Murad, M. Hassan

INTRODUCTION: Rapidity of symptom resolution informs treatment choice in patients with moderate-severe ulcerative colitis (UC). We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing early symptomatic remission with approved therapies. METHODS: Through a systematic literature review to December 31, 2022, we identified randomized trials in adult outpatients with moderate-severe UC treated with approved therapies (tumor necrosis factor α antagonists, vedolizumab, ustekinumab, janus kinase inhibitors, or ozanimod), compared with each other or placebo, reporting rates of symptomatic remission (based on partial Mayo score, with resolution of rectal bleeding and near-normalization of stool frequency) at weeks 2, 4, and/or 6. We performed random-effects network meta-analysis using a frequentist approach and estimated relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval values. RESULTS: On network meta-analysis, upadacitinib was more effective than all agents in achieving symptomatic remission at weeks 2 (range of RR, 2.85–6.27), 4 (range of RR, 1.78–2.37), and 6 (range of RR, 1.84–2.79). Tumor necrosis factor α antagonists and filgotinib, but not ustekinumab and vedolizumab, were more effective than ozanimod in achieving symptomatic remission at week 2, but not at weeks 4 and 6. With approximately 10% placebo-treated patients achieving symptomatic remission at 2 weeks, we estimated 68%, 22%, 23.7%, 23.9%, 22.2%, 18.4%, 15.7%, and 10.9% of upadacitinib-, filgotinib-, infliximab-, adalimumab-, golimumab-, ustekinumab-, vedolizumab-, and ozanimod-treated patients would achieve early symptomatic remission, ustekinumab and vedolizumab achieving rapid remission only in biologic-naïve patients. DISCUSSION: In a systematic review and network meta-analysis, upadacitinib was most effective in achieving early symptomatic remission, whereas ozanimod was relatively slower acting.

Background Diagnostic error (DE) is a common problem in clinical practice, particularly in the emergency department (ED) setting. Among ED patients presenting with cardiovascular or cerebrovascular/neurological symptoms, a delay in diagnosis or failure to hospitalise may be most impactful in terms of adverse outcomes. Minorities and other vulnerable populations may be at higher risk of DE. We aimed to systematically review studies reporting the frequency and causes of DE in under-resourced patients presenting to the ED with cardiovascular or cerebrovascular/neurological symptoms. Methods We searched EBM Reviews, Embase, Medline, Scopus and Web of Science from 2000 through 14 August 2022. Data were abstracted by two independent reviewers using a standardised form. The risk of bias (ROB) was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Results Of the 7342 studies screened, we included 20 studies evaluating 7436,737 patients. Most studies were conducted in the USA, and one study was multicountry. 11 studies evaluated DE in patients with cerebrovascular/neurological symptoms, 8 studies with cardiovascular symptoms and 1 study examined both types of symptoms. 13 studies investigated missed diagnoses and 7 studies explored delayed diagnoses. There was significant clinical and methodological variability, including heterogeneity of DE definitions and predictor variable definitions as well as methods of DE assessment, study design and reporting. Among the studies evaluating cardiovascular symptoms, black race was significantly associated with higher odds of DE in 4/6 studies evaluating missed acute myocardial infarction (AMI)/acute coronary syndrome (ACS) diagnosis compared with white race (OR from 1.18 (1.12–1.24) to 4.5 (1.8–11.8)). The association between other analysed factors (ethnicity, insurance and limited English proficiency) and DE in this domain varied from study to study and was inconclusive. Among the studies evaluating DE in patients with cerebrovascular/neurological symptoms, no consistent association was found indicating higher or lower odds of DE. Although some studies showed significant differences, these were not consistently in the same direction. The overall ROB was low for most included studies; however, the certainty of evidence was very low, mostly due to serious inconsistency in definitions and measurement approaches across studies. Conclusions This systematic review demonstrated consistent increased odds of missed AMI/ACS diagnosis among black patients presenting to the ED compared with white patients in most studies. No consistent associations between demographic groups and DE related to cerebrovascular/neurological diagnoses were identified. More standardised approaches to study design, measurement of DE and outcomes assessment are needed to understand this problem among vulnerable populations. Trial registration number The study protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020178885 and is available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020178885.

Importance The effectiveness of triplet therapy compared with androgen pathway inhibitor (API) doublets in a heterogeneous patient population with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) is unknown. Objective To assess the comparative effectiveness of contemporary systemic treatment options for patients with mCSPC across clinically relevant subgroups. Data Sources For this systematic review and meta-analysis, Ovid MEDLINE and Embase were searched from each database’s inception (MEDLINE, 1946; Embase, 1974) through June 16, 2021. Subsequently, a “living” auto search was created with weekly updates to identify new evidence as it became available. Study Selection Phase 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing first-line treatment options for mCSPC. Data Extraction and Synthesis Two independent reviewers extracted data from eligible RCTs. The comparative effectiveness of different treatment options was assessed with a fixed-effect network meta-analysis. Data were analyzed on July 10, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), grade 3 or higher adverse events, and health-related quality of life. Results This report included 10 RCTs with 11 043 patients and 9 unique treatment groups. Median ages of the included population ranged from 63 to 70 years. Current evidence for the overall population suggests that the darolutamide (DARO) triplet (DARO + docetaxel [D] + androgen deprivation therapy [ADT]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.57-0.81), as well as the abiraterone (AAP) triplet (AAP + D + ADT; HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59-0.95), are associated with improved OS compared with D doublet (D + ADT) but not compared with API doublets. Among patients with high-volume disease, AAP + D + ADT may improve OS compared with D + ADT (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.95) but not compared with AAP + ADT, enzalutamide (E) + ADT, and apalutamide (APA) + ADT. For patients with low-volume disease, AAP + D + ADT may not improve OS compared with APA + ADT, AAP + ADT, E + ADT, and D + ADT. Conclusions and Relevance The potential benefit observed with triplet therapy must be interpreted with careful accounting for the volume of disease and the choice of doublet comparisons used in the clinical trials. These findings suggest an equipoise to how triplet regimens compare with API doublet combinations and provide direction for future clinical trials.

Introduction: Self-directed learning has been recommended as a promising methodology for lifelong learning in medicine. However, the concept of self-directed learning continues to be elusive, with students and educators finding difficulty in defining it and agreeing on its worth. Methods: In this paper we review the literature of self-directed learning in health professions education and present a framework based on Malcolm Knowles’ key components of self-directed learning. Results: The key components of self-directed learning are: the educator as a facilitator, identification of learning needs, development of learning objectives, identification of appropriate resources, implementation of the process, commitment to a learning contract and evaluation of learning. Several but not all of these components are often described in the published literature. Conclusion: Although the presented framework provides some consistency for educators interested in applying SDL methods, future studies are needed to standardise self-directed learning curricula and to determine the effectiveness of these components on educational outcomes. Key words: Independent study, Medical education, Self-assessment, Self-directed learning, Selfeducation

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 Objectives We aimed to identify migraine treatment features preferred by patients and treatment outcomes most valued by patients. Background The values and preferences of people living with migraine are critical for both the choice of acute therapy and management approach of migraine. Methods We conducted a qualitative evidence synthesis. Two reviewers independently selected studies, appraised methodological quality, and undertook a framework synthesis. We developed summary of findings tables following the approach of Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research to assess confidence in the findings. Results Of 1691 candidate references, we included 19 studies (21 publications) involving 459 patients. The studies mostly recruited White women from North America (11 studies) and Europe (8 studies). We identified eight themes encompassing features preferred by patients in a migraine treatment process. Themes described a treatment process that included shared decision‐making, a tailored approach, trust in health‐care professionals, sharing of knowledge and diversity of treatment options, a holistic approach that does not just address the headache, ease of communication especially for complex treatments, a non‐undermining approach, and reciprocity with mutual respect between patient and provider. In terms of the treatment itself, seven themes emerged including patients’ preferences for nonpharmacologic treatment, high effectiveness, rapidity of action, long‐lasting effect, lower cost and more accessibility, self‐management/self‐delivery option that increases autonomy, and a mixed preference for abortive versus prophylactic treatments. The treatment outcomes that have high value to patients included maintaining or improving function; avoiding side effects, potential for addiction to medications, and pain reoccurrence; and avoiding non‐headache symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, and sensitivity to light or sounds. Conclusion Patient values and preferences were individually constructed, varied widely, and could be at odds with conventional medical perspectives and evidence of treatment effects. Considering the availability of numerous treatments for acute migraine, it is necessary that decision‐making incorporates patient values and preferences identified in qualitative research. The findings of this qualitative synthesis can be used to facilitate an individually tailored approach, strengthen the patient–health‐care system relationship, and guide choices and decisions in the context of a clinical encounter or a clinical practice guideline.

Various pharmacotherapies exist for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), but with unclear comparative efficacy. We searched EMBASE, Medline, and Cochrane Library from inception through August 2021 for all randomized clinical trials in HFpEF (EF >40%) that evaluated beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i). Outcomes assessed were cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and HF hospitalization. A frequentist network meta-analysis was performed with a random-effects model. We included 22 randomized clinical trials (30,673 participants; mean age = 71.7 ± 4.2 years; females = 49.3 ± 7.7%; median follow-up = 24.4 ± 11.1 months). Compared with placebo, there was no statistically significant difference in cardiovascular mortality [beta-blockers; odds ratio (OR) 0.79 (0.46–1.34), MRA; OR 0.90 (0.70–1.14), ACE OR 0.95 (0.59–1.53), ARB; OR 1.02 (0.87–1.19), ARNI; OR 0.97 (0.74–1.26) and SGLT2i; OR 1.00 (0.84–1.18)] or all-cause mortality [beta blockers; OR 0.75 (0.54–1.04), MRA; OR 0.90 (0.75–1.08) ACE; OR 1.05 (0.71–1.54), ARB; OR 1.03 (0.91–1.15), ARNI; OR 0.99 (0.82–1.20) and SGLT2i; OR 1.00 (0.89–1.13)]. The certainty in these estimates was low or very low. There was a significantly reduction in HF hospitalization with the use of SGLT2i [OR 0.71 (0.62–0.82), moderate certainty], ARNI [OR 0.77 (0.63–0.94), low certainty], and MRA [OR 0.81 (0.66–0.98), moderate certainty]; with corresponding P scores of 0.84, 0.68, and 0.58, respectively. In HFpEF, the use of beta-blockers, MRA, ACE/ARB/ARNI, or SGLT2i was not associated with improved cardiovascular or all-cause mortality. SGLT2i, ARNI, and MRA reduced the risk of HF hospitalizations.

AbstractBackgroundIntegrating shared decision making between patients and physicians and incorporating their values and preferences in the development of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) is of critical importance to optimize CPG implementation and treatment adherence. This applies to many debilitating diseases, including hypercalcemia of malignancy (HCM).ObjectiveEvaluate patient and physician values, preferences, and attitudes to better inform CPGs to treat HCM in adults.MethodsWe followed a mixed-methods approach. We conducted a systematic review using 5 databases to identify studies reporting on patient and physician values, costs and resources, feasibility, acceptability, and equity regarding HCM treatment. We also gathered data from different countries on the cost of multiple treatment modalities. We collected data on outcome prioritization from the CPG Working Group. Similarly, we collected data from patients with HCM regarding outcome prioritization and administered a questionnaire to evaluate their attitudes and perceptions toward treatment as well as treatment acceptability and feasibility.ResultsIn the systematic review, we included 2 cross-sectional surveys conducted on the same population of physicians who agreed that treating HCM alleviates symptoms and improves quality of life; however, harms and benefits should be thoroughly considered when deciding on the duration of treatment. We also included 2 studies on cost showing that intravenous (IV) bisphosphonate is more cost-effective than a combination of IV bisphosphonate and calcitonin and administration of IV zoledronic acid at home is more cost-effective than other IV bisphosphonates. The cost of zoledronic acid, denosumab, and cinacalcet varied widely among countries and types (brand vs generic). Both the CPG Working Group and patients with HCM agreed that the most important outcomes when deciding on treatment were survival and resolution of HCM, but there was some variability in the ratings for other outcomes.ConclusionUsing mixed methods, CPG developers can obtain meaningful information regarding evidence to decision criteria. In the case of HCM CPGs, this approach has provided the required contextual information and supported the development of evidence-based recommendations.

AbstractContextHypercalcemia is a common complication of malignancy that is associated with high morbidity and mortality.ObjectiveTo support development of the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline for the treatment of hypercalcemia of malignancy in adults.MethodsWe searched multiple databases for studies that addressed 8 clinical questions prioritized by a guideline panel from the Endocrine Society. Quantitative and qualitative synthesis was performed. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess certainty of evidence.ResultsWe reviewed 1949 citations, from which we included 21 studies. The risk of bias for most of the included studies was moderate. A higher proportion of patients who received bisphosphonate achieved resolution of hypercalcemia when compared to placebo. The incidence rate of adverse events was significantly higher in the bisphosphonate group. Comparing denosumab to bisphosphonate, there was no significant difference in the rate of patients who achieved resolution of hypercalcemia. Two-thirds of patients with refractory/recurrent hypercalcemia of malignancy who received denosumab following bisphosphonate therapy achieved resolution of hypercalcemia. Addition of calcitonin to bisphosphonate therapy did not affect the resolution of hypercalcemia, time to normocalcemia, or hypocalcemia. Only indirect evidence was available to address questions on the management of hypercalcemia in tumors associated with high calcitriol levels, refractory/recurrent hypercalcemia of malignancy following the use of bisphosphonates, and the use of calcimimetics in the treatment of hypercalcemia associated with parathyroid carcinoma. The certainty of the evidence to address all 8 clinical questions was low to very low.ConclusionThe evidence summarized in this systematic review addresses the benefits and harms of treatments of hypercalcemia of malignancy. Additional information about patients’ values and preferences, and other important decisional and contextual factors is needed to facilitate the development of clinical recommendations.