Wang, Zhen

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.

Introduction Assessing bleeding symptoms is essential for diagnosing bleeding disorders. Bleeding assessment tools (BATs) were developed to standardize the collection of bleeding symptoms and their severity, thereby enhancing the diagnostic accuracy. However, their diagnostic precision across various inherited bleeding disorders remains unclear. Therefore, we conducted a systematic literature and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of BATs in pediatric and adult populations. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of BATs in pediatric and adult populations. Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic effectiveness of BATs in identifying laboratory-confirmed inherited bleeding disorders. Methods Literature Search Strategy: A comprehensive systematic literature search was conducted across Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the World Health Organization databases from inception until January 27, 2024 Study Selection: Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts using Covidence (Covidence systematic review software, Veritas Health Innovation). Data extraction was performed independently by two authors reviewing and collecting data in duplicate from all selected articles. Eligibility Criteria: Included studies reported on the diagnostic accuracy of any BAT in diagnosing inherited bleeding disorders. Exclusion criteria included abstracts, review articles, case reports/series, studies focusing solely on distinguishing specific bleeding disorders, and those lacking sufficient data to assess test accuracy. Quality Assessment: Risk of bias was evaluated using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. Two authors assessed each article independently and each study was categorized as having a low, moderate, or high risk of bias. Results Of 7,009 studies identified, 31 met the inclusion criteria, comprising 6,962 patients (2,152 with bleeding disorders, 4,810 controls). Most studies (74%) were prospective. Studies assessed various bleeding disorders: 39% all types, 32% von Willebrand Disease (VWD), 10% Inherited Platelet Function Disorder (IPFD), 10% both VWD and IPFD, and 10% other rare disorders. The ISTH-BAT was the most frequently used tool (47%), followed by MCMDM-1 VWD (21%) and PBQ (18%). The pooled prevalence of confirmed bleeding disorder in all prospective studies was 32% (range, 3%-71%). The pooled sensitivity for BAT in all included studies (31 studies) was 82% (95% CI, 76.5%-86.7%) and the specificity was 66% (95% CI, 54%-76%). Subgroup analysis revealed that the ISTH-BAT (studies: BD 6, VWD 5, IPFD 3, GT/BSS 2), had a sensitivity of 77% (95% CI, 69%-84%) and a specificity of 70% (95% CI, 58%-80%), the MCMDM-1 VWD (studies: VWD 4, BD 2, GT/BSS 1) had sensitivity of 78% (95% CI, 61%-89%) and a specificity of 79% (95% CI, 54%-92%) , and the Pediatric Bleeding Questionnaire (studies: BD 3, VWD 2, VWD/IPFD 1) had a sensitivity of 93% (95% CI, 85%-97%) and a specificity of 73% (95% CI, 41%-92%) . The sensitivity and specificity of BATs for studies investigating all types of bleeding disorders (12 studies) soley VWD (10 studies), and soley IPFD (3 studies) were 80% (95% CI, 67%-88%) and 50% (95% CI, 34%-67%) , 79% (95% CI, 71%-86%) and 83% (95% CI, 59%-95%), and 85% (95% CI, 79%-89%) and 74% (95% CI, 56%-86%), respectively. Significant heterogeneity was observed across studies in terms of populations, BATs used, and diagnostic methods. This heterogeneity limits the generalizability of the results and suggests that BAT performance may vary depending on the specific clinical context and patient population. Additionally, 26% of studies were classified as having a high risk of bias, potentially affecting the reliability of some findings. Conclusion Despite heterogeneity, this meta-analysis supports the use of BATs as valuable screening tools for inherited bleeding disorders, demonstrating generally high sensitivity across various patient populations. However, the variability in specificity across different disorders and tools underscores the need for careful selection and interpretation of BATs in clinical practice. Further standardization of BATs and diagnostic criteria could improve their utility in diverse clinical settings.

80 Background: Several previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses have attempted to summarize toxicity of Immune Checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). However, very soon after each one of these reviews has been published, it became outdated. ICIs are currently used in 14 different cancers and data is rapidly evolving from new clinical trials. A living Systematic review, which is defined as a systematic review that is continually updated to incorporate relevant new evidence as it becomes available, is necessary in this situations. Methods: In order to dynamically display content -- including textual data, tables, charts, and graphs – standard data formats and protocols were designed for various components of the systematic reviews carried out by researchers. Given these standardized formats, software was written to interpret this data and output the information in the appropriate format, such as a forest plot or data table. Finally, a dynamic interface that enables user inputs (such as which aspect of the meta-analysis to view) and displays the associated output was designed. The overall living Systematic Review infrastructure includes monthly literature searches, cumulative meta-analysis, and an online reporting platform. Results: We have developed a Living Systematic Review engine that can take in standardized data and reflect this data in an interactive, intuitive manner in the form of text, tables, and plots. This interface can also be manipulated via user input to organize and sort data tables or omit/highlight specific pieces of data. Conclusions: We have initiated the first living systematic review in immune-oncology that will be continuously updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available, and will provide accurate and up to date toxicity estimates to support clinical decision making. The Living Systematic Review interface allows users to easily and intuitively access the most recent available clinical evidence on toxicity of ICIs.