience and snowball sampling methods. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 171 respondents representing 30 countries and more than 112 unique organizations were included in this analysis. MAIN MEASURES: The survey included free-response, multiple-choice, and seven-point Likert-scale questions. Questions assessed respondents' perceived value of guidelines, resource availability and needs, guideline development processes, and collaboration efforts of their organization. KEY RESULTS: Time required to develop high-quality systematic reviews and guidelines was the most relevant need (median=7; IQR=5.5-7). In-house resources to conduct literature searches (median=4; IQR=3-6) and the resources to develop rigorous guidelines rapidly (median=4; IQR=2-5) were perceived as the least available resources. Difficulties reconciling differences in guideline methodology (median=6; IQR=4-7) and the time required to establish collaborative agreements (median=6; IQR=5-6) were the most relevant barriers to collaboration between organizations. Results also indicated a general need for improvement in conflict of interest (COI) disclosure policies. CONCLUSION: The survey identified organizational challenges in supporting rigorous guideline development, including the time, resources, and personnel required. Connecting guideline developers to existing databases of high-quality systematic reviews and the use of freely available online platforms may facilitate guideline development. Guideline-producing organizations may also consider allocating resources to hiring or training personnel with expertise in systematic review methodologies or utilizing resources more effectively by establishing collaborations with other organizations.