Chronic immune-related adverse events in patients with cancer receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors: a systematic review.

Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) are toxicities resulting from use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). These side effects persist in some patients despite withholding therapy and using immunosuppressive and immune-modulating agents. Little is known about chronic irAEs and they are felt to be rare. We performed a systematic review to characterize non-endocrine chronic irAEs reported in the literature and describe their management. Ovid MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched for reports of adult patients with solid cancers treated with ICIs who experienced chronic (>12 weeks) non-endocrine irAEs. Patient, treatment and toxicity data were collected. Of 6843 articles identified, 229 studies including 323 patients met our inclusion criteria. The median age was 65 (IQR 56-72) and 58% were male. Most patients (75%) had metastatic disease and the primary cancer site was melanoma in 43% and non-small cell lung cancer in 31% of patients. The most common ICIs delivered were pembrolizumab (24%) and nivolumab (37%). The chronic irAEs experienced were rheumatological in 20% of patients, followed by neurological in 19%, gastrointestinal in 16% and dermatological in 14%. The irAE persisted for a median (range) of 180 (84-2370) days and 30% of patients had ongoing symptoms or treatment. More than half (52%) of patients had chronic irAEs that persisted for >6 months. The ICI was permanently discontinued in 60% of patients and 76% required oral and/or intravenous steroids. This is the first systematic review to assess and report on moderate/severe chronic non-endocrine irAEs after treatment with ICI in the literature. These toxicities persisted for months-years and the majority required discontinuation of therapy and initiation of immunosuppression. Further research is needed to better understand chronic irAEs, which hold potential substantial clinical significance considering the expanded use of ICIs and their integration into the (neo)adjuvant settings.

Comparison of Preprint Postings of Randomized Clinical Trials on COVID-19 and Corresponding Published Journal Articles: A Systematic Review.

Importance: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on COVID-19 are increasingly being posted as preprints before publication in a scientific, peer-reviewed journal. Objective: To assess time to journal publication for COVID-19 RCT preprints and to compare differences between pairs of preprints and corresponding journal articles. Evidence Review: This systematic review used a meta-epidemiologic approach to conduct a literature search using the World Health Organization COVID-19 database and Embase to identify preprints published between January 1 and December 31, 2021. This review included RCTs with human participants and research questions regarding the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. For each preprint, a literature search was done to locate the corresponding journal article. Two independent reviewers read the full text, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Time to publication was analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model. Differences between preprint and journal article pairs in terms of outcomes, analyses, results, or conclusions were described. Statistical analysis was performed on October 17, 2022. Findings: This study included 152 preprints. As of October 1, 2022, 119 of 152 preprints (78.3%) had been published in journals. The median time to publication was 186 days (range, 17-407 days). In a multivariable model, larger sample size and low risk of bias were associated with journal publication. With a sample size of less than 200 as the reference, sample sizes of 201 to 1000 and greater than 1000 had hazard ratios (HRs) of 1.23 (95% CI, 0.80-1.91) and 2.19 (95% CI, 1.36-3.53) for publication, respectively. With high risk of bias as the reference, medium-risk articles with some concerns for bias had an HR of 1.77 (95% CI, 1.02-3.09); those with a low risk of bias had an HR of 3.01 (95% CI, 1.71-5.30). Of the 119 published preprints, there were differences in terms of outcomes, analyses, results, or conclusions in 65 studies (54.6%). The main conclusion in the preprint contradicted the conclusion in the journal article for 2 studies (1.7%). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that there is a substantial time lag from preprint posting to journal publication. Preprints with smaller sample sizes and high risk of bias were less likely to be published. Finally, although differences in terms of outcomes, analyses, results, or conclusions were observed for preprint and journal article pairs in most studies, the main conclusion remained consistent for the majority of studies.

Variation in paediatric 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring interpretation by Canadian and UK physicians.

Twenty-four-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is widely accepted as a more accurate method for measurement of blood pressure (BP) compared to a single office-based measurement of BP. However, it is unclear how physicians interpret ABPM and make management decisions. This study's goal is to investigate variation in ABPM interpretation among paediatric nephrologists (Canada and UK) and paediatric cardiologists (Canada only) via an online survey. The survey content included baseline demographics, questions on the use and indications for ABPM, interpretation of results, and subsequent management decisions in various clinical scenarios. The survey was sent to 196 Canadian physicians, with 69 (35.2%) total responses. Thirty-five UK clinicians also completed the survey. Most respondents were >44 years old, were in practice for at least 11 years, and were university-based. There were substantial differences among clinicians in ABPM interpretation for isolated systolic, diastolic, and night-time hypertension. For example, only 53.1% of physicians would initiate or modify treatment in those with diastolic HTN in CKD. Further, even for the same abnormal ABPM parameter, the decision to start or alter treatment was influenced by the underlying medical condition. There is significant variation in clinical practice among physicians for interpretation and management of hypertension when using ABPM. Differences in guidelines among various jurisdictions, as well as knowledge gaps in the research on which guidelines are based, create ambiguity regarding ABPM interpretation and management decisions. A more protocolized approach and further insight into the reasoning behind the variation in physicians' interpretation may help to standardise practice.

Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia mortality across country income groups: A secondary analysis of a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) is a common infection worldwide. We compared SAB mortality in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) versus high-income countries (HIC) in a meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1991-2021 and included observational, single-country studies on patients with positive blood cultures for S. aureus. The main outcome was the proportion of patients with SAB who died in the hospital. A generalized linear mixed random-effects model was used to pool estimates, and a meta-regression was used to adjust for study-level characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 332 studies involving 517,671 patients in 39 countries were included. No study was conducted in a low-income country. Only 33 (10%) studies were performed in middle-income countries (MIC), which described 6,216 patients. The pooled in-hospital mortality was 32.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 27.2%-38.2%, T2 = 0.3063) in MIC and 22.3% (95% CI 20.1%-24.6%, T2 = 0.3257) in HIC. In a meta-regression model, MIC had higher in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio 1.37, 95% CI 1.11-1.71; P = 0.0042) than HIC. CONCLUSION: In SAB studies, LMIC are poorly represented. In-hospital mortality was significantly higher in MIC than in HIC. Research should be conducted in LMIC to characterize differences in care processes driving the mortality gap.

What Is the Optimal Follow-up Length for Mortality in Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia? Observations From a Systematic Review of Attributable Mortality.

Background: Deaths following Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) may be related or unrelated to the infection. In SAB therapeutics research, the length of follow-up should be optimized to capture most attributable deaths and minimize nonattributable deaths. We performed a secondary analysis of a systematic review to describe attributable mortality in SAB over time. Methods: We systematically searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1 January 1991 to 7 May 2021 for human observational studies of SAB. To be included in this secondary analysis, the study must have reported attributable mortality. Two reviewers extracted study data and assessed risk of bias independently. Pooling of study estimates was not performed due to heterogeneity in the definition of attributable deaths. Results: Twenty-four observational cohort studies were included. The median proportion of all-cause deaths that were attributable to SAB was 77% (interquartile range [IQR], 72%-89%) at 1 month and 62% (IQR, 58%-75%) at 3 months. At 1 year, this proportion was 57% in 1 study. In 2 studies that described the rate of increase in mortality over time, 2-week follow-up captured 68 of 79 (86%) and 48 of 57 (84%) attributable deaths that occurred by 3 months. By comparison, 1-month follow-up captured 54 of 57 (95%) and 56 of 60 (93%) attributable deaths that occurred by 3 months in 2 studies. Conclusions: The proportion of deaths that are attributable to SAB decreases as follow-up lengthens. Follow-up duration between 1 and 3 months seems optimal if evaluating processes of care that impact SAB mortality. Clinical Trials Registration: PROSPERO CRD42021253891.

How Generalizable Are Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) in Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia? A Description of the Mortality Gap Between RCTs and Observational Studies.

In Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia, mortality rates in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are consistently lower than observational studies. Stringent eligibility criteria and omission of early deaths in RCTs contribute to this mortality gap. Clinicians should acknowledge the possibility of a lower treatment effect when applying RCT results to bedside care.

Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Precise estimates of mortality in Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia (SAB) are important to convey prognosis and guide the design of interventional studies. OBJECTIVES: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate all-cause mortality in SAB and explore mortality change over time. DATA SOURCES: The MEDLINE and Embase databases, as well as the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, were searched from January 1, 1991 to May 7, 2021. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Human observational studies on patients with S. aureus bloodstream infection were included. PARTICIPANTS: The study analyzed data of patients with a positive blood culture for S. aureus. METHODS: Two independent reviewers extracted study data and assessed risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A generalized, linear, mixed random effects model was used to pool estimates. RESULTS: A total of 341 studies were included, describing a total of 536,791 patients. From 2011 onward, the estimated mortality was 10.4% (95% CI, 9.0%-12.1%) at 7 days, 13.3% (95% CI, 11.1%-15.8%) at 2 weeks, 18.1% (95% CI, 16.3%-20.0%) at 1 month, 27.0% (95% CI, 21.5%-33.3%) at 3 months, and 30.2% (95% CI, 22.4%-39.3%) at 1 year. In a meta-regression model of 1-month mortality, methicillin-resistant S. aureus had a higher mortality rate (adjusted OR (aOR): 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.06 per 10% increase in methicillin-resistant S. aureus proportion). Compared with prior to 2001, more recent time periods had a lower mortality rate (aOR: 0.88; 95% CI, 0.75-1.03 for 2001-2010; aOR: 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.97 for 2011 onward). CONCLUSIONS: SAB mortality has decreased over the last 3 decades. However, more than one in four patients will die within 3 months, and continuous improvement in care remains necessary.