Non-invasive liver disease assessment to identify portal hypertension: A systematic review supporting the AASLD Practice Guideline.

INTRODUCTION: Portal hypertension is a serious complication of cirrhosis, which leads to life-threatening complications. Hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG), a surrogate of portal pressure, is the reference standard test to assess the severity of portal hypertension. However, since HVPG is limited by its invasiveness and by its availability, non-invasive liver disease assessments (NILDAs) to assess portal pressure, especially clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH), are needed. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, and Daily, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus from each database's inception to April 22 nd , 2022. We included only studies in English that examined ≥50 patients in single liver disease etiologies which compared non-invasive tests (blood, and/or imaging) to HVPG for predicting clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH; defined as HVPG ≥10 mm Hg) in patients with chronic liver disease (this therefore limited the number of studies that could be included). Outcomes reported included measures of diagnostic test accuracy. Additionally, a narrative review of studies not eligible for the systematic review is also provided. RESULTS: Nine studies with 2,492 patients met the inclusion criteria. There was substantial heterogeneity with regard to liver disease studied and cutoff values used to detect CSPH. Blood based tests, including aspartate to platelet ratio index (APRI) (56% sensitivity and 68% specificity) and fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) (54% sensitivity and 73% specificity) had low accuracy measures. Imaging based tests (transient elastography (TE) and shear wave elastography detection of liver stiffness (LSM)) had better accuracy, but also had substantial variation; at 15 kPa, TE sensitivity was 90%-96% and specificity was 48%-50% while at 25 kPa, its sensitivity and specificity were 57%-85% and 82%-93%, respectively. The narrative review suggested that imaging based tests are the best available NILDA to detect CSPH, CSPH is highly unlikely to be present at an LSM ≤15 kPa and likely to be present at an LSM ≥25 kPa. CONCLUSION: While imaging-based NILDA appeared to have higher accuracy than blood-based tests to detect CSPH, only 9 studies fit the a priori established inclusion criteria for the SR. In addition, there was substantial study heterogeneity and variation in cutoffs for LSM to detect CSPH, limiting the ability to establish definitive cutoffs to detect CSPH.

Imaging-based non-invasive liver disease assessment for staging liver fibrosis in chronic liver disease: A systematic review supporting the AASLD Practice Guideline.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Transient elastography (TE), shear-wave elastography (SWE), and/or magnetic resonance elastography (MRE), each providing liver stiffness measurement (LSM), are the most studied imaging-based noninvasive liver disease assessment (NILDA) techniques. To support the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases guidelines on NILDA, we summarized the evidence on the accuracy of these LSM methods to stage liver fibrosis (F). APPROACH AND RESULTS: A comprehensive search for studies assessing LSM by TE, SWE, or MRE for the identification of significant fibrosis (F2-4), advanced fibrosis (F3-4), or cirrhosis (F4), utilizing histopathology as standard of reference by liver disease etiology in adults or children from inception to April 2022 was performed. We excluded studies with <50 patients with a single disease entity and mixed liver disease etiologies (with the exception of HCV/HIV co-infection). Out of 9447 studies, 240 with 61,193 patients were included in this systematic review. In adults, sensitivities for the identification of F2-4 ranged from 51% to 95%, for F3-4 from 70% to 100%, and for F4 from 60% to 100% across all techniques/diseases, whereas specificities ranged from 36% to 100%, 74% to 100%, and 67% to 99%, respectively. The largest body of evidence available was for TE; MRE appeared to be the most accurate method. Imaging-based NILDA outperformed blood-based NILDA in most comparisons, particularly for the identification of F3-4/F4. In the pediatric population, imaging-based NILDA is likely as accurate as in adults. CONCLUSION: LSM from TE, SWE, and MRE show acceptable to outstanding accuracy for the detection of liver fibrosis across various liver disease etiologies. Accuracy increased from F2-4 to F3-4 and was the highest for F4. Further research is needed to better standardize the use of imaging-based NILDA, particularly in pediatric liver diseases.

Accuracy of blood-based biomarkers for staging liver fibrosis in chronic liver disease: A systematic review supporting the AASLD Practice Guideline.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Blood-based biomarkers have been proposed as an alternative to liver biopsy for non-invasive liver disease assessment (NILDA) in chronic liver disease (CLD). Our aims for this systematic review were to evaluate the diagnostic utility of selected blood-based tests either alone, or in combination, for identifying significant fibrosis (F2-4), advanced fibrosis (F3-4) and cirrhosis (F4), as compared to biopsy in CLD. APPROACH AND RESULTS: We included a comprehensive search of databases including Ovid MEDLINE(R), EMBASE, Cochrane Database, and Scopus through to April 2022. Two independent reviewers selected 286 studies with 103,162 patients. The most frequently identified studies included the simple aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio index (APRI) and fibrosis (FIB)-4 markers (with low-to-moderate risk of bias) in hepatitis B virus (HBV) and C virus (HCV), HIV-HCV/HBV co-infection, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Positive (LR+) and negative (LR) likelihood ratios across direct and indirect biomarker tests for HCV and HBV for F2-4, F3-4, or F4 were 1.66-6.25 and 0.23-0.80, 1.89-5.24 and 0.12-0.64, and 1.32-7.15 and 0.15-0.86 respectively; LR+ and LR for NAFLD F2-4, F3-4 and F4 were 2-65-3.37 and 0.37-0.39, 2.25-6.76 and 0.07-0.87, and 3.90 and 0.15 respectively. Overall, proportional odds ratio indicated FIB-4 <1.45 was better than APRI <0.5 for F2-4. FIB-4 >3.25 was also better than APRI >1.5 for F3-4 and F4. There was limited data for combined tests. CONCLUSIONS: Blood-based biomarkers are associated with small-to-moderate change in pre-test probability for diagnosing F2-4, F3-4, and F4 in viral hepatitis, HIV-HCV co-infection, and NAFLD, with limited comparative or combination studies for other CLD.

Rifampin Based Therapy for Patients With Staphylococcus aureus Native Vertebral Osteomyelitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Native vertebral osteomyelitis (NVO) caused by Staphylococcus aureus is associated with high risk of treatment failure and increased morbidity. The role of rifampin-based therapy for the treatment of this condition is controversial. The goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to explore the efficacy and safety of rifampin-based therapy for the treatment of S. aureus NVO. METHODS: We searched Cochrane, Embase, Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for studies published up to May 2023, focusing on adults with NVO treated with or without rifampin-containing regimens. A random-effects model meta-analysis estimated relative risks and risk difference with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Thirteen studies (2 randomized controlled trials and 11 comparative cohort studies), comprising 244 patients with S. aureus NVO who received rifampin and 435 who did not, were analyzed. Meta-analysis showed that rifampin-based regimens were associated with lower risk of clinical failure (risk difference, -14%; 95% CI, -19% to -8%; P < .001; I2 = 0%; relative risk, 0.58; 95% CI, .37-.92, P = .02, I2 = 21%). Only 1 study reported on adverse events. All studies had a high or uncertain risk of bias, and the certainty of evidence was rated as very low. CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive rifampin therapy might be associated with lower risk of S. aureus NVO treatment failure; however, the low certainty of evidence precludes drawing definitive conclusions that would alter clinical practice. A randomized trial is necessary to corroborate these findings.

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.

Clinical presentation and outcomes in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome-associated adrenal hemorrhage. A multicenter cohort study and systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Adrenal hemorrhage (AH) can occur in patients with antiphospholipid Syndrome (APS). We aimed to characterize the clinical manifestations, treatments, and outcomes of patients presenting with APS-associated AH (APS-AH) through a retrospective cohort and a systematic literature review (SLR). METHODS: We performed a mixed-source approach combining a multicenter cohort with an SLR of patients with incident APS-AH. We included patients from Mayo Clinic and published cases with persistent positivity for antiphospholipid antibodies and presenting with AH, demonstrated by imaging or biopsy. We extracted demographics, clinical characteristics, laboratory findings, treatment strategies, and outcomes (primary adrenal insufficiency and mortality). We used Kaplan-Meier and Cox models for survival analysis. RESULTS: We included 256 patients in total, 61 (24%) from Mayo Clinic and 195 (76%) from the SLR. The mean age was 46.8 (SD 15.2) years, and 45% were female. 69% of patients had bilateral adrenal involvement and 64% presented adrenal insufficiency. The most common symptoms at presentation were abdominal pain in 79%, and nausea and vomiting 46%. Hyponatremia (77%) was the most common electrolyte abnormality. Factors associated with primary adrenal insufficiency were bilateral adrenal involvement at initial imaging (OR 3.73, CI; 95%, 1.47-9.46) and anticardiolipin IgG positivity (OR 3.80, CI; 95%, 1.30-11.09). The survival rate at five years was 82%. History of stroke was associated with 3.6-fold increase in mortality (HR 3.62, 95% CI; 1.33-9.85). CONCLUSION: AH is a severe manifestation of APS with increased mortality. Most patients developed permanent primary adrenal insufficiency, particularly those positive for anticardiolipin IgG and bilateral adrenal involvement.

American Gastroenterological Association-American College of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guideline: Pharmacological Management of Chronic Idiopathic Constipation.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) is a common disorder associated with significant impairment in quality of life. This clinical practice guideline, jointly developed by the American Gastroenterological Association and the American College of Gastroenterology, aims to inform clinicians and patients by providing evidence-based practice recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of CIC in adults. METHODS: The American Gastroenterological Association and the American College of Gastroenterology formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that conducted systematic reviews of the following agents: fiber, osmotic laxatives (polyethylene glycol, magnesium oxide, lactulose), stimulant laxatives (bisacodyl, sodium picosulfate, senna), secretagogues (lubiprostone, linaclotide, plecanatide), and serotonin type 4 agonist (prucalopride). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework to assess the certainty of evidence for each intervention. The Evidence to Decision framework was used to develop clinical recommendations based on the balance between the desirable and undesirable effects, patient values, costs, and health equity considerations. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 10 recommendations for the pharmacological management of CIC in adults. Based on available evidence, the panel made strong recommendations for the use of polyethylene glycol, sodium picosulfate, linaclotide, plecanatide, and prucalopride for CIC in adults. Conditional recommendations were made for the use of fiber, lactulose, senna, magnesium oxide, and lubiprostone. DISCUSSION: This document provides a comprehensive outline of the various over-the-counter and prescription pharmacological agents available for the treatment of CIC. The guidelines are meant to provide a framework for approaching the management of CIC; clinical providers should engage in shared decision making based on patient preferences as well as medication cost and availability. Limitations and gaps in the evidence are highlighted to help guide future research opportunities and enhance the care of patients with chronic constipation.

Measuring Documentation Burden in Healthcare.

BACKGROUND: The enactment of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act and the wide adoption of electronic health record (EHR) systems have ushered in increasing documentation burden, frequently cited as a key factor affecting the work experience of healthcare professionals and a contributor to burnout. This systematic review aims to identify and characterize measures of documentation burden. METHODS: We integrated discussions with Key Informants and a comprehensive search of the literature, including MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and gray literature published between 2010 and 2023. Data were narratively and thematically synthesized. RESULTS: We identified 135 articles about measuring documentation burden. We classified measures into 11 categories: overall time spent in EHR, activities related to clinical documentation, inbox management, time spent in clinical review, time spent in orders, work outside work/after hours, administrative tasks (billing and insurance related), fragmentation of workflow, measures of efficiency, EHR activity rate, and usability. The most common source of data for most measures was EHR usage logs. Direct tracking such as through time-motion analysis was fairly uncommon. Measures were developed and applied across various settings and populations, with physicians and nurses in the USA being the most frequently represented healthcare professionals. Evidence of validity of these measures was limited and incomplete. Data on the appropriateness of measures in terms of scalability, feasibility, or equity across various contexts were limited. The physician perspective was the most robustly captured and prominently focused on increased stress and burnout. DISCUSSION: Numerous measures for documentation burden are available and have been tested in a variety of settings and contexts. However, most are one-dimensional, do not capture various domains of this construct, and lack robust validity evidence. This report serves as a call to action highlighting an urgent need for measure development that represents diverse clinical contexts and support future interventions.

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.

Clinical features, risk factors, and outcomes of diffuse alveolar hemorrhage in antiphospholipid syndrome: A mixed-method approach combining a multicenter cohort with a systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is a systemic autoimmune disease clinically associated with thrombotic and obstetric events. Additional manifestations have been associated with APS, like diffuse alveolar hemorrhage (DAH). We aimed to summarize all the evidence available to describe the presenting clinical features, their prognostic factors, and short- and long-term outcomes. METHODS: We performed a mixed-method approach combining a multicenter cohort with a systematic literature review (SLR) of patients with incident APS-associated DAH. We described their clinical features, treatments, prognostic factors, and outcomes (relapse, mortality, and requirement of mechanical ventilation [MV]). Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate relapse and mortality rates, and Cox and logistic regression models were used to assess the factors associated as appropriate. RESULTS: We included 219 patients with incident APS-associated DAH (61 from Mayo Clinic and 158 from SLR). The median age was 39.5 years, 51% were female, 29% had systemic lupus erythematosus, and 34% presented with catastrophic APS (CAPS). 74% of patients had a history of thrombotic events, and 26% of women had a history of pregnancy morbidity; half of the patients had a history of thrombocytopenia, and a third had valvulopathy. Before DAH, 55% of the patients were anticoagulated. At DAH onset, 65% of patients presented hemoptysis. The relapse rate was 47% at six months and 52% at one year. Triple positivity (HR 4.22, 95% CI 1.14-15.59) was associated with relapse at six months. The estimated mortality at one and five years was 30.3% and 45.8%. Factors associated with mortality were severe thrombocytopenia (< 50 K/µL) (HR 3.10, 95% CI 1.39-6.92), valve vegetations (HR 3.22, 95% CI 1.14-9.07), CAPS (HR 3.80, 95% CI 1.84-7.87), and requirement of MV (HR 2.22, 95% CI 1.03-4.80). Forty-two percent of patients required MV on the incident DAH episode. Patients presenting with severe thrombocytopenia (OR 6.42, 95% CI 1.77-23.30) or CAPS (OR 4.30, 95% CI 1.65-11.16) were more likely to require MV. CONCLUSION: APS-associated DAH is associated with high morbidity and mortality, particularly when presenting with triple positivity, thrombocytopenia, valvular involvement, and CAPS.

American Gastroenterological Association-American College of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guideline: Pharmacological Management of Chronic Idiopathic Constipation.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) is a common disorder associated with significant impairment in quality of life. This clinical practice guideline, jointly developed by the American Gastroenterological Association and the American College of Gastroenterology, aims to inform clinicians and patients by providing evidence-based practice recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of CIC in adults. METHODS: The American Gastroenterological Association and the American College of Gastroenterology formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that conducted systematic reviews of the following agents: fiber, osmotic laxatives (polyethylene glycol, magnesium oxide, lactulose), stimulant laxatives (bisacodyl, sodium picosulfate, senna), secretagogues (lubiprostone, linaclotide, plecanatide), and serotonin type 4 agonist (prucalopride). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework to assess the certainty of evidence for each intervention. The Evidence to Decision framework was used to develop clinical recommendations based on the balance between the desirable and undesirable effects, patient values, costs, and health equity considerations. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 10 recommendations for the pharmacological management of CIC in adults. Based on available evidence, the panel made strong recommendations for the use of polyethylene glycol, sodium picosulfate, linaclotide, plecanatide, and prucalopride for CIC in adults. Conditional recommendations were made for the use of fiber, lactulose, senna, magnesium oxide, and lubiprostone. DISCUSSION: This document provides a comprehensive outline of the various over-the-counter and prescription pharmacological agents available for the treatment of CIC. The guidelines are meant to provide a framework for approaching the management of CIC; clinical providers should engage in shared decision making based on patient preferences as well as medication cost and availability. Limitations and gaps in the evidence are highlighted to help guide future research opportunities and enhance the care of patients with chronic constipation.

A systematic review supporting the Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines on the management of heritable aortopathies.

BACKGROUND: To support the development of clinical practice guidelines on the management of patients with genetic aortopathies and arteriopathies, a writing committee from the Society for Vascular Surgery has commissioned this systematic review. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and searched multiple databases for studies addressing six questions identified by the Society for Vascular Surgery guideline committee about evaluating and managing patients with genetic aortopathies and arteriopathies. Studies were selected and appraised by pairs of independent reviewers. RESULTS: We included 12 studies in this systematic review. We did not identify studies about the long-term outcomes of endovascular repair for aortic aneurysm in patients with heritable aortopathy or about new aortic events in pregnant women with a history of aortic dissection (AD) or aneurysm. A small case series demonstrated a 100% survival rate and 100% aortic intervention-free survival at 15 months (range, 7-28 months) after endograft repair for type B AD. A positive genetic diagnosis was discovered in 36% of patients with aortic aneurysms and dissections who had no risk factors for hereditary aortopathies, and these patients had a mortality rate of 11% at a median follow-up duration of 5 months. Black patients had lower 30-day mortality than White patients (5.6% vs 9.0%, respectively), but they had a higher overall aortic reintervention rate at 30 days after AD repair (47% vs 27%, respectively). Aortic reinterventions owing to aneurysmal expansion and endoleak at 30 days were higher in Black patients than White patients. The certainty of evidence was judged to be very low across all the outcomes evaluated in this systematic review. CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence suggests high survival after thoracic endovascular aortic repair for type B AD in young patients with heritable aortopathies, but with limited long-term follow-up. Genetic testing in patients with acute aortic aneurysms and dissections had a high yield. It was positive for most patients with risk factors for hereditary aortopathies and in more than one-third for all other patients, and was associated with new aortic events within 15 years.

Assessing the robustness of results from clinical trials and meta-analyses with the fragility index.

The fragility index has been increasingly used to assess the robustness of the results of clinical trials since 2014. It aims at finding the smallest number of event changes that could alter originally statistically significant results. Despite its popularity, some researchers have expressed several concerns about the validity and usefulness of the fragility index. It offers a comprehensive review of the fragility index's rationale, calculation, software, and interpretation, with emphasis on application to studies in obstetrics and gynecology. This article presents the fragility index in the settings of individual clinical trials, standard pairwise meta-analyses, and network meta-analyses. Moreover, this article provides worked examples to demonstrate how the fragility index can be appropriately calculated and interpreted. In addition, the limitations of the traditional fragility index and some solutions proposed in the literature to address these limitations were reviewed. In summary, the fragility index is recommended to be used as a supplemental measure in the reporting of clinical trials and a tool to communicate the robustness of trial results to clinicians. Other considerations that can aid in the fragility index's interpretation include the loss to follow-up and the likelihood of data modifications that achieve the loss of statistical significance.

The association of sensitivity and specificity with disease prevalence: analysis of 6909 studies of diagnostic test accuracy.

BACKGROUND: Sensitivity and specificity are characteristics of a diagnostic test and are not expected to change as the prevalence of the target condition changes. We sought to evaluate the association between prevalence and changes in sensitivity and specificity. METHODS: We retrieved data from meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2003-2020). We used mixed-effects random-intercept linear regression models to evaluate the association between prevalence and logit-transformed sensitivity and specificity. The model evaluated all meta-analyses as nested within each systematic review. RESULTS: We analyzed 6909 diagnostic test accuracy studies from 552 meta-analyses that were included in 92 systematic reviews. For sensitivity, compared with the lowest quartile of prevalence, the second, third and fourth quartiles were associated with significantly higher odds of identifying a true positive case (odds ratio [OR] 1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09-1.26; OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.23-1.41; OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.37-1.58; respectively). For specificity, compared with the lowest quartile of prevalence, the second, third and fourth quartiles were associated with significantly lower odds of identifying a true negative case (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.69-0.80; OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.60-0.70; OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.44-0.51; respectively). Pooled regression coefficients from bivariate models conducted within each meta-analysis showed that prevalence was positively associated with sensitivity and negatively associated with specificity. Findings were consistent across subgroups. INTERPRETATION: In this large sample of diagnostic studies, higher prevalence was associated with higher estimated sensitivity and lower estimated specificity. Clinicians should consider the implications of disease prevalence and spectrum when interpreting the results from studies of diagnostic test accuracy.

A Framework for the Development of Living Practice Guidelines in Health Care.

BACKGROUND: Living practice guidelines are increasingly being used to ensure that recommendations are responsive to rapidly emerging evidence. OBJECTIVE: To develop a framework that characterizes the processes of development of living practice guidelines in health care. DESIGN: First, 3 background reviews were conducted: a scoping review of methods papers, a review of handbooks of guideline-producing organizations, and an analytic review of selected living practice guidelines. Second, the core team drafted the first version of the framework. Finally, the core team refined the framework through an online survey and online discussions with a multidisciplinary international group of stakeholders. SETTING: International. PARTICIPANTS: Multidisciplinary group of 51 persons who have experience with guidelines. MEASUREMENTS: Not applicable. RESULTS: A major principle of the framework is that the unit of update in a living guideline is the individual recommendation. In addition to providing definitions, the framework addresses several processes. The planning process should address the organization's adoption of the living methodology as well as each specific guideline project. The production process consists of initiation, maintenance, and retirement phases. The reporting should cover the evidence surveillance time stamp, the outcome of reassessment of the body of evidence (when applicable), and the outcome of revisiting a recommendation (when applicable). The dissemination process may necessitate the use of different venues, including one for formal publication. LIMITATION: This study does not provide detailed or practical guidance for how the described concepts would be best implemented. CONCLUSION: The framework will help guideline developers in planning, producing, reporting, and disseminating living guideline projects. It will also help research methodologists study the processes of living guidelines. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

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.

A Guide to Estimating the Reference Range From a Meta-Analysis Using Aggregate or Individual Participant Data.

Clinicians frequently must decide whether a patient's measurement reflects that of a healthy "normal" individual. Thus, the reference range is defined as the interval in which some proportion (frequently 95%) of measurements from a healthy population is expected to fall. One can estimate it from a single study or preferably from a meta-analysis of multiple studies to increase generalizability. This range differs from the confidence interval for the pooled mean and the prediction interval for a new study mean in a meta-analysis, which do not capture natural variation across healthy individuals. Methods for estimating the reference range from a meta-analysis of aggregate data that incorporates both within- and between-study variations were recently proposed. In this guide, we present 3 approaches for estimating the reference range: one frequentist, one Bayesian, and one empirical. Each method can be applied to either aggregate or individual-participant data meta-analysis, with the latter being the gold standard when available. We illustrate the application of these approaches to data from a previously published individual-participant data meta-analysis of studies measuring liver stiffness by transient elastography in healthy individuals between 2006 and 2016.

AGA Technical Review on Intragastric Balloons in the Management of Obesity.

Several strategies are available to address the obesity epidemic and range from noninvasive lifestyle interventions to medications and bariatric surgical procedures. Endoscopic bariatric techniques, such as intragastric balloons, have become an attractive alternative as a tool for weight loss that can augment the effect of lifestyle interventions. This technical review includes multiple systematic reviews performed to support a clinical practice guideline by the American Gastroenterological Association on the role of intragastric balloons as a tool for weight loss. The systematic reviews targeted a priori selected clinical questions about the effectiveness and periprocedural care of intragastric balloons and concomitant and subsequent weight-loss strategies.

Latitude and Celiac Disease Prevalence: A Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The latitudinal gradient effect is described for several autoimmune diseases including celiac disease in the United States. However, the association between latitude and global celiac disease prevalence is unknown. We aimed to explore the association between latitude and serology-based celiac disease prevalence through meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and Scopus databases from their beginning through June 29, 2018, to identify screening studies that targeted a general population sample, used serology-based screening tests, and provided a clear location from which we could assign a latitude. Studies were excluded if sampling was based on symptoms, risk factors, or referral. Study selection and data extraction were performed by independent reviewers. The association measures between latitude and prevalence of serology-based celiac disease were evaluated with random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regression. RESULTS: Of the identified 4667 unique citations, 128 studies were included, with 155 prevalence estimates representing 40 countries. Celiac disease was more prevalent at the higher latitudes of 51° to 60° (relative risk [RR], 1.62; 95% CI, 1.09-2.38) and 61° to 70° (RR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.36-3.89) compared with the 41° to 50° reference level. No statistically significant difference was observed at lower latitudes. When latitude was treated as continuous, we found a statistically significant association between CD prevalence and latitude overall in the world (RR, 1.03, 95% CI, 1.01-1.05) and a subregional analysis of Europe (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.07) and North America (RR, 1.1; 95% CI, 1.0-1.2). CONCLUSIONS: In this comprehensive review of screening studies, we found that a higher latitude was associated with greater serology-based celiac disease prevalence.