Intravascular imaging in the diagnosis and management of patients with suspected intracoronary pathologies: A CJC White Paper.

Intravascular imaging has become an integral part of the diagnostic and management strategies for intracoronary pathologies. This White Paper summarizes current evidence and its implications on the use of intravascular imaging in interventional cardiology practice. The areas addressed are planning and optimization of percutaneous coronary intervention, management of stent failure, and evaluation of ambiguous coronary lesions and myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary disease (MINOCA). Findings are presented following the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system in an expert consensus process involving a diverse Writing group and vetted by a Review group. Expert consensus was achieved around nine statements. Use of intravascular imaging in guiding percutaneous revascularization is supported by high quality evidence, particularly for lesions with increased risk of recurrent events or stent failure. Specific considerations for intravascular imaging guidance of intervention in left main lesions, chronic occlusion lesions as well as patients at high risk of contrast nephropathy are explored. Use of intravascular imaging to identify pathologies associated with stent failure and guide repeat intervention, resolve ambiguities in lesion assessment and establish diagnoses in patients presenting with MINOCA is supported by moderate to low quality evidence. Each topic is accompanied by clinical pointers to aid the practicing interventional cardiologist in implementation of the White paper findings. The findings of this White Paper will help to guide the utilization of intravascular imaging towards those situations in which the balance of efficacy, safety and cost are most optimal.

Understanding contextual and practical factors to inform WHO recommendations on using chest imaging to monitor COVID-19 pulmonary sequelae: a qualitative study exploring stakeholders' perspective.

BACKGROUND: A recommendation by the World Health Organization (WHO) was issued about the use of chest imaging to monitor pulmonary sequelae following recovery from COVID-19. This qualitative study aimed to explore the perspective of key stakeholders to understand their valuation of the outcome of the proposition, preferences for the modalities of chest imaging, acceptability, feasibility, impact on equity and practical considerations influencing the implementation of using chest imaging. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive design using in-depth interviews approach. Key stakeholders included adult patients who recovered from the acute illness of COVID-19, and providers caring for those patients. The Evidence to Decision (EtD) conceptual framework was used to guide data collection of contextual and practical factors related to monitoring using imaging. Data analysis was based on the framework thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: 33 respondents, including providers and patients, were recruited from 15 different countries. Participants highly valued the ability to monitor progression and resolution of long-term sequelae but recommended the avoidance of overuse of imaging. Their preferences for the imaging modalities were recorded along with pros and cons. Equity concerns were reported across countries (e.g., access to resources) and within countries (e.g., disadvantaged groups lacked access to insurance). Both providers and patients accepted the use of imaging, some patients were concerned about affordability of the test. Facilitators included post- recovery units and protocols. Barriers to feasibility included low number of specialists in some countries, access to imaging tests among elderly living in nursing homes, experience of poor coordination of care, emotional exhaustion, and transportation challenges driving to a monitoring site. CONCLUSION: We were able to demonstrate that there is a high value and acceptability using imaging but there were factors influencing feasibility, equity and some practical considerations associated with implementation. We had a few suggestions to be considered by the expert panel in the formulation of the guideline to facilitate its implementation such as using validated risk score predictive tools for lung complications to recommend the appropriate imaging modality and complementary pulmonary function test.

Safety and efficacy of low-dose intracoronary thrombolysis during primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction: A meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: In patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), intracoronary thrombolysis (ICT) may reduce thrombotic burden and microvascular obstruction in the infarct-related artery. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the role of adjunctive low-dose ICT during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) in improving clinical outcomes and indices of microvascular function. METHODS: We searched electronic databases (Cochrane, EMBASE, Medline; inception to October 2023) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects of adjunctive ICT in STEMI patients undergoing PPCI, compared with placebo or usual care. Study-level data on efficacy and safety outcomes were pooled using a fixed-effect model. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). RESULTS: A total of 8 RCTs were included, comprising a total of 1,208 patients. Compared with placebo or usual care, ICT was associated with a trend towards lower MACE (11.3% vs. 15.1%; odds ratio [OR] 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51 to 1.04). Infarct size (mean difference [MD] -1.98, 95% CI -3.68 to -0.27; p=0.02), ST-segment resolution (MD: 6.06, 95% CI: 0.69 to 11.43; p=0.03) and corrected TIMI frame count (MD: -2.26, 95% CI: -4.03 to -0.48; p=0.01; I2=78%). The odds for major (0.7% vs. 0.7%; OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.24 to 3.7; p=0.93) and minor bleeding (7.7% vs. 4.3%; OR 1.81, 95% CI 0.87 to 3.76; p=0.11) were similar between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Adjunctive low-dose ICT during PPCI is safe, associated with a trend towards lower MACE, and may improve surrogate markers of microvascular function. These hypothesis-generating findings warrant validation in larger, adequately powered randomized trials.

Reporting Conflicts of Interest and Funding in Health Care Guidelines: The RIGHT-COI&F Checklist.

BACKGROUND: Conflicts of interest (COIs) of contributors to a guideline project and the funding of that project can influence the development of the guideline. Comprehensive reporting of information on COIs and funding is essential for the transparency and credibility of guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To develop an extension of the Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) statement for the reporting of COIs and funding in policy documents of guideline organizations and in guidelines: the RIGHT-COI&F checklist. DESIGN: The recommendations of the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) network were followed. The process consisted of registration of the project and setting up working groups, generation of the initial list of items, achieving consensus on the items, and formulating and testing the final checklist. SETTING: International collaboration. PARTICIPANTS: 44 experts. MEASUREMENTS: Consensus on checklist items. RESULTS: The checklist contains 27 items: 18 about the COIs of contributors and 9 about the funding of the guideline project. Of the 27 items, 16 are labeled as policy related because they address the reporting of COI and funding policies that apply across an organization's guideline projects. These items should be described ideally in the organization's policy documents, otherwise in the specific guideline. The remaining 11 items are labeled as implementation related and they address the reporting of COIs and funding of the specific guideline. LIMITATION: The RIGHT-COI&F checklist requires testing in real-life use. CONCLUSION: The RIGHT-COI&F checklist can be used to guide the reporting of COIs and funding in guideline development and to assess the completeness of reporting in published guidelines and policy documents. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: The Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China.

GRADE guidance 37: rating imprecision in a body of evidence on test accuracy.

OBJECTIVES: To provide guidance on rating imprecision in a body of evidence assessing the accuracy of a single test. This guide will clarify when Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) users should consider rating down the certainty of evidence by one or more levels for imprecision in test accuracy. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A project group within the GRADE working group conducted iterative discussions and presentations at GRADE working group meetings to produce this guidance. RESULTS: Before rating the certainty of evidence, GRADE users should define the target of their certainty rating. GRADE recommends setting judgment thresholds defining what they consider a very accurate, accurate, inaccurate, and very inaccurate test. These thresholds should be set after considering consequences of testing and effects on people-important outcomes. GRADE's primary criterion for judging imprecision in test accuracy evidence is considering confidence intervals (i.e., CI approach) of absolute test accuracy results (true and false, positive, and negative results in a cohort of people). Based on the CI approach, when a CI appreciably crosses the predefined judgment threshold(s), one should consider rating down certainty of evidence by one or more levels, depending on the number of thresholds crossed. When the CI does not cross judgment threshold(s), GRADE suggests considering the sample size for an adequately powered test accuracy review (optimal or review information size [optimal information size (OIS)/review information size (RIS)]) in rating imprecision. If the combined sample size of the included studies in the review is smaller than the required OIS/RIS, one should consider rating down by one or more levels for imprecision. CONCLUSION: This paper extends previous GRADE guidance for rating imprecision in single test accuracy systematic reviews and guidelines, with a focus on the circumstances in which one should consider rating down one or more levels for imprecision.

Parenting a High and Growing Population of Youth in the Arab Region: A Scoping Review for an Evidence-Informed Research Agenda.

The Arab region is experiencing the largest youth cohort in its history. Parental influence is a clear factor in the well-being of this demographic. This scoping review serves as the first consolidated synthesis of existing research on parenting in the Arab world, aimed at identifying research gaps and informing future research agendas. Searches of 18 databases resulted in 4,758 records (1995-2018) in all languages. Using Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework, eligible studies (n = 152) underwent duplicate data abstraction. An evidence gap map was developed using 3i.e.'s platform. Studies were mostly published in English (88%), and lead authors' affiliations were mostly from Arab institutions. Included studies were mostly cross-sectional (89%), quantitative (96%), conducted in a school/university (83%), and surveyed children and adolescents (70%). Most studies (79%) examined parenting influences on youth outcomes. Fewer examined parenting measurement (30%) or evaluated interventions (1%). Mental health and school performance were the most commonly investigated outcomes. The evidence gap map allows researchers who study youth in the Arab world to efficiently and visually delineate the gaps and strategically prioritize research needs. Future studies should employ robust mixed methods study designs, focus on evaluation and psychometric research, engage youth in the research process and explore a more diverse set of outcomes.

Choosing and accessing COVID-19 treatment options: a qualitative study with patients, caregivers, and health care providers in Lebanon.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has strained healthcare systems globally, particularly in terms of access to medicines. Lebanon has been greatly affected by the pandemic, having faced concomitant financial and economic crises. The objective of the study was to understand the experiences of patients with COVID-19 in Lebanon, as well as those of their families, and healthcare providers, with regards to their treatment decisions and accessibility to COVID-19 medicines. METHODS: For this qualitative study, we conducted 28 semi-structured interviews. We used purposive sampling to recruit participants with a diverse range of perspectives. The data collection phase spanned from August to November 2021 and was conducted virtually. After transcribing and translating the interviews, we employed thematic analysis to identify recurring themes and patterns. RESULTS: In total, 28 individuals participated in this study. Participants highlighted challenges owing to the COVID-19 pandemic and economic crisis. Accessing COVID-19 medicines posed major hurdles for physicians and patients, given limited availability, global shortages, local circumstances, community hoarding and stockpiling by pharmacies. Providers based treatment decisions on research, local and international practice guidelines, experiences and expert feedback. Patients sought information from social media, community members and physicians, as well as through word of mouth. Accessing medicines involved navigating the healthcare system, the black market, charities, personal networks and political parties and sourcing from abroad. The medicines were either free, subsidized or at inflated costs. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the diversity and complexity of factors influencing decision-making and accessing medicines during the COVID-19 pandemic in Lebanon. Future research should explore strategies for ensuring medicine access during crises, drawing insights from comparative studies across different countries.

Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials: Efficacy and Safety of Colchicine for Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease.

Background: Colchicine has shown potential cardioprotective effects owing to its broad anti-inflammatory properties. We performed a meta-analysis to assess its safety and efficacy in secondary prevention in patients with established coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods: We searched Ovid Healthstar, MEDLINE, and Embase (inception to May 2022) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the cardiovascular effects of colchicine compared with placebo or usual care in patients with CAD. Study-level data on efficacy and safety outcomes were pooled using the Peto method. The primary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke. Results: A total of 8 RCTs were included with a follow-up duration of ≥1 month, comprising a total of 12,151 patients. Compared with placebo or usual care, colchicine was associated with a significant risk reduction in the primary outcome (odds ratio (OR) 0.70, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.83, P < 0.0001; I2 = 52%). Risks of MI (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.91, P = 0.003; I2 = 33%), stroke (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.74, P = 0.001; I2 = 0%), and unplanned coronary revascularization (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.82, P = 0.0001; I2 = 58%) were all reduced in the colchicine group. Rates of CV and all-cause mortality did not differ between the two groups, but there was an increase in noncardiac deaths with colchicine (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.15, P = 0.01; I2 = 51%). The occurrence of all other adverse events was similar between the two groups, including GI reactions (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.20, P = 0.35; I2 = 42%) and infections (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.28, P = 0.74; I2 = 53%). Conclusions: Colchicine therapy may reduce the risk of future cardiovascular events in patients with established CAD; however, there remains a concern about non-CV mortality. Further trials are underway that will shed light on non-CV mortality and colchicine NCT03048825, and NCT02898610.

A tool to assess risk of bias in non-randomized follow-up studies of exposure effects (ROBINS-E).

BACKGROUND: Observational epidemiologic studies provide critical data for the evaluation of the potential effects of environmental, occupational and behavioural exposures on human health. Systematic reviews of these studies play a key role in informing policy and practice. Systematic reviews should incorporate assessments of the risk of bias in results of the included studies. OBJECTIVE: To develop a new tool, Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Exposures (ROBINS-E) to assess risk of bias in estimates from cohort studies of the causal effect of an exposure on an outcome. METHODS AND RESULTS: ROBINS-E was developed by a large group of researchers from diverse research and public health disciplines through a series of working groups, in-person meetings and pilot testing phases. The tool aims to assess the risk of bias in a specific result (exposure effect estimate) from an individual observational study that examines the effect of an exposure on an outcome. A series of preliminary considerations informs the core ROBINS-E assessment, including details of the result being assessed and the causal effect being estimated. The assessment addresses bias within seven domains, through a series of 'signalling questions'. Domain-level judgements about risk of bias are derived from the answers to these questions, then combined to produce an overall risk of bias judgement for the result, together with judgements about the direction of bias. CONCLUSION: ROBINS-E provides a standardized framework for examining potential biases in results from cohort studies. Future work will produce variants of the tool for other epidemiologic study designs (e.g. case-control studies). We believe that ROBINS-E represents an important development in the integration of exposure assessment, evidence synthesis and causal inference.

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Procedural Unfractionated Heparin without Activated Clotting Time Guidance: A Unique Opportunity to Assess Thrombotic and Bleeding Events.

Background: Rates of major bleeding and intraprocedural thrombotic events (IPTE) in the setting of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using weight-adjusted unfractionated heparin (UFH) without activated clotting time (ACT) monitoring are not known. Methods: We reviewed 2,748 consecutive patients who underwent coronary angiography at our tertiary care university hospital between January 2017 and December 2020. All patients who underwent PCI with weight-adjusted UFH without ACT guidance were considered for further analysis. Major bleeding complications occurring within 48 hours of PCI were collected from patients' medical records. IPTE were collected independently by two interventional cardiologists after review of coronary angiograms. Results: There were 718 patients included in the analysis (65.4 ± 12.2 years old; 81.3% male). In total, 45 patients (7.8%) experienced a major bleed or IPTE. The most common IPTE were slow/no reflow (1.5%) and coronary artery dissection with decreased flow (1.1%). Other IPTE occurred in <1% of cases. Major bleeding occurred in 11 patients (1.5%), of whom 8 required blood transfusion and 3 required vascular intervention. Bleeding complications were more common with femoral compared with radial access (6.6% vs. 0.2%, P < 0.001). Conclusion: Weight-adjusted UFH use during PCI without ACT monitoring was related to low rates of major bleeding or IPTE.

TFEB drives mTORC1 hyperactivation and kidney disease in Tuberous Sclerosis Complex.

Tuberous Sclerosis Complex (TSC) is caused by TSC1 or TSC2 mutations, leading to hyperactivation of mechanistic target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1) and lesions  in multiple organs including lung (lymphangioleiomyomatosis) and kidney (angiomyolipoma and renal cell carcinoma). Previously, we found that TFEB is constitutively active in TSC. Here, we generated two mouse models of TSC in which kidney pathology is the primary phenotype. Knockout of TFEB rescues kidney pathology and overall survival, indicating that TFEB is the primary driver of renal disease in TSC. Importantly, increased mTORC1 activity in the TSC2 knockout kidneys is normalized by TFEB knockout. In TSC2-deficient cells, Rheb knockdown or Rapamycin treatment paradoxically increases TFEB phosphorylation at the mTORC1-sites and relocalizes TFEB from nucleus to cytoplasm. In mice, Rapamycin treatment normalizes lysosomal gene expression, similar to TFEB knockout, suggesting that Rapamycin's benefit in TSC is TFEB-dependent. These results change the view of the mechanisms of mTORC1 hyperactivation in TSC and may lead to therapeutic avenues.

User-experience testing of an evidence-to-decision framework for selecting essential medicines.

Essential medicine lists (EMLs) are important medicine prioritization tools used by the World Health Organization (WHO) EML and over 130 countries. The criteria used by WHO's Expert Committee on the Selection and Use of Essential Medicines has parallels to the GRADE Evidence-to-Decision (EtD) frameworks. In this study, we explored the EtD frameworks and a visual abstract as adjunctive tools to strengthen the integrate evidence and improve the transparency of decisions of EML applications. We conducted user-experience testing interviews of key EML stakeholders using Morville's honeycomb model. Interviews explored multifaceted dimensions (e.g., usability) on two EML applications for the 2021 WHO EML-long-acting insulin analogues for diabetes and immune checkpoint inhibitors for lung cancer. Using a pre-determined coding framework and thematic analysis we iteratively improved both the EtD framework and the visual abstract. We coded the transcripts of 17 interviews with 13 respondents in 103 locations of the interview texts across all dimensions of the user-experience honeycomb. Respondents felt the EtD framework and visual abstract presented complementary useful and findable adjuncts to the traditional EML application. They felt this would increase transparency and efficiency in evidence assessed by EML committees. As EtD frameworks are also used in health practice guidelines, including those by the WHO, respondents articulated that the adoption of the EtD by EML applications represents a tangible mechanism to align EMLs and guidelines, decrease duplication of work and improve coordination. Improvements were made to clarify instructions for the EtD and visual abstract, and to refine the design and content included. 'Availability' was added as an additional criterion for EML applications to highlight this criterion in alignment with WHO EML criteria. EtD frameworks and visual abstracts present additional important tools to communicate evidence and support decision-criteria in EML applications, which have global health impact. Access to essential medicines is important for achieving universal health coverage, and the development of essential medicine lists should be as evidence-based and trustworthy as possible.

Rapid reviews methods series: Guidance on assessing the certainty of evidence.

This paper is part of a series of methodological guidance from the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group. Rapid reviews (RRs) use modified systematic review methods to accelerate the review process while maintaining systematic, transparent and reproducible methods. This paper addresses considerations for rating the certainty of evidence (COE) in RRs. We recommend the full implementation of GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) for Cochrane RRs if time and resources allow.If time or other resources do not permit the full implementation of GRADE, the following recommendations can be considered: (1) limit rating COE to the main intervention and comparator and limit the number of outcomes to critical benefits and harms; (2) if a literature review or a Delphi approach to rate the importance of outcomes is not feasible, rely on informal judgements of knowledge users, topic experts or team members; (3) replace independent rating of the COE by two reviewers with single-reviewer rating and verification by a second reviewer and (4) if effect estimates of a well-conducted systematic review are incorporated into an RR, use existing COE grades from such a review. We advise against changing the definition of COE or the domains considered part of the GRADE approach for RRs.

A multimethods randomized trial found that plain language versions improved adults understanding of health recommendations.

OBJECTIVES: To make informed decisions, the general population should have access to accessible and understandable health recommendations. To compare understanding, accessibility, usability, satisfaction, intention to implement, and preference of adults provided with a digital "Plain Language Recommendation" (PLR) format vs. the original "Standard Language Version" (SLV). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: An allocation-concealed, blinded, controlled superiority trial and a qualitative study to understand participant preferences. An international on-line survey. 488 adults with some English proficiency. 67.8% of participants identified as female, 62.3% were from the Americas, 70.1% identified as white, 32.2% had a bachelor's degree as their highest completed education, and 42% said they were very comfortable reading health information. In collaboration with patient partners, advisors, and the Cochrane Consumer Network, we developed a plain language format of guideline recommendations (PLRs) to compare their effectiveness vs. the original standard language versions (SLVs) as published in the source guideline. We selected two recommendations about COVID-19 vaccine, similar in their content, to compare our versions, one from the World Health Organization (WHO) and one from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The primary outcome was understanding, measured as the proportion of correct responses to seven comprehension questions. Secondary outcomes were accessibility, usability, satisfaction, preference, and intended behavior, measured on a 1-7 scale. RESULTS: Participants randomized to the PLR group had a higher proportion of correct responses to the understanding questions for the WHO recommendation (mean difference [MD] of 19.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 14.7-24.9%; P < 0.001) but this difference was smaller and not statistically significant for the CDC recommendation (MD of 3.9%, 95% CI -0.7% to 8.3%; P = 0.096). However, regardless of the recommendation, participants found the PLRs more accessible, (MD of 1.2 on the seven-point scale, 95% CI 0.9-1.4%; P < 0.001) and more satisfying (MD of 1.2, 95% CI 0.9-1.4%; P < 0.001). They were also more likely to follow the recommendation if they had not already followed it (MD of 1.2, 95% CI 0.7-1.8%; P < 0.001) and share it with other people they know (MD of 1.9, 95% CI 0.5-1.2%; P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the preference between the two formats (MD of -0.3, 95% CI -0.5% to 0.03%; P = 0.078). The qualitative interviews supported and contextualized these findings. CONCLUSION: Health information provided in a PLR format improved understanding, accessibility, usability, and satisfaction and thereby has the potential to shape public decision-making behavior.

Development of Systematic Reviews to Inform WHO's Recommendations for Elimination and Prevention of Re-Establishment of Malaria: Methodology.

The basis for an evidence-based recommendation is a well-conducted systematic review that synthesizes the primary literature relevant to the policy or program question of interest. In 2020, the WHO commissioned 10 systematic reviews of potential interventions in elimination or post-elimination settings to summarize their impact on malaria transmission. This paper describes the general methods used to conduct this series of systematic reviews and notes where individual reviews diverged from the common methodology. The paper also presents lessons learned from conducting the systematic reviews to make similar future efforts more efficient, standardized, and streamlined.

Development of WHO Recommendations for the Final Phase of Elimination and Prevention of Re-Establishment of Malaria.

The WHO recommends that all affected countries work toward the elimination of malaria, even those still experiencing a high burden of disease. However, malaria programs in the final phase of elimination or those working to prevent re-establishment of transmission after elimination could benefit from specific evidence-based recommendations for these settings as part of comprehensive and quality-controlled malaria guidelines. The WHO convened an external guideline development group to formulate recommendations for interventions to reduce or prevent malaria transmission in areas with very low- to low-transmission levels and those that have eliminated malaria. In addition, several interventions that could be deployed in higher burden areas to accelerate elimination, such as mass drug administration, were reviewed. Systematic reviews were conducted that synthesized and evaluated evidence for the benefits and harms of public health interventions and summarized critical contextual factors from a health systems perspective. A total of 12 recommendations were developed, with five related to mass interventions that could be deployed at higher transmission levels and seven that would be most appropriate for programs in areas close to elimination or those working to prevent re-establishment of transmission. Four chemoprevention, two active case detection, and one vector control interventions were positively recommended, whereas two chemoprevention and three active case detection interventions were not recommended by the WHO. None of the recommendations were classified as strong given the limited and low-quality evidence base. Approaches to conducting higher quality research in very low- to low-transmission settings to improve the strength of WHO recommendations are discussed.

GRADE Concept 7: Issues and Insights Linking Guideline Recommendations to Trustworthy Essential Medicine Lists.

OBJECTIVES: Guidelines and essential medicine lists (EMLs) bear similarities and differences in the process that lead to decisions. Access to essential medicines is central to achieve universal health coverage. The World Health Organization (WHO) EML has guided prioritization of essential medicines globally for nearly 50 years, and national EMLs (NEMLs) exist in over 130 countries. Guideline and EML decisions, at WHO or national levels, are not always coordinated and aligned. We sought to explore challenges, and potential solutions, for decision-making to support trustworthy medicine selection for EMLs from a Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) Working Group perspective. We primarily focus on the WHO EML; however, our findings may be applicable to NEML decisions as well. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We identified key challenges in connecting the EML to health guidelines by involving a broad group of stakeholders and assessing case studies including real applications to the WHO EML, South Africa NEML, and a multiple sclerosis guideline connected to a WHO EML application for multiple sclerosis treatments. To address challenges, we utilized the results of a survey and feedback from the stakeholders, and iteratively met as a project group. We drafted a conceptual framework of challenges and potential solutions. We presented a summary of the results for feedback to all attendees of the GRADE Working Group meetings in November 2022 (approximately 120 people) and in May 2023 (approximately 100 people) before finalizing the framework. RESULTS: We prioritized issues and insights/solutions that addressed the connections between the EML and health guidelines. Our suggested solutions include early planning alignment of guideline groups and EMLs, considering shared participation to strengthen linkage, further clarity on price/cost considerations, and using explicit shared criteria to make guideline and EML decisions. We also provide recommendations to strengthen the connection between WHO EML and NEMLs including through contextualization methods. CONCLUSION: This GRADE concept article, jointly developed by key stakeholders from the guidelines and EMLs field, identified key conceptual issues and potential solutions to support the continued advancement of trustworthy EMLs. Adopting structured decision criteria that can be linked to guideline recommendations bears the potential to advance health equity and gaps in availability of essential medicines within and between countries.

The Role of CT-Guided Optimal Fluoroscopic Viewing Angle to Guide Right Endomyocardial Biopsy.

We report the case of a 64-year-old man with a history of chemotherapy-induced cardiomyopathy requiring heart transplant in 2022 who underwent successful endomyocardial biopsy using patient-specific computed tomographic fluoroscopic projections. (Level of Difficulty: Beginner.).

Methods and guidance on conducting, reporting, publishing, and appraising living systematic reviews: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The living systematic review (LSR) approach is based on ongoing surveillance of the literature and continual updating. Most currently available guidance documents address the conduct, reporting, publishing, and appraisal of systematic reviews (SRs), but are not suitable for LSRs per se and miss additional LSR-specific considerations. In this scoping review, we aim to systematically collate methodological guidance literature on how to conduct, report, publish, and appraise the quality of LSRs and identify current gaps in guidance. METHODS: A standard scoping review methodology was used. We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), and The Cochrane Library on August 28, 2021. As for searching gray literature, we looked for existing guidelines and handbooks on LSRs from organizations that conduct evidence syntheses. The screening was conducted by two authors independently in Rayyan, and data extraction was done in duplicate using a pilot-tested data extraction form in Excel. Data was extracted according to four pre-defined categories for (i) conducting, (ii) reporting, (iii) publishing, and (iv) appraising LSRs. We mapped the findings by visualizing overview tables created in Microsoft Word. RESULTS: Of the 21 included papers, methodological guidance was found in 17 papers for conducting, in six papers for reporting, in 15 papers for publishing, and in two papers for appraising LSRs. Some of the identified key items for (i) conducting LSRs were identifying the rationale, screening tools, or re-revaluating inclusion criteria. Identified items of (ii) the original PRISMA checklist included reporting the registration and protocol, title, or synthesis methods. For (iii) publishing, there was guidance available on publication type and frequency or update trigger, and for (iv) appraising, guidance on the appropriate use of bias assessment or reporting funding of included studies was found. Our search revealed major evidence gaps, particularly for guidance on certain PRISMA items such as reporting results, discussion, support and funding, and availability of data and material of a LSR. CONCLUSION: Important evidence gaps were identified for guidance on how to report in LSRs and appraise their quality. Our findings were applied to inform and prepare a PRISMA 2020 extension for LSR.