Citations

Hypertension is a major cause of cardiovascular disease and deaths worldwide especially in low- and middle-income countries. Despite the availability of safe, well-tolerated, and cost-effective blood pressure (BP)-lowering therapies, <14% of adults with hypertension have BP controlled to a systolic/diastolic BP <140/90 mm Hg. We report new hypertension treatment guidelines, developed in accordance with the World Health Organization Handbook for Guideline Development. Overviews of reviews of the evidence were conducted and summary tables were developed according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations approach. In these guidelines, the World Health Organization provides the most current and relevant evidence-based guidance for the pharmacological treatment of nonpregnant adults with hypertension. The recommendations pertain to adults with an accurate diagnosis of hypertension who have already received lifestyle modification counseling. The guidelines recommend BP threshold to initiate pharmacological therapy, BP treatment targets, intervals for follow-up visits, and best use of health care workers in the management of hypertension. The guidelines provide guidance for choice of monotherapy or dual therapy, treatment with single pill combination medications, and use of treatment algorithms for hypertension management. Strength of the recommendations was guided by the quality of the underlying evidence; the tradeoffs between desirable and undesirable effects; patient’s values, resource considerations and cost-effectiveness; health equity; acceptability, and feasibility consideration of different treatment options. The goal of the guideline is to facilitate standard approaches to pharmacological treatment and management of hypertension which, if widely implemented, will increase the hypertension control rate world-wide.

Abstract Background Since its emergence in late 2019, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to pose a risk to healthcare personnel (HCP) and patients in healthcare settings. Although all clinical interactions likely carry some risk of transmission, human actions, such as coughing, and care activities, such as aerosol-generating procedures, likely have a higher risk of transmission. The rapid emergence and global spread of SARS-CoV-2 continues to create significant challenges in healthcare facilities, particularly with shortages of the personal protective equipment (PPE) used by HCP. Evidence-based recommendations for what PPE to use in conventional, contingency, and crisis standards of care continue to be needed. Where evidence is lacking, the development of specific research questions can help direct funders and investigators. The purpose of the current study was to develop evidence-based rapid guidelines intended to support HCP in their decisions about infection prevention when caring for patients with suspected or known coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel including frontline clinicians, infectious disease specialists, experts in infection control, and guideline methodologists, with representation from the disciplines of public health, medical microbiology, pediatrics, critical care medicine and gastroenterology. The process followed a rapid recommendation checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. Then a systematic review of the peer-reviewed and gray literature was conducted. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations. Results The IDSA guideline panel agreed on 8 recommendations, including 2 updated recommendations and 1 new recommendation added since the first version of the guideline. Narrative summaries of other interventions undergoing evaluations are also included. Conclusions Using a combination of direct and indirect evidence, the panel was able to provide recommendations for 8 specific questions on the use of PPE by HCP providing care for patients with suspected or known COVID-19. Where evidence was lacking, attempts were made to provide potential avenues for investigation. There remain significant gaps in the understanding of the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2, and PPE recommendations may need to be modified in response to new evidence. These recommendations should serve as a minimum for PPE use in healthcare facilities and do not preclude decisions based on local risk assessments or requirements of local health jurisdictions or other regulatory bodies.

Introduction Hypercalcaemia of malignancy (HCM) is the second most common cause of hypercalcaemia and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Several treatment options are available including pharmacological therapy with bisphosphonates, denosumab, glucocorticoids and calcimimetics, as well as conventional therapy with hydration and possibly calcitonin. While guidelines have previously considered treatment effects, no guideline has yet considered a range of contextual factors impacting recommendations for the management. The aim of this study was to summarise the available evidence on important decisional factors for the development of guidelines for the treatment of HCM. These include patient’s values and preferences, cost, acceptability, feasibility and equity. Methods and analysis This protocol is registered in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42021264371). This is a systematic review of observational studies, case series, trials, reviews and qualitative studies involving treatment of adult patients with HCM. We will develop and execute two independent search strategies using five databases: PubMed, Medline (OVID), Embase.com, CINAHL (EBSCO) and Cochrane, and review their combined output. Two reviewers will screen titles and abstracts and full texts and will implement data abstraction from relevant studies independently and in duplicate. The outcomes of interest are the decisional factors that influence drug selection, with possible subgroup summaries by drug class or aetiology of HCM. We will present the data collected in a narrative and thematic approach. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval is not applicable for our study, since we will only collect data from available literature. This systematic review will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal when completed.

BACKGROUND: Cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy is the standard of care for muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of the two most commonly used cisplatin-based regimens; gemcitabine, and cisplatin (GC) vs. accelerated (dose-dense: dd) or conventional methotrexate, vinblastine, adriamycin, and cisplatin (MVAC). METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus and other sources. Outcomes of interest included overall survival, downstaging to pT≤1, pathologic complete response (pCR), recurrence, and toxicity. Meta-analysis was conducted using the random-effects model. RESULTS: We identified 24 studies. Efficacy outcomes were comparable between MVAC and GC for MIBC. dd-MVAC was associated with favorable efficacy compared to GC in terms of downstaging (OR 1.45; 95%CI 1.15–1.82) and all-cause mortality at longest follow-up (OR 0.63; 95%CI 0.44–0.81). However, GC was associated with a better safety profile in terms of febrile neutropenia (OR 0.32; 95%CI 0.13–0.80), anemia (OR 0.32; 95%CI 0.18–0.54), nausea and vomiting (OR 0.27; 95%CI 0.12–0.65) compared to dd-MVAC. Compared to MVAC, patients receiving GC had an increased risk of developing grade 3–4 thrombocytopenia (OR 4.70; 95%CI 1.59–13.89) and a lower risk of nausea and vomiting (OR 0.05; 95%CI 0.01–0.31). Certainty in the estimates was very low for most outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy and safety outcomes were comparable between MVAC and GC for MIBC. Including non-peer-reviewed studies showed higher efficacy with dd-MVAC. A phase III randomized trial comparing the two regimens is needed to guide clinical practice.

Abstract Background: Sickle cell disease (SCD) is a life-limiting inherited hemoglobinopathy that results in significant complications and affects quality of life. Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is currently the only curative intervention for SCD; however, guidelines are needed to inform how to apply HSCT in clinical practice. Objective: These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and health professionals in their decisions about HSCT for SCD. Methods: The multidisciplinary guideline panel formed by ASH included 2 patient representatives and was balanced to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The Mayo Evidence-Based Practice Research Program supported the guideline development process, including performing systematic evidence reviews (through 2019). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, including GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks, to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment. Results: The panel agreed on 8 recommendations to help patients and providers assess how individuals with SCD should consider the timing and type of HSCT. Conclusions: The evidence review yielded no randomized controlled clinical trials for HSCT in SCD; therefore, all recommendations are based on very low certainty in the evidence. Key recommendations include considering HSCT for those with neurologic injury or recurrent acute chest syndrome at an early age and to improve nonmyeloablative regimens. Future research should include the development of a robust SCD registry to serve as a comparator for HSCT studies.

Abstract Cycle threshold (CT) values are correlated with the amount of viral nucleic acid in a sample and may be obtained from some qualitative real-time polymerase chain reaction tests used for diagnosis of most patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, CT values cannot be directly compared across assays, and they must be interpreted with caution as they are influenced by sample type, timing of sample collection, and assay design. Presently, the correlation between CT values and clinical outcomes is not well understood. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies through April 19, 2021, that reported an association between CT values and hospitalization, disease severity, and mortality in patients ≥18 years old with SARS-CoV-2. A meta-analysis of 7 studies showed no significant difference in mean CT values between hospitalized and nonhospitalized patients. Among hospitalized patients, those with CT values &lt;25 had a high risk of more severe disease and mortality than patients with CT values &gt;30 (odds ratio [OR], 2.31; 95% CI, 1.70 to 3.13; and OR, 2.95; 95% CI, 2.19 to 3.96; respectively). The odds of increased disease severity and mortality were less pronounced in patients with CT values of 25–30 compared with &gt;30.

SummaryBackgroundNonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is a common cause of chronic liver disease. There is a major need to understand the efficacy of different pharmacological agents for the treatment of NASH.AimTo assess the relative rank‐order of different pharmacological interventions in fibrosis improvement and NASH resolution.MethodsA comprehensive search of several databases was conducted by an experienced librarian. We included randomised controlled‐trials (RCTs) comparing pharmacological interventions in patients with biopsy‐proven NASH. The primary outcome was ≥1 stage improvement in fibrosis. The secondary outcome was NASH resolution.ResultsA total of 26 RCTs with 23 interventions met the eligibility criteria. Lanifibranor and obeticholic acid had the highest probability of being ranked the most effective intervention for achieving ≥1 stage of fibrosis improvement (SUCRA 0.78) and (SUCRA 0.77), respectively. For NASH resolution, semaglutide, liraglutide and vitamin E plus pioglitazone had the highest probability of being ranked the most effective intervention for achieving NASH resolution (SUCRA 0.89), (SUCRA 0.84) and (SUCRA 0.83), respectively. Lanifibranor, obeticholic acid, pioglitazone and vitamin E were significantly better than placebo in achieving ≥1 stage of fibrosis improvement. Conversely, semaglutide, liraglutide, vitamine E plus pioglitazone, pioglitazone, lanifibranor and obeticholic acid were significantly better than placebo in achieving NASH resolution.ConclusionThese data provide relative rank‐order efficacy of various NASH therapies in terms of their improvements in liver fibrosis and NASH resolution. Therapies that have been shown to improve NASH resolution may be combined with therapies that have an antifibrotic effect to further boost treatment response rate in future.