Citations

ObjectiveThe aim of this systemic review is to compare different treatments for patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) and microscopic polyangiitis (MPA) to inform evidence‐based recommendations for the American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/Vasculitis Foundation (VF) Vasculitis Management Guidelines.MethodsA systemic review was conducted by searching articles in English using OVID Medline, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Articles were screened for suitability in addressing PICO questions, with studies presenting the highest level of evidence given preference.ResultsA total of 729 full‐text articles addressing GPA and MPA PICO questions were reviewed. For remission induction, rituximab was shown to be noninferior to cyclophosphamide (CYC) (odds ratio [OR]: 1.55, moderate certainty of evidence). The addition of plasma exchange to induction therapy in severe disease did not improve the composite end point of death or end stage renal disease (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.86 [95% confidence interval CI: 0.65, 1.13], moderate certainty of evidence). In nonsevere disease, methotrexate was noninferior to CYC for induction of remission (remission at 6 months of 90% vs. 94%). For maintenance of remission, methotrexate and azathioprine showed no difference in the risk of relapse over a mean follow‐up of 29 months (HR: 0.92, [95% CI: 0.52, 1.65]low certainty of evidence). As maintenance therapy, rituximab was superior to a tapering azathioprine strategy in major relapse‐free survival at 28 months (HR: 6.61, [95% CI: 1.56, 27.96], moderate certainty of evidence). In two randomized trials, longer‐term azathioprine maintenance therapy (>24 months) is associated with fewer relapses without an increase in adverse events.ConclusionThis comprehensive systematic review synthesizes and evaluates the benefits and toxicities of different treatment options for GPA and MPA.

ObjectiveTakayasu’s arteritis (TAK) is a granulomatous large‐vessel vasculitis primarily affecting the aorta and its proximal branches. TAK can be a difficult disease to diagnose and manage given the rarity of the disease as well as current limitations in biomarkers, imperfect imaging modalities, and few randomized controlled trials.MethodsIn developing the American College of Rheumatology/Vasculitis Foundation guideline for the management of TAK, we performed an extensive systematic literature review to guide our recommendations. We included RCTs first. When RCTs were not available, we included observational studies that reported on patient‐important outcomes for the intervention and comparison. When studies with comparative data were not available, we included case series that present patient‐important outcomes for either the intervention or the comparison.ResultsThree hundred forty‐seven articles were included for full review to answer 27 population, intervention, comparison, and outcome questions related to TAK. Ten studies were evaluated that addressed the use of glucocorticoids (GCs), non‐GC nonbiologic therapies, as well as biologics in treating TAK. A total of 33 studies, including 8 comparative studies, were included to determine the test accuracy of commonly available diagnostic tests for TAK.ConclusionThis comprehensive systematic review synthesizes and evaluates the benefits and harms of different treatment options and the accuracy of commonly used tests for the management of TAK.

ObjectiveThe object of this study was to analyze the benefits and harms of different treatment options and to analyze test accuracy used in the evaluation of patients with primary systemic polyarteritis nodosa (PAN).MethodsA systematic search of published English‐language literature was performed in Ovid Medline, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from the inception of each database through August 2019. Articles were screened for suitability in addressing patient, intervention, comparison, and outcome questions, with studies presenting the highest level of evidence given preference.ResultsOf 137 articles selected for data abstraction, we analyzed 21 observational studies and seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The results showed indirect evidence that a deep skin biopsy provides good diagnostic accuracy. A combined nerve and muscle biopsy should be obtained for patients with PAN with peripheral neuropathy. Cyclophosphamide with high‐dose glucocorticoids (GCs) is effective as an induction treatment for newly diagnosed active and severe PAN. GC monotherapy is adequate in the majority of patients with nonsevere PAN, although it has a high relapse rate with GC taper. There was insufficient data in determining the optimal duration of non‐GC and GC maintenance therapy. Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors are effective treatment for patients with deficiency of adenosine deaminase 2 (DADA2) with stroke and vasculitis manifestations.ConclusionThis comprehensive systematic review synthesizes and evaluates the harms and benefits of different treatment options and the accuracy of commonly used tests for the diagnosis of systemic PAN. Data for diagnosis and management of PAN and DADA2 are mostly limited to observational studies. More high‐quality RCTs are needed.

ObjectiveEosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) is part of a group of vasculitides commonly referred to as antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis (AAV), in addition to granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA), microscopic polyangiitis (MPA), and renal‐limited vasculitis. Patients with EGPA characteristically have asthma and marked peripheral eosinophilia with only approximately 30% to 35% of patients being myeloperoxidase (MPO)‐ANCA positive, distinguishing it from other forms of AAV (1,2). The aim of this systematic review is to support the development of the American College of Rheumatology/Vasculitis Foundation guideline for the management of EGPA.MethodsA systematic review was conducted of the literature for seven forms of primary systemic vasculitis (GPA, MPA, EGPA, polyarteritis nodosa, Kawasaki disease, giant cell arteritis, and Takayasu arteritis). The search was done for articles in English using Ovid Medline, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Articles were screened for suitability in addressing population/patients, intervention, comparator, and outcomes (PICO) questions, with studies presenting the highest level of evidence given preference. Two independent reviewers conducted a title/abstract screen and full‐text review for each eligible study.ResultsThe initial search, conducted in August 2019, included 13 800 articles, of which 2596 full‐text articles were reviewed. There were 190 articles (addressing 34 PICO questions) reporting on the diagnosis and management of EGPA.ConclusionThis comprehensive systematic review synthesizes and evaluates the accuracy of commonly used tests for EGPA as well as benefits and toxicities of different treatment options.

Abstract Background Accurate molecular diagnostic tests are necessary for confirming a diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Direct detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleic acids in respiratory tract specimens informs patient, healthcare institution and public health level decision-making. The numbers of available SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection tests are rapidly increasing, as is the COVID-19 diagnostic literature. Thus, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) recognized a significant need for frequently updated systematic reviews of the literature to inform evidence-based best practice guidance. Objective The IDSA’s goal was to develop 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 the nuance of test result interpretation in a variety of practice settings and highlight important unmet research needs in the COVID-19 diagnostic testing space. Methods 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. Results The panel agreed on 17 diagnostic recommendations. Conclusions Universal access to accurate SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid testing is critical for patient care, hospital infection prevention and the public response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Information on the clinical performance of available tests is rapidly emerging, but the quality of evidence of the current literature is considered 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 recommended for asymptomatic individuals with known or suspected contact with a COVID-19 case. Testing asymptomatic individuals without known exposure is suggested when the results will impact isolation/quarantine/personal protective equipment (PPE) usage decisions, dictate eligibility for surgery, or inform solid organ or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation timing. Ultimately, prioritization of testing will depend on institutional-specific resources and the needs of different patient populations.

Background. Participant withdrawal from clinical trials occurs for various reasons, predominantly adverse effects or intervention inefficacy. Because these missing participant data can have implications for the validity, reproducibility, and generalizability of study results, when conducting a systematic review, it is important to collect and appropriately analyze missing data information to assess its effects on the robustness of the study results. Methods. In this methodologic survey of missing participant data reporting and handling in systematic reviews, we included meta-analyses that provided pooled estimates of at least 1 dichotomous intervention outcome of a randomized controlled trial performed in adult kidney transplant subjects. Results. Eighty-three systematic reviews (17 Cochrane and 66 non-Cochrane reviews) met the inclusion criteria. The most common intervention was drugs (80%), with the majority involving immunosuppressant drugs 55% (n = 46), followed by surgery in 14% (n = 12). The median follow-up duration was 12 months (maximum, 240 mo). Intention-to-treat or modified intention-to-treat analysis was reported in 24% (n = 20) of the reviews (76% of Cochrane and 10% of non-Cochrane). Overall, the majority of systematic reviews did not quantify (90% [n = 60] non-Cochrane and 29% [n = 5] Cochrane) or include the reasons for missing participant data (88% [n = 58] non-Cochrane and 24% [n = 4] Cochrane). Eleven percent (n = 9) handled missing participant data, 5% (n = 4) justified the analytical method(s) used to handle it, and 2% (n = 2) performed a sensitivity analysis for it. Conclusions. Systematic reviews of kidney transplantation provide inadequate information on missing participant data and usually do not handle or discuss the associated risk of bias with it.

While numerous guidelines for the prescription of physical activity are released each year, the quality and practicability of these guidelines is unknown. We assessed the quality of 95 guidance documents published since 2000 that included recommendations about physical activity for the promotion of general health and prevention of cardiometabolic disease. We used 3 tools: Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II), the National Academy of Medicine’s (NAM) Standards for Trustworthy Clinical Practice Guidelines, and the Frequency, Intensity, Time, and Type (FITT) score. Average AGREE II domain scores ranged from 38%−84%, and the portion of criteria fulfilled per NAM domain ranged from 7%–39%. The average FITT score for all recommendations was 2.48 out of 4. While guidelines improved according to both AGREE II and the NAM standards over time, their practicability as assessed by FITT score did not improve. Guidelines produced by governmental agencies or other nonprofit organizations, using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, or fulfilling a higher number of NAM criteria tended to be of higher quality. Organizations producing physical activity guidelines can improve their quality by establishing and reporting processes for public representation, external review, and conflict of interest (COI) management. Future recommendations about physical activity should be more specific and include strategies to improve implementation. Registration no.: PROSPERO CRD42019126364. Novelty: Most physical activity recommendations are not sufficiently specific to be practically implemented. The overall quality of guidelines has improved over time, but the specificity of recommendations has not. Improved public representation, external review, and COI disclosure and management processes would improve guideline quality.

Abstract Background The availability of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serologic testing has rapidly increased. Current assays use a variety of technologies, measure different classes of immunoglobulin or immunoglobulin combinations, and detect antibodies directed against different portions of the virus. The overall accuracy of these tests, however, has not been well defined. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) convened an expert panel to perform a systematic review of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) serology literature and construct best-practice guidance related to SARS-CoV-2 serologic testing. This guideline is the fourth in a series of rapid, frequently updated COVID-19 guidelines developed by IDSA. Objective IDSA’s goal was to develop evidence-based recommendations that assist clinicians, clinical laboratories, patients, and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 serologic tests in a variety of settings. We also highlight important unmet research needs pertaining to the use of anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests for diagnosis, public health surveillance, vaccine development, and the selection of convalescent plasma donors. Methods A multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists, and experts in systematic literature review identified and prioritized clinical questions related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 serologic tests. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. Results The panel agreed on 8 diagnostic recommendations. Conclusions Information on the clinical performance and utility of SARS-CoV-2 serologic tests is rapidly emerging. Based on available evidence, detection of anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies may be useful for confirming the presence of current or past infection in selected situations. The panel identified 3 potential indications for serologic testing, including (1) evaluation of patients with a high clinical suspicion for COVID-19 when molecular diagnostic testing is negative and ≥2 weeks have passed since symptom onset, (2) assessment of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, and (3) conducting serosurveillance studies. The certainty of available evidence supporting the use of serology for either diagnosis or epidemiology was, however, graded as very low to moderate. For the most updated version of these guidelines, please go to https://www.idsociety.org/covid19guidelines.

Abstract Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a highly transmissible virus that can infect healthcare personnel (HCP) and patients in healthcare settings. Specific care activities, in particular, aerosol-generating procedures, may have a higher risk of transmission. The rapid emergence and global spread of SARS-CoV-2 has created significant challenges in healthcare facilities, particularly with severe shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) used to protect HCP. Evidence-based recommendations for what PPE to use in conventional, contingency, and crisis standards of care are needed. Where evidence is lacking, the development of specific research questions can help direct funders and investigators. Objective Our objective 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 that included front-line clinicians, infectious diseases specialists, experts in infection control, and guideline methodologists with representation from the disciplines of preventive care, 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 approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations. Results The IDSA guideline panel agreed on 8 recommendations and provided narrative summaries of other interventions undergoing evaluations. 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 for HCP who provide care for patients with suspected or known COVID-19. Where evidence was lacking, attempts were made to provide potential avenues for investigation. Significant gaps in the understanding of the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 remain, and PPE recommendations may need to be modified in response to new evidence.

Abstract IDSA Disclaimer As of the time of this publication, updates have been made to IDSA’s Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19. For the most updated version of these guidelines, please go to https://www.idsociety.org/covid19guidelines. Background Accurate molecular diagnostic tests are necessary for confirming a diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Direct detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleic acids in respiratory tract specimens informs patient, healthcare institution, and public health–level decision-making. The number of available SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection tests is rapidly increasing, as is the COVID-19 diagnostic literature. Thus, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) recognized a significant need for frequently updated systematic reviews of the literature to inform evidence-based best practice guidance. Objective The IDSA’s goal was to develop an evidence-based diagnostic guidelines to assist clinicians, clinical laboratorians, patients, and policy makers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification tests. In addition, the society provides a conceptual framework for understanding molecular diagnostic test performance, discusses the nuance of test result interpretation in a variety of practice settings, and highlights important unmet research needs in the COVID-19 diagnostic testing arena. Methods 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 methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. Results The panel agreed on 15 diagnostic recommendations. Conclusions Universal access to accurate SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid testing is critical for patient care, hospital infection prevention, and the public response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Information on the clinical performance of available tests is rapidly emerging, but the quality of evidence of the current literature is considered low 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 recommended for asymptomatic individuals who have had a known or suspected contact with a COVID-19 case. Testing asymptomatic individuals without known exposure is suggested when the results will impact isolation/quarantine/personal protective equipment usage decisions, dictate eligibility for surgery, or inform administration of immunosuppressive therapy. Ultimately, prioritization of testing will depend on institution-specific resources and the needs of different patient populations.