Magdoleen H. Farah

Background: Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a significant public health concern associated with increased rates of hospital admissions and mortality. The purpose of the current study was to compare beta-lactam plus azithromycin or doxycycline vs fluoroquinolones in adults hospitalized with CAP. Methods: We searched several databases from inception to 10 June 2024. Two reviewers independently screened, selected, and extracted data. Disagreements were resolved by consensus or a third reviewer. Study quality was assessed in duplicate with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 for randomized studies and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for nonrandomized studies. Meta-analysis was conducted by a random effect model when feasible. Network meta-analysis was performed to compare direct and indirect evidence. The GRADE approach (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) was followed to rate the certainty of evidence. Results: Twenty studies were included (20 beta-lactam + azithromycin, 7 beta-lactam + doxycycline, 12 levofloxacin, and 4 moxifloxacin): 6 were randomized, enrolling 861 participants (mean age, 61.8 years; 43.2% women), and 14 were nonrandomized, enrolling 185 928 participants (mean age, 65.2 years; 42.9% women). Direct comparison and network meta-analysis results showed no statistically significant differences and likely equal effectiveness between beta-lactam + azithromycin and beta-lactam + doxycycline in terms of in-hospital mortality, need for intensive care unit admission or invasive mechanical ventilation, or safety outcomes including Clostridioides difficile infection and QT prolongation. Conclusions: The current evidence demonstrated no likely difference in outcomes between azithromycin and doxycycline in adults hospitalized with CAP receiving beta-lactam. Head-to-head randomized clinical trials are needed to validate these results.

Objective: The objective of this investigation was to evaluate the agreement rate on judgments made using the Murad tool by different systematic review teams. Introduction: Evaluating the methodological quality of case reports and case series is challenging but some tools do exist for this purpose. We leveraged the presence of studies that have been evaluated by different systematic review teams to assess the inter-consensus agreement among different teams on Murad tool domains. Methods: Using a back-citation method, we identified systematic reviews that used the Murad tool and retrieved all the included primary studies. We selected studies that were assessed by more than 1 systematic review team. We calculated observed agreement and Gwet’s agreement coefficient on judgments made about each signaling question. Results: We identified 982 systematic reviews that cited the Murad tool and collectively cited 59,080 references. The final data comprised of 81 duplicated case reports and series assessed by more than 1 systematic review team. Overall, the signaling questions had very high observed agreement with 5 of the 8 questions having agreement over 75%. The signaling questions with the highest agreement addressed the adequacy of the ascertainment of the exposure (coefficient 0.959), ascertainment of the outcome (coefficient 0.829), presence of a dose-response gradient (perfect agreement), and clarity of reporting (coefficient 0.755). Conclusion: The current study demonstrates overall high agreement among different systematic review teams that used the Murad tool for appraisal of the same case series and case reports. Leveraging duplicated studies across systematic reviews is a feasible way to retrospectively assess the reliability of the tool.

Background: Partial breast irradiation (PBI) is an effective treatment for early-stage breast cancer. However, evidence comparing different PBI modalities is limited. Methods: This trial emulation uses electronic health records from a multi-state large tertiary health system. Three PBI modalities were compared: proton radiation therapy, photon radiation therapy, and applicator-based brachytherapy. Inverse probability weighting (IPW) was used to balance confounders. The primary outcome was ipsilateral breast recurrence (IBR). Results: Between 2013 and 2023, 1041 women with early-stage breast cancer were treated with PBI. Of these, 1026 patients were included in the analyses. The median age was 66 years; 22.51% had ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), and 97.56% were estrogen receptor positive. With median follow-up of 38.2 months, the rate of IBR in the overall group was 3.05% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.99% to 4.65%) at 3 years. After IPW, compared with photon PBI, the hazard ratio for IBR for proton PBI was 2.11 (95% CI = 0.70 to 6.33) and for brachytherapy, 3.86 (95% CI = 1.39 to 10.69). Compared with proton PBI, the hazard ratio for IBR for brachytherapy was 1.83 (95% CI = 0.88 to 3.81). IBR risk was similar across PBI modalities for patients with tumor size ≤ 10 mm and in patients treated for DCIS. Among patients with tumor size >10 mm, the hazard ratio for IBR for brachytherapy was 7.64 (95% CI = 1.64 to 35.58) and 3.59 (95% CI = 1.22 to 10.56) relative to photons and protons, respectively. Conclusion: PBI with applicator-based brachytherapy was associated with higher IBR than photon or proton PBI in patients with tumor size > 10 mm, suggesting the need for more careful PBI patient selection for this modality.

Context: Primary aldosteronism (PA) is a leading endocrine cause of secondary hypertension. Objective: To support the development of the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline on managing PA. Data Source: MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and others were searched on October 4, 2024. Study Selection: Studies were selected by pairs of independent reviewers. Data Extraction: Data were extracted and appraised by pairs of independent reviewers. Data Synthesis: We included 95 studies (7 randomized trials and 88 observational studies). We did not identify trials that evaluated the outcomes of PA screening. One observational study suggested that screening was associated with higher rates of using PA-specific medical therapies and better blood pressure control. Patients managed with adrenal venous sampling (vs computed tomography alone) may have a better post-adrenalectomy biochemical cure rate, but with an increased risk of adrenal hemorrhage. Two small observational studies suggested that PA-specific medical or surgical therapy was likely associated with better blood pressure control than nonspecific therapy. Small randomized trials suggested that surgical therapy may be associated with better blood pressure control than medical therapy, with a lower number and dosage of antihypertensive medications. Compared to eplerenone, spironolactone may be associated with better control of hypokalemia and a lower number and dosage of antihypertensive agents. Unsuppressed plasma renin activity was associated with better control of hypokalemia, while suppression was associated with higher risk of mortality, atrial fibrillation, and stroke (very low certainty). Conclusion: This systematic review addresses various aspects of managing PA and will support the development of the Endocrine Society guidelines.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is characterized by frequent exacerbations. To evaluate the comparative effectiveness and adverse events (AEs) of pharmacologic interventions for adults with exacerbation of COPD. English-language searches of several bibliographic sources from database inception to 2 January 2019. 68 randomized controlled trials that enrolled adults with exacerbation of COPD treated in out- or inpatient settings other than intensive care and compared pharmacologic therapies with placebo, “usual care,” or other pharmacologic interventions. Two reviewers independently extracted data and rated study quality and strength of evidence (SOE). Compared with placebo or management without antibiotics, antibiotics given for 3 to 14 days were associated with increased exacerbation resolution at the end of the intervention (odds ratio [OR], 2.03 [95% CI, 1.47 to 2.80]; moderate SOE) and less treatment failure at the end of the intervention (OR, 0.54 [CI, 0.34 to 0.86]; moderate SOE), independent of severity of exacerbations in out- and inpatients. Compared with placebo in out- and inpatients, systemic corticosteroids given for 9 to 56 days were associated with less treatment failure at the end of the intervention (OR, 0.01 [CI, 0.00 to 0.13]; low SOE) but also with a higher number of total and endocrine-related AEs. Compared with placebo or usual care in inpatients, other pharmacologic interventions (aminophyllines, magnesium sulfate, anti-inflammatory agents, inhaled corticosteroids, and short-acting bronchodilators) had insufficient evidence, showing either no or inconclusive effects (with the exception of the mucolytic erdosteine) or improvement only in lung function. Scant evidence for many interventions; several studies had unclear or high risk of bias and inadequate reporting of AEs. Antibiotics and systemic corticosteroids reduce treatment failure in adults with mild to severe exacerbation of COPD. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (PROSPERO: CRD42018111609)

Purpose of Review: To evaluate the effectiveness and harms of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments for exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Background The Internet has become a leading source of health information accessed by patients and the general public. It is crucial that this information is reliable and accurate. Objectives The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the overall quality of online health information targeting patients and the general public. Methods The systematic review is based on a pre-established protocol and is reported according to the PRISMA statement. Eleven databases and Internet searches were performed for relevant studies. Descriptive statistics were used to synthesize data. The NIH Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. Results Out of 3393 references, we included 153 cross-sectional studies evaluating 11,785 websites using 14 quality assessment tools. The quality level varied across scales. Using DISCERN, none of the websites received a category of excellent in quality, 37–79% were rated as good, and the rest were rated as poor quality. Only 18% of websites were HON Code certified. Quality varied by affiliation (governmental was higher than academic, which was higher than other media sources) and by health specialty (likely higher in internal medicine and anesthesiology). Conclusion This comprehensive systematic review demonstrated suboptimal quality of online health information. Therefore, the Internet at the present time does not provide reliable health information for laypersons. The quality of online health information requires significant improvement which should be a mandate for policymakers and private and public organizations.

Introduction Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a progressive lung disease, usually caused by tobacco smoking, but other important risk factors include exposures to combustion products of biomass fuels and environmental pollution. The introduction of several new (combination) inhaler therapies, increasing uncertainty about the role of inhaled corticosteroids and a rapid proliferation of the literature on management of stable COPD in general, call for novel ways of evidence synthesis in this area. A systematic review and evidence map can provide the basis for shared decision-making tools and help to establish a future research agenda. Methods and analysis This systematic review will follow an umbrella systematic review design (also called overview of reviews). We plan to conduct a comprehensive literature search of Ovid MEDLINE (including epub ahead of print, in process and other non-indexed citations), Ovid Embase, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Scopus from database inception to the present. We will include systematic reviews that assessed the effectiveness of any pharmacological or non-pharmacological intervention on one or more patient-important outcomes and/or lung function in patients with stable COPD. For every intervention/outcome pair, one systematic review will be included. An a priori protocol will guide, which systematic reviews will be chosen, how their credibility will be evaluated, and how the quality of the body of evidence will be rated. Data will be synthesised into an evidence map that will present a matrix that depicts each available treatment for stable COPD with a quantitative estimate on symptoms/outcomes from the patient perspective, along with an indication of the size and certainty in the evidence. Ethics and dissemination Approval by a research ethics committee is not required since the review will only include published data. The systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO registration number CRD42018095079