Abusalih, Mohamed

Abstract Background Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a significant public health concern associated with increased rates of hospital admissions and mortality. The purpose of the current study was to compare beta-lactam plus azithromycin or doxycycline vs fluoroquinolones in adults hospitalized with CAP. Methods We searched several databases from inception to 10 June 2024. Two reviewers independently screened, selected, and extracted data. Disagreements were resolved by consensus or a third reviewer. Study quality was assessed in duplicate with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 for randomized studies and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for nonrandomized studies. Meta-analysis was conducted by a random effect model when feasible. Network meta-analysis was performed to compare direct and indirect evidence. The GRADE approach (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) was followed to rate the certainty of evidence. Results Twenty studies were included (20 beta-lactam + azithromycin, 7 beta-lactam + doxycycline, 12 levofloxacin, and 4 moxifloxacin): 6 were randomized, enrolling 861 participants (mean age, 61.8 years; 43.2% women), and 14 were nonrandomized, enrolling 185 928 participants (mean age, 65.2 years; 42.9% women). Direct comparison and network meta-analysis results showed no statistically significant differences and likely equal effectiveness between beta-lactam + azithromycin and beta-lactam + doxycycline in terms of in-hospital mortality, need for intensive care unit admission or invasive mechanical ventilation, or safety outcomes including Clostridioides difficile infection and QT prolongation. Conclusions The current evidence demonstrated no likely difference in outcomes between azithromycin and doxycycline in adults hospitalized with CAP receiving beta-lactam. Head-to-head randomized clinical trials are needed to validate these results.

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.

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.

Importance Suicide is a leading cause of death among young people and an escalating public health crisis. Objective To assess the effectiveness and harms of available treatments for suicidal thoughts and behaviors among youths at heightened risk for suicide. Evidence Review A systematic review was conducted searching databases including MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Scopus, and various gray literature sources from January 1, 2000, to September 26, 2024. We included randomized clinical trials, comparative observational studies, and before-after studies of psychosocial interventions, pharmacologic interventions, neurotherapeutics, emerging therapies, and combination therapies. Eligible patients were youths (aged 5-24 years) with heightened risk for suicide, adolescents from racial and ethnic minority groups known to be at increased risk of suicide, or those exposed to crime or violence. Pairs of independent reviewers selected and appraised studies. Findings This review included 65 studies (33 randomized clinical trials, 13 comparative observational studies, and 19 before-after studies) reporting on 14 534 patients (median age, 15.1 years; 75.1% female patients). Psychosocial interventions comprised psychotherapy interventions (33 studies; cognitive behavioral therapy, dialectical behavioral therapy, collaborative assessment and management of suicidality, dynamic deconstructive psychotherapy, attachment-based family therapy, and family-focused therapy), acute (ie, 1-4 sessions or contacts) psychosocial interventions (19 studies; safety planning, family-based crisis management, motivational interviewing crisis interventions, continuity of care after crisis, and brief adjunctive treatments), and school- or community-based psychosocial interventions (13 studies; social network interventions, school-based skills interventions, suicide awareness or gatekeeper programs, and community-based, culturally tailored adjunct programs). Dialectical behavior therapy showed moderate strength of evidence for reducing suicidal ideation. Other categories of psychosocial treatments showed insufficient to low strength of evidence for reducing suicidal outcomes. None of the studies evaluated adverse events. The evidence base on pharmacologic treatment for youths at risk of suicide was largely nonexistent. Conclusions and Relevance This systematic review found that the current evidence on available interventions targeting youths at heightened risk of suicide is uncertain. Medication, neurotherapeutics, and emerging therapies remain unstudied among this population. The limited evidence base calls for the development of novel, developmentally and trauma-informed treatments, as well as multilevel interventions to target the increasing suicide risk among youths.

Abstract Context Primary aldosteronism (PA) is a leading endocrine cause of secondary hypertension. Objective To support the development of the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline on managing PA. Data Source MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and others were searched on October 4, 2024. Study Selection Studies were selected by pairs of independent reviewers. Data Extraction Data were extracted and appraised by pairs of independent reviewers. Data Synthesis We included 95 studies (7 randomized trials and 88 observational studies). We did not identify trials that evaluated the outcomes of PA screening. One observational study suggested that screening was associated with higher rates of using PA-specific medical therapies and better blood pressure control. Patients managed with adrenal venous sampling (vs computed tomography alone) may have a better post-adrenalectomy biochemical cure rate, but with an increased risk of adrenal hemorrhage. Two small observational studies suggested that PA-specific medical or surgical therapy was likely associated with better blood pressure control than nonspecific therapy. Small randomized trials suggested that surgical therapy may be associated with better blood pressure control than medical therapy, with a lower number and dosage of antihypertensive medications. Compared to eplerenone, spironolactone may be associated with better control of hypokalemia and a lower number and dosage of antihypertensive agents. Unsuppressed plasma renin activity was associated with better control of hypokalemia, while suppression was associated with higher risk of mortality, atrial fibrillation, and stroke (very low certainty). Conclusion This systematic review addresses various aspects of managing PA and will support the development of the Endocrine Society guidelines.

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.