Citations

Background: Severe alcohol-associated hepatitis (sAH) is a well-characterized disease with high short-term mortality. However, there is limited research on those with a “less severe condition” (moderate AH). This study aims to characterize in-depth patients with moderate AH (mAH), including the performance of mortality scoring systems, key prognostic factors, and survival over time. Methods: A multicenter retrospective cohort study (2009–2019) included patients with mAH (MELD score ≤20 at admission). Cox regression and receiver operating characteristic curves with AUC were used for analysis. Results: We included 1845 patients with AH (20 centers, 8 countries) between 2009 and 2019. mAH was defined as a MELD score ≤20 at admission. Twenty-four percent met the criteria for an mAH episode. Patients with mAH tend to be older and have a higher proportion of females, with a median MELD of 17 (15–19), Maddrey discriminant function (mDF) of 33 (22–40), the trajectory of serum bilirubin of 0.83 (0.60–1.21), and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) of 5 (2.96–8.60). The primary causes of death in mAH included multiple organ failure (34.1%) and infections (16.6%). The cumulative survival rates at 30, 90, and 180 days were 94.3%, 90.4%, and 88.2%, respectively. In multivariable analysis, age was the only significant predictor of 30-day mortality (HR 1.49, 95% CI: 1.27–1.76, p <0.001). Mortality prediction models showed poor performance, with AUC for MELD (0.671), mDF (0.726), trajectory of serum bilirubin (0.733), and NLR (0.697). Conclusions: Patients with moderate AH exhibited a mortality of 11.8% at 6 months, primarily driven by multiple organ failure and infections. These patients also exhibit a different clinical profile compared to those with sAH. Tailored models and therapeutic strategies are needed to improve long-term outcomes in mAH.

Objective The objective is to provide evidence‐based and expert guidance for the screening, treatment, and management of lupus nephritis. Methods The Core Team developed clinical questions for screening, treatment, and management of lupus nephritis using the PICO format (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome). Systematic literature reviews were completed for each PICO question, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the quality of evidence and to formulate recommendations. The Voting Panel achieved a consensus ≥70% on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of each recommendation. Results We present 28 graded recommendations (7 strong, 21 conditional) and 13 ungraded, consensus‐based good practice statements for the screening and management of lupus nephritis. Our recommendations focus on the unifying principle that lupus nephritis therapy is continuous and ongoing, rather than consisting of discrete induction/initial and maintenance/subsequent therapies. Therapy should include pulse glucocorticoids followed by oral glucocorticoid taper and two additional immunosuppressive agents for 3–5 years for those achieving complete renal response. Conclusion This guideline provides direction for clinicians regarding screening and treatment decisions for management of lupus nephritis. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies, as treatment decisions may vary due to the unique clinical situation and personal preferences of each individual patient.

Advanced heart failure (HF) significantly diminishes quality of life (QoL) due to severe symptom burden and psychological distress. This meta-analysis investigates the impact of palliative care interventions on QoL, psychological well-being, symptom burden, and mortality in adults with advanced HF. A systematic search of major databases through August 2024 identified 13 randomized controlled trials involving 1541 participants from the USA, China, Iran, and Sweden. Palliative care significantly improved QoL scores compared with usual care [mean difference (MD) = 1.36; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.89–1.83; P < 0.00001], with notable improvements using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire. Palliative care significantly reduced anxiety scores (MD = −0.39; 95% CI, −0.66 to −0.11), P = 0.006), especially when assessed with the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale. While no significant differences were observed for dyspnea or depression ( P =0.56, P = 0.23, respectively). Mortality rates did not differ significantly between groups ( P = 0.61). These findings highlight the potential of palliative care, particularly interventions incorporating symptom management and psychological support, to enhance QoL and reduce anxiety in advanced HF patients. However, further research is required to standardize these interventions and evaluate their long-term 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.

When one initially targets the null effect and the point estimate falls close to the null, two challenges exist in rating certainty of evidence. First, when the point estimate is near the null and the data, therefore, suggests little or no effect, rating certainty in a benefit or harm is misleading. Second, since in general the narrower the confidence interval (CI) the more precise the estimate, if the CI is narrow, rating down for imprecision due simply to crossing the null is inappropriate. This paper addresses these issues and provides a solution: to revise the target of certainty rating from a non-zero effect to a little or no effect. This solution requires estimating a range in which the minimal important difference (MID) for benefit and an MID for harm might lie, and thus establishing a range that represents little or no effect. If GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) users are confident that the point estimate represents an effect less than the smallest plausible MID, they will revise their target and rate certainty to a little or no effect. If the entire CI falls within the range of little or no effect, they will not rate down for imprecision. Otherwise (if the CI includes an important effect), they will rate down. Using the solution provided in this paper GRADE users can make an optimal choice of the target of certainty rating.

ABSTRACTSeveral dynamic models predict mortality and corticosteroid response in alcohol‐associated hepatitis (AH), yet no consensus exists on the most effective model. This study aimed to assess predictive models for corticosteroid response and short‐term mortality in severe AH within a global cohort. We conducted a multi‐national study of patients with severe AH treated with corticosteroids for at least 7 days, enrolled between 2009 and 2019. Dynamic models—Lille‐4, Lille‐7, trajectory of serum bilirubin (TSB), and neutrophil‐to‐lymphocyte ratio (NLR)—were used to estimate 30‐ and 90‐day mortality. Lille‐7 demonstrated the highest accuracy for both 30‐ and 90‐day mortality.