Kawtharany, Hassan

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 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.

Abstract We conducted this systematic review to evaluate outcomes of thrombolysis followed by anticoagulation vs anticoagulation alone in pediatric patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE). This systematic review addresses mortality, VTE resolution, recurrence, bleeding, and organ-specific outcomes in 5 PICO (population, intervention, comparison, outcomes) questions on thrombolysis across pulmonary embolism (PE), extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT), right atrial thrombosis (RAT), cerebral sinus venous thrombosis (CSVT), and renal vein thrombosis (RVT). Meta-analysis reported risk ratios or differences (95% confidence intervals [CIs]), and absolute effects per 1000 patients. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE (Grading of recommendation, assessment, Development, and Evaluation) guidelines. Thirteen nonrandomized studies were included and no randomized clinical trials addressed these questions. Thrombolysis might be associated with a higher risk of major bleeding, clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, or unspecified bleeding with risk differences of 0.09 (95% CI, −0.06 to 0.23), 0.06 (95% CI, −0.11 to 0.22), and 0.09 (95% CI, −0.04 to 0.23), respectively. In PE with hemodynamic compromise, thrombolysis might be associated with a lower risk of mortality but conclusions on PE progression were uncertain in submassive PE. In DVT, thrombolysis may have little to no effect on mortality or thrombus resolution but might be associated with lower risk of postthrombotic syndrome. In RAT, thrombolysis might have little to no effect on thrombus resolution but a higher risk of major bleeding and mortality. For CSVT and RVT, the evidence was very limited. These findings were based on very-low-certainty evidence because of confounding and imprecision from small sample sizes. This systematic review highlights key challenges in developing recommendations for thrombolysis in children with VTE.

ObjectiveThe objective is to provide evidence‐based and expert guidance for the screening, treatment, and management of lupus nephritis.MethodsThe Core Team developed clinical questions for screening, treatment, and management of lupus nephritis using the PICO format (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome). Systematic literature reviews were completed for each PICO question, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the quality of evidence and to formulate recommendations. The Voting Panel achieved a consensus ≥70% on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of each recommendation.ResultsWe present 28 graded recommendations (7 strong, 21 conditional) and 13 ungraded, consensus‐based good practice statements for the screening and management of lupus nephritis. Our recommendations focus on the unifying principle that lupus nephritis therapy is continuous and ongoing, rather than consisting of discrete induction/initial and maintenance/subsequent therapies. Therapy should include pulse glucocorticoids followed by oral glucocorticoid taper and two additional immunosuppressive agents for 3–5 years for those achieving complete renal response.ConclusionThis guideline provides direction for clinicians regarding screening and treatment decisions for management of lupus nephritis. 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 individual patient.

Objective The objective is to provide evidence‐based and expert guidance for the screening, treatment, and management of lupus nephritis. Methods The Core Team developed clinical questions for screening, treatment, and management of lupus nephritis using the PICO format (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome). Systematic literature reviews were completed for each PICO question, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the quality of evidence and to formulate recommendations. The Voting Panel achieved a consensus ≥70% on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of each recommendation. Results We present 28 graded recommendations (7 strong, 21 conditional) and 13 ungraded, consensus‐based good practice statements for the screening and management of lupus nephritis. Our recommendations focus on the unifying principle that lupus nephritis therapy is continuous and ongoing, rather than consisting of discrete induction/initial and maintenance/subsequent therapies. Therapy should include pulse glucocorticoids followed by oral glucocorticoid taper and two additional immunosuppressive agents for 3–5 years for those achieving complete renal response. Conclusion This guideline provides direction for clinicians regarding screening and treatment decisions for management of lupus nephritis. 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 individual patient.