Citations

AbstractPurposeThe purpose of this guideline is to provide evidence‐based guidance to clinicians of all specialties on the evaluation, management, and treatment of idiopathic overactive bladder (OAB). The guideline informs the reader on valid diagnostic processes and provides an approach to selecting treatment options for patients with OAB through the shared decision‐making process, which will maximize symptom control and quality of life, while minimizing adverse events and burden of disease.MethodsAn electronic search employing OVID was used to systematically search the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, as well as the Cochrane Library, for systematic reviews and primary studies evaluating diagnosis and treatment of OAB from January 2013 to November 2023. Criteria for inclusion and exclusion of studies were based on the Key Questions and the populations, interventions, comparators, outcomes, timing, types of studies and settings (PICOTS) of interest. Following the study selection process, 159 studies were included and were used to inform evidence‐based recommendation statements.ResultsThis guideline produced 33 statements that cover the evaluation and diagnosis of the patient with symptoms suggestive of OAB; the treatment options for patients with OAB, including Noninvasive therapies, pharmacotherapy, minimally invasive therapies, invasive therapies, and indwelling catheters; and the management of patients with BPH and OAB.ConclusionOnce the diagnosis of OAB is made, the clinician and the patient with OAB have a variety of treatment options to choose from and should, through shared decision‐making, formulate a personalized treatment approach taking into account evidence‐based recommendations as well as patient values and preferences.

Abstract Clonal cytopenia of undetermined significance (CCUS) represents a distinct disease entity characterized by myeloid-related somatic mutations with a variant allele fraction of ≥2% in individuals with unexplained cytopenia(s) but without a myeloid neoplasm (MN). Notably, CCUS carries a risk of progressing to MN, particularly in cases featuring high-risk mutations. Understanding CCUS requires dedicated studies to elucidate its risk factors and natural history. Our analysis of 357 patients with CCUS investigated the interplay between clonality, cytopenia, and prognosis. Multivariate analysis identified 3 key adverse prognostic factors: the presence of splicing mutation(s) (score = 2 points), platelet count of <100 × 109/L (score = 2.5), and ≥2 mutations (score = 3). Variable scores were based on the coefficients from the Cox proportional hazards model. This led to the development of the clonal cytopenia risk score (CCRS), which stratified patients into low- (score of <2.5 points), intermediate- (score of 2.5 to <5), and high-risk (score of ≥5) groups. The CCRS effectively predicted 2-year cumulative incidence of MN for low- (6.4%), intermediate- (14.1%), and high-risk (37.2%) groups, respectively, by the Gray test (P < .0001). We further validated the CCRS by applying it to an independent CCUS cohort of 104 patients, demonstrating a c-index of 0.64 (P = .005) in stratifying the cumulative incidence of MN. Our study underscores the importance of integrating clinical and molecular data to assess the risk of CCUS progression, making the CCRS a valuable tool that is practical and easily calculable. These findings are clinically relevant, shaping the management strategies for CCUS and informing future clinical trial designs.

Objective We provide evidence‐based recommendations regarding the treatment of interstitial lung disease (ILD) in adults with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). Methods We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions. A systematic literature review was then performed, and the available evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A panel of clinicians and patients reached consensus on the direction and strength of the recommendations. Results Thirty‐five recommendations were generated (including two strong recommendations) for first‐line SARD‐ILD treatment, treatment of SARD‐ILD progression despite first‐line ILD therapy, and treatment of rapidly progressive ILD. The strong recommendations were against using glucocorticoids in systemic sclerosis–ILD as a first‐line ILD therapy and after ILD progression. Otherwise, glucocorticoids are conditionally recommended for first‐line ILD treatment in all other SARDs. Conclusion This clinical practice guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and American College of Chest Physicians for the treatment of ILD in people with SARDs.

Objective We provide evidence‐based recommendations regarding the treatment of interstitial lung disease (ILD) in adults with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). Methods We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions. A systematic literature review was then performed, and the available evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A panel of clinicians and patients reached consensus on the direction and strength of the recommendations. Results Thirty‐five recommendations were generated (including two strong recommendations) for first‐line SARD‐ILD treatment, treatment of SARD‐ILD progression despite first‐line ILD therapy, and treatment of rapidly progressive ILD. The strong recommendations were against using glucocorticoids in systemic sclerosis–ILD as a first‐line ILD therapy and after ILD progression. Otherwise, glucocorticoids are conditionally recommended for first‐line ILD treatment in all other SARDs. Conclusion This clinical practice guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and American College of Chest Physicians for the treatment of ILD in people with SARDs.

ObjectiveWe provide evidence‐based recommendations regarding screening for interstitial lung disease (ILD) and the monitoring for ILD progression in people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs), specifically rheumatoid arthritis, systemic sclerosis, idiopathic inflammatory myopathies, mixed connective tissue disease, and Sjögren disease.MethodsWe developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions related to screening and monitoring for ILD in patients with SARDs. A systematic literature review was performed, and the available evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A Voting Panel of interdisciplinary clinician experts and patients achieved consensus on the direction and strength of each recommendation.ResultsFifteen recommendations were developed. For screening people with these SARDs at risk for ILD, we conditionally recommend pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and high‐resolution computed tomography of the chest (HRCT chest); conditionally recommend against screening with 6‐minute walk test distance (6MWD), chest radiography, ambulatory desaturation testing, or bronchoscopy; and strongly recommend against screening with surgical lung biopsy. We conditionally recommend monitoring ILD with PFTs, HRCT chest, and ambulatory desaturation testing and conditionally recommend against monitoring with 6MWD, chest radiography, or bronchoscopy. We provide guidance on ILD risk factors and suggestions on frequency of testing to evaluate for the development of ILD in people with SARDs.ConclusionThis clinical practice guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and American College of Chest Physicians for the screening and monitoring of ILD in people with SARDs.

Objective We provide evidence‐based recommendations regarding screening for interstitial lung disease (ILD) and the monitoring for ILD progression in people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs), specifically rheumatoid arthritis, systemic sclerosis, idiopathic inflammatory myopathies, mixed connective tissue disease, and Sjögren disease. Methods We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions related to screening and monitoring for ILD in patients with SARDs. A systematic literature review was performed, and the available evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A Voting Panel of interdisciplinary clinician experts and patients achieved consensus on the direction and strength of each recommendation. Results Fifteen recommendations were developed. For screening people with these SARDs at risk for ILD, we conditionally recommend pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and high‐resolution computed tomography of the chest (HRCT chest); conditionally recommend against screening with 6‐minute walk test distance (6MWD), chest radiography, ambulatory desaturation testing, or bronchoscopy; and strongly recommend against screening with surgical lung biopsy. We conditionally recommend monitoring ILD with PFTs, HRCT chest, and ambulatory desaturation testing and conditionally recommend against monitoring with 6MWD, chest radiography, or bronchoscopy. We provide guidance on ILD risk factors and suggestions on frequency of testing to evaluate for the development of ILD in people with SARDs. Conclusion This clinical practice guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and American College of Chest Physicians for the screening and monitoring of ILD in people with SARDs.

Abstract Generative artificial intelligence (AI) holds immense potential for medical applications, but the lack of a comprehensive evaluation framework and methodological deficiencies in existing studies hinder its effective implementation. Standardized assessment guidelines are crucial for ensuring reliable and consistent evaluation of generative AI in healthcare. Our objective is to develop robust, standardized guidelines tailored for evaluating generative AI performance in medical contexts. Through a rigorous literature review utilizing the Web of Sciences, Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Google Scholar, we focused on research testing generative AI capabilities in medicine. Our multidisciplinary team of experts conducted discussion sessions to develop a comprehensive 32‐item checklist. This checklist encompasses critical evaluation aspects of generative AI in medical applications, addressing key dimensions such as question collection, querying methodologies, and assessment techniques. The checklist and its broader assessment framework provide a holistic evaluation of AI systems, delineating a clear pathway from question gathering to result assessment. It guides researchers through potential challenges and pitfalls, enhancing research quality and reporting and aiding the evolution of generative AI in medicine and life sciences. Our framework furnishes a standardized, systematic approach for testing generative AI's applicability in medicine. For a concise checklist, please refer to Table S or visit GenAIMed.org .

10608 Background: Cancer is one of the most feared diseases. Multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests have the potential to expand the number of cancers that are detected at earlier stages, which could result in better clinical outcomes. However, behavioral impacts based on MCED test results could affect the utility and value of these tests. Methods: Two independent data sources evaluated the impact of MCED test results on behavioral intentions and perceptions: a survey of the general population and PRO in an MCED clinical trial. A web-based, 30-minute survey of the US general population was used to ascertain attitudes toward a hypothetical MCED test. Eligible respondents were adults aged 40-80 years without a cancer diagnosis in the previous 5 years. The survey assessed the perceived value of negative results (ie, no cancer signal detected [NCSD]) and the projected impact on post-test behaviors. The prospective PATHFINDER study (NCT04241796) of adults aged ≥50 years who underwent MCED cancer screening included PRO assessments. Post-test assessments included: "I am feeling relieved about my test result" from the adapted MICRA and “How likely are you to follow your healthcare provider’s cancer screening recommendations.” The consistency of sentiment after an NCSD MCED result from the online survey and clinical study was assessed. Results: Of the 1073 online survey respondents, 53% were female, 77% White, 14% Black/African American, and 13% Hispanic. Mean age was 58 years. The most common anticipated emotional impacts were relief (84%), happiness (72%), and confidence (69%). Respondents (66-70%) reported they would expect less worry, fear, stress, and anxiety after an NCSD MCED result. The majority (73%) reported they would maintain or improve health behaviors after an NCSD result. NCSD results were projected to lead to an increase in health-related behaviors, including adherence to recommended cancer screening (98%; 68% increase, 30% maintain current level) and regular doctor visits (46%). Of the 6529 PATHFINDER study participants who received NCSD results, 64% were female, 92% White. Mean age was 63 years. 80% of participants (n = 4685/5865) with NCSD felt relief "sometimes" or "often" after their MCED test result. Over 95% of participants (n = 5637/5863) with NCSD indicated they were "likely" or "very likely" to adhere to cancer screening recommendations in the future. Conclusions: Results from a general population survey and a prospective clinical study indicate that an NCSD result may be associated with positive cancer screening intentions and other preventive healthcare behaviors. An NCSD result may also positively impact psychological and emotional health. While these findings suggest that an NCSD result may provide additional value beyond traditional clinical benefits associated with cancer screening, future research is needed to delineate the behavioral impact following MCED screening. Clinical trial information: NCT04241796 .

Abstract Background Delirium is a common complication of older people in hospitals, rehabilitation and long-term facilities. Objective To assess the worldwide use of validated delirium assessment tools and the presence of delirium management protocols. Design Secondary analysis of a worldwide one-day point prevalence study on World Delirium Awareness Day, 15 March 2023. Setting Cross-sectional online survey including hospitals, rehabilitation and long-term facilities. Methods Participating clinicians reported data on delirium, the presence of protocols, delirium assessments, delirium-awareness interventions, non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions, and ward/unit-specific barriers. Results Data from 44 countries, 1664 wards/units and 36 048 patients were analysed. Validated delirium assessments were used in 66.7% (n = 1110) of wards/units, 18.6% (n = 310) used personal judgement or no assessment, and 10% (n = 166) used other assessment methods. A delirium management protocol was reported in 66.8% (n = 1094) of wards/units. The presence of protocols for delirium management varied across continents, ranging from 21.6% (on 21/97 wards/units) in Africa to 90.4% (235/260) in Australia, similar to the use of validated delirium assessments with 29.6% (29/98) in Africa to 93.5% (116/124) in North America. Wards/units with a delirium management protocol [n = 1094/1664, 66.8%] were more likely to use a validated delirium test than those without a protocol [odds ratio 6.97 (95% confidence interval 5.289–9.185)]. The presence of a delirium protocol increased the chances for valid delirium assessment and, likely, evidence-based interventions. Conclusion Wards/units that reported the presence of delirium management protocols had a higher probability of using validated delirium assessments tools to assess for delirium.