Murad, M. Hassan

Background and Aims: Blood-based biomarkers have been proposed as an alternative to liver biopsy for noninvasive liver disease assessment in chronic liver disease. Our aims for this systematic review were to evaluate the diagnostic utility of selected blood-based tests either alone, or in combination, for identifying significant fibrosis (F2-4), advanced fibrosis (F3-4), and cirrhosis (F4), as compared to biopsy in chronic liver disease. Approach and Results: We included a comprehensive search of databases including Ovid MEDLINE(R), EMBASE, Cochrane Database, and Scopus through to April 2022. Two independent reviewers selected 286 studies with 103,162 patients. The most frequently identified studies included the simple aspartate aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio index and fibrosis (FIB)-4 markers (with low-to-moderate risk of bias) in HBV and HCV, HIV-HCV/HBV coinfection, and NAFLD. Positive (LR+) and negative (LR−) likelihood ratios across direct and indirect biomarker tests for HCV and HBV for F2-4, F3-4, or F4 were 1.66–6.25 and 0.23–0.80, 1.89–5.24 and 0.12–0.64, and 1.32–7.15 and 0.15–0.86, respectively; LR+ and LR− for NAFLD F2-4, F3-4, and F4 were 2.65–3.37 and 0.37–0.39, 2.25–6.76 and 0.07–0.87, and 3.90 and 0.15, respectively. Overall, the proportional odds ratio indicated FIB-4 <1.45 was better than aspartate aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio index <0.5 for F2-4. FIB-4 >3.25 was also better than aspartate aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio index >1.5 for F3-4 and F4. There was limited data for combined tests. Conclusions: Blood-based biomarkers are associated with small-to-moderate change in pretest probability for diagnosing F2-4, F3-4, and F4 in viral hepatitis, HIV-HCV coinfection, and NAFLD, with limited comparative or combination studies for other chronic liver diseases.

Background and Aims: Portal hypertension is a serious complication of cirrhosis, which leads to life-threatening complications. HVPG, a surrogate of portal pressure, is the reference standard test to assess the severity of portal hypertension. However, since HVPG is limited by its invasiveness and availability, noninvasive liver disease assessments to assess portal pressure, especially clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH), are needed. Approach and Results: We conducted a systematic review of Ovid MEDLINE(R) Ovid EMBASE, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus from each database’s inception to April 22, 2022. We included only studies in English that examined ≥50 patients in single liver disease etiologies, which compared noninvasive tests (blood and/or imaging) to HVPG for predicting clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH; defined as HVPG ≥ 10 mm Hg) in patients with chronic liver disease. Outcomes included measures of diagnostic test accuracy. Additionally, a narrative review of studies not eligible for the systematic review is also provided. Nine studies with 2492 patients met the inclusion criteria. There was substantial heterogeneity with regard to liver disease studied and cutoff values used to detect CSPH. Blood-based tests, including aspartate-to-platelet ratio index (APRI) (56% sensitivity and 68% specificity) and FIB-4 (54% sensitivity and 73% specificity) had low accuracy measures. Imaging-based tests (transient elastography and shear wave elastography detection of liver stiffness measurement [LSM]) had better accuracy but also had substantial variation; at 15 kPa, TE sensitivity was 90%–96% and specificity was 48%–50%, while at 25 kPa, its sensitivity and specificity were 57%–85% and 82%–93%, respectively. The narrative review suggested that imaging-based tests are the best available noninvasive liver disease assessment to detect CSPH; CSPH is highly unlikely to be present at an LSM ≤15 kPa and likely to be present at an LSM ≥25 kPa. Conclusions: While imaging-based noninvasive liver disease assessment appeared to have higher accuracy than blood-based tests to detect CSPH, only 9 studies fit the a priori established inclusion criteria for the systematic review. In addition, there was substantial study heterogeneity and variation in cutoffs for LSM to detect CSPH, limiting the ability to establish definitive cutoffs to detect CSPH.

SummaryBackgroundStudies exploring the association between inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and pancreatic cancer have reported inconsistent results.AimsTo provide a comprehensive overview of the risk of pancreatic cancer development in patients with IBD.MethodsWe searched Embase, PubMed, Scopus and ProQuest from inception to 31 October 2023. We included population‐based cohort studies examining the risk of incident pancreatic cancer in adult patients with IBD compared to the non‐IBD population. We also retrieved Mendelian randomisation (MR) studies investigating the relationship of IBD with pancreatic cancer risk. We conducted random‐effects meta‐analyses and provided pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsWe included 13 studies. Among 11 cohort studies, the risk of developing pancreatic cancer increased by 79% in patients with IBD (RR = 1.79 [95% CI: 1.16–2.75]; I2 = 95.7%). Patients either with Crohn's disease (RR = 1.42 [95% CI: 1.24–1.63]) or ulcerative colitis (RR = 1.50 [95% CI: 1.17–1.92]) had increased risk (p for interaction = 0.72). The annual incidence of pancreatic cancer potentially attributable to IBD increased by 55 cases (95% CI: 17–103) per million. Two MR studies demonstrated that genetic liability to IBD was associated with an increased risk of pancreatic cancer.ConclusionsOur results suggest a moderate increase in the risk of pancreatic cancer in patients with IBD, which may be further heightened by genetic predisposition to IBD. The increased risk of pancreatic cancer is probably similar in Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis.

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.

Significance Statement Why are there so few biomarkers accepted by health authorities and implemented in clinical practice, despite the high and growing number of biomaker studies in medical research ? In this meta-epidemiological study, including 804 studies that were critically appraised by expert reviewers, the authors have identified all prognostic kidney transplant biomarkers and showed overall suboptimal study designs, methods, results, interpretation, reproducible research standards, and transparency. The authors also demonstrated for the first time that the limited number of studies challenged the added value of their candidate biomarkers against standard-of-care routine patient monitoring parameters. Most biomarker studies tended to be single-center, retrospective studies with a small number of patients and clinical events. Less than 5% of the studies performed an external validation. The authors also showed the poor transparency reporting and identified a data beautification phenomenon. These findings suggest that there is much wasted research effort in transplant biomarker medical research and highlight the need to produce more rigorous studies so that more biomarkers may be validated and successfully implemented in clinical practice. Background Despite the increasing number of biomarker studies published in the transplant literature over the past 20 years, demonstrations of their clinical benefit and their implementation in routine clinical practice are lacking. We hypothesized that suboptimal design, data, methodology, and reporting might contribute to this phenomenon. Methods We formed a consortium of experts in systematic reviews, nephrologists, methodologists, and epidemiologists. A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library between January 1, 2005, and November 12, 2022 (PROSPERO ID: CRD42020154747). All English language, original studies investigating the association between a biomarker and kidney allograft outcome were included. The final set of publications was assessed by expert reviewers. After data collection, two independent reviewers randomly evaluated the inconsistencies for 30% of the references for each reviewer. If more than 5% of inconsistencies were observed for one given reviewer, a re-evaluation was conducted for all the references of the reviewer. The biomarkers were categorized according to their type and the biological milieu from which they were measured. The study characteristics related to the design, methods, results, and their interpretation were assessed, as well as reproducible research practices and transparency indicators. Results A total of 7372 publications were screened and 804 studies met the inclusion criteria. A total of 1143 biomarkers were assessed among the included studies from blood ( n =821, 71.8%), intragraft ( n =169, 14.8%), or urine ( n =81, 7.1%) compartments. The number of studies significantly increased, with a median, yearly number of 31.5 studies (interquartile range [IQR], 23.8–35.5) between 2005 and 2012 and 57.5 (IQR, 53.3–59.8) between 2013 and 2022 ( P < 0.001). A total of 655 studies (81.5%) were retrospective, while 595 (74.0%) used data from a single center. The median number of patients included was 232 (IQR, 96–629) with a median follow-up post-transplant of 4.8 years (IQR, 3.0–6.2). Only 4.7% of studies were externally validated. A total of 346 studies (43.0%) did not adjust their biomarker for key prognostic factors, while only 3.1% of studies adjusted the biomarker for standard-of-care patient monitoring factors. Data sharing, code sharing, and registration occurred in 8.8%, 1.1%, and 4.6% of studies, respectively. A total of 158 studies (20.0%) emphasized the clinical relevance of the biomarker, despite the reported nonsignificant association of the biomarker with the outcome measure. A total of 288 studies assessed rejection as an outcome. We showed that these rejection studies shared the same characteristics as other studies. Conclusions Biomarker studies in kidney transplantation lack validation, rigorous design and methodology, accurate interpretation, and transparency. Higher standards are needed in biomarker research to prove the clinical utility and support clinical use.

Abstract Aims We developed new machine learning (ML) models and externally validated existing statistical models [ischaemic stroke predictive risk score (iScore) and totalled health risks in vascular events (THRIVE) scores] for predicting the composite of recurrent stroke or all-cause mortality at 90 days and at 3 years after hospitalization for first acute ischaemic stroke (AIS). Methods and results In adults hospitalized with AIS from January 2005 to November 2016, with follow-up until November 2019, we developed three ML models [random forest (RF), support vector machine (SVM), and extreme gradient boosting (XGBOOST)] and externally validated the iScore and THRIVE scores for predicting the composite outcomes after AIS hospitalization, using data from 721 patients and 90 potential predictor variables. At 90 days and 3 years, 11 and 34% of patients, respectively, reached the composite outcome. For the 90-day prediction, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.779 for RF, 0.771 for SVM, 0.772 for XGBOOST, 0.720 for iScore, and 0.664 for THRIVE. For 3-year prediction, the AUC was 0.743 for RF, 0.777 for SVM, 0.773 for XGBOOST, 0.710 for iScore, and 0.675 for THRIVE. Conclusion The study provided three ML-based predictive models that achieved good discrimination and clinical usefulness in outcome prediction after AIS and broadened the application of the iScore and THRIVE scoring system for long-term outcome prediction. Our findings warrant comparative analyses of ML and existing statistical method–based risk prediction tools for outcome prediction after AIS in new data sets.