Davitkov, Perica

INTRODUCTION: The adjunctive use of p53 immunohistochemistry has been proposed as a potential tool to improve risk stratification in Barrett's esophagus (BE) with conflicting results. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the performance of p53 in predicting progression to advanced neoplasia (high-grade dysplasia [HGD] and esophageal adenocarcinoma [EAC]) among patients with BE. METHODS: We searched multiple databases for studies that evaluated the use of aberrant p53 in esophageal biopsies among patients with BE and reported progression rates to HGD/EAC. The outcomes were p53 test characteristics and incidence and risk ratio (RR) for progression to HGD/EAC in patients with and without aberrant p53 using random effects models. RESULTS: Among the 27 included studies, the proportion of patients with aberrant p53 expression at baseline was 20% (95% CI: 14%, 27%). The rate of progression with and without aberrant p53 was 8 per 100 person-years (95% CI: 6, 11) and 0.3 per 100 person-years (95% CI: 0.1, 0.6), respectively. Compared with patients without aberrant p53 expression, those with aberrant p53 had a higher risk for progression to HGD/EAC in cohort studies (RR = 10.2 [95% CI: 6.9, 15.0]) and case control studies (RR = 3.3 [95% CI: 2.5, 4.4]). The sensitivity for progression for non-dysplastic Barrett's esophagus and low-grade dysplasia/indefinite for dysplasia was 42% and 77% and specificity was 96% and 76%, respectively. DISCUSSION: While aberrant p53 expression has been associated with an increased risk of progression to advanced neoplasia in patients with BE undergoing surveillance, the diagnostic characteristics are suboptimal precluding uniform clinical adoption. Prospective studies with standardized grading protocols are needed to determine whether p53-guided surveillance strategies can meaningfully improve patient outcomes.

Abstract Background Since its emergence in late 2019, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to pose a risk to healthcare personnel (HCP) and patients in healthcare settings. Although all clinical interactions likely carry some risk of transmission, human actions, such as coughing, and care activities, such as aerosol-generating procedures, likely have a higher risk of transmission. The rapid emergence and global spread of SARS-CoV-2 continues to create significant challenges in healthcare facilities, particularly with shortages of the personal protective equipment (PPE) used by HCP. Evidence-based recommendations for what PPE to use in conventional, contingency, and crisis standards of care continue to be needed. Where evidence is lacking, the development of specific research questions can help direct funders and investigators. The purpose of the current study was to develop evidence-based rapid guidelines intended to support HCP in their decisions about infection prevention when caring for patients with suspected or known coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel including frontline clinicians, infectious disease specialists, experts in infection control, and guideline methodologists, with representation from the disciplines of public health, medical microbiology, pediatrics, critical care medicine and gastroenterology. The process followed a rapid recommendation checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. Then a systematic review of the peer-reviewed and gray literature was conducted. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations. Results The IDSA guideline panel agreed on 8 recommendations, including 2 updated recommendations and 1 new recommendation added since the first version of the guideline. Narrative summaries of other interventions undergoing evaluations are also included. Conclusions Using a combination of direct and indirect evidence, the panel was able to provide recommendations for 8 specific questions on the use of PPE by HCP providing care for patients with suspected or known COVID-19. Where evidence was lacking, attempts were made to provide potential avenues for investigation. There remain significant gaps in the understanding of the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2, and PPE recommendations may need to be modified in response to new evidence. These recommendations should serve as a minimum for PPE use in healthcare facilities and do not preclude decisions based on local risk assessments or requirements of local health jurisdictions or other regulatory bodies.

Abstract Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a highly transmissible virus that can infect healthcare personnel (HCP) and patients in healthcare settings. Specific care activities, in particular, aerosol-generating procedures, may have a higher risk of transmission. The rapid emergence and global spread of SARS-CoV-2 has created significant challenges in healthcare facilities, particularly with severe shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) used to protect HCP. Evidence-based recommendations for what PPE to use in conventional, contingency, and crisis standards of care are needed. Where evidence is lacking, the development of specific research questions can help direct funders and investigators. Objective Our objective was to develop evidence-based rapid guidelines intended to support HCP in their decisions about infection prevention when caring for patients with suspected or known coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that included front-line clinicians, infectious diseases specialists, experts in infection control, and guideline methodologists with representation from the disciplines of preventive care, public health, medical microbiology, pediatrics, critical care medicine, and gastroenterology. The process followed a rapid recommendation checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. Then, a systematic review of the peer-reviewed and gray literature was conducted. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations. Results The IDSA guideline panel agreed on 8 recommendations and provided narrative summaries of other interventions undergoing evaluations. Conclusions Using a combination of direct and indirect evidence, the panel was able to provide recommendations for 8 specific questions on the use of PPE for HCP who provide care for patients with suspected or known COVID-19. Where evidence was lacking, attempts were made to provide potential avenues for investigation. Significant gaps in the understanding of the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 remain, and PPE recommendations may need to be modified in response to new evidence.