Murad, M Hassan

Abstract Background Preexisting diabetes (PDM) increases the risk of maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity. Reduction of maternal hyperglycemia prior to and during pregnancy can reduce these risks. Despite compelling evidence that preconception care (PCC), which includes achieving strict glycemic goals, reduces the risk of congenital malformations and other adverse pregnancy outcomes, only a minority of individuals receive PCC. Suboptimal pregnancy outcomes demonstrated in real-world data highlight the need to further optimize prenatal glycemia. New evolving technology shows promise in helping to achieve that goal. Dysglycemia is not the only driver of poor pregnancy outcomes in PDM. The increasing impact of obesity on pregnancy outcomes underscores the importance of optimal nutrition and management of insulin sensitizing medications during prenatal care for PDM. Objective To provide recommendations for the care of individuals with PDM that lead to a reduction in maternal and neonatal adverse outcomes. Methods The Guideline Development Panel (GDP) composed of a multidisciplinary panel of clinical experts, along with experts in guideline methodology and systematic literature review, identified and prioritized 10 clinically relevant questions related to the care of individuals with diabetes before, during and after pregnancy. The GDP prioritized randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects of different interventions (eg, PCC, nutrition, treatment options, delivery) during the reproductive life cycle of individuals with diabetes, including type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Systematic reviews queried electronic databases for publications related to these 10 clinical questions. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and develop recommendations. The approach incorporated perspectives from 2 patient representatives and considered patient values, costs and resources required, acceptability and feasibility, and impact on health equity of the proposed recommendations. Results In individuals with diabetes mellitus who have the possibility of becoming pregnant, we suggest asking a screening question about pregnancy intention at every reproductive, diabetes, and primary care visit. Screening for pregnancy intent is also suggested at urgent care/emergency room visits when clinically appropriate (2 | ⊕OOO). This was suggested based on indirect evidence demonstrating a strong association between PCC and both reduced glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) at the first prenatal visit and congenital malformations. In individuals with diabetes mellitus who have the possibility of becoming pregnant, we suggest use of contraception when pregnancy is not desired (2 | ⊕⊕OO). This was suggested based on indirect evidence in women with diabetes, where PCC—including contraception as a key component—showed a clinically significant association with improvements in first-trimester HbA1c and the rate of congenital malformations, together with indirect evidence from the general population regarding the reduction of unplanned pregnancies and pregnancy terminations with the use of contraception. In individuals with T2DM, we suggest discontinuation of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) before conception rather than discontinuation between the start of pregnancy and the end of the first trimester (2 | ⊕OOO). This was suggested based on limited data on risk of exposure to GLP-1RA receptor agonists during pregnancy. In pregnant individuals with T2DM already on insulin, we suggest against routine addition of metformin (2 | ⊕OOO). This was suggested based on the GDP judgment that the benefit of adding metformin to insulin to achieve decrease in rates of large for gestational age infants did not outweigh the potential harm of increasing the risk of small for gestational age infants or adverse childhood outcomes related to changes in body composition. In individuals with PDM, we suggest either a carbohydrate-restricted diet (<175 g/day) or usual diet (>175 g/day) during pregnancy (2 | ⊕OOO). This was suggested based on the GDP judgment that the available evidence was limited and very indirect, resulting in significant uncertainty about the net benefits or harms. As such, the evidence was insufficient to support a recommendation either for or against a carbohydrate intake cutoff of 175 g/day. In pregnant individuals with T2DM, we suggest either the use of a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) or self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) (2 | ⊕OOO). There is lack of direct evidence supporting superiority of CGM use over SMBG for T2DM during pregnancy. There is indirect evidence supporting improved glucometrics with the use of CGM for individuals with T2DM outside of pregnancy, substantial improvements in neonatal outcomes for individuals with T1DM using CGM during pregnancy and the potential for decreasing adverse pregnancy outcomes with improved glucometrics in individuals with T2DM. In individuals with PDM using a CGM, we suggest against the use of a single 24-hour CGM target <140 mg/dL (7.8 mmol/L) in place of standard-of-care pregnancy glucose targets of fasting <95 mg/dL (5.3 mmol/L), 1-hour postprandial <140 mg/dL (7.8 mmol/L), and 2-hour postprandial < 120 mg/dL (6.7 mmol/L) (2 | ⊕OOO). This was suggested based on indirect evidence that associated adverse pregnancy outcomes with a fasting glucose > 126 mg/dL (7 mmol/L). In individuals with T1DM who are pregnant, we suggest the use of a hybrid closed-loop pump (pump adjusting automatically based on CGM) rather than an insulin pump with CGM (without an algorithm) or multiple daily insulin injections with CGM (2 | ⊕OOO). This was suggested based on a meta-analysis of RCTs which demonstrated improvement in glucometrics with increased time in range (MD +3.81%; CI −4.24 to 11.86) and reduced time below range (MD −0.88%; 95% CI: −2.04 to 0.27) with the use of hybrid closed-loop pump technology. In individuals with PDM, we suggest early delivery based on risk assessment rather than expectant management (2 | ⊕OOO). This was suggested based on indirect evidence that risks may outweigh benefits of expectant management beyond 38 weeks gestation and that risk assessment criteria may be useful to inform ideal delivery timing. In individuals with PDM (including those with pregnancy loss or termination), we suggest postpartum endocrine care (diabetes management), in addition to usual obstetric care (2 | ⊕OOO). As the postpartum period frequently overlaps with preconception, this was suggested based on indirect evidence demonstrating a strong association between PCC and both reduced HbA1c at the first prenatal visit and congenital malformations. Conclusion The data supporting these recommendations were of very low to low certainty, highlighting the urgent need for research designed to provide high certainty evidence to support the care of individuals with diabetes before, during, and after pregnancy. Investment in implementation science for PCC is crucial to prevent significant mortality and morbidity for individuals with PDM and their children. RCTs to further define glycemic targets in pregnancy and refinement of emerging technology to achieve those targets can lead to significant reduction of harm and in the burden of diabetes care. Data on optimal nutrition and obesity management in pregnancy are lacking. More research on timing of delivery in women with PDM is also needed.

Abstract Background Primary aldosteronism (PA), a primary adrenal disorder leading to excessive aldosterone production by one or both adrenal glands, is a common cause of hypertension. It is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular complications compared with primary hypertension. Despite effective methods for diagnosing and treating PA, it remains markedly underdiagnosed and undertreated. Objective To develop an updated guideline that provides a practical, clinical approach to identifying and managing PA to improve diagnosis rates and encourage targeted treatment. Methods The Guideline Development Panel (GDP), composed of a multidisciplinary panel of clinical experts and experts in systemic review methodology, used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to define 10 questions related to the diagnosis and treatment of PA. Systematic reviews were conducted for each question. The GDP used the GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework to consider contextual factors, such as stakeholder values and preferences, costs and required resources, cost-effectiveness, acceptability, feasibility, and the potential impact on health equity. Results We suggest that all individuals with hypertension be screened for PA by measuring aldosterone and renin and determining the aldosterone to renin ratio, and that subsequent clinical care be guided by the results. We suggest that individuals with PA receive PA-specific therapy, either medical or surgical. In individuals who screen positive for PA, we suggest (1) commencement of PA-specific medical therapy in individuals who do not desire or are not candidates for surgery and in situations where the probability of lateralizing PA (excess aldosterone produced by one adrenal) is low based on screening results; and (2) aldosterone suppression testing in situations when screening results indicate an intermediate probability for lateralizing PA and individualized decision making confirms a desire to pursue eligibility for surgical therapy. In those who test positive by aldosterone suppression testing, and in those in whom screening results show a high probability of lateralizing PA (obviating the need for aldosterone suppression testing), we suggest adrenal lateralization with computed tomography scanning and adrenal venous sampling prior to deciding the treatment approach (medical vs surgical). In all individuals with PA and an adrenal adenoma, we suggest performing a 1-mg overnight dexamethasone suppression test. We suggest the use of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) over epithelial sodium-channel (ENaC) inhibitors in the medical treatment of PA. We suggest the use of spironolactone over other MRAs, given its lower cost and greater availability; however, all MRAs, when titrated to equivalent potencies, are anticipated to have similar efficacy in treating PA. Thus, MRAs with greater mineralocorticoid receptor specificity and fewer androgen/progesterone receptor-mediated side effects may be preferred in some situations. In individuals receiving MRA therapy, we suggest monitoring renin and, in those whose hypertension remains uncontrolled and renin is suppressed, titrating the MRA to increase renin. Conclusion These recommendations provide a practical framework for the diagnosis and treatment of PA. They are based on currently available literature and take into consideration outcomes that are important to key stakeholders. The goal is to increase identification of individuals with PA and, by initiating PA-specific medical or surgical therapy, improve blood pressure control and reduce PA-associated adverse cardiovascular events. The guidelines also highlight important knowledge gaps in PA diagnosis and management.

ASCO Guidelines provide recommendations with comprehensive review and analyses of the relevant literature for each recommendation, following the guideline development process as outlined in the ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual . ASCO Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy for Clinical Practice Guidelines . Clinical Practice Guidelines and other guidance (“Guidance”) provided by ASCO is not a comprehensive or definitive guide to treatment options. It is intended for voluntary use by clinicians and should be used in conjunction with independent professional judgment. Guidance may not be applicable to all patients, interventions, diseases or stages of diseases. Guidance is based on review and analysis of relevant literature, and is not intended as a statement of the standard of care. ASCO does not endorse third-party drugs, devices, services, or therapies and assumes no responsibility for any harm arising from or related to the use of this information. See complete disclaimer in Appendix 1 and 2 (online only) for more . PURPOSE To provide evidence-based recommendations for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). METHODS An Expert Panel including patient representation completed a systematic review of the evidence and made recommendations. RESULTS Depending upon prior treatment received, androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs: enzalutamide, abiraterone with prednisone), poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi), chemotherapeutic agents (docetaxel, cabazitaxel), radiopharmaceuticals (radium 223, 177 Lu-prostate-specific membrane antigen [PSMA]-617), and sipuleucel-T have demonstrated an overall survival (OS) benefit for patients with mCRPC. For patients with BRCA1 / 2 alterations who did not receive prior ARPI, the combination of PARPi and ARPI (talazoparib + enzalutamide, olaparib and/or niraparib + abiraterone) has shown clinical benefit. For patients with BRCA1 / 2 alterations who received prior ARPI or ARPI followed by docetaxel, olaparib showed OS benefit. In select patients with microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair-deficient, pembrolizumab showed clinical efficacy. RECOMMENDATIONS Prior systemic therapy for castration-sensitive prostate cancer will determine subsequent therapy used for mCRPC. Continue androgen-deprivation therapy for patients with mCRPC indefinitely. Early adoption of somatic genetic testing and palliative care is recommended. Patients with mCRPC and bony metastases should receive a bone-protective agent. The panel recommends the combination of ARPI with PARPi in patients with BRCA1 / 2 alterations who did not receive prior ARPI. For patients who received prior ARPI, the panel recommends docetaxel chemotherapy. The panel recommends 177 Lu-PSMA-617 or cabazitaxel chemotherapy for patients who receive prior ARPI and docetaxel chemotherapy. For patients with BRCA1 / 2 alterations who received prior ARPI, the panel recommends PARPi monotherapy. Radium 223 is recommended for patients with symptomatic bone–only disease. Evidence for optimal sequencing for mCRPC regimens is lacking. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines .

Abstract Introduction While certainty of evidence assessment is key to a rigorous and transparent systematic review, it is unknown how – and how frequently – it is assessed in systematic reviews. The objective of this study was to examine the prevalence and approaches used for certainty of evidence assessment in systematic reviews published in high‐impact medicine journals over the past 11 years. Methods A PubMed search and hand‐searching of relevant journal websites identified systematic reviews published between 24 January 2013 and 23 January 2024 in any of the ten highest‐impact journals in the General and Internal Medicine category of the Journal Citation Report. Two reviewers independently selected any systematic review related to health outcomes assessing certainty of evidence using any method. We extracted data related to review characteristics, certainty of evidence and risk of bias/methodological quality assessment frameworks, and reported consideration of certainty of evidence domains. Logistic regression examined year of publication to determine whether the prevalence of certainty of evidence assessment changed over time. Results Of 1,023 included reviews, 346 (33.8%) assessed certainty of evidence. Prevalence of certainty of evidence assessment increased over time (0.16 ± 0.2; p < .001). Most (89.3%) of reviews used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to assess certainty of evidence. Conclusion Only one in three systematic reviews published in the highest‐impact medical journals over the past 11 years assessed certainty of evidence, though prevalence increased over time. The use of specific domains within each certainty of evidence framework was not clearly described in all reviews.

When one initially targets the null effect and the point estimate falls close to the null, two challenges exist in rating certainty of evidence. First, when the point estimate is near the null and the data, therefore, suggests little or no effect, rating certainty in a benefit or harm is misleading. Second, since in general the narrower the confidence interval (CI) the more precise the estimate, if the CI is narrow, rating down for imprecision due simply to crossing the null is inappropriate. This paper addresses these issues and provides a solution: to revise the target of certainty rating from a non-zero effect to a little or no effect. This solution requires estimating a range in which the minimal important difference (MID) for benefit and an MID for harm might lie, and thus establishing a range that represents little or no effect. If GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) users are confident that the point estimate represents an effect less than the smallest plausible MID, they will revise their target and rate certainty to a little or no effect. If the entire CI falls within the range of little or no effect, they will not rate down for imprecision. Otherwise (if the CI includes an important effect), they will rate down. Using the solution provided in this paper GRADE users can make an optimal choice of the target of certainty rating.

Abstract The common practice in meta‐analysis and clinical practice guidelines is to derive the absolute treatment effect (also called risk difference, RD) from a combination of a pooled relative risk (RR) that resulted from a meta‐analysis, and a user‐provided baseline risk (BR). However, this method does not address the uncertainty in BR. We developed a web‐based R Shiny tool to perform simple microsimulation and incorporate uncertainty in BR into the precision of RD. We empirically evaluated this approach by estimating the impact of incorporating this uncertainty when BR is derived from the control group rates in 3,128 meta‐analyses curated from the Cochrane Library (26,964 individual studies). When BR was derived from the largest study in each meta‐analysis, the median width of the CI of BR was 11.6% (interquartile range (IQR), 6.30%–18.5%). Incorporating this uncertainty in BR led to expansion of the RD CI by a median of 8 per 1,000 persons (IQR 2–24). This expansion increased in a linear fashion with BR imprecision and was more prominent in meta‐analyses with low BR. This study provides a web‐based tool to perform simple microsimulation and incorporate uncertainty in BR into the CI of RD.

Abstract Recent work in causally interpretable meta-analysis (CIMA) has bridged the gap between traditional meta-analysis and causal inference. Whereas traditional meta-analysis results generally do not apply to any well-defined population, CIMA approaches specify a target population to which meta-analytic treatment effect estimates are transported. Although theoretically attractive, these approaches currently have some practical limitations. Most assume that all studies in the meta-analysis have individual participant data (IPD), which is rare in practice because most trials share only aggregate data. We propose a method to perform CIMA using a combination of aggregate data and IPD. This method borrows information from studies with IPD to augment the aggregate data and create aggregate-matched synthetic IPD (AMSIPD), which can be used readily in the existing CIMA framework. By allowing use of both aggregate data and IPD, the method opens CIMA to more applications and can avoid biases arising from using only studies with IPD. We present a case study and simulations showing the AMSIPD approach is promising and merits further investigation as an advancement of CIMA.

Abstract Vitamin D plays a critical role in many physiological functions, including calcium metabolism and musculoskeletal health. This commentary aims to explore the intricate relationships among skin complexion, race, and 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) levels, focusing on challenges the Endocrine Society encountered during clinical practice guideline development. Given that increased melanin content reduces 25(OH)D production in the skin in response to UV light, the guideline development panel addressed the potential role for 25(OH)D screening in individuals with dark skin complexion. The panel discovered that no randomized clinical trials have directly assessed vitamin D related patient-important outcomes based on participants' skin pigmentation, although race and ethnicity often served as presumed proxies for skin pigmentation in the literature. In their deliberations, guideline panel members and selected Endocrine Society leaders underscored the critical need to distinguish between skin pigmentation as a biological variable and race and ethnicity as socially determined constructs. This differentiation is vital to maximize scientific rigor and, thus, the validity of resulting recommendations. Lessons learned from the guideline development process emphasize the necessity of clarity when incorporating race and ethnicity into clinical guidelines. Such clarity is an essential step toward improving health outcomes and ensuring equitable healthcare practices.

Introduction Gastrointestinal hospitalisations in the USA cause over US$130 billion in expenditures, and acute pancreatitis is a leading cause of these hospitalisations. Adequate pain control is one of the primary treatment goals for acute pancreatitis. Though opioids are commonly used for analgesia in these patients, there have been concerns about short-term and long-term side effects of using opioids. Recently, non-opioid medications have been studied to treat pain in patients with acute pancreatitis. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to assess the comparative efficacy of analgesic medication for non-severe, acute pancreatitis. Methods and analysis We will search multiple electronic databases for randomised controlled trials that study pain management in patients with non-severe, acute pancreatitis. The intervention will be any analgesic for acute pancreatitis in the hospital setting. The comparison group will be patients who received a placebo or other active interventions for pain management. The primary outcomes of interest include pain scores and the need for supplementary analgesia. The secondary outcomes will be serious adverse events, local complications, progression to severe pancreatitis, transfer to the intensive care unit, length of hospitalisation, time to start enteral feeds, 30-day all-cause mortality and Quality of Life Scale scores. If sufficient homogeneity exists among included studies, the findings will be pooled using a traditional pairwise and network meta-analysis. The risk of bias in randomised control trials will be evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach will be used to report the certainty of evidence. Ethics and dissemination This systematic review will not involve direct contact with human subjects. The findings of this review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. They will give healthcare providers a better awareness of the optimal analgesic medication for pain treatment in non-severe, acute pancreatitis.