Murad, M. Hassan

Objective To examine the effect of HLP, defined as having a pre-existing or a new in-hospital diagnosis based on low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level ≥100 mg/dL during index hospitalisation or within the preceding 6 months, on all-cause mortality after hospitalisation for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) and to determine whether HLP modifies mortality associations of other competing comorbidities. A systematic review and meta-analysis to place the current findings in the context of published literature. Design Retrospective study, 1:1 propensity-score matching cohorts; a meta-analysis. Setting Large academic centre, 1996–2015. Participants Hospitalised patients with AMI or ADHF. Main outcomes and measures All-cause mortality and meta-analysis of relative risks (RR). Results Unmatched cohorts: 13 680 patients with AMI (age (mean) 68.5 ± (SD) 13.7 years; 7894 (58%) with HLP) and 9717 patients with ADHF (age, 73.1±13.7 years; 3668 (38%) with HLP). In matched cohorts, the mortality was lower in AMI patients (n=4348 pairs) with HLP versus no HLP, 5.9 versus 8.6/100 person-years of follow-up, respectively (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.80). A similar mortality reduction occurred in matched ADHF patients (n=2879 pairs) with or without HLP (12.4 vs 16.3 deaths/100 person-years; HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.86). HRs showed modest reductions when HLP occurred concurrently with other comorbidities. Meta-analyses of nine observational studies showed that HLP was associated with a lower mortality at ≥2 years after incident AMI or ADHF (AMI: RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.76; heart failure (HF): RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.81). Conclusions Among matched AMI and ADHF cohorts, concurrent HLP, compared with no HLP, was associated with a lower mortality and attenuation of mortality associations with other competing comorbidities. These findings were supported by a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Efficacy of an intervention is commonly evaluated using P values, in addition to effect size measures such as absolute risk reduction, relative risk reduction, and numbers needed to treat. However, these measures are not always intuitive to clinicians. The fragility index (FI) is a more intuitive number that can facilitate interpretation but can only be used with binary outcomes. FI is the minimum number of patients who must be moved from the nonevent group to the event group to turn a significant result nonsignificant. In this retrospective analysis, we assessed the robustness of cardiovascular randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which report a positive (statistically significant) primary outcome by using the FI. Methods and Results: We searched Medline from 2007 to 2017 to identify cardiovascular RCTs published in 6 high impact journals ( The Lancet , New England Journal of Medicine , Journal of the American Medical Association , Circulation , Journal of the American College of Cardiology and European Heart Journal ). Only RCTs with sample sizes >500 and a 2-by-2 factorial design or dichotomous primary outcomes were selected. FI was calculated using a defined approach. Among the cohort of 123 RCTs that met inclusion criteria, median FI was 13 (interquartile range, 5–26). In 28 trials (22.8%), FI ranged between 1 and 4. In 37 trials (30.1%), number of patients lost to follow-up was higher than the FI. Pharmaceutical interventions had higher FI compared with other interventions, FI=19 (7–52; P =0.002). Median FI varied according to subspecialty (electrophysiology=2; heart failure=11; interventional cardiology=8; P =0.020) and multiregional RCTs had higher FI=22 (12–53.25; P =0.023). FI did not differ based on risk of bias indicators, funding, or publication year. Conclusions: Considerable variations in FI were observed among cardiovascular trials, suggesting the need for careful interpretation of results, particularly when number of patients lost to follow-up exceeds FI.

Abstract The American Society of Hematology (ASH) convened 5 guideline panels to develop clinical practice recommendations addressing 5 management areas of highest importance to individuals living with sickle cell disease: pain, cerebrovascular complications, pulmonary and kidney complications, transfusion, and hematopoietic stem cell transplant. Panels were multidisciplinary and consisted of patient representatives, content experts, and methodologists. The Mayo Clinic Evidence-Based Practice Center conducted systematic reviews based on a priori selected questions. In this exposition, we describe the process used by ASH, including the GRADE approach (Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) for rating certainty of the evidence and the GRADE Evidence to Decision Framework. We also describe several unique challenges faced by the guideline panels and the specific innovations and solutions used to address them, including a curriculum to train patients to engage in guideline development, dealing with the opioid crisis, and working with indirect and noncomparative evidence.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVESHigh‐flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen may provide tailored benefits in patients with preset treatment limitations. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of HFNC oxygen in patients with do‐not‐intubate (DNI) and/or do‐not‐resuscitate (DNR) orders.METHODSWe conducted a systematic review of interventional and observational studies. A search was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science, from inception to October 15, 2018.RESULTSWe included six studies evaluating 293 patients. All studies had a high risk of bias. The hospital mortality rates of patients with DNI and/or DNR orders receiving HFNC oxygen were variable and ranged from 40% to 87%. In two before and after studies, the initiation of HFNC oxygen was associated with improved oxygenation and reduced respiratory rates. One comparative study found no difference in dyspnea reduction or morphine doses between patients using HFNC oxygen versus conventional oxygen. No studies evaluated quality of life in survivors or quality of death in nonsurvivors. HFNC was generally well tolerated with few adverse events identified.CONCLUSIONSWhile HFNC oxygen remains a viable treatment option for hospitalized patients who have acute respiratory failure and a DNI and/or DNR order, there is a paucity of high‐quality, comparative, effectiveness data to guide the usage of HFNC oxygen compared with other treatments, such as noninvasive ventilation, conventional oxygen, and palliative opioids.

241 Background: In a rapidly moving field, such as cancer immunotherapy, where immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are used across 14 different tumor types, patients may receive suboptimal treatment or even be harmed if information on toxicity is not readily translated for use in clinical practice. Every single systematic review and meta-analysis which attempted to summarize toxicity of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) quickly became outdated. A living systematic review, which is defined as a systematic review that is continually updated to incorporate relevant new evidence as it becomes available, is necessary in this situation. Methods: The process of creating a living systematic review started with the creation of a comprehensive search designed by a librarian experienced in systematic reviews in collaboration with the study’s principle investigator. Search was constantly updated every 3 months and evidence is synthesized in a series of steps (microtasks) using a combination of human and augmented intelligence. A complete infrastructure is being developed and it includes automated cumulative meta-analysis and an online reporting platform which will constantly update information for clinicians and patients in a live manner. Results: We screened 6746 studies during Sep 2018-March 2019 and identified 6746 studies and we were able to successfully maintain up-to-date toxicity estimates for immune mediated adverse events over this period while maintaining the rigor of a conventional systematic review. Eventually, we will integrate the steps of LSR into one, user-friendly, semi-automated format which can independently provide accurate estimates and feed into and support a living guidelines platform through shared Application Programing Interface (APIs). Conclusions: LSRs are feasible, efficient, and when fully developed can reduce redundancy and waste in medical research, improve the quality of evidence, reduce human effort and support living and dynamic guidelines to facilitate truly informed shared decision making.

80 Background: Several previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses have attempted to summarize toxicity of Immune Checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). However, very soon after each one of these reviews has been published, it became outdated. ICIs are currently used in 14 different cancers and data is rapidly evolving from new clinical trials. A living Systematic review, which is defined as a systematic review that is continually updated to incorporate relevant new evidence as it becomes available, is necessary in this situations. Methods: In order to dynamically display content -- including textual data, tables, charts, and graphs – standard data formats and protocols were designed for various components of the systematic reviews carried out by researchers. Given these standardized formats, software was written to interpret this data and output the information in the appropriate format, such as a forest plot or data table. Finally, a dynamic interface that enables user inputs (such as which aspect of the meta-analysis to view) and displays the associated output was designed. The overall living Systematic Review infrastructure includes monthly literature searches, cumulative meta-analysis, and an online reporting platform. Results: We have developed a Living Systematic Review engine that can take in standardized data and reflect this data in an interactive, intuitive manner in the form of text, tables, and plots. This interface can also be manipulated via user input to organize and sort data tables or omit/highlight specific pieces of data. Conclusions: We have initiated the first living systematic review in immune-oncology that will be continuously updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available, and will provide accurate and up to date toxicity estimates to support clinical decision making. The Living Systematic Review interface allows users to easily and intuitively access the most recent available clinical evidence on toxicity of ICIs.