Citations

PurposeChemical shift‐encoded MRI (CSE‐MRI) is well‐established to quantify proton density fat fraction (PDFF) as a quantitative biomarker of hepatic steatosis. However, temperature is known to bias PDFF estimation in phantom studies. In this study, strategies were developed and evaluated to correct for the effects of temperature on PDFF estimation through simulations, temperature‐controlled experiments, and a multi‐center, multi‐vendor phantom study.Theory and MethodsA technical solution that assumes and automatically estimates a uniform, global temperature throughout the phantom is proposed. Computer simulations modeled the effect of temperature on PDFF estimation using magnitude‐, complex‐, and hybrid‐based CSE‐MRI methods. Phantom experiments were performed to assess the temperature correction on PDFF estimation at controlled phantom temperatures. To assess the temperature correction method on a larger scale, the proposed method was applied to data acquired as part of a nine‐site multi‐vendor phantom study and compared to temperature‐corrected PDFF estimation using an a priori guess for ambient room temperature.ResultsSimulations and temperature‐controlled experiments show that as temperature deviates further from the assumed temperature, PDFF bias increases. Using the proposed correction method and a reasonable a priori guess for ambient temperature, PDFF bias and variability were reduced using magnitude‐based CSE‐MRI, across MRI systems, field strengths, protocols, and varying phantom temperature. Complex and hybrid methods showed little PDFF bias and variability both before and after correction.ConclusionCorrection for temperature reduces temperature‐related PDFF bias and variability in phantoms across MRI vendors, sites, field strengths, and protocols for magnitude‐based CSE‐MRI, even without a priori information about the temperature.

ObjectiveTakayasu’s arteritis (TAK) is a granulomatous large‐vessel vasculitis primarily affecting the aorta and its proximal branches. TAK can be a difficult disease to diagnose and manage given the rarity of the disease as well as current limitations in biomarkers, imperfect imaging modalities, and few randomized controlled trials.MethodsIn developing the American College of Rheumatology/Vasculitis Foundation guideline for the management of TAK, we performed an extensive systematic literature review to guide our recommendations. We included RCTs first. When RCTs were not available, we included observational studies that reported on patient‐important outcomes for the intervention and comparison. When studies with comparative data were not available, we included case series that present patient‐important outcomes for either the intervention or the comparison.ResultsThree hundred forty‐seven articles were included for full review to answer 27 population, intervention, comparison, and outcome questions related to TAK. Ten studies were evaluated that addressed the use of glucocorticoids (GCs), non‐GC nonbiologic therapies, as well as biologics in treating TAK. A total of 33 studies, including 8 comparative studies, were included to determine the test accuracy of commonly available diagnostic tests for TAK.ConclusionThis comprehensive systematic review synthesizes and evaluates the benefits and harms of different treatment options and the accuracy of commonly used tests for the management of TAK.

ObjectiveThe object of this study was to analyze the benefits and harms of different treatment options and to analyze test accuracy used in the evaluation of patients with primary systemic polyarteritis nodosa (PAN).MethodsA systematic search of published English‐language literature was performed in Ovid Medline, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from the inception of each database through August 2019. Articles were screened for suitability in addressing patient, intervention, comparison, and outcome questions, with studies presenting the highest level of evidence given preference.ResultsOf 137 articles selected for data abstraction, we analyzed 21 observational studies and seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The results showed indirect evidence that a deep skin biopsy provides good diagnostic accuracy. A combined nerve and muscle biopsy should be obtained for patients with PAN with peripheral neuropathy. Cyclophosphamide with high‐dose glucocorticoids (GCs) is effective as an induction treatment for newly diagnosed active and severe PAN. GC monotherapy is adequate in the majority of patients with nonsevere PAN, although it has a high relapse rate with GC taper. There was insufficient data in determining the optimal duration of non‐GC and GC maintenance therapy. Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors are effective treatment for patients with deficiency of adenosine deaminase 2 (DADA2) with stroke and vasculitis manifestations.ConclusionThis comprehensive systematic review synthesizes and evaluates the harms and benefits of different treatment options and the accuracy of commonly used tests for the diagnosis of systemic PAN. Data for diagnosis and management of PAN and DADA2 are mostly limited to observational studies. More high‐quality RCTs are needed.

ObjectiveEosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) is part of a group of vasculitides commonly referred to as antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis (AAV), in addition to granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA), microscopic polyangiitis (MPA), and renal‐limited vasculitis. Patients with EGPA characteristically have asthma and marked peripheral eosinophilia with only approximately 30% to 35% of patients being myeloperoxidase (MPO)‐ANCA positive, distinguishing it from other forms of AAV (1,2). The aim of this systematic review is to support the development of the American College of Rheumatology/Vasculitis Foundation guideline for the management of EGPA.MethodsA systematic review was conducted of the literature for seven forms of primary systemic vasculitis (GPA, MPA, EGPA, polyarteritis nodosa, Kawasaki disease, giant cell arteritis, and Takayasu arteritis). The search was done for articles in English using Ovid Medline, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Articles were screened for suitability in addressing population/patients, intervention, comparator, and outcomes (PICO) questions, with studies presenting the highest level of evidence given preference. Two independent reviewers conducted a title/abstract screen and full‐text review for each eligible study.ResultsThe initial search, conducted in August 2019, included 13 800 articles, of which 2596 full‐text articles were reviewed. There were 190 articles (addressing 34 PICO questions) reporting on the diagnosis and management of EGPA.ConclusionThis comprehensive systematic review synthesizes and evaluates the accuracy of commonly used tests for EGPA as well as benefits and toxicities of different treatment options.

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.

The NCCN Guidelines for Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) provide recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of adults with AML based on clinical trials that have led to significant improvements in treatment, or have yielded new information regarding factors with prognostic importance, and are intended to aid physicians with clinical decision-making. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent select updates to the NCCN Guidelines, including familial genetic alterations in AML, postinduction or postremission treatment strategies in low-risk acute promyelocytic leukemia or favorable-risk AML, principles surrounding the use of venetoclax-based therapies, and considerations for patients who prefer not to receive blood transfusions during treatment.

Background The reported prevalence of chronic pain after spinal cord injury (SCI) varies widely due, in part, to differences in the taxonomy of chronic pain. A widely used classification system is available to describe subcategories of chronic pain in SCI, but the prevalence of chronic pain in SCI based on this system is unknown. Objective The primary objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine the prevalence of chronic pain after SCI based on the International Spinal Cord Injury Pain (ISCIP) classification system. Evidence review A comprehensive search of databases from January 1980 to August 2019 was conducted. The risk of bias was assessed using a modified tool developed for uncontrolled studies. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to assess certainty in prevalence estimates. Findings A total of 1305 records were screened, and 37 studies met inclusion criteria. The pooled prevalence of overall chronic pain was 68% (95% CI 63% to 73%). The pooled prevalence of neuropathic pain in 13 studies was 58% (95% CI 49% to 68%); the pooled prevalence of musculoskeletal pain in 11 studies was 56% (95% CI 41% to 70%); the pooled prevalence of visceral pain in 8 studies was 20% (95% CI 11% to 29%) and the pooled prevalence of nociceptive pain in 2 studies was 45% (95% CI 13% to 78%). Meta-regression of risk of bias (p=0.20), traumatic versus non-traumatic etiology of injury (p=0.59), and studies where pain was a primary outcome (p=0.32) demonstrated that these factors were not significant moderators of heterogeneity. Certainty in prevalence estimates was judged to be low due to unexplained heterogeneity. Conclusion This systematic review and meta-analysis extends the findings of previous studies by reporting the prevalence of chronic pain after SCI based on the ISCIP classification system, thereby reducing clinical heterogeneity in the reporting of pain prevalence related to SCI.