Diagnostic Imaging and Medical Management of Acute Left-Sided Colonic Diverticulitis: A Systematic Review: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 175, No 3

Background: Clinicians need to better understand the value of computed tomography (CT) imaging and nonsurgical treatment options to manage acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis. Purpose: To evaluate CT imaging, outpatient treatment of uncomplicated diverticulitis, antibiotic treatment, and interventional radiology for patients with complicated diverticulitis. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov from 1 January 1990 through 16 November 2020. Study Selection: Existing systematic reviews of CT imaging accuracy, as well as randomized trials and adjusted nonrandomized comparative studies reporting clinical or patient-centered outcomes. Data Extraction: 6 researchers extracted study data and risk of bias, which were verified by an independent researcher. The team assessed strength of evidence across studies. Data Synthesis: Based on moderate-strength evidence, CT imaging is highly accurate for diagnosing acute diverticulitis. For patients with uncomplicated acute diverticulitis, 6 studies provide low-strength evidence that initial outpatient and inpatient management have similar risks for recurrence or elective surgery, but they provide insufficient evidence regarding other outcomes. Also, for patients with uncomplicated acute diverticulitis, 5 studies comparing antibiotics versus no antibiotics provide low-strength evidence that does not support differences in risks for treatment failure, elective surgery, recurrence, posttreatment complications, and other outcomes. Evidence is insufficient to determine choice of antibiotic regimen (7 studies) or effect of percutaneous drainage (2 studies). Limitations: The evidence base is mostly of low strength. Studies did not adequately assess heterogeneity of treatment effect. Conclusion: Computed tomography imaging is accurate for diagnosing acute diverticulitis. For patients with uncomplicated diverticulitis, no differences in outcomes were found between outpatient and inpatient care. Avoidance of antibiotics for uncomplicated acute diverticulitis may be safe for most patients. The evidence is too sparse for other evaluated questions. Primary Funding Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42020151246)

Management of Blood Pressure in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease Not Receiving Dialysis: Synopsis of the 2021 KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline

Description: The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) 2021 clinical practice guideline for the management of blood pressure (BP) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) not receiving dialysis is an update of the KDIGO 2012 guideline on the same topic and reflects new evidence on the risks and benefits of BP-lowering therapy among patients with CKD. It is intended to support shared decision making by health care professionals working with patients with CKD worldwide. This article is a synopsis of the full guideline. Methods: The KDIGO leadership commissioned 2 co-chairs to convene an international Work Group of researchers and clinicians. After a Controversies Conference in September 2017, the Work Group defined the scope of the evidence review, which was undertaken by an evidence review team between October 2017 and April 2020. Evidence reviews were done according to the Cochrane Handbook. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used to guide the development of the recommendations and rate the strength and quality of the evidence. Practice points were included to provide guidance when evidence was insufficient to make a graded recommendation. The guideline was revised after public consultation between January and March 2020. Recommendations: The updated guideline comprises 11 recommendations and 20 practice points. This synopsis summarizes key recommendations pertinent to the diagnosis and management of high BP in adults with CKD, excluding those receiving kidney replacement therapy. In particular, the synopsis focuses on recommendations for standardized BP measurement and a target systolic BP of less than 120 mm Hg, because these recommendations differ from some other guidelines.

Diabetes Management in Chronic Kidney Disease: Synopsis of the 2020 KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline

Description: The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) organization developed a clinical practice guideline in 2020 for the management of patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD). Methods: The KDIGO Work Group (WG) was tasked with developing the guideline for diabetes management in CKD. It defined the scope of the guideline, gathered evidence, determined systematic review topics, and graded evidence that had been summarized by an evidence review team. The English-language literature searches, which were initially done through October 2018, were updated in February 2020. The WG used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to appraise evidence and rate the strength of the recommendations. Expert judgment was used to develop consensus practice points supplementary to the evidence-based graded recommendations. The guideline document underwent open public review. Comments from various stakeholders, subject matter experts, and industry and national organizations were considered before the document was finalized. Recommendations: The guideline includes 12 recommendations and 48 practice points for clinicians caring for patients with diabetes and CKD. This synopsis focuses on the key recommendations pertinent to the following issues: comprehensive care needs, glycemic monitoring and targets, lifestyle interventions, antihyperglycemic therapies, and educational and integrated care approaches.

Universal Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders, Social Worth, and Life-Years: Opposing Discriminatory Approaches to the Allocation of Resources During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Other Health System Catastrophes

The Management of Chronic Insomnia Disorder and Obstructive Sleep Apnea: Synopsis of the 2019 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and U.S. Department of Defense Clinical Practice Guidelines

Description: In September 2019, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) approved a new joint clinical practice guideline for assessing and managing patients with chronic insomnia disorder and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). This guideline is intended to give health care teams a framework by which to screen, evaluate, treat, and manage the individual needs and preferences of VA and DoD patients with either of these conditions. Methods: In October 2017, the VA/DoD Evidence-Based Practice Work Group initiated a joint VA/DoD guideline development effort that included clinical stakeholders and conformed to the Institute of Medicine's tenets for trustworthy clinical practice guidelines. The guideline panel developed key questions, systematically searched and evaluated the literature, created three 1-page algorithms, and advanced 41 recommendations using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system. Recommendations: This synopsis summarizes the key recommendations of the guideline in 3 areas: diagnosis and assessment of OSA and chronic insomnia disorder, treatment and management of OSA, and treatment and management of chronic insomnia disorder. Three clinical practice algorithms are also included.

Should Health Care Demand Interpretable Artificial Intelligence or Accept “Black Box” Medicine?

Treatments for the Prevention and Management of Suicide: A Systematic Review: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 171, No 5

Background: Suicide is a growing public health problem, with the national rate in the United States increasing by 30% from 2000 to 2016. Purpose: To assess the benefits and harms of nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic interventions to prevent suicide and reduce suicide behaviors in at-risk adults. Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and other databases from November 2011 through May 2018. Study Selection: Systematic reviews (SRs) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed nonpharmacologic or pharmacologic therapies for adults at risk for suicide. Data Extraction: One investigator abstracted data and assessed study quality, and a second investigator checked abstractions and assessments for accuracy. Data Synthesis: Eight SRs and 15 RCTs were included. The evidence for psychological interventions suggests that cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) reduces suicide attempts, suicidal ideation, and hopelessness compared with treatment as usual (TAU). Limited evidence suggests that dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) reduces suicidal ideation compared with wait-list control or crisis planning. The evidence for pharmacologic treatments suggests that ketamine reduces suicidal ideation with minimal adverse events compared with placebo or midazolam. Lithium reduces rates of suicide among patients with unipolar or bipolar mood disorders compared with placebo. However, no differences were observed between lithium and other medications in reducing suicide. Limitation: Qualitative synthesis of new evidence with existing meta-analyses, methodological shortcomings of studies, heterogeneity of nonpharmacologic interventions, and limited evidence for pharmacologic treatments and harms. Conclusion: Both CBT and DBT showed modest benefit in reducing suicidal ideation compared with TAU or wait-list control, and CBT also reduced suicide attempts compared with TAU. Ketamine and lithium reduced the rate of suicide compared with placebo, but there was limited information on harms. Limited data are available to support the efficacy of other nonpharmacologic or pharmacologic interventions. Primary Funding Source: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Veterans Health Administration. (PROSPERO: CRD42018104978)

Self-management of Epilepsy: A Systematic Review: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 171, No 2

Background: Although self-management is recommended for persons with epilepsy, its optimal strategies and effects are uncertain. Purpose: To evaluate the components and efficacy of self-management interventions in the treatment of epilepsy in community-dwelling persons. Data Sources: English-language searches of MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, and CINAHL in April 2018; the MEDLINE search was updated in March 2019. Study Selection: Randomized and nonrandomized comparative studies of self-management interventions for adults with epilepsy. Data Extraction: An investigator assessed study characteristics; intervention details, including 6 components of self-management; and outcomes, which were verified by a second reviewer. Risk of bias (ROB) was assessed independently by 2 investigators. Data Synthesis: 13 randomized and 2 nonrandomized studies (2514 patients) evaluated self-management interventions. Interventions were delivered primarily in group settings, used a median of 4 components, and followed 2 general strategies: 1 based on education and the other on psychosocial therapy. Education-based approaches improved self-management behaviors (standardized mean difference, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.0 to 1.04]), and psychosocial therapy–based approaches improved quality of life (mean difference, 6.64 [CI, 2.51 to 10.77]). Overall, self-management interventions did not reduce seizure rates, but 1 educational intervention decreased a composite of seizures, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations. Limitation: High ROB in most studies, incomplete intervention descriptions, and studies limited to English-language publications. Conclusion: There is limited evidence that self-management strategies modestly improve some patient outcomes that are important to persons with epilepsy. Overall, self-management research in epilepsy is limited by the range of interventions tested, the small number of studies using self-monitoring technology, and uncertainty about components and strategies associated with benefit. Primary Funding Source: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. (PROSPERO: CRD42018098604)

High-Intensity Versus Low-Intensity Surveillance for Patients With Colorectal Adenomas: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 171, No 9

Background: Surveillance of patients with colorectal adenomas has limited long-term evidence to support current practice. Objective: To compare the lifetime benefits and costs of high- versus low-intensity surveillance. Design: Microsimulation model. Data Sources: U.S. cancer registry, cost data, and published literature. Target Population: U.S. patients aged 50, 60, or 70 years with low-risk adenomas (LRAs) (1 to 2 small adenomas) or high-risk adenomas (HRAs) (3 to 10 small adenomas or ≥1 large adenoma) removed after screening with colonoscopy or fecal immunochemical testing (FIT). Time Horizon: Lifetime. Perspective: Societal. Intervention: No further screening or surveillance, routine screening after 10 years, low-intensity surveillance (10 years after LRA removal and 5 years after HRA removal), and high-intensity surveillance (5 years after LRA removal and 3 years after HRA removal). Outcome Measures: Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and incremental cost-effectiveness. Results of Base-Case Analysis: Without surveillance or screening, lifetime CRC incidence for patients aged 50 years was 10.9% after LRA removal and 17.2% after HRA removal at screening colonoscopy. Subsequent colonoscopic screening, low-intensity surveillance, or high-intensity surveillance decreased incidence by 39%, 46% to 48%, and 55% to 56%, respectively. Incidence of CRC and surveillance benefits were higher for adenomas detected at FIT screening and lower for older patients. High-intensity surveillance cost less than $30 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained compared with low-intensity surveillance. Results of Sensitivity Analysis: High-intensity surveillance cost less than $100 000 per QALY gained in most alternative scenarios for adenoma recurrence, CRC incidence, longevity, quality of life, screening ages, surveillance ages, test performance, disutilities, and cost. Limitation: Few surveillance outcome data exist. Conclusion: The model suggests that high-intensity surveillance as recommended in the United States provides modest but clinically relevant benefits over low-intensity surveillance at acceptable cost. Primary Funding Source: National Cancer Institute.

Money-Back Guarantees for Expensive Drugs: Wolf's Clothing but a Sheep Underneath