Sultan, Shahnaz

ABSTRACT Background and Aims Pruritus is a frequent and debilitating symptom in primary biliary cholangitis (PBC), substantially impairing sleep, mood and quality of life. Peroxisome proliferator‐activated receptor (PPAR) agonists are promising second‐line therapies for patients with an inadequate response to ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA). We conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis to evaluate the efficacy of PPAR agonists on pruritus and health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) in PBC. Methods We systematically searched for randomised placebo‐controlled trials (RCTs) of PPAR agonists in PBC through December 2025. Eligible studies reported validated pruritus or HRQoL outcomes. Main outcomes were NRS and PBC‐40 total score. Pooled estimates were calculated using random‐effects models and expressed as mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results Five RCTs evaluating bezafibrate, elafibranor and seladelpar ( n = 660; 390 PPAR agonist; 270 placebo) met the inclusion criteria. For pruritus intensity analyses, data were restricted to participants with moderate‐to‐severe baseline symptoms (NRS ≥ 4) when available. PPAR agonists significantly reduced NRS scores at 3 months (MD, −1.39; 95% CI: −2.49 to −0.29), 6 months (MD, −1.17; 95% CI: −1.96 to −0.38) and 12 months (MD, −1.73; 95% CI, −3.00 to −0.46); in individual agent analyses, bezafibrate and seladelpar reached statistical significance at two or more time points. While improvements were also noted in PBC‐40 itch‐domain and 5D‐itch score, an impact on overall HRQoL as reflected by PBC‐40 total score could not be demonstrated, with a lower level of certainty. Conclusions PPAR agonists, notably bezafibrate and seladelpar, reduce pruritus severity in PBC patients with moderate‐to‐severe symptoms and consistently improve itch‐specific outcomes. However, effects on global HRQoL remain uncertain. These findings underscore the incorporation of validated, symptom‐focused endpoints in future PBC trials.

Background and Aims: Primary biliary cholangitis is a chronic cholestatic liver disease that may progress to cirrhosis and liver failure. For patients with inadequate response or intolerance to ursodeoxycholic acid, peroxisome proliferator–activated receptor (PPAR) agonists have emerged as second-line options. This study assessed the comparative effectiveness and safety of PPAR agonists in primary biliary cholangitis through a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Approach and Results: A systematic review identified randomized controlled trials evaluating PPAR agonists versus ursodeoxycholic acid, with or without placebo. A frequentist network meta-analysis assessed biochemical response (primary outcome) and ALP normalization (secondary outcome). Pairwise meta-analyses were performed for percentage change in ALP and total bilirubin, and adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation. Data were stratified by baseline ALP, and a random-effects model was used. Eight randomized controlled trials (727 participants) evaluating 4 PPAR agonists were included. All agents outperformed placebo in achieving biochemical response and ALP normalization. Bezafibrate ranked highest for the primary outcome; both bezafibrate and seladelpar ranked highest for the secondary outcome. Percentage ALP reduction did not vary by baseline ALP. Total bilirubin changes were similar across arms, and treatment discontinuations due to adverse events were infrequent. Conclusions: PPAR agonists are effective second-line therapies for primary biliary cholangitis. Treatment ranking differences likely reflect variations in outcomes, populations, and drug mechanisms. In the absence of head-to-head trials, network meta-analysis provides important insights into comparative effectiveness. Further studies are warranted to confirm long-term safety and improve the evaluation of patient-centered outcomes.

Abstract Introduction While certainty of evidence assessment is key to a rigorous and transparent systematic review, it is unknown how – and how frequently – it is assessed in systematic reviews. The objective of this study was to examine the prevalence and approaches used for certainty of evidence assessment in systematic reviews published in high‐impact medicine journals over the past 11 years. Methods A PubMed search and hand‐searching of relevant journal websites identified systematic reviews published between 24 January 2013 and 23 January 2024 in any of the ten highest‐impact journals in the General and Internal Medicine category of the Journal Citation Report. Two reviewers independently selected any systematic review related to health outcomes assessing certainty of evidence using any method. We extracted data related to review characteristics, certainty of evidence and risk of bias/methodological quality assessment frameworks, and reported consideration of certainty of evidence domains. Logistic regression examined year of publication to determine whether the prevalence of certainty of evidence assessment changed over time. Results Of 1,023 included reviews, 346 (33.8%) assessed certainty of evidence. Prevalence of certainty of evidence assessment increased over time (0.16 ± 0.2; p < .001). Most (89.3%) of reviews used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to assess certainty of evidence. Conclusion Only one in three systematic reviews published in the highest‐impact medical journals over the past 11 years assessed certainty of evidence, though prevalence increased over time. The use of specific domains within each certainty of evidence framework was not clearly described in all reviews.

Abstract Background The role of serologic testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has evolved during the pandemic as seroprevalence in global populations has increased. The Infectious Diseases Society of America convened an expert panel to perform a systematic review of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) serology literature and construct updated best practice guidance related to SARS-CoV-2 serologic testing. This guideline is an update to the fourth in a series of rapid, frequently updated COVID-19 guidelines developed by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Objective To develop evidence-based recommendations and identify unmet research needs pertaining to the use of anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests for diagnosis, decisions related to vaccination and administration of monoclonal antibodies or convalescent plasma in immunocompromised patients, and identification of a serologic correlate of immunity. Methods A multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists, and experts in systematic literature reviewed, identified, and prioritized clinical questions related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 serologic tests. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. Results The panel recommends against serologic testing to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 infection in the first 2 weeks after symptom onset (strong recommendations, low certainty of evidence). Serologic testing should not be used to provide evidence of COVID-19 in symptomatic patients with a high clinical suspicion and repeatedly negative nucleic acid amplification test results (strong recommendation, very low certainty of evidence). Serologic testing may assist with the diagnosis of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (strong recommendation, very low certainty of evidence). To seek evidence for prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, the panel suggests testing for immunoglobulin G (IgG), IgG/IgM, or total antibodies to nucleocapsid protein 3 to 5 weeks after symptom onset (conditional recommendation, low certainty of evidence). In individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination, the panel suggests against routine serologic testing given no demonstrated benefit to improving patient outcomes (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence). The panel acknowledges further that a negative spike antibody test may be a useful metric to identify immunocompromised patients who are candidates for immune therapy. Conclusions The high seroprevalence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 worldwide limits the utility of detecting anti-SARS CoV-2 antibody. The certainty of available evidence supporting the use of serology for diagnosis was graded as very low to low. Future studies should use serologic assays calibrated to a common reference standard.

Abstract Accurate molecular diagnostic tests are necessary for confirming a diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and for identifying asymptomatic carriage of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The number of available SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection tests continues to increase as does the COVID-19 diagnostic literature. Thus, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) developed 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 nuances of test result interpretation in a variety of practice settings, and highlight important unmet research needs related to COVID-19 diagnostic testing. 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. The panel agreed on 12 diagnostic recommendations. Access to accurate SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid testing is critical for patient care, hospital infection prevention, and the public health response to COVID-19 infection. Information on the clinical performance of available tests continues to grow, but the quality of evidence of the current literature to support this updated molecular diagnostic guideline remains 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 suggested for asymptomatic individuals with known or suspected contact with a COVID-19 case when the results will impact isolation/quarantine/personal protective equipment (PPE) usage decisions. Evidence in support of rapid testing and testing of upper respiratory specimens other than nasopharyngeal swabs, which offer logistical advantages, is sufficient to warrant conditional recommendations in favor of these approaches.

INTRODUCTION: Whether dye spray chromoendoscopy (DCE) adds value in surveillance colonoscopy with high-definition (HD) scopes remains controversial. This updated meta-analysis compares dysplasia detection using DCE and high-definition white light endoscopy (HD-WLE) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) undergoing surveillance colonoscopy. METHODS: A comprehensive search was performed for randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing HD-WLE and DCE in patients with IBD. The primary outcome was to compare the proportion of patients with at least 1 dysplastic lesion detected by DCE vs HD-WLE. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled using the random-effects model, with I 2 > 60% indicating substantial heterogeneity. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence (CoE). RESULTS: Six RCT involving 978 patients were analyzed (DCE = 479 vs HD-WLE = 499 patients). DCE detected significantly more patients with dysplasia than HD-WLE (18.8% vs 9.4%), OR 1.94 (95% CI 1.21–3.11, I 2 = 28%, P = 0.006, high CoE). This remained significant after excluding 2 RCT published as abstracts. A sensitivity analysis excluding a noninferiority RCT with a single experienced operator eliminated the results' heterogeneity, OR 2.46 (95% CI 1.56–3.90, I 2 = 0%). Although high-grade dysplasia detection was numerically higher in the DCE group (2.8% vs 1.1%), the difference was statistically insignificant, OR 2.21 (95% CI 0.64–7.62, I 2 = 0%, low CoE). DISCUSSION: Our updated meta-analysis supports DCE as a superior strategy in overall dysplasia detection in IBD, even with HD scopes. When expertise is available, DCE should be considered for surveillance colonoscopy in patients with high-risk IBD, with the acknowledgment that virtual chromoendoscopy shows equivalence in recent studies. Further multicenter trials with multiple endoscopists with varying expertise levels and longer-term outcome data showing a reduction in cancer or cancer-related death are needed.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) is a common disorder associated with significant impairment in quality of life. This clinical practice guideline, jointly developed by the American Gastroenterological Association and the American College of Gastroenterology, aims to inform clinicians and patients by providing evidence-based practice recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of CIC in adults. METHODS: The American Gastroenterological Association and the American College of Gastroenterology formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that conducted systematic reviews of the following agents: fiber, osmotic laxatives (polyethylene glycol, magnesium oxide, lactulose), stimulant laxatives (bisacodyl, sodium picosulfate, senna), secretagogues (lubiprostone, linaclotide, plecanatide), and serotonin type 4 agonist (prucalopride). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework to assess the certainty of evidence for each intervention. The Evidence to Decision framework was used to develop clinical recommendations based on the balance between the desirable and undesirable effects, patient values, costs, and health equity considerations. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 10 recommendations for the pharmacological management of CIC in adults. Based on available evidence, the panel made strong recommendations for the use of polyethylene glycol, sodium picosulfate, linaclotide, plecanatide, and prucalopride for CIC in adults. Conditional recommendations were made for the use of fiber, lactulose, senna, magnesium oxide, and lubiprostone. DISCUSSION: This document provides a comprehensive outline of the various over-the-counter and prescription pharmacological agents available for the treatment of CIC. The guidelines are meant to provide a framework for approaching the management of CIC; clinical providers should engage in shared decision making based on patient preferences as well as medication cost and availability. Limitations and gaps in the evidence are highlighted to help guide future research opportunities and enhance the care of patients with chronic constipation.

Abstract Immunoassays designed to detect SARS-CoV-2 protein antigens (Ag) are commonly used to diagnose COVID-19. The most widely used tests are lateral flow assays that generate results in approximately 15 minutes for diagnosis at the point-of-care. Higher throughput, laboratory-based SARS-CoV-2 Ag assays have also been developed. The number of commercially available SARS-CoV-2 Ag detection tests has increased rapidly, as has the COVID-19 diagnostic literature. 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 an update to the third in a series of frequently updated COVID-19 diagnostic guidelines developed by the 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. A review of relevant, peer-reviewed published literature was conducted through 1 April 2022. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. The panel made 10 diagnostic recommendations that address Ag testing in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals and assess single versus repeat testing strategies. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests with Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) have high specificity and low to moderate sensitivity compared with nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT). Ag test sensitivity is dependent on the presence or absence of symptoms and, in symptomatic patients, on timing of testing after symptom onset. In most cases, positive Ag results can be acted upon without confirmation. Results of point-of-care testing are comparable to those of laboratory-based testing, and observed or unobserved self-collection of specimens for testing yields similar results. Modeling suggests that repeat Ag testing increases sensitivity compared with testing once, but no empirical data were available to inform this question. Based on these observations, rapid RT-PCR or laboratory-based NAAT remain the testing methods of choice for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, when timely molecular testing is not readily available or is logistically infeasible, Ag testing helps identify individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data were insufficient to make a recommendation about the utility of Ag testing to guide release of patients with COVID-19 from isolation. The overall quality of available evidence supporting use of Ag testing was graded as very low to moderate.

Abstract There are many pharmacologic therapies that are being used or considered for treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with rapidly changing efficacy and safety evidence from trials. The objective was to develop evidence-based, rapid, living guidelines intended to support patients, clinicians, and other healthcare professionals in their decisions about treatment and management of patients with COVID-19. In March 2020, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel of infectious disease clinicians, pharmacists, and methodologists with varied areas of expertise to regularly review the evidence and make recommendations about the treatment and management of persons with COVID-19. The process used a living guideline approach and followed a rapid recommendation development checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. A systematic review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature was conducted at regular intervals. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations. Based on the most recent search conducted on 31 May 2022, the IDSA guideline panel has made 32 recommendations for the treatment and management of the following groups/populations: pre- and postexposure prophylaxis, ambulatory with mild-to-moderate disease, and hospitalized with mild-to-moderate, severe but not critical, and critical disease. As these are living guidelines, the most recent recommendations can be found online at: https://idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines. At the inception of its work, the panel has expressed the overarching goal that patients be recruited into ongoing trials. Since then, many trials were conducted that provided much-needed evidence for COVID-19 therapies. There still remain many unanswered questions as the pandemic evolved, which we hope future trials can answer.