Altayar, Osama

ABSTRACT Background Retrospective evaluations of multidisciplinary team (MDT) review of pancreatic cystic lesions (PCL) demonstrate improved PCL management. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) evaluates PCL for worrisome features; however, its influence on MDT is unclear and may be attenuated by anchoring/confirmation bias. We aimed to evaluate the impact of EUS and the overall performance of MDT evaluation of PCL. Methods Four mock MDT sessions at two institutions were presented imaging from 40 consecutive PCL cases (20 “high‐risk” with advanced neoplasia, 20 “low‐risk” with pathologic low‐grade dysplasia or ≥ 3 years of non‐progression on surveillance), with and without upfront EUS/FNA (cytology, CEA, Amylase), in a randomized, crossover design. Group 1 adjudicated without EUS, Group 2 adjudicated with EUS, and Group 3 adjudicated with EUS after initially adjudicating without it. Results The cohort included branch‐duct ( n = 20), mixed type ( n = 6), and main duct ( n = 4) IPMN, MCN ( n = 5), and non‐mucinous PCL ( n = 5). Group 2 (EUS) correctly identified mucinous PCL with 97% sensitivity and 70% specificity, significantly higher than Group 1 (No EUS) (Sensitivity 91%, Specificity 20%; p = 0.04). Group 3 (Unblinded to EUS) performed significantly worse in mucinous PCL identification compared with Group 2, indicating cognitive bias (Sensitivity 97%, Specificity 10% ( p = 0.0003)). Group 2 correctly identified high‐risk PCL that required surgical intervention with 85% sensitivity and 85% specificity, significantly higher than Group 1 (Sensitivity 60%, Specificity 75%; p = 0.0016) and Group 3 (Sensitivity 73%, Specificity 80%, p = 0.0485). Conclusion While susceptible to cognitive bias, EUS significantly improves MDT assessment of PCL. MDT establishes a high bar for iterative additions of biomarkers to PCL analysis.

Abstract Background Combining biologics and small molecules could potentially overcome the plateau of drug efficacy in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the safety and effectiveness of dual biologic therapy (DBT), or small molecule combined with a biologic therapy (SBT) in IBD patients. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Clinical trials.gov until November 3, 2020, including studies with 2 or more IBD patients on DBT or SBT. Main outcome was safety assessed as pooled rates of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs (SAEs) for each combination. Effectiveness was reported as pooled rates of clinical, endoscopic, and/or radiographic response and remission. The certainty of evidence was rated according to the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Results Of the 3688 publications identified, 13 studies (1 clinical trial, 12 observational studies) involving 266 patients on 7 different combinations were included. Median number of prior biologics ranged from 0 to 4, and median duration of follow-up was 16–68 weeks. Most common DBT and SBT were vedolizumab (VDZ) with anti-tumor necrosis factor (aTNF, n = 56) or tofacitinib (Tofa, n = 57), respectively. Pooled rates of SAE for these were 9.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5–21.4) for VDZ-aTNF and 1.0% (95% CI, 0.0–7.6) for Tofa-VDZ. The overall certainty of evidence was very low due to the observational nature of the studies, and very serious imprecision and inconsistency. Conclusions DBT or SBT appears to be generally safe and may be effective in IBD patients, but the evidence is very uncertain.

Abstract Immunoassays designed to detect SARS-CoV-2 protein antigens are now commercially available. The most widely used tests are rapid lateral flow assays that generate results in ~15 minutes for diagnosis at the point-of-care. Higher throughput, laboratory-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen (Ag) assays have also been developed. The overall accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests, however, is not well defined. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) convened an expert panel to perform a systematic review of the literature and develop best-practice guidance related to SARS-CoV-2 Ag testing. This guideline is the third in a series of rapid, frequently updated COVID-19 diagnostic guidelines developed by IDSA. IDSA’s goal was to develop evidence-based recommendations or suggestions that assist clinicians, clinical laboratories, patients, public health authorities, administrators, and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests in both medical and nonmedical settings. A multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists, and experts in systematic literature review identified and prioritized clinical questions related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. The panel agreed on 5 diagnostic recommendations. These recommendations address Ag testing in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals as well as assess single versus repeat testing strategies. Data on the clinical performance of US Food and Drug Administration SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests with Emergency Use Authorization are mostly limited to single, one-time testing versus standard nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) as the reference standard. Rapid Ag tests have high specificity and low to modest sensitivity compared with reference NAAT methods. Antigen test sensitivity is heavily dependent on viral load, with differences observed between symptomatic compared with asymptomatic individuals and the time of testing post-onset of symptoms. Based on these observations, rapid reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) or laboratory-based NAAT remain the diagnostic methods of choice for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, when molecular testing is not readily available or is logistically infeasible, Ag testing can help identify some individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection. The overall quality of available evidence supporting use of Ag testing was graded as very low to moderate.

Abstract Background Accurate molecular diagnostic tests are necessary for confirming a diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Direct detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleic acids in respiratory tract specimens informs patient, healthcare institution and public health level decision-making. The numbers of available SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection tests are rapidly increasing, as is the COVID-19 diagnostic literature. Thus, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) recognized a significant need for frequently updated systematic reviews of the literature to inform evidence-based best practice guidance. Objective The IDSA’s goal was to develop an evidence-based diagnostic guideline to assist clinicians, clinical laboratorians, patients and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification tests. In addition, we provide a conceptual framework for understanding molecular diagnostic test performance, discuss the nuance of test result interpretation in a variety of practice settings and highlight important unmet research needs in the COVID-19 diagnostic testing space. Methods IDSA convened a multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists, and experts in systematic literature review to identify and prioritize clinical questions and outcomes related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostics. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. Results The panel agreed on 17 diagnostic recommendations. Conclusions Universal access to accurate SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid testing is critical for patient care, hospital infection prevention and the public response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Information on the clinical performance of available tests is rapidly emerging, but the quality of evidence of the current literature is considered moderate to very low. Recognizing these limitations, the IDSA panel weighed available diagnostic evidence and recommends nucleic acid testing for all symptomatic individuals suspected of having COVID-19. In addition, testing is recommended for asymptomatic individuals with known or suspected contact with a COVID-19 case. Testing asymptomatic individuals without known exposure is suggested when the results will impact isolation/quarantine/personal protective equipment (PPE) usage decisions, dictate eligibility for surgery, or inform solid organ or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation timing. Ultimately, prioritization of testing will depend on institutional-specific resources and the needs of different patient populations.

Abstract Background The availability of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serologic testing has rapidly increased. Current assays use a variety of technologies, measure different classes of immunoglobulin or immunoglobulin combinations, and detect antibodies directed against different portions of the virus. The overall accuracy of these tests, however, has not been well defined. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) convened an expert panel to perform a systematic review of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) serology literature and construct best-practice guidance related to SARS-CoV-2 serologic testing. This guideline is the fourth in a series of rapid, frequently updated COVID-19 guidelines developed by IDSA. Objective IDSA’s goal was to develop evidence-based recommendations that assist clinicians, clinical laboratories, patients, and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 serologic tests in a variety of settings. We also highlight important unmet research needs pertaining to the use of anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests for diagnosis, public health surveillance, vaccine development, and the selection of convalescent plasma donors. Methods A multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists, and experts in systematic literature review identified and prioritized clinical questions related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 serologic tests. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. Results The panel agreed on 8 diagnostic recommendations. Conclusions Information on the clinical performance and utility of SARS-CoV-2 serologic tests is rapidly emerging. Based on available evidence, detection of anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies may be useful for confirming the presence of current or past infection in selected situations. The panel identified 3 potential indications for serologic testing, including (1) evaluation of patients with a high clinical suspicion for COVID-19 when molecular diagnostic testing is negative and ≥2 weeks have passed since symptom onset, (2) assessment of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, and (3) conducting serosurveillance studies. The certainty of available evidence supporting the use of serology for either diagnosis or epidemiology was, however, graded as very low to moderate. For the most updated version of these guidelines, please go to https://www.idsociety.org/covid19guidelines.

Abstract Objectives While anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha (anti-TNFa) therapies for Crohn disease (CD) were initially introduced in 1998 for biologic therapies are often introduced after a minimum of 6 years after diagnosis. The benefit of anti-TNFa early in the course of CD is still controversial, with some studies showing better outcomes but others not. To determine whether earlier introduction of anti-TNFa therapy improves efficacy in clinical trials or clinical series, we aimed to perform a meta-analysis comparing early vs late anti-TNFa use in the management of CD. Methods A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus was conducted from each database’s inception to November 3, 2019. We included comparative studies of early vs late use of anti-TNFa therapy in adult patients with CD. Results Eleven studies were included in the analysis, with a total of 2501 patients. Meta-analysis demonstrated that the early use of anti-TNFa was associated with a statistically significant decrease in the need for surgery (relative risk [RR] = 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26–0.69; I2 = 68%) and disease progression (RR = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.35–0.75; I2 = 61%). Early use also showed an increase in early remission (RR = 1.94; 95% CI, 1.54–2.46; I2 = 0%) and clinical response. There was no statistically significant difference in achieving late remission (RR = 1.39; 95% CI, 0.94–2.05; I2 = 65%) or mucosal healing (RR = 1.10; 95% CI, 0.63–1.91; I2 = 0%). Conclusion This systematic review suggests that using anti-TNFa earlier in the treatment of CD (within 3 years) may improve clinical outcomes compared to late administration in terms of achieving early clinical remission, clinical response, disease progression, and the need for surgery.

This systematic review and meta‐analysis sought to summarize the available evidence on the use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with Native Aortic Valve Regurgitation (NAVR) and compare outcomes between first and second generation valves. Owing to the improvements in transcatheter heart valve design and procedural success, TAVR has become increasingly performed in broader aortic valve pathologies. We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and Scopus databases from 2007 to 2018 and performed a systematic review on reports with at least 10 patients with aortic valve regurgitation undergoing TAVR procedure. The main outcome of interest was all‐cause mortality at 30 days. A total of 638 patients across 12 studies were included. Mean age ranged from 68 to 84. Society of Thoracic Surgeons score ranged from 5.4% to 13.1% and Logistic EuroSCORE ranged from 18.2% to 33%. The incidence rate of all‐cause mortality at 30 days was found to be 11% (95% CI 7%‐16%; I2 = 20.86%). All‐cause mortality at 30 days for first generation valves had an incidence rate of 15% (95% CI 10%‐20%; I2 = 10%) compared to 7% (95% CI 3%‐13%; I2 = 37%) in second generation valves with subgroup interaction analysis P = 0.059. Device success incidence rate in second generation valves was 92% (95% CI 83%‐99%; I2 = 67%) vs 68% (95% CI 59%‐77%; I2 = 53%) in first generation valves with P = 0.001. TAVR appears to be a feasible treatment choice for NAVR patients at high risk for surgical valve replacement. Second generation valves show promising results in terms of short‐term outcomes.