Updated consensus statement: Intravenous immunoglobulin in the treatment of neuromuscular disorders report of the AANEM ad hoc committee.

Intravenous immune globulin (IVIG) is an immune-modulating biologic therapy that is increasingly being used in neuromuscular disorders despite the paucity of high-quality evidence for various specific diseases. To address this, the AANEM created the 2009 consensus statement to provide guidance on the use of IVIG in neuromuscular disorders. Since then, there have been several randomized controlled trials for IVIG, a new FDA-approved indication for dermatomyositis and a revised classification system for myositis, prompting the AANEM to convene an ad hoc panel to update the existing guidelines.New recommendations based on an updated systemic review of the literature were categorized as Class I-IV. Based on Class I evidence, IVIG is recommended in the treatment of chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy, Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) in adults, multifocal motor neuropathy, dermatomyositis, stiff-person syndrome and myasthenia gravis exacerbations but not stable disease. Based on Class II evidence, IVIG is also recommended for Lambert-Eaton myasthenic syndrome and pediatric GBS. In contrast, based on Class I evidence, IVIG is not recommended for inclusion body myositis, post-polio syndrome, IgM paraproteinemic neuropathy and small fiber neuropathy that is idiopathic or associated with tri-sulfated heparin disaccharide or fibroblast growth factor receptor-3 autoantibodies. Although only Class IV evidence exists for IVIG use in necrotizing autoimmune myopathy, it should be considered for anti-hydroxy-3-methyl-glutaryl-coenzyme A reductase myositis given the risk of long-term disability. Insufficient evidence exists for the use of IVIG in Miller-Fisher syndrome, IgG and IgA paraproteinemic neuropathy, autonomic neuropathy, chronic autoimmune neuropathy, polymyositis, idiopathic brachial plexopathy and diabetic lumbosacral radiculoplexopathy.

Diagnosis and Detection of Sarcoidosis. An Official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline.

Background: The diagnosis of sarcoidosis is not standardized but is based on three major criteria: a compatible clinical presentation, finding nonnecrotizing granulomatous inflammation in one or more tissue samples, and the exclusion of alternative causes of granulomatous disease. There are no universally accepted measures to determine if each diagnostic criterion has been satisfied; therefore, the diagnosis of sarcoidosis is never fully secure.Methods: Systematic reviews and, when appropriate, meta-analyses were performed to summarize the best available evidence. The evidence was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach and then discussed by a multidisciplinary panel. Recommendations for or against various diagnostic tests were formulated and graded after the expert panel weighed desirable and undesirable consequences, certainty of estimates, feasibility, and acceptability.Results: The clinical presentation, histopathology, and exclusion of alternative diagnoses were summarized. On the basis of the available evidence, the expert committee made 1 strong recommendation for baseline serum calcium testing, 13 conditional recommendations, and 1 best practice statement. All evidence was very low quality.Conclusions: The panel used systematic reviews of the evidence to inform clinical recommendations in favor of or against various diagnostic tests in patients with suspected or known sarcoidosis. The evidence and recommendations should be revisited as new evidence becomes available.

Diagnosis and detection of sarcoidosis: an official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline

The diagnosis of sarcoidosis is not standardized but is based on three major criteria: a compatible clinical presentation, finding nonnecrotizing granulomatous inflammation in one or more tissue samples, and the exclusion of alternative causes of granulomatous disease. There are no universally accepted measures to determine if each diagnostic criterion has been satisfied; therefore, the diagnosis of sarcoidosis is never fully secure. Systematic reviews and, when appropriate, meta-analyses were performed to summarize the best available evidence. The evidence was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach and then discussed by a multidisciplinary panel. Recommendations for or against various diagnostic tests were formulated and graded after the expert panel weighed desirable and undesirable consequences, certainty of estimates, feasibility, and acceptability. The clinical presentation, histopathology, and exclusion of alternative diagnoses were summarized. On the basis of the available evidence, the expert committee made 1 strong recommendation for baseline serum calcium testing, 13 conditional recommendations, and best practice statement. All evidence was very low quality.The panel used systematic reviews of the evidence to inform clinical recommendations in favor of or against various diagnostic tests in patients with suspected or known sarcoidosis. The evidence and recommendations should be revisited as new evidence becomes available.

Management of severe asthma: a European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society guideline.

This document provides clinical recommendations for the management of severe asthma. Comprehensive evidence syntheses, including meta-analyses, were performed to summarise all available evidence relevant to the European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society Task Force's questions. The evidence was appraised using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach and the results were summarised in evidence profiles. The evidence syntheses were discussed and recommendations formulated by a multidisciplinary Task Force of asthma experts, who made specific recommendations on six specific questions. After considering the balance of desirable and undesirable consequences, quality of evidence, feasibility, and acceptability of various interventions, the Task Force made the following recommendations: 1) suggest using anti-interleukin (IL)-5 and anti-IL-5 receptor α for severe uncontrolled adult eosinophilic asthma phenotypes; 2) suggest using a blood eosinophil cut-point ≥150 µL-1 to guide anti-IL-5 initiation in adult patients with severe asthma; 3) suggest considering specific eosinophil (≥260 µL-1) and exhaled nitric oxide fraction (≥19.5 ppb) cut-offs to identify adolescents or adults with the greatest likelihood of response to anti-IgE therapy; 4) suggest using inhaled tiotropium for adolescents and adults with severe uncontrolled asthma despite Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) step 4-5 or National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) step 5 therapies; 5) suggest a trial of chronic macrolide therapy to reduce asthma exacerbations in persistently symptomatic or uncontrolled patients on GINA step 5 or NAEPP step 5 therapies, irrespective of asthma phenotype; and 6) suggest using anti-IL-4/13 for adult patients with severe eosinophilic asthma and for those with severe corticosteroid-dependent asthma regardless of blood eosinophil levels. These recommendations should be reconsidered as new evidence becomes available.

Measuring impostor phenomenon among health sciences librarians.

OBJECTIVE: Impostor phenomenon, also known as impostor syndrome, is the inability to internalize accomplishments while experiencing the fear of being exposed as a fraud. Previous work has examined impostor phenomenon among academic college and research librarians, but health sciences librarians, who are often asked to be experts in medical subject areas with minimal training or education in these areas, have not yet been studied. The aim of this study was to measure impostor phenomenon among health sciences librarians. METHODS: A survey of 2,125 eligible Medical Library Association (MLA) members was taken from October to December 2017. The online survey featuring the Harvey Impostor Phenomenon scale, a validated measure of impostor phenomenon, was administered, and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to examine relationships between impostor phenomenon scores and demographic variables. RESULTS: A total of 703 participants completed the survey (33% response rate), and 14.5% of participants scored ≥42 on the Harvey scale, indicating possible impostor feelings. Gender, race, and library setting showed no associations, but having an educational background in the health sciences was associated with lower impostor scores. Age and years of experience were inversely correlated with impostor phenomenon, with younger and newer librarians demonstrating higher scores. CONCLUSIONS: One out of seven health sciences librarians in this study experienced impostor phenomenon, similar to previous findings for academic librarians. Librarians, managers, and MLA can work to recognize and address this issue by raising awareness, using early prevention methods, and supporting librarians who are younger and/or new to the profession.