Is prediction of clinical response to methotrexate in individual rheumatoid arthritis patients possible? A systematic literature review

ObjectivesTo identify, by a systematic literature review, predictors of clinical response to methotrexate treatment in rheumatoid arthritis patients, which would facilitate personalised treatment.MethodsPubMed and Embase databases were searched for original articles. Additionally, congress abstracts of European League Against Rheumatism and American College of Rheumatology annual meetings of the past 2 years were screened. Articles describing predictors of clinical response to methotrexate after 3 to 6 months were included, since this reflects the time span used to determine treatment effectiveness and decide on treatment changes in treat-to-target recommendations.ResultsThirty articles were included, containing 100 different predictors and 11 predictive models. Nineteen predictors and 2 predictive models were studied in multiple cohorts. Female gender was found to be a predictor of non-response in two studies (odds ratios 0.55 and 0.54), but these findings could not be replicated in two other studies. In two studies, smoking predicted non-response (adjusted odds ratios 0.35 and 0.60), although this was inconsistent over all response criteria assessed. Rheumatoid factor positivity predicted non-response in two studies (adjusted hazard ratio 0.61, adjusted odds ratio 0.4), but this was not found in three other studies. Heterogeneity in studies prohibited further comparison of predictive values between studies. Additionally, a validated epigenetic model was found (area under the curve 0.90 and 0.91).ConclusionsNo predictors were identified reliably predicting clinical response to methotrexate after 3 to 6 months in the individual patient: clinical predictors were weak. However, a promising epigenetic model was found that needs further validation.     

Which frailty scales for patients with adult spinal deformity are feasible and adequate? A systematic review

Background ContextFrailty as a concept is not yet fully understood, and is not the same as comorbidity. It is associated with an increased risk of adverse events and mortality after surgery, which makes its preoperative assessment significant. Despite its relevance, it still remains unclear which scales are appropriate for use in patients with spinal pathology.PurposeTo evaluate the feasibility and measurement properties of frailty scales for spine patients, specifically with adult spinal deformity (ASD), and to propose adequate scales for primary triage to prevent surgery in too frail patients and for preoperative assessment to modify patients’ condition and surgical plans.Study Design/SettingSystematic review.MethodsSystematic search was performed between 2010 and 2021 including terms relating to spinal disorders, frailty scales, and methodological quality. Characteristics of the studies and frailty scales and data describing relation to treatment outcomes were extracted. The risk of bias was determined with the QAREL score.ResultsOf the 1993 references found, 88 original studies were included and 23 scales were identified. No prospective interventional study was found where the preoperative frailty assessment was implemented. Predictive value of scales for surgical outcomes varied, dependent on spinal disorders, type of surgeries, patients’ age and frailty at baseline, and outcomes. Seventeen studies reported measurement properties of eight scales but these studies were not free of bias. In 30 ASD studies, ASD-Frailty Index (ASD-FI, n=14) and 11-item modified Frailty Index (mFI-11, n=11) were most frequently used. These scales were mainly studied in registry studies including young adult population, and carry a risk of sample bias and make their validity in elderly population unclear. ASD-FI covers multidisciplinary concepts of frailty with 40 items but its feasibility in clinical practice is questionable due to its length. The Risk Analysis Index, another multidisciplinary scale with 14 items, has been implemented for preoperative assessment in other surgical domains and was proven to be feasible and effective in interventional prospective studies. The FRAIL is a simple questionnaire with five items and its predictive value was confirmed in prospective cohort studies in which only elderly patients were included.ConclusionsNo adequate scale was identified in terms of methodological quality and feasibility for daily practice. Careful attention should be paid when choosing an adequate scale, which depends on the setting of interest (eg triage or preoperative work-up). We recommend to further study a simple and predictive scale such as FRAIL for primary triage and a comprehensive and feasible scale such as Risk Analysis Index for preoperative assessment for patients undergoing spine surgery, as their adequacy has been shown in other medical domains.     

Can clinical prediction tools predict the need for computed tomography in blunt abdominal? A systematic review

IntroductionBlunt abdominal trauma is a common reason for admission to the Emergency Department. Early detection of injuries is an important goal but is often not straightforward as physical examination alone is not a good predictor of serious injury. Computed tomography (CT) has become the primary method for assessing the stable trauma patient. It has high sensitivity and specificity but there remains concern regarding the long term consequences of high doses of radiation. Therefore an accurate and reliable method of assessing which patients are at higher risk of injury and hence require a CT would be clinically useful. We perform a systematic review to investigate the use of clinical prediction tools (CPTs) for the identification of abdominal injuries in patients suffering blunt trauma.Materials and methodsA literature search was performed using Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and NHS Evidence up to August 2014. English language, prospective and retrospective studies were included if they derived, validated or assessed a CPT, aimed at identifying intra-abdominal injuries or the need for intervention to treat an intra-abdominal after blunt trauma. Methodological quality was assessed using a 14 point scale. Performance was assessed predominantly by sensitivity.ResultsSeven relevant studies were identified. All studies were derivative studies and no CPT was validated in a separate study. There were large differences in the study design, composition of the CPTs, the outcomes analysed and the methodological quality of the included studies. Sensitivities ranged from 86 to 100%. The highest performing CPT had a lower limit of the 95% CI of 95.8% and was of high methodological quality (11 of 14). Had this rule been applied to the population then 25.1% of patients would have avoided a CT scan.ConclusionsSeven CPTs were identified of varying designs and methodological quality. All demonstrate relatively high sensitivity with some achieving very high sensitivity whilst still managing to reduce the number of CTs performed by a significant amount. Further studies are required to validate the results obtained by the highest performing CPTs before any firm recommendation can be used regarding their use in routine clinical practice.     

Do current clinical trials in cystic fibrosis match the priorities of patients and clinicans? A systematic review

There are many uncertainties regarding Cystic Fibrosis (CF) treatment. Recently, the first James Lind Alliance (JLA) Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) in CF was completed, bringing clinicians, patients and carers together to identify the Top 10 research priorities. Here we investigate how well the current clinical trials landscape reflects these priorities. Trials in CF were identified through searches of research databases (Pubmed, ANZCTR, EU clinical trials register, ClinicalTrials.gov and ISRCTN). Trials meeting inclusion criteria of registered intervention studies in CF published between 01.012016 and 11.09.2017 were matched to the Top 10 priorities. We identified 259 trials, with 193 fulfilling the inclusion criteria. Only 63 (33%) of these matched one or more of the JLA priorities showing that current clinical trials poorly reflect the JLA Top 10. By increasing awareness of the Top 10 priorities, it is hoped that this will fuel future research in areas important to the CF community.     

Is there a cardiovascular protective effect of aspirin in chronic kidney disease patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis

International Urology and Nephrology - To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the cardiovascular prevention effect of aspirin among patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD)....     

Population screening for lung cancer using computed tomography,is there evidence of clinical effectiveness? A systematic review of the literature

Lung cancer is the leading cause of death among all cancer types in the UK, killing approximately 34 000 people per year. By the time symptoms develop, the tumour is often at an advanced stage and the prognosis is bleak. Treatment at a less advanced stage of disease by surgical resection has been shown to substantially reduce mortality. Screening would be attractive if it could detect presymptomatic lung cancer at a stage when surgical intervention is feasible but has been the subject of scientific debate for the past three decades. The aim of this review was to examine the current evidence on the clinical effectiveness of screening for lung cancer using computed tomography. A systematic literature review searching 15 electronic databases and Internet resources from 1994 until December 2004/January 2005 was carried out. Information was summarised narratively. A total of 12 studies of computed tomography screening for lung cancer were identified including two RCTs and 10 studies of screening without comparator groups. The two RCTs were of short duration (1 year). None examined the effect of screening on mortality compared with no screening. The proportion of people with abnormal computed tomography findings varied widely between studies (5-51%). The prevalence of lung cancer detected was between 0.4% and 3.2% (number needed to screen to detect one lung cancer = 31 to 249). Incidence rates of lung cancer were lower (0.1-1%). Among the detected tumours, a high proportion were stage I or resectable tumours, 100% in some studies. Currently, there is insufficient evidence that computed tomography screening is clinically effective in reducing mortality from lung cancer.