Mustafa, Reem A

Abstract In this systematic review, we aimed to assess the sensitivity of serum immunofixation (SIFE), urine immunofixation (UIFE), and serum free light chain (sFLC) in detecting plasma cell dyscrasia associated with light chain (AL) amyloidosis. We searched the literature using PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL databases since inception through March 2024. We included studies reporting the diagnostic accuracy of immunofixation and/or sFLC in patients with AL amyloidosis. We used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach to assess the certainty of the evidence and QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2) to assess the risk of bias. After deduplication, 29 237 records were screened, and 44 studies (n = 18 071) were included. For the meta-analysis, 28 studies reported sensitivity for SIFE (n = 3390), 24 studies for UIFE (n = 2830), 19 studies for SIFE and UIFE (n = 2819), 21 studies for sFLC ratio (n = 3678), 6 studies for SIFE and sFLC ratio (n = 372), 3 studies for UIFE and sFLC ratio (n = 242), and 10 studies for all 3 tests (n = 1430). Pooled sensitivities were as follows: SIFE, 0.68 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62-0.73); UIFE, 0.77 (95% CI, 0.72-0.81); SIFE and UIFE, 0.89 (95% CI, 0.84-0.93); and sFLC ratio, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.78-0.86). When SIFE, UIFE, and sFLC ratio were combined, the sensitivity reached 0.99 (95% CI, 0.96-1.00). The high sensitivity of combining SIFE, UIFE, and sFLC ratio supports their use as a reliable initial testing strategy to raise suspicion for AL amyloidosis and guide decisions regarding future diagnostic modalities.

Abstract Systemic amyloidosis is a rare, multisystem disorder that is often challenging to diagnose due to vague and nonspecific symptoms that frequently overlap with other disorders. By the time patients are diagnosed, irreversible organ impairment from amyloid deposition occurrs, contributing to substantial morbidity and mortality. Although developing the American Society of Hematology (ASH) guidelines on systemic amyloidosis, we identified a critical knowledge gap in the recognition of the clinical presentation of its most common subtypes. Therefore, we conducted a scoping review of 117 studies following PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines to identify clinical “red flags” for light chain (AL) and transthyretin (ATTR; wild-type [ATTRwt] and hereditary [ATTRv]) amyloidosis. Studies were identified from the comprehensive systematic review through the ASH amyloidosis diagnosis guideline panel, data mining, and gray literature review. Data were extracted and synthesized by systems to characterize the earliest and most frequently overlooked clinical red flags for the different types of amyloidosis. Shortness of breath and fatigue, the earliest symptoms of AL amyloidosis, contrast with the carpal tunnel syndrome occurring years before ATTRwt cardiac amyloidosis is diagnosed. Weight loss, unexplained abdominal pain, and early satiety were overlooked red flags for AL amyloidosis, compared to the preceding arrhythmias often missed in evaluation for ATTRwt amyloidosis. Sensory loss was the predominant neuropathic presentation for AL amyloidosis compared to the painful length-dependent neuropathy of ATTRv amyloidosis. Awareness of the early symptoms and distinct patterns across subtypes can enhance cross-specialty awareness and support earlier diagnosis and intervention of AL and ATTR amyloidosis.

Background Light chain (AL) amyloidosis is a rare disease caused by the misfolding of immunoglobulin light chains produced by a plasma cell dyscrasia. Patients can present with involvement of many organs, including the heart, kidneys, liver, nerves, and other sites, resulting in a high symptom burden. Timely and accurate diagnosis is important to prevent organ failure and improve patient survival. Objective These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients and clinicians in the timely and effective diagnosis of AL amyloidosis. Methods ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that included 22 individuals representing various medical specialties (academic and community hematology, nephrology, neurology, cardiology, internal medicine, and pathology) as well as 1 patient representative. The group was balanced to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The University of Kansas Medical Center supported the guideline development process, including updating or performing systematic evidence reviews (up to 6 March 2023). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, including GRADE evidence-to-decision frameworks, to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment. Results The panel agreed on 12 recommendations. Conclusions The use of serum immunofixation, urine immunofixation, and serum free light chains enhances the clinical suspicion of AL amyloidosis. The diagnosis of AL amyloidosis can be made effectively through surrogate biopsies, which require both a bone marrow biopsy and fat-pad sampling; however, target organ biopsies may be favored in certain clinical situations.

Objective To assess the impact of renal replacement therapy in people with lupus nephritis (LN)–associated end‐stage kidney disease (ESKD) and support the development of the 2024 American College of Rheumatology LN treatment guidelines. Methods We conducted a systematic literature review and meta‐analysis to address three Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) questions related to renal replacement therapy for ESKD due to LN, including comparisons of kidney transplant versus dialysis, hemodialysis versus peritoneal dialysis, and preemptive kidney transplant versus no preemptive kidney transplant. Outcomes of interest included mortality, cardiovascular (CV) events, infections, lupus flares, disease‐related damage, graft failure, and quality of life. We conducted a meta‐analysis and analyzed hazard ratios for time‐to‐event analyses and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes, as well as absolute risk estimates. Results Sixteen comparative observational studies addressed at least one of the three PICO questions. Kidney transplant was found to reduce the risks of all‐cause mortality, CV mortality, infection‐related mortality, and CV events compared with dialysis (high certainty). Dialysis modality (peritoneal vs hemodialysis) was not associated with mortality (high certainty) or with other outcomes of infection, CV complications, and systemic lupus erythematosus flares (low certainty). Preemptive kidney transplant was associated with lower risks of graft failure and mortality (low certainty). Conclusion This systematic review identified improved outcomes with kidney transplant versus dialysis for people with LN‐associated ESKD and potential benefits of preemptive kidney transplant. This evidence supports the use of kidney transplant as a preferred renal replacement therapy for people with LN‐ESKD.

Objective To provide evidence‐based and expert guidance for the treatment and management of non‐renal systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE); treatment and management of lupus nephritis are addressed in a separate guideline. Methods Clinical questions for treatment and management of SLE were developed in the PICO format (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome). Systematic literature reviews were developed for each PICO question, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess evidence quality and formulate recommendations. The Voting Panel achieved a consensus of ≥70% agreement on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of each recommendation. Results We present recommendations and ungraded, consensus‐based good practice statements for the treatment and management of SLE that are applicable to pediatric and adult patients. Recommendations emphasize uniform treatment with hydroxychloroquine, limiting duration of glucocorticoid use, and early introduction of conventional and/or biologic immunosuppressive therapies to achieve and maintain control of SLE inflammation (remission or a low level of disease activity), reduce SLE‐related morbidity and mortality, and minimize medication‐related toxicities. Conclusion This guideline presents direction regarding treatment and management of SLE and provides a foundation for well‐informed, shared clinician–patient decision‐making. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies, as treatment decisions may vary due to the unique clinical situation and personal preferences of each person with SLE.

Objective To provide evidence‐based and expert guidance for the treatment and management of non‐renal systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE); treatment and management of lupus nephritis are addressed in a separate guideline. Methods Clinical questions for treatment and management of SLE were developed in the PICO format (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome). Systematic literature reviews were developed for each PICO question, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess evidence quality and formulate recommendations. The Voting Panel achieved a consensus of ≥70% agreement on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of each recommendation. Results We present recommendations and ungraded, consensus‐based good practice statements for the treatment and management of SLE that are applicable to pediatric and adult patients. Recommendations emphasize uniform treatment with hydroxychloroquine, limiting duration of glucocorticoid use, and early introduction of conventional and/or biologic immunosuppressive therapies to achieve and maintain control of SLE inflammation (remission or a low level of disease activity), reduce SLE‐related morbidity and mortality, and minimize medication‐related toxicities. Conclusion This guideline presents direction regarding treatment and management of SLE and provides a foundation for well‐informed, shared clinician–patient decision‐making. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies, as treatment decisions may vary due to the unique clinical situation and personal preferences of each person with SLE.

Objective A patient‐centered approach for chronic disease management, including systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), aligns treatment with patients’ values and preferences, leading to improved outcomes. This paper summarizes how patient experiences, perspectives, and priorities informed the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2024 Lupus Nephritis (LN) and 2025 SLE screening, treatment guidelines. Methods We completed a cross‐sectional qualitative study using content analysis of two Patient Panel meetings for the ACR LN and SLE guidelines. Key themes were presented by Patient Panel representatives during Voting Panel Meetings along with evidence for each recommendation, to ensure comprehensive discussions and align treatment recommendations with patients’ priorities and values. Results Nineteen people (90% women) with diagnoses of SLE and/or LN participated in the Patient Panels and 17 consented to use their feedback for analysis. Thematic analysis of their discussions revealed nine patient‐reported key themes in three domains: (1) treatment and monitoring of LN and SLE: medication side effects, daily function, treatment goals, and monitoring and screening; (2) clinical communication: strategies to optimize communication and provider and structural impediments to effective communication; and (3) improving transparency and information sharing: clinical trial participation, and medical costs and insurance coverage. These themes were actively incorporated into discussions during the Voting Panels for the ACR LN and SLE guidelines. Conclusion This work supported the integration of patient experiences in the clinical practice guideline development process and aligned recommendations with real‐world patient experiences and priorities, thereby enhancing the clinical applicability of the ACR LN and SLE guidelines. image

Abstract Clinical question What are the benefits and harms of medications for adults with type 2 diabetes at varied risks of cardiovascular and kidney related complications? Context Emerging clinical trials of novel medications have demonstrated benefits on cardiovascular, kidney, and weight related outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes. Dynamically updated practice guidelines adhering to standards of trustworthiness are necessary in response to a rapidly evolving evidence base and the availability of multiple medication alternatives. This living practice guideline incorporates the latest available medications and evidence and provides recommendations stratified by risks of cardiovascular and kidney complications to inform diabetes management. Recommendations The panel issued risk-stratified recommendations regarding four prioritised medications for adults with type 2 diabetes (SGLT-2 inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists, finerenone and tirzepatide): • Lower risk (three or fewer cardiovascular risk factors without established cardiovascular disease (CVD) or chronic kidney disease (CKD)): weak recommendation against SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists. • Moderate risk (more than three cardiovascular risk factors without established CVD or CKD; or established CVD and/or CKD at lower risk of complications): weak recommendation in favour of SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists; and a weak recommendation against finerenone in adults with CKD. • Higher risk (established CVD and/or CKD at higher risk of complications, or established heart failure): strong recommendation in favour of SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists; and a weak recommendation in favour of finerenone in adults with CKD. • Across risk strata: weak recommendation in favour of tirzepatide in adults with obesity. About this guideline and how it was created An international panel including two patient partners, clinicians, and methodologists produced these recommendations. The panel followed standards for trustworthy guidelines and used the GRADE approach, explicitly considering the balance of benefits, harms and burdens of treatment from an individual patient perspective. Recommendations were informed by a linked living systematic review and network meta-analysis evaluating relative benefits and harms updated to 31 July 2024; and by linked systematic reviews addressing risk prediction models and values and preferences of adults with type 2 diabetes. Candidate therapeutics are prioritised based on availability of sufficient randomised trial data, relevance to a global audience and likelihood of changing practice. This is the first version of the living guideline. The guideline is part of the BMJ Rapid Recommendations series. MAGICapp displays the most recent version of the guideline and full content including evidence summaries and decision aids; major updates will be published in The BMJ . We encourage re-use, adaptation and translation of these living guidelines, and recognise that the lack of availability or high costs of some medications may be prohibitive and will impact on how these recommendations are implemented across different health care systems.