Hasan, Bashar

Abstract Objectives Microscopic colitis (MC) is an inflammatory disease of the large intestine characterized by chronic diarrhea, normal‐appearing colonic mucosa on endoscopy, and abnormal inflammatory histopathology. While it is a common cause of chronic diarrhea in adults, MC is infrequently reported in children, and data on its presentation, treatment, and outcomes remain limited. This study aimed to analyze single‐center experience and conduct a literature review on pediatric MC. Methods A retrospective review of the Mayo Clinic electronic health records from 2013 to 2024 was performed. Children (≤18 years) diagnosed with MC were included. Demographics, clinical presentation, treatment, and outcomes were collected. A systematic review of pediatric MC literature was completed. Results MC was diagnosed in 42 children (median age 12.5 years; Q1–Q3 7.25–14.75), with 28 (67%) females. Systematic review identified 29 studies with 258 children with MC (mean age 10 years, standard deviation [SD] 4.9). At Mayo Clinic, treatment varied among providers, and budesonide as monotherapy or in combination was most effective. In the literature, the most commonly used treatments included 5‐aminosalicylates (5‐ASA, 36%) and budesonide (31.5%). Combination therapy with budesonide plus a biologic or mesalamine appeared to be the most effective therapy, followed by budesonide monotherapy and corticosteroids. Mucosal remission rate was highest with corticosteroids, followed by budesonide. Mean recurrence rate across all treatments was 69%. Biologics (vedolizumab, infliximab) and bismuth showed the lowest recurrence rates. Conclusion Budesonide, either alone or in combination, appears to be most commonly used and effective in treating pediatric MC, but recurrence rates remain high after therapy discontinuation.

Objective: The objective of this investigation was to evaluate the agreement rate on judgments made using the Murad tool by different systematic review teams. Introduction: Evaluating the methodological quality of case reports and case series is challenging but some tools do exist for this purpose. We leveraged the presence of studies that have been evaluated by different systematic review teams to assess the inter-consensus agreement among different teams on Murad tool domains. Methods: Using a back-citation method, we identified systematic reviews that used the Murad tool and retrieved all the included primary studies. We selected studies that were assessed by more than 1 systematic review team. We calculated observed agreement and Gwet’s agreement coefficient on judgments made about each signaling question. Results: We identified 982 systematic reviews that cited the Murad tool and collectively cited 59,080 references. The final data comprised of 81 duplicated case reports and series assessed by more than 1 systematic review team. Overall, the signaling questions had very high observed agreement with 5 of the 8 questions having agreement over 75%. The signaling questions with the highest agreement addressed the adequacy of the ascertainment of the exposure (coefficient 0.959), ascertainment of the outcome (coefficient 0.829), presence of a dose-response gradient (perfect agreement), and clarity of reporting (coefficient 0.755). Conclusion: The current study demonstrates overall high agreement among different systematic review teams that used the Murad tool for appraisal of the same case series and case reports. Leveraging duplicated studies across systematic reviews is a feasible way to retrospectively assess the reliability of the tool.

Abstract Background Partial breast irradiation (PBI) is an effective treatment for early-stage breast cancer. However, evidence comparing different PBI modalities is limited. Methods This trial emulation uses electronic health records from a multi-state large tertiary health system. Three PBI modalities were compared: proton radiation therapy, photon radiation therapy, and applicator-based brachytherapy. Inverse probability weighting (IPW) was used to balance confounders. The primary outcome was ipsilateral breast recurrence (IBR). Results Between 2013 and 2023, 1041 women with early-stage breast cancer were treated with PBI. Of these, 1026 patients were included in the analyses. The median age was 66 years; 22.51% had ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), and 97.56% were estrogen receptor positive. With median follow-up of 38.2 months, the rate of IBR in the overall group was 3.05% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.99% to 4.65%) at 3 years. After IPW, compared with photon PBI, the hazard ratio for IBR for proton PBI was 2.11 (95% CI = 0.70 to 6.33) and for brachytherapy, 3.86 (95% CI = 1.39 to 10.69). Compared with proton PBI, the hazard ratio for IBR for brachytherapy was 1.83 (95% CI = 0.88 to 3.81). IBR risk was similar across PBI modalities for patients with tumor size ≤ 10 mm and in patients treated for DCIS. Among patients with tumor size >10 mm, the hazard ratio for IBR for brachytherapy was 7.64 (95% CI = 1.64 to 35.58) and 3.59 (95% CI = 1.22 to 10.56) relative to photons and protons, respectively. Conclusion PBI with applicator-based brachytherapy was associated with higher IBR than photon or proton PBI in patients with tumor size > 10 mm, suggesting the need for more careful PBI patient selection for this modality.

Background and Aims: With rapid changes in the management landscape of chronic hepatitis B (CHB), this technical systematic review addresses 4 critical Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome (PICO) questions to provide guidance to the formulation of recommendations to the 2025 AASLD practice guideline for management of CHB. Approach: The review was reported in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Outcomes were evaluated across 4 key PICOs: (1) antiviral therapy for prevention of horizontal HBV transmission in high-risk groups, (2) antiviral therapy versus observation for persons in the immune-tolerant phase, (3) discontinuation versus continuation of nucleos(t)ide analogue therapy in HBeAg-negative individuals with undetectable HBV DNA, and (4) hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) surveillance in non-cirrhotic individuals with HBsAg clearance or co-infections with HCV, HDV, or HIV. Results: For PICO 1, limited evidence suggests antiviral therapy may reduce horizontal transmission risk, though with low certainty. PICO 2 analyses reveal uncertain benefits of treating persons in the immune-tolerant phase, with very low certainty due to heterogeneity and bias. PICO 3 analyses demonstrate that discontinuing antiviral therapy in persons who are HBeAg negative with undetectable HBV DNA increases HBsAg loss rates (OR: 12.65, 95% CI: 1.58–101.51) but carries moderate risks of virologic relapse (OR: 47.17, 95% CI: 2.79–797.35) and clinical flares. PICO 4 analyses on several cohort studies showed that in patients co-infected with HCV, HBV, or HIV, the annual incidence of HCC was higher than the level where screening becomes cost-effective, suggesting that regular liver cancer screening could be beneficial for these patients. Conclusions: Despite low certainty, the findings support shared decision-making in high-risk horizontal transmission scenarios or in treating individuals in the immune tolerance phase, caution in discontinuing antiviral therapy in virologically suppressed individuals without HBsAg loss, and tailored HCC surveillance for those with co-infection or cirrhosis.

Multiple myeloma (MM) treatment outcomes in developing countries may be impacted by resource constraints. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated efficacy outcomes of MM treatments across developing regions. Comprehensive searches in five major databases identified 37 eligible studies from Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Eastern Europe. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess risk of bias. Newer novel agents including daratumumab, carfilzomib, and pomalidomide showed limited use across studies. For patients receiving autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), the pooled overall survival rate at longest follow-up (2.5-12.5 years) was 62% (95% CI: 48-75%), with high heterogeneity (I²=92%), while the progression-free survival rate at longest follow-up (3-8 years) was 44% (95% CI: 23-67%). Comparative analyses demonstrated ASCT was associated with significantly superior 5-year survival compared to conventional chemotherapy (RR: 1.59; 95% CI: 1.38-1.82). Bortezomib-based regimens showed better outcomes than thalidomide-based therapies (HR for overall survival (OS) at 4 years: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.53-1.0) and alkylating agent-based regimens (HR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.28-0.83). Despite resource limitations, ASCT and certain novel agents are associated with improved survival outcomes for MM patients in developing countries. However, substantial heterogeneity in outcomes suggests variability in healthcare infrastructure, treatment accessibility, and clinical expertise across these regions.

Abstract Objective Data extraction from the published literature is the most laborious step in conducting living systematic reviews (LSRs). We aim to build a generalizable, automated data extraction workflow leveraging large language models (LLMs) that mimics the real-world 2-reviewer process. Materials and Methods A dataset of 10 trials (22 publications) from a published LSR was used, focusing on 23 variables related to trial, population, and outcomes data. The dataset was split into prompt development (n = 5) and held-out test sets (n = 17). GPT-4-turbo and Claude-3-Opus were used for data extraction. Responses from the 2 LLMs were considered concordant if they were the same for a given variable. The discordant responses from each LLM were provided to the other LLM for cross-critique. Accuracy, ie, the total number of correct responses divided by the total number of responses, was computed to assess performance. Results In the prompt development set, 110 (96%) responses were concordant, achieving an accuracy of 0.99 against the gold standard. In the test set, 342 (87%) responses were concordant. The accuracy of the concordant responses was 0.94. The accuracy of the discordant responses was 0.41 for GPT-4-turbo and 0.50 for Claude-3-Opus. Of the 49 discordant responses, 25 (51%) became concordant after cross-critique, increasing accuracy to 0.76. Discussion Concordant responses by the LLMs are likely to be accurate. In instances of discordant responses, cross-critique can further increase the accuracy. Conclusion Large language models, when simulated in a collaborative, 2-reviewer workflow, can extract data with reasonable performance, enabling truly “living” systematic reviews.

Introduction: The outcomes of patients diagnosed with multiple myeloma (MM) have improved significantly with the advent of immunomodulatory drugs, proteasome inhibitors, anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies, and high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Further advancements include immune-based approaches such as bispecific antibodies and chimeric antigen T-cell receptor therapy. However, most of these therapies are predominantly available in developed countries, with limited access globally. Our study aimed to ascertain the landscape of interventions being used in developing countries for MM, and their efficacy. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted on March 13, 2023, using Embase via Elsevier, PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, and CENTRAL. We included retrospective and prospective studies that were evaluating interventions for patients with plasma cell dycrasias in the developing country setting. We defined developing country according to the United Nations. For comparative studies, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) for binary outcomes such as overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), estimating 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and pooling data using the DerSimonian and Laird random effects model. For non-comparative studies, we calculated overall event rates and transformed them using the Freeman-Tukey double arcsine method, then pooled the data using the same random effects model. All statistical analyses were conducted using R version 4.4.0. Results: A total of 448 records were identified, of which 37 studies met the eligibility criteria. The overall risk of bias was moderate. The included studies evaluated induction treatments using doublet and triplet-based therapies, including TD (thalidomide and dexamethasone), VD (bortezomib and dexamethasone), MP (melphalan and prednisone), CTD (cyclophosphamide, thalidomide, and dexamethasone), VTD (bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone), and VAD (vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone). Lenalidomide was notably absent in the induction regimens apart from one non-comparative study reported on the use of RVD (lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone). Studies were divided into comparative (n=11) and non-comparative groups (n=26). Comparative studies included: HSCT vs. no HSCT, induction with alkylating agents vs. thalidomide or bortezomib, and thalidomide vs. bortezomib or CTD vs. VTD. Lenalidomide use in comparative studies was reported only post-HSCT, compared against observation. High-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous HSCT was commonly utilized, with most studies reporting outcomes for patients who underwent autologous HSCT. Two comparative studies from 2 countries (Colombia and India) compared the overall survival of autologous HSCT in patients diagnosed with MM (N=130) vs. patients who never received ASCT (N=293). At one year of follow-up, there was no significant difference in overall survival (OS) between patients who received autologous HSCT and those who did not (relative risk [RR] = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.93-1.33). However, a significant improvement in OS was observed at five years post-autologous HSCT (RR = 1.59, 95% CI: 1.38-1.82). The pooled estimate for five-year OS in single-arm studies, which included nine cohorts from seven countries (Pakistan, India, Colombia, Algeria, Sri Lanka, Mexico, and Peru), was 62% (95% CI: 48-75). Progression-free survival (PFS) at five years post-HSCT, reported in three cohorts from three countries (India, Algeria, and Mexico), was 44% (95% CI: 23-67). Conclusions: Most of the recent advancements in MM treatment, including immunomodulatory drugs, proteasome inhibitors, and anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies, were not widely utilized globally, particularly in developing countries. This limited access is a major issue, hindering the potential improvement in patient outcomes. However, high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous HSCT showed good outcomes, demonstrating a significant survival advantage at five years follow-up. The lack of survival benefits at one-year post-HSCT may be due to high toxicity and/or limited resources to manage side effects in developing countries. Addressing the disparity in treatment availability is crucial for improving MM management and patient survival globally.

Abstract Introduction Effective pain and anxiety management during the perioperative phase remains a challenge for patients undergoing surgeries and other invasive procedures. The current standard of care involves prescribing analgesics to treat these conditions; however, there has been recent interest in applying multimodal strategies that limit the use of these medications. One such modality is meditation, which has been shown to be effective in alleviating various physical and psychological symptoms in other settings. This systematic review aims to assess how current meditative practices affect perioperative pain and anxiety. Methods We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, APA PsycINFO, EBM Reviews, Scopus, and Web of Science for all available dates. Our primary outcomes of interest were patient‐reported pain and anxiety scores using the Visual Analog Scale, the Brief Pain Inventory, the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale, the State‐Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). For the HADS and STAI scales, only the anxiety and anxiety‐state subgroups were reported, respectively. Results The literature search yielded 1746 articles. A total of 286 full‐text articles were screened, and 16 studies were included in this systematic review. A total of eight studies assessed pain scores after invasive procedures; five reported improvements in pain scores, and three reported no change after meditative practices. Ten studies assessed anxiety outcomes after invasive procedures: nine reported a decrease in overall anxiety levels as a result of meditation practices while one study reported no change in anxiety scores. Conclusion Data from this limited literature suggests that different meditation practices could be effective in alleviating pain and anxiety within the perioperative phase for patients undergoing various types of invasive procedures. Future prospective studies are needed to determine whether routine meditation in the perioperative setting is effective in mitigating perioperative pain and anxiety.

Abstract Background Risk of bias (RoB) tools are critical in systematic reviews and affect subsequent decision‐making. RoB tools should have adequate interrater reliability and interconsensus agreement. We present an approach of post hoc evaluation of RoB tools using duplicated studies that overlap systematic reviews. Methods Using a back‐citation approach, we identified systematic reviews that used the Risk Of Bias In Nonrandomized Studies‐of Interventions (ROBINS‐I) tool and retrieved all the included primary studies. We selected studies that were appraised by more than one systematic review and calculated observed agreement and unweighted kappa comparing the different systematic reviews' assessments. Results We identified 903 systematic reviews that used the tool with 51,676 cited references, from which we eventually analyzed 171 duplicated studies assessed using ROBINS‐I by different systematic reviewers. The observed agreement on ROBINS‐I domains ranged from 54.9% (missing data domain) to 70.3% (deviations from intended interventions domain), and was 63.0% for overall RoB assessment of the study. Kappa coefficient ranged from 0.131 (measurement of outcome domain) to 0.396 (domains of confounding and deviations from intended interventions), and was 0.404 for overall RoB assessment of the study. Conclusion A post hoc evaluation of RoB tools is feasible by focusing on duplicated studies that overlap systematic review. ROBINS‐I assessments demonstrated considerable variation in interconsensus agreement among various systematic reviewes that assessed the same study and outcome, suggesting the need for more intensive upfront work to calibrate systematic reviewers on how to identify context‐specific information and agree on how to judge it.