Validation of a commercially available SARS-CoV-2 serological immunoassay.

OBJECTIVES: To validate the diagnostic accuracy of a Euroimmun SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgA immunoassay for COVID-19. METHODS: In this unmatched (1:2) case-control validation study, we used sera of 181 laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases and 326 controls collected before SARS-CoV-2 emergence. Diagnostic accuracy of the immunoassay was assessed against a whole spike protein-based recombinant immunofluorescence assay (rIFA) by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses. Discrepant cases between ELISA and rIFA were further tested by pseudo-neutralization assay. RESULTS: COVID-19 patients were more likely to be male and older than controls, and 50.3% were hospitalized. ROC curve analyses indicated that IgG and IgA had high diagnostic accuracies with AUCs of 0.990 (95% Confidence Interval [95%CI]: 0.983-0.996) and 0.978 (95%CI: 0.967-0.989), respectively. IgG assays outperformed IgA assays (p=0.01). Taking an assessed 15% inter-assay imprecision into account, an optimized IgG ratio cut-off > 2.5 displayed a 100% specificity (95%CI: 99-100) and a 100% positive predictive value (95%CI: 96-100). A 0.8 cut-off displayed a 94% sensitivity (95%CI: 88-97) and a 97% negative predictive value (95%CI: 95-99). Substituting the upper threshold for the manufacturer's, improved assay performance, leaving 8.9% of IgG ratios indeterminate between 0.8-2.5. CONCLUSIONS: The Euroimmun assay displays a nearly optimal diagnostic accuracy using IgG against SARS-CoV-2 in patient samples, with no obvious gains from IgA serology. The optimized cut-offs are fit for rule-in and rule-out purposes, allowing determination of whether individuals in our study population have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 or not. IgG serology should however not be considered as a surrogate of protection at this stage.

Thyroid hormones treatment for subclinical hypothyroidism: a clinical practice guideline.

CLINICAL QUESTION: What are the benefits and harms of thyroid hormones for adults with subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH)? This guideline was triggered by a recent systematic review of randomised controlled trials, which could alter practice. CURRENT PRACTICE: Current guidelines tend to recommend thyroid hormones for adults with thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) levels >10 mIU/L and for people with lower TSH values who are young, symptomatic, or have specific indications for prescribing. RECOMMENDATION: The guideline panel issues a strong recommendation against thyroid hormones in adults with SCH (elevated TSH levels and normal free T4 (thyroxine) levels). It does not apply to women who are trying to become pregnant or patients with TSH >20 mIU/L. It may not apply to patients with severe symptoms or young adults (such as those ≤30 years old). HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED: A guideline panel including patients, clinicians, and methodologists produced this recommendation in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines using the GRADE approach. THE EVIDENCE: The systematic review included 21 trials with 2192 participants. For adults with SCH, thyroid hormones consistently demonstrate no clinically relevant benefits for quality of life or thyroid related symptoms, including depressive symptoms, fatigue, and body mass index (moderate to high quality evidence). Thyroid hormones may have little or no effect on cardiovascular events or mortality (low quality evidence), but harms were measured in only one trial with few events at two years' follow-up. UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION: The panel concluded that almost all adults with SCH would not benefit from treatment with thyroid hormones. Other factors in the strong recommendation include the burden of lifelong management and uncertainty on potential harms. Instead, clinicians should monitor the progression or resolution of the thyroid dysfunction in these adults. Recommendations are made actionable for clinicians and their patients through visual overviews. These provide the relative and absolute benefits and harms of thyroid hormones in multilayered evidence summaries and decision aids available in MAGIC (https://app.magicapp.org/) to support shared decisions and adaptation of this guideline.

Thyroid hormones treatment for subclinical hypothyroidism: a clinical practice guideline

What are the benefits and harms of thyroid hormones for adults with subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH)? This guideline was triggered by a recent systematic review of randomised controlled trials, which could alter practice. Current guidelines tend to recommend thyroid hormones for adults with thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) levels >10 mIU/L and for people with lower TSH values who are young, symptomatic, or have specific indications for prescribing. The guideline panel issues a strong recommendation against thyroid hormones in adults with SCH (elevated TSH levels and normal free T4 (thyroxine) levels). It does not apply to women who are trying tobecome pregnant or patients with TSH >20 mIU/L. It may not apply to patients with severe symptoms or youngadults (such as those ≤30 years old).

Arthroscopic surgery for degenerative knee arthritis and meniscal tears: a clinical practice guideline

The role of arthroscopic surgery in degenerative knee disease was evaluated in this guideline.

Oxygen therapy for acutely ill medical patients: a clinical practice guideline

What is the best way to use oxygen therapy for patients with an acute medical illness? A systematic review published in the Lancet in April 2018 found that supplemental oxygen in inpatients with normal oxygen saturation increases mortality.1 Its authors concluded that oxygen should be administered conservatively, but they did not make specific recommendations on how to do it. An international expert panel used that review to inform this guideline. It aims to promptly and transparently translate potentially practice-changing evidence to usable recommendations for clinicians and patients.2 The panel used the GRADE framework and following standards for trustworthy guidelines.3

Guideline for opioid therapy and chronic noncancer pain

Guideline for opioid therapy and chronic noncancer pain: the objective is to inform the prescribing of opioids for adults with chronic noncancer pain.

Meta-analysis of antibiotics versus appendicectomy for non-perforated acute appendicitis.

BACKGROUND: For more than a century, appendicectomy has been the treatment of choice for appendicitis. Recent trials have challenged this view. This study assessed the benefits and harms of antibiotic therapy compared with appendicectomy in patients with non-perforated appendicitis. METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted for randomized trials comparing antibiotic therapy with appendicectomy in patients with non-perforated appendicitis. Key outcomes were analysed using random-effects meta-analysis, and the quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: Five studies including 1116 patients reported major complications in 25 (4·9 per cent) of 510 patients in the antibiotic and 41 (8·4 per cent) of 489 in the appendicectomy group: risk difference -2·6 (95 per cent c.i. -6·3 to 1·1) per cent (low-quality evidence). Minor complications occurred in 11 (2·2 per cent) of 510 and 61 (12·5 per cent) of 489 patients respectively: risk difference -7·2 (-18·1 to 3·8) per cent (very low-quality evidence). Of 550 patients in the antibiotic group, 47 underwent appendicectomy within 1 month: pooled estimate 8·2 (95 per cent c.i. 5·2 to 11·8) per cent (high-quality evidence). Within 1 year, appendicitis recurred in 114 of 510 patients in the antibiotic group: pooled estimate 22·6 (15·6 to 30·4) per cent (high-quality evidence). For every 100 patients with non-perforated appendicitis, initial antibiotic therapy compared with prompt appendicectomy may result in 92 fewer patients receiving surgery within the first month, and 23 more experiencing recurrent appendicitis within the first year. CONCLUSION: The choice of medical versus surgical management in patients with clearly uncomplicated appendicitis is value- and preference-dependent, suggesting a change in practice towards shared decision-making is necessary.

Use of brain natriuretic peptide to detect previously unknown left ventricular dysfunction in patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: Up to 30% of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) simultaneously suffer from often-unrecognised chronic heart failure (HF). Their timely identification is challenging as both conditions share similar clinical presentations. OBJECTIVE: To assess the performance of BNP in detecting left ventricular systolic dysfunction in patients with no history of HF admitted for acute exacerbation of COPD in a regional second-care hospital. METHODS: Retrospective medical records analysis of all patients hospitalised between January 2003 and May 2009 with the final diagnosis of acute exacerbation of COPD, and who had undergone BNP dosage at admission followed by an echocardiography. RESULTS: Among the 57 patients included, 13 had left ventricular systolic dysfunction. There was a statistically significant difference of mean BNP values between patients with or without systolic dysfunction (mean 689 pg/ml vs. 340 pg/ml, p = 0.007). For the detection of systolic dysfunction, a BNP level inferior to 100 pg/ml yielded a sensitivity of 92% and a negative predictive value of 91%, whereas BNP higher than 500 yielded a sensitivity of 80% and a positive predictive value of 47%. In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, a BNP value ≥500 (odds ratio 8.5, 95% confidence interval 1.9 to 38.2, p = 0.005) and history of coronary heart disease (odds ratio 5.9, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 34.7, p = 0.048) remained as independent and mutually adjusted predictors of left ventricular systolic dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirms that BNP can help physicians in identifying heart failure in patients suffering from an acute exacerbation of COPD.

Patient-reported conformity of informed consent procedures and participation in clinical research.

BACKGROUND: There is growing evidence that the quality of informed consent in clinical research is often sub-optimal. AIMS: To explore the conformity of patient recruitment with recommended informed consent procedures among patients who were invited to participate in a clinical study at a general teaching hospital, and to examine the association between consent procedures and the patients' decision to participate. DESIGN AND METHODS: All inpatients discharged during a 1-month period were invited to complete a mailed survey in which they reported whether they were invited to participate in a study and whether 13 recommended elements of informed consent actually occurred. RESULTS: Among 1303 respondents, 265 (20.3%) reported that they had been invited to participate in a study, and 191 (72.1%) accepted. While the majority of potential participants were fully informed about practical issues related to the study (e.g. what their participation would consist in), <50% were informed of possible risks or benefits, and only 20% about the origin of the study funds. Only 60% reported satisfactory answers to items assessing the overall information process (e.g. explanations were easy to understand). Older and sicker patients reported lower levels of conformity with informed consent procedures, as did patients who refused to participate in a study. CONCLUSION: Our results confirm that informed consent procedures fail to meet standards for many patients. In particular, consent information should be adapted to the needs of older and sicker patients. Improving the quality of informed consent may increase patients' participation in clinical research.

Assessment of patients' tendency to give a positive or negative rating to healthcare.

BACKGROUND: Adjustment of patient satisfaction scores for case-mix variables such as age and sex may lead to overadjustment. The patient's tendency to rate healthcare positively or negatively may be the only variable that should be adjusted to improve the comparability of satisfaction scores between healthcare providers. OBJECTIVE: To develop a measure of "rating tendency", assess its stability over time, explore its distribution across subgroups of patients and its association with patient opinion scores. DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: A scale based on 10 hypothetical scenarios describing hospital care episodes was developed. It was administered both before and after hospitalisation to 203 patients programmed for elective orthopaedic surgery in a Swiss teaching hospital. A problem score regarding the actual hospitalisation was obtained at follow-up. RESULTS: The rating tendency scale had good internal consistency (Cronbach alpha 0.85), and factor analysis confirmed that it measured a single underlying concept. However, the correlation between prehospitalisation and posthospitalisation measures was moderate (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.55, p<0.001), as was the correlation with the hospitalisation problem score (Spearman r = -0.22, p = 0.002). The pattern of rating tendency across subgroups of respondents mirrored the pattern of problem scores. Adjusting for the rating tendency had little effect on comparisons of problem scores between subgroups of patients, all of whom were treated at the same hospital. CONCLUSIONS: A patient's "rating tendency" can be measured using a reliable 10-item scale. The utility of adjusting satisfaction scores for rating tendency when comparing hospitals remains to be tested.