Cost-Effectiveness of Newer Pharmacologic Treatments in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Studies for the American College of Physicians.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, costs of antidiabetes medications exceed $327 billion. PURPOSE: To systematically review cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of newer antidiabetes medications for type 2 diabetes. DATA SOURCES: Bibliographic databases from 1 January 2010 through 13 July 2023, limited to English. STUDY SELECTION: Nonindustry-funded CEAs, done from a U.S. perspective that estimated cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for newer antidiabetic medications. Two reviewers screened the literature; disagreements were resolved with a third reviewer. DATA EXTRACTION: Cost-effectiveness analyses were reviewed for treatment comparisons, model inputs, and outcomes. Risk of bias (RoB) of the CEAs was assessed using Drummond criteria and certainty of evidence (CoE) was assessed using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluations). Certainty of evidence was determined using cost per QALY thresholds predetermined by the American College of Physicians Clinical Guidelines Committee; low (>$150 000), intermediate ($50 to $150 000), or high (<$50 000) value per QALY compared with the alternative. DATA SYNTHESIS: Nine CEAs were eligible (2 low, 1 high, and 6 some concerns RoB), evaluating glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists (GLP1a), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide agonist (GIP/GLP1a), and insulin. Comparators were metformin, sulfonylureas, neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin, and others. Compared with metformin, GLP1a and SGLT2i are low value as first-line therapy (high CoE) but may be of intermediate value when added to metformin or background therapy compared with adding nothing (low CoE). Insulin analogues may be similarly effective but more expensive than NPH insulin (low CoE). The GIP/GLP1a value is uncertain (insufficient CoE). LIMITATIONS: Cost-effectiveness analyses varied in methodological approach, assumptions, and drug comparisons. Risk of bias and GRADE method for CEAs are not well established. CONCLUSION: Glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists and SGLT2i are of low value as first-line therapy but may be of intermediate value when added to metformin or other background therapy compared with adding nothing. Other drugs and comparisons are of low or uncertain value. Results are sensitive to drug effectiveness and cost assumptions. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42022382315).

Newer Pharmacologic Treatments in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis for the American College of Physicians.

BACKGROUND: Newer diabetes medications may have beneficial effects on mortality, cardiovascular outcomes, and renal outcomes. PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness, comparative effectiveness, and harms of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP1) agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors, and long-acting insulins as monotherapy or combination therapy in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from 2010 through January 2023. STUDY SELECTION: RCTs lasting at least 52 weeks that included at least 500 adults with T2DM receiving eligible medications and reported any outcomes of interest. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were abstracted by 1 reviewer and verified by a second. Independent, dual assessments of risk of bias and certainty of evidence (CoE) were done. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 130 publications from 84 RCTs were identified. CoE was appraised using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria for direct, indirect, and network meta-analysis (NMA); the highest CoE was reported. Compared with usual care, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists reduce all-cause mortality (high CoE) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (moderate to high CoE), SGLT2 inhibitors reduce progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and heart failure hospitalizations and GLP1 agonists reduce stroke (high CoE), and SGLT2 inhibitors reduce serious adverse events and severe hypoglycemia (high CoE). The threshold for minimally important differences, which was predefined with the American College of Physicians Clinical Guidelines Committee, was not met for these outcomes. Compared with usual care, insulin, tirzepatide, and DPP4 inhibitors do not reduce all-cause mortality (low to high CoE). Compared with insulin, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists reduce all-cause mortality (low to moderate CoE). Compared with DPP4 inhibitors, GLP1 agonists reduce all-cause mortality (moderate CoE). Compared with DPP4 inhibitors and sulfonylurea (SU), SGLT2 inhibitors reduce MACE (moderate to high CoE). Compared with SU and insulin, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists reduce severe hypoglycemia (low to high CoE). LIMITATIONS: Infrequent direct comparisons between drugs of interest; sparse data for NMA on most outcomes; possible incoherence due to differences in baseline patient characteristics and usual care; insufficient data on predefined subgroups, including demographic subgroups, patients with prior cardiovascular disease, and treatment-naive persons. CONCLUSION: In adults with T2DM, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists (but not DPP4 inhibitors, insulin, or tirzepatide) reduce all-cause mortality and MACE compared with usual care. SGLT2 inhibitors reduce CKD progression and heart failure hospitalization and GLP1 agonists reduce stroke compared with usual care. Serious adverse events and severe hypoglycemia are less frequent with SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists than with insulin or SU. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42022322129).

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.

Certainty of Evidence Assessment in Systematic Reviews Published by High-Impact Sports Science Journals: A Meta-epidemiological Study.

BACKGROUND: Assessing certainty of evidence is a key element of any systematic review. The aim of this meta-epidemiology study was to understand the frequency and ways with which certainty of evidence is assessed in contemporary systematic reviews published in high-impact sports science journals. METHODS: We searched PubMed and relevant journal web sites from 1 August 2016 to 11 October 2022 for systematic reviews published in the top-ten highest-impact journals within the 2020 Journal Citation Report for the Sports Sciences category. Pairs of independent reviewers screened items using a priori established criteria. RESULTS: Of 1250 eligible documents, 258 (20.6%) assessed the certainty of evidence, defined as using two or more distinct domains to provide an overall rating of the trustworthiness of findings across studies. Nine methods were cited for assessing certainty, with the most common being the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach (61.6%). The proportion of systematic reviews assessing certainty of evidence appeared to increase over the 6-year timeframe analyzed. Across all reviews analyzed, a large majority addressed the domains of risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency of the results. Other certainty domains including indirectness/applicability were less commonly assessed. DISCUSSION: Only one in five recent contemporary systematic reviews in the field of exercise and sports science assessed certainty of evidence. Organizational and institutional education on methods for assessing evidence may help further increase uptake of these methods and improve both the quality and clinical impact of systematic reviews in the field.

Dye Chromoendoscopy Outperforms High-Definition White Light Endoscopy in Dysplasia Detection for Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: An Updated Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Whether dye spray chromoendoscopy (DCE) adds value in surveillance colonoscopy with high-definition (HD) scopes remains controversial. This updated meta-analysis compares dysplasia detection using DCE and high-definition white light endoscopy (HD-WLE) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) undergoing surveillance colonoscopy. METHODS: A comprehensive search was performed for randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing HD-WLE and DCE in patients with IBD. The primary outcome was to compare the proportion of patients with at least 1 dysplastic lesion detected by DCE vs HD-WLE. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled using the random-effects model, with I2 > 60% indicating substantial heterogeneity. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence (CoE). RESULTS: Six RCT involving 978 patients were analyzed (DCE = 479 vs HD-WLE = 499 patients). DCE detected significantly more patients with dysplasia than HD-WLE (18.8% vs 9.4%), OR 1.94 (95% CI 1.21-3.11, I2 = 28%, P = 0.006, high CoE). This remained significant after excluding 2 RCT published as abstracts. A sensitivity analysis excluding a noninferiority RCT with a single experienced operator eliminated the results' heterogeneity, OR 2.46 (95% CI 1.56-3.90, I2 = 0%). Although high-grade dysplasia detection was numerically higher in the DCE group (2.8% vs 1.1%), the difference was statistically insignificant, OR 2.21 (95% CI 0.64-7.62, I2 = 0%, low CoE). DISCUSSION: Our updated meta-analysis supports DCE as a superior strategy in overall dysplasia detection in IBD, even with HD scopes. When expertise is available, DCE should be considered for surveillance colonoscopy in patients with high-risk IBD, with the acknowledgment that virtual chromoendoscopy shows equivalence in recent studies. Further multicenter trials with multiple endoscopists with varying expertise levels and longer-term outcome data showing a reduction in cancer or cancer-related death are needed.

AGA Clinical Practice Guideline on the Management of Pouchitis and Inflammatory Pouch Disorders.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Pouchitis is the most common complication after restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis. This American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) guideline is intended to support practitioners in the management of pouchitis and inflammatory pouch disorders. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel of content experts and guideline methodologists used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework to prioritize clinical questions, identify patient-centered outcomes, conduct an evidence synthesis, and develop recommendations for the prevention and treatment of pouchitis, Crohn's-like disease of the pouch, and cuffitis. RESULTS: The AGA guideline panel made 9 conditional recommendations. In patients with ulcerative colitis who have undergone ileal pouch-anal anastomosis and experience intermittent symptoms of pouchitis, the AGA suggests using antibiotics for the treatment of pouchitis. In patients who experience recurrent episodes of pouchitis that respond to antibiotics, the AGA suggests using probiotics for the prevention of recurrent pouchitis. In patients who experience recurrent pouchitis that responds to antibiotics but relapses shortly after stopping antibiotics (also known as "chronic antibiotic-dependent pouchitis"), the AGA suggests using chronic antibiotic therapy to prevent recurrent pouchitis; however, in patients who are intolerant to antibiotics or who are concerned about the risks of long-term antibiotic therapy, the AGA suggests using advanced immunosuppressive therapies (eg, biologics and/or oral small molecule drugs) approved for treatment of inflammatory bowel disease. In patients who experience recurrent pouchitis with inadequate response to antibiotics (also known as "chronic antibiotic-refractory pouchitis"), the AGA suggests using advanced immunosuppressive therapies; corticosteroids can also be considered in these patients. In patients who develop symptoms due to Crohn's-like disease of the pouch, the AGA suggests using corticosteroids and advanced immunosuppressive therapies. In patients who experience symptoms due to cuffitis, the AGA suggests using therapies that have been approved for the treatment of ulcerative colitis, starting with topical mesalamine or topical corticosteroids. The panel also proposed key implementation considerations for optimal management of pouchitis and Crohn's-like disease of the pouch and identified several knowledge gaps and areas for future research. CONCLUSIONS: This guideline provides a comprehensive, patient-centered approach to the management of patients with pouchitis and other inflammatory conditions of the pouch.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Molecular Diagnostic Testing.

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.

AGA clinical practice guideline on the role of biomarkers for the management of Crohn's Disease

Biomarkers are used frequently for evaluation and monitoring of patients with Crohn's disease (CD). This American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) guideline is intended to support practitioners in decisions about the use of biomarkers for the management of CD. A multidisciplinary panel of content experts and guideline methodologists used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework to formulate patient-centered clinical questions and review evidence on the performance of fecal calprotectin, serum C-reactive protein (CRP), and Endoscopic Healing Index in patients with established CD who were asymptomatic, had symptoms of varying severity, or were in surgically induced remission. Biomarker performance was assessed against the gold standard of endoscopic activity, defined as a Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease ≥3. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Evidence-to-Decision framework to develop recommendations for use of biomarkers in various settings. Implementation considerations were formulated for each recommendation to inform clinical practice. The guideline panel made 11 conditional recommendations. In patients with CD in symptomatic remission, the panel suggests use of a biomarker- and symptom-based monitoring strategy over symptoms alone. In patients in symptomatic remission, a fecal calprotectin <150 µg/g and normal CRP rules out active inflammation, avoiding endoscopic evaluation for assessment of disease activity. However, elevated biomarkers in this setting merit confirmation with endoscopy before treatment adjustment. In patients with CD with mild symptoms, neither normal nor elevated biomarkers alone are sufficiently accurate to determine endoscopic activity. In patients with CD with moderate to severe symptoms, elevated fecal calprotectin or serum CRP suggests endoscopic activity, precluding routine endoscopic assessment for disease activity. In patients with CD in surgically induced remission in low-risk patients on pharmacologic prophylaxis, a normal fecal calprotectin reliably rules out endoscopic recurrence. In other postoperative settings, the panel suggests endoscopic assessment for establishing postoperative recurrence. In patients with CD, fecal calprotectin and serum CRP can inform disease management in both asymptomatic and symptomatic disease. Discordance between symptom assessment and biomarker value may merit endoscopic evaluation for confirmation of status of disease activity.

AGA Clinical Practice Guideline on the Role of Biomarkers for the Management of Crohn's Disease.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Biomarkers are used frequently for evaluation and monitoring of patients with Crohn's disease (CD). This American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) guideline is intended to support practitioners in decisions about the use of biomarkers for the management of CD. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel of content experts and guideline methodologists used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework to formulate patient-centered clinical questions and review evidence on the performance of fecal calprotectin, serum C-reactive protein (CRP), and Endoscopic Healing Index in patients with established CD who were asymptomatic, had symptoms of varying severity, or were in surgically induced remission. Biomarker performance was assessed against the gold standard of endoscopic activity, defined as a Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease ≥3. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Evidence-to-Decision framework to develop recommendations for use of biomarkers in various settings. Implementation considerations were formulated for each recommendation to inform clinical practice. RESULTS: The guideline panel made 11 conditional recommendations. In patients with CD in symptomatic remission, the panel suggests use of a biomarker- and symptom-based monitoring strategy over symptoms alone. In patients in symptomatic remission, a fecal calprotectin <150 µg/g and normal CRP rules out active inflammation, avoiding endoscopic evaluation for assessment of disease activity. However, elevated biomarkers in this setting merit confirmation with endoscopy before treatment adjustment. In patients with CD with mild symptoms, neither normal nor elevated biomarkers alone are sufficiently accurate to determine endoscopic activity. In patients with CD with moderate to severe symptoms, elevated fecal calprotectin or serum CRP suggests endoscopic activity, precluding routine endoscopic assessment for disease activity. In patients with CD in surgically induced remission in low-risk patients on pharmacologic prophylaxis, a normal fecal calprotectin reliably rules out endoscopic recurrence. In other postoperative settings, the panel suggests endoscopic assessment for establishing postoperative recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with CD, fecal calprotectin and serum CRP can inform disease management in both asymptomatic and symptomatic disease. Discordance between symptom assessment and biomarker value may merit endoscopic evaluation for confirmation of status of disease activity.

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.

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.

Risk prediction models for diabetic foot ulcer development or amputation: a review of reviews.

BACKGROUND: In adults with diabetes, diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) and amputation are common and associated with significant morbidity and mortality. PURPOSE: Identify tools predicting risk of DFU or amputation that are prognostically accurate and clinically feasible. METHODS: We searched for systematic reviews (SRs) of tools predicting DFU or amputation published in multiple databases from initiation to January, 2023. We assessed risk of bias (ROB) and provided a narrative review of reviews describing performance characteristics (calibration and discrimination) of prognostically accurate tools. For such tools, we additionally reviewed original studies to ascertain clinical applicability and usability (variables included, score calculation, and risk categorization). RESULTS: We identified 3 eligible SRs predicting DFU or amputation risk. Two recent SRs (2020 and 2021) were rated as moderate and low ROB respectively. Four risk prediction models - Boyko, Martins-Mendes (simplified), Martins-Mendes (original), and PODUS 2020 had good prognostic accuracy for predicting DFU or amputation over time horizons ranging from 1- to 5-years. PODUS 2020 predicts absolute average risk (e.g., 6% risk of DFU at 2 years) and consists of 3-binary variables with a simple, summative scoring (0-4) making it feasible for clinic use. The other 3 models categorize risk subjectively (e.g., high-risk for DFU at 3 years), include 2-7 variables, and require a calculation device. No data exist to inform rescreening intervals. Furthermore, the effectiveness of targeted interventions in decreasing incidence of DFU or amputation in response to prediction scores is unknown. CONCLUSIONS: In this review of reviews, we identified 4 prognostically accurate models that predict DFU or amputation in persons with diabetes. The PODUS 2020 model, predicting absolute average DFU risk at 2 years, has the most favorable prognostic accuracy and is clinically feasible. Rescreening intervals and effectiveness of intervention based on prediction score are uncertain.

AGA clinical practice guideline on the role of biomarkers for the management of ulcerative colitis

Biomarkers are used frequently for noninvasive monitoring and treatment decision making in the management of patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). This American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) guideline is intended to support practitioners in decisions about the use of biomarkers for the management of UC. A multidisciplinary panel of content experts and guideline methodologists used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework to prioritize clinical questions, identify patient-centered outcomes, and conduct an evidence synthesis on the clinical performance of serum C-reactive protein (CRP), fecal calprotectin, and fecal lactoferrin as biomarkers of disease activity in patients with established UC in symptomatic remission or with active symptoms. The guideline panel used the Evidence-to-Decision framework to develop recommendations for the use of biomarkers for monitoring and management of UC and provided implementation considerations for clinical practice. The guideline panel made 7 conditional recommendations. In patients with UC in symptomatic remission, the panel suggests the use of a biomarker- and symptom-based monitoring strategy over a symptom-based monitoring strategy. For patients in symptomatic remission, the panel suggests using fecal calprotectin <150 µg/g, normal fecal lactoferrin, and/or normal CRP to rule out active inflammation and avoid routine endoscopic assessment of disease. In patients with UC with moderate to severe symptoms, the panel suggests using fecal calprotectin >150 µg/g, elevated fecal lactoferrin, or elevated CRP to inform treatment decisions and avoid routine endoscopic assessment of disease. However, in patients in symptomatic remission but elevated biomarkers, and in patients with moderate to severe symptoms with normal biomarkers, the panel suggests endoscopic assessment of disease to inform treatment decisions. In patients with UC with mild symptoms, the panel suggests endoscopic assessment of disease activity to inform treatment decisions. The panel identified the use of a biomarker-based monitoring strategy over an endoscopy-based monitoring strategy as a knowledge gap. The panel also proposed key implementation considerations for optimal use of biomarkers, and identified areas for future research. In patients with UC, noninvasive biomarkers, including fecal calprotectin, fecal lactoferrin, and serum CRP can inform disease monitoring and management.

Different meta-analysis methods can change judgements about imprecision of effect estimates: a meta-epidemiological study.

OBJECTIVES: To empirically evaluate five commonly used meta-analysis methods and their impact on imprecision judgements about effect estimates. The two fixed-effect model methods were the inverse variance method based on normal distribution and the Mantel-Haenszel method. The three random-effects model methods were the DerSimonian and Laird, the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman and the profile likelihood approaches. DESIGN: Meta-epidemiological study. SETTING: Meta-analyses published between 2007 and 2019 in the 10 general medical journals with the highest impact factors that evaluated a medication or device for chronic medical conditions and included at least 5 randomised trials. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Discordance in the judgements of imprecision of effect estimates based on two definitions: when either boundary of 95% CI of the OR changed by more than 15% or changed in relation to the null. RESULTS: We analysed 88 meta-analyses including 1114 trials with an average of 12.60 trials per meta-analysis and average I2 of 26% (range: 0%-96%). The profile likelihood failed to converge in three meta-analyses (3%). Discordance in imprecision judgements based on the two definitions, respectively, occurred between the fixed normal distribution and fixed Mantel-Haenszel method (8% and 2%), between the DerSimonian and Laird and Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman methods (19% and 10%), between the DerSimonian and Laird and profile likelihood methods (9% and 5%), and between the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman and profile likelihood methods (5% and 13%). Discordance was greater when fewer studies and greater heterogeneity was present. CONCLUSION: Empirical evaluation of studies of chronic medical conditions showed that conclusions about the precision of the estimates of the efficacy of a drug or device frequently changed when different pooling methods were used, particularly when the number of studies within a meta-analysis was small and statistical heterogeneity was substantial. Sensitivity analyses using more than one method may need to be considered in these two scenarios.

Testing guidelines during times of crisis: challenges and limitations of developing rapid and living guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The start of the COVID-19 pandemic presented a situation in which there was an urgent need for decision-making that relates to diagnosis, but the evidence was lacking, of low certainty or constantly changing. Rapid and living guideline development methods were needed and had to be applied to rigorous guideline approaches, such as the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. OBJECTIVES: To describe the process of developing rapid diagnosis guidelines when there is limited and imperfect available data at the time of crisis. SOURCES: Case example from four Infectious Disease Society of America COVID-19 diagnostic guidelines. CONTENT: As the world was experiencing panic with COVID-19, there were serious doubts about the feasibility of following a rigorous process for guideline development when timeliness was of extreme value. The Infectious Disease Society of America guideline panels supported by several methodologists strongly believed that at times of crisis, it is more important than ever to follow a rigorous process. The panel adopted a rapid and living systematic review methodology and applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to four diagnosis guidelines despite the challenges of scarce and dynamic evidence. We describe the methodological details of the rapid and living approach (data extraction, meta-analysis, Evidence to Decision framework, and recommendation development), the challenge of resources, the challenge of scarce evidence, the challenge of rapidly changing evidence, as well as 'wins' from the Infectious Disease Society of America experience. IMPLICATIONS: Mitigation of pandemics relies on rapid and accurate diagnosis, which is challenged by many knowledge gaps. This necessitates emerging evidence is rapidly incorporated in a living fashion with several decisional and contextual factors to ensure the best public health strategies and care for patients. This process must be systematic and transparent for developing trustworthy guidelines and should be supported by all stakeholders, including researchers, editors, publishers, professional societies, and policymakers.

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019: Indications, Findings, and Safety.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has changed the practice of gastroenterology and how we perform endoscopy. As with any new or emerging pathogen, early in the pandemic, there was limited evidence and understanding of disease transmission, limited testing capability, and resource constraints, especially availability of personal protective equipment (PPE). As the COVID-19 pandemic progressed, enhanced protocols with particular emphasis on assessing the risk status of patients and proper use of PPE have been incorporated into routine patient care. The COVID-19 pandemic has taught us important lessons for the future of gastroenterology and endoscopy.

AGA Clinical Practice Guideline on the Role of Biomarkers for the Management of Ulcerative Colitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Biomarkers are used frequently for noninvasive monitoring and treatment decision making in the management of patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). This American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) guideline is intended to support practitioners in decisions about the use of biomarkers for the management of UC. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel of content experts and guideline methodologists used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework to prioritize clinical questions, identify patient-centered outcomes, and conduct an evidence synthesis on the clinical performance of serum C-reactive protein (CRP), fecal calprotectin, and fecal lactoferrin as biomarkers of disease activity in patients with established UC in symptomatic remission or with active symptoms. The guideline panel used the Evidence-to-Decision framework to develop recommendations for the use of biomarkers for monitoring and management of UC and provided implementation considerations for clinical practice. RESULTS: The guideline panel made 7 conditional recommendations. In patients with UC in symptomatic remission, the panel suggests the use of a biomarker- and symptom-based monitoring strategy over a symptom-based monitoring strategy. For patients in symptomatic remission, the panel suggests using fecal calprotectin <150 µg/g, normal fecal lactoferrin, and/or normal CRP to rule out active inflammation and avoid routine endoscopic assessment of disease. In patients with UC with moderate to severe symptoms, the panel suggests using fecal calprotectin >150 µg/g, elevated fecal lactoferrin, or elevated CRP to inform treatment decisions and avoid routine endoscopic assessment of disease. However, in patients in symptomatic remission but elevated biomarkers, and in patients with moderate to severe symptoms with normal biomarkers, the panel suggests endoscopic assessment of disease to inform treatment decisions. In patients with UC with mild symptoms, the panel suggests endoscopic assessment of disease activity to inform treatment decisions. The panel identified the use of a biomarker-based monitoring strategy over an endoscopy-based monitoring strategy as a knowledge gap. The panel also proposed key implementation considerations for optimal use of biomarkers, and identified areas for future research. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with UC, noninvasive biomarkers, including fecal calprotectin, fecal lactoferrin, and serum CRP can inform disease monitoring and management.

Methods for living guidelines: early guidance based on practical experience. Paper 5: decisions on methods for evidence synthesis and recommendation development for living guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: Producing living guidelines requires making important decisions about methods for evidence identification, appraisal, and integration to allow the living mode to function. Clarifying what these decisions are and the trade-offs between options is necessary. This article provides living guideline developers with a framework to enable them to choose the most suitable model for their living guideline topic, question, or context. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We developed this guidance through an iterative process informed by interviews, feedback, and a consensus process with an international group of living guideline developers. RESULTS: Several key decisions need to be made both before commencing and throughout the continual process of living guideline development and maintenance. These include deciding what approach is taken to the systematic review process; decisions about methods to be applied for the evidence appraisal process, including the use of unpublished data; and selection of "triggers" to incorporate new studies into living guideline recommendations. In each case, there are multiple options and trade-offs. CONCLUSION: We identify trade-offs and important decisions to be considered throughout the living guideline development process. The most appropriate, and most sustainable, mode of development and updating will be dependent on the choices made in each of these areas.

Methods for living guidelines: early guidance based on practical experience. Paper 1: Introduction.

OBJECTIVES: To introduce methods for living guidelines based on practical experiences by the Australian Living Evidence Consortium (ALEC), the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE), and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), with methodological support from the US Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) Network. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Members of ALEC, NICE, and the US GRADE Network, convened a working group to share experiences of the methods used to develop living guidelines and outline the key differences between traditional and living guidelines methods. RESULTS: The guidance includes the following steps: 1) deciding if the guideline is a priority for a living approach, 2) preparing for living guideline development, 3) literature surveillance and frequency of searching, 4) assessment and synthesis of the evidence, 5) publication and dissemination, and 6) transitioning recommendations out of living mode. CONCLUSION: This paper introduces methods for living guidelines and provides examples of the similarities and differences in approach across multiple organizations conducting living guidelines. It also introduces a series of papers exploring methods for living guidelines based on our practical experiences, including consumer involvement, selecting and prioritizing questions, search decisions, and methods decisions.

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.