Citations

Abstract Background Females with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) and atypical genitalia often undergo complex surgeries; however, their outcomes remain largely uncertain. Methods We searched several databases through 8 March 2016 for studies evaluating genital reconstructive surgery in females with CAH. Reviewers working independently and in duplicate selected and appraised the studies. Results We included 29 observational studies (1178 patients, mean age at surgery, 2.7 ± 4.7 years; mostly classic CAH). After an average follow-up of 10.3 years, most patients who had undergone surgery had a female gender identity (88.7%) and were heterosexual (76.2%). Females who underwent surgery reported a sexual function score of 25.13 using the Female Sexual Function Index (maximum score, 36). Many patients continued to complain of substantial impairment of sensitivity in the clitoris, vaginal penetration difficulties, and low intercourse frequency. Most patients were sexually active, although only 48% reported comfortable intercourse. Most patients (79.4%) and treating health care professionals (71.8%) were satisfied with the surgical outcomes. Vaginal stenosis was common (27%), and other surgical complications, such as fistulas, urinary incontinence, and urinary tract infections, were less common. Data on quality of life were sparse and inconclusive. Conclusion The long-term follow-up of females with CAH who had undergone urogenital reconstructive surgery shows variable sexual function. Most patients were sexually active and satisfied with the surgical outcomes; however, some patients still complained of impairment in sexual experience and satisfaction. The certainty in the available evidence is very low.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a complex disease most commonly arising in the background of chronic liver disease. In the past two decades, there has been a significant increase in our understanding of both the clinical and molecular heterogeneity of HCC. There has been a robust increase in clinical trial activity in patients with poor prognostic factors, such as macrovascular invasion and extrahepatic spread (EHS). We aimed to synthesize the evidence for the treatment of patients with advanced HCC based on these baseline characteristics, including patients with both Child‐Pugh (CP) scores of A and B. A comprehensive search of several databases from each database inception to February 15, 2016 any language was conducted. We included 14 studies (three randomized controlled studies [RCTs] and 11 observational studies). We included studies that compared sorafenib, transarterial bland embolization/transarterial chemoembolization, yttrium‐90/radiation therapy, ablation (or combination), and no therapy. Two RCTs comparing sorafenib to best supportive care demonstrated a consistent improvement in overall survival (OS) for patients with advanced HCC and metastatic vascular invasion (MVI) and/or EHS and CP A liver disease (hazard ratio, 0.66 [95% confidence interval, 0.51‐0.87]; I 2 = 0%). Several observational studies evaluated locoregional therapies alone or in combination with other treatments and were limited by very‐low‐quality of evidence. This was true for both patients with EHS and MVI. Conclusion : In patients with advanced HCC and CP A liver function, sorafenib is the only treatment that has been shown to improve OS in randomized studies. High‐quality data supporting the use of other treatment modalities in this setting, or in the setting of patients with less compensated (CP B) liver disease, are lacking. (H epatology 2018;67:422‐435)

Background Hospital discharge summaries enable communication between inpatient and outpatient physicians. Despite existing guidelines for discharge summaries, they are frequently suboptimal. Objective The aim of this study was to assess physicians’ perspectives about discharge summaries and the differences between summaries’ authors (hospitalists) and readers (primary care physicians [PCPs]). Methods A national survey of 1600 U.S. physicians was undertaken. Primary measures included physicians’ preferences in discharge summary standardization, content, format, and audience. Results A total of 815 physicians responded (response rate = 51%). Eighty-nine percent agreed that discharge summaries “should have a standardized format.” Most agreed that summaries should “document everything that was done, found, and recommended in the hospital” (64%) yet “only include details that are highly pertinent to the hospitalization” (66%). Although 74% perceived patients as an important audience of discharge summaries, only 43% agreed that summaries “should be written in language that patients…can easily understand,” and 68% agreed that it “should be written solely for provider-to-provider communication.” Compared with hospitalists, PCPs preferred comprehensive summaries (68% versus 59%, P = 0.002). More PCPs agreed that separate summaries should be created for patients and for provider-to-provider communication than hospitalists (60% versus 47%, P < 0.001). Compared with PCPs, more hospitalists believe that “hospitalists are too busy to prepare a high-quality discharge summary” (44% versus 23%, P < 0.001) and “PCPs have insufficient time to read an entire discharge summary” (60% versus 38%, P < 0.001). Conclusions Physicians believe that discharge summaries should have a standardized format but do not agree on how comprehensive or in what format they should be. Efforts are necessary to build consensus toward the ideal discharge summary.

Multiphasic computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are both used for noninvasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with cirrhosis. To determine if there is a relative diagnostic benefit of one over the other, we synthesized evidence regarding the relative performance of CT, extracellular contrast–enhanced MRI, and gadoxetate‐enhanced MRI for diagnosis of HCC in patients with cirrhosis. We also assessed whether liver biopsy versus follow‐up with the same versus alternative imaging is best for CT‐indeterminate or MRI‐indeterminate liver nodules in patients with cirrhosis. We searched multiple databases from inception to April 27, 2016, for studies comparing CT with extracellular contrast–enhanced MRI or gadoxetate‐enhanced MRI in adults with cirrhosis and suspected HCC. Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data. Of 33 included studies, 19 were comprehensive, while 14 reported sensitivity only. For all tumor sizes, the 19 comprehensive comparisons showed significantly higher sensitivity (0.82 versus 0.66) and lower negative likelihood ratio (0.20 versus 0.37) for MRI over CT. The specificities of MRI versus CT (0.91 versus 0.92) and the positive likelihood ratios (8.8 versus 8.1) were not different. All three modalities performed better for HCCs ≥2 cm. Performance was poor for HCCs <1 cm. No studies examined whether adults with cirrhosis and an indeterminate nodule are best evaluated using biopsy, repeated imaging, or alternative imaging. Concerns about publication bias, inconsistent study results, increased risk of bias, and clinical factors precluded support for exclusive use of either gadoxetate‐enhanced or extracellular contrast–enhanced MRI over CT.Conclusion:CT, extracellular contrast–enhanced MRI, or gadoxetate‐enhanced MRI could not be definitively preferred for HCC diagnosis in patients with cirrhosis; in patients with cirrhosis and an indeterminate mass, there were insufficient data comparing biopsy to repeat cross‐sectional imaging or alternative imaging. (Hepatology2018;67:401‐421).

Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who are listed for liver transplantation (LT) are often treated while on the waiting list with locoregional therapy (LRT), which is aimed at either preventing progression of HCC or reducing the measurable disease burden of HCC in order to receive increased allocation priority. We aimed to synthesize evidence regarding the effectiveness of LRT in the management of patients with HCC who were on the LT waitlist. We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple databases from 1996 to April 25, 2016, for studies that enrolled adults with cirrhosis awaiting LT and treated with bridging or down‐staging therapies before LT. Therapies included transcatheter arterial chemoembolization, transarterial radioembolization, ablation, and radiotherapy. We included both comparative and noncomparative studies. There were no randomized controlled trials identified. For adults with T1 HCC and waiting for LT, there were only two nonrandomized comparative studies, both with a high risk of bias, which reported the outcome of interest. In one series, the rate of dropout from all causes at 6 months in T1 HCC patients who underwent LRT was 5.3%, while in the other series of T1 HCC patients who did not receive LRT, the dropout rate at median follow‐up of 2.4 years and the progression rate to T2 HCC were 30% and 88%, respectively. For adults with T2 HCC awaiting LT, transplant with any bridging therapy showed a nonsignificant reduction in the risk of waitlist dropout due to progression (relative risk [RR], 0.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.06‐1.85; I 2 = 0%) and of waitlist dropout from all causes (RR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.060‐2.370; I 2 = 85.7%) compared to no therapy based on three comparative studies. The quality of evidence is very low due to high risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency. There were five comparative studies which reported on posttransplant survival rates and 10 comparative studies which reported on posttransplant recurrence, and there was no significant difference seen in either of these endpoints. For adults initially with stage T3 HCC who received LRT, there were three studies reporting on transplant with any down‐staging therapy versus no downstaging, and this showed a significant increase in 1‐year (two studies, RR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.01‐1.23) and 5‐year (1 study, RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.03‐1.32) post‐LT survival rates for patients who received LRT. The quality of evidence is very low due to serious risk of bias and imprecision. Conclusion: In patients with HCC listed for LT, the use of LRT is associated with a nonsignificant trend toward improved waitlist and posttransplant outcomes, though there is a high risk of selection bias in the available evidence. (H epatology 2018;67:381‐400).

Abstract Objective: Multiple interventions are available to reduce excess body weight in children. We appraised the quality of evidence supporting each intervention and assessed the effectiveness on different obesity-related outcomes. Methods: We conducted a systematic search for systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials evaluating pediatric obesity interventions applied for ≥6 months. We assessed the quality of evidence for each intervention using GRADE (Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Results: From 16 systematic reviews, we identified 133 eligible randomized controlled trials. Physical activity interventions reduced systolic blood pressure and fasting glucose (low to moderate quality of evidence). Dietary interventions with low-carbohydrate diets had a similar effect to low-fat diets in terms of body mass index (BMI) reduction (moderate quality of evidence). Educational interventions reduced waist circumference, BMI, and diastolic blood pressure (low quality of evidence). Pharmacological interventions reduced BMI (metformin, sibutramine, orlistat) and waist circumference (sibutramine, orlistat) and increased high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (sibutramine) but also raised systolic and diastolic blood pressure (sibutramine). Surgical interventions (laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, sleeve gastrectomy) resulted in the largest BMI reduction (moderate quality of evidence). Combined interventions consisting of dietary modification, physical activity, behavioral therapy, and education significantly reduced systolic and diastolic blood pressure, BMI, and triglycerides. Combined parent–child interventions and parent-only interventions had similar effects on BMI (low quality of evidence). Conclusions: Several childhood obesity interventions are effective in improving metabolic and anthropometric measures. A comprehensive multicomponent intervention, however, appears to have the best overall outcomes.

Chronic hepatitis B viral (HBV) infection remains a significant global health problem. Evidence‐based guidelines are needed to help providers determine when treatment should be initiated, which medication is most appropriate, and when treatment can safely be stopped. The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases HBV guideline methodology and writing committees developed a protocol a priori for this systematic review. We searched multiple databases for randomized controlled trials and controlled observational studies that enrolled adults ≥18 years old diagnosed with chronic HBV infection who received antiviral therapy. Data extraction was done by pairs of independent reviewers. We included 73 studies, of which 59 (15 randomized controlled trials and 44 observational studies) reported clinical outcomes. Moderate‐quality evidence supported the effectiveness of antiviral therapy in patients with immune active chronic HBV infection in reducing the risk of cirrhosis, decompensated liver disease, and hepatocellular carcinoma. In immune tolerant patients, moderate‐quality evidence supports improved intermediate outcomes with antiviral therapy. Only very low‐quality evidence informed the questions about discontinuing versus continuing antiviral therapy in hepatitis B e antigen‐positive patients who seroconverted from hepatitis B e antigen to hepatitis B e antibody and about the safety of entecavir versus tenofovir. Noncomparative and indirect evidence was available for questions about stopping versus continuing antiviral therapy in hepatitis B e antigen‐negative patients, monotherapy versus adding a second agent in patients with persistent viremia during treatment, and the effectiveness of antivirals in compensated cirrhosis with low‐level viremia. Conclusion: Most of the current literature focuses on the immune active phases of chronic HBV infection; decision‐making in other commonly encountered and challenging clinical settings depends on indirect evidence. (H epatology 2016;63:284–306)