Az aminokinolinok egy régóta használt gyógyszercsoport, amely napjainkban is elengedhetetlen számos kórkép, különösen szisztémás gyulladásos kórképek terápiájában. Az éles látásért felelős retinarész, a macula klorokin és hidroxiklorokin által okozott toxikus károsodása már jól ismert mellékhatás volt a múlt században is. Az ilyen gyógyszert hosszú távon szedő krónikus betegek szemészeti szűrése azóta visszatérő kérdéskör, mely az újonnan megjelenő evidenciák által folyamatosan megújuló vizsgálati protokollokban nyilvánul meg. Tanulmányunkban áttekintjük a jelenleg érvényes nemzetközi irányelveket, kitérve arra, hogy az ezekben újonnan történő változtatások milyen új adatokon alapszanak. Ismertetjük a korszerű szemészeti szűrés műszereit (automata látótérvizsgálat, optikaikoherencia-tomográfia [OCT], fundus-autofluoreszcencia [FAF], multifokális elektroretinográfia [mfERG]), valamint a klorokint vagy hidroxiklorokint szedő betegeknél azonosított rizikófaktorokat, melyek hajlamosítanak a maculopathia kialakulására. Végezetül egy hazai viszonyokra adaptált szűrési protokollt szeretnénk bemutatni. Orv Hetil. 2024; 165(30) 1147–1153.

BACKGROUND: Multidrug chemotherapy for Ewing sarcoma can lead to severe myelosuppression. We proposed two clinical questions (CQ): CQ #1, \"Does primary prophylaxis with G-CSF benefit chemotherapy for Ewing sarcoma?\" and CQ #2, \"Does G-CSF-based intensified chemotherapy improve Ewing sarcoma treatment outcomes?\".
METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Ichushi web databases, including English and Japanese articles published from 1990 to 2019. Two reviewers assessed the extracted papers and analyzed overall survival (OS), febrile neutropenia (FN) incidence, infection-related mortality, quality of life (QOL), and pain.
RESULTS: Twenty-five English and five Japanese articles were identified for CQ #1. After screening, a cohort study of vincristine, ifosfamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide chemotherapy with 851 patients was selected. Incidence of FN was 60.8% with G-CSF and 65.8% without; statistical tests were not conducted. Data on OS, infection-related mortality, QOL, or pain was unavailable. Consequently, CQ #1 was redefined as a future research question. As for CQ #2, we found two English and five Japanese papers, of which one high-quality randomized controlled trial on G-CSF use in intensified chemotherapy was included. This trial showed trends toward lower mortality and a significant increase in event-free survival for 2-week interval regimen with the G-CSF primary prophylactic use compared with 3-week interval.
CONCLUSIONS: This review indicated that G-CSF\'s efficacy as primary prophylaxis in Ewing sarcoma, except in children, is uncertain despite its common use. This review tentatively endorses intensified chemotherapy with G-CSF primary prophylaxis for Ewing sarcoma.

BACKGROUND: Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is an essential supportive agent for chemotherapy-induced severe myelosuppression. We proposed two clinical questions (CQ): CQ #1, \"Does primary prophylaxis with G-CSF benefit chemotherapy for non-round cell soft tissue sarcoma (NRC-STS)?\" and CQ #2, \"Does G-CSF-based intensified chemotherapy improve NRC-STS treatment outcomes?\" for the Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Use of G-CSF 2022 of the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology.
METHODS: A literature search was performed on the primary prophylactic use of G-CSF for NRC-STSs. Two reviewers assessed the extracted papers and analyzed overall survival, incidence of febrile neutropenia, infection-related mortality, quality of life, and pain.
RESULTS: Eighty-one and 154 articles were extracted from the literature search for CQs #1 and #2, respectively. After the first and second screening, one and two articles were included in the final evaluation, respectively. Only some studies have addressed these two clinical questions through a literature review.
CONCLUSIONS: The clinical questions were converted to future research questions because of insufficient available data. The statements were proposed: \"The benefit of primary G-CSF prophylaxis is not clear in NRC-STS\" and \"The benefit of intensified chemotherapy with primary G-CSF prophylaxis is not clear in NRC-STSs.\" G-CSF is often administered as primary prophylaxis when chemotherapy with severe myelosuppression is administered. However, its effectiveness and safety are yet to be scientifically proven.

BACKGROUND: External apical root resorption (EARR) is a frequently observed adverse event in patients undergoing fixed appliance therapy. Assessing the patients\' risk during treatment is important, as certain factors are assumed to be associated with an increased likelihood of occurrence. However, their predictive value remains limited, making evidence-based clinical decision-making challenging for orthodontists. To address this issue, the Dutch Association of Orthodontists (NvVO) developed a clinical practice guideline (CPG) for EARR in accordance with the AGREE II instrument (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II) in 2018. The aim of this study is to get insight into the actual utilization and the practical implementation of the guideline among orthodontists. The hypothesis to be tested was that after its introduction, clinical practice for EARR has changed towards the recommendations in the CPG.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the use of the 2018 clinical practice guidelines for EARR among orthodontists 3 years after its introduction.
METHODS: A questionnaire using a 7-point Likert scale was developed concerning four domains of EARR described in the guideline. The questionnaire was piloted, finalised, and then distributed digitally among Dutch orthodontists. REDCap was used for data collection, starting with an invitation email in June 2021, followed by two reminders. Effect was tested by the Mann-Whitney U test, and the influence of demographic variables was analysed.
RESULTS: Questionnaires were sent out to all 275 and completed by 133 (response rate 48%); N = 59 females and N = 73 males were included; 81% had their training in the Netherlands, 89% had ≥ 6 years of work experience, and 89% worked in private orthodontic practice. One hundred thirty orthodontists (98.5%) reported changes in clinical practice. The biggest positive change in clinical behaviour regarding EARR occurred if EARR was diagnosed during treatment. Sex, clinical experience, country of specialist training, and working environment of the respondents did not affect clinical practices regarding EARR.
CONCLUSIONS: This questionnaire demonstrated that, 3 years after introduction of the guideline, orthodontists improved their self-reported clinical practices to a more standardised management of root resorption. None of the demographic predictors had a significant effect on the results.

OBJECTIVE: Hysterosalpingography (HSG) is widely used for evaluating the fallopian tubes; however, controversies regarding the use of water- or oil-based iodine-based contrast media (CM) remain. The aim of this work was (1) to discuss reported pregnancy rates related to the CM type used, (2) to validate the used CM in published literature, (3) to discuss possible complications and side effects of CM in HSG, and (4) to develop guidelines on the use of oil-based CM in HSG.
METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted for original RCT studies or review/meta-analyses on using water-based and oil-based CM in HSG with fertility outcomes and complications. Nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 10 reviews/meta-analyses were analyzed. Grading of the literature was performed based on the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) 2011 classification.
RESULTS: An approximately 10% higher pregnancy rate is reported for oil-based CM. Side effects are rare, but oil-based CM have potentially more side effects on the maternal thyroid function and the peritoneum.
CONCLUSIONS: 1. HSG with oil-based CM gives approximately 10% higher pregnancy rates. 2. External validity is limited, as in five of nine RCTs, the CM used is no longer on the market. 3. Oil-based CM have potentially more side effects on the maternal thyroid function and on the peritoneum. 4. Guideline: Maternal thyroid function should be tested before HSG with oil-based CM and monitored for 6 months after.
CONCLUSIONS: Oil-based CM is associated with an approximately 10% higher chance of pregnancy compared to water-based CM after HSG. Although side effects are rare, higher iodine concentration and slower clearance of oil-based CM may induce maternal thyroid function disturbance and peritoneal inflammation and granuloma formation.
CONCLUSIONS: • It is unknown which type of contrast medium, oil-based or water-based, is the optimal for HSG. • Oil-based contrast media give a 10% higher chance of pregnancy after HSG, compared to water-based contrast media. • From the safety perspective, oil-based CM can cause thyroid dysfunction and an intra-abdominal inflammatory response in the patient.

BACKGROUND: The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Glucocorticoid (GC) Impact Working Group has been working to develop a core domain set to measure the impact of GCs on patients living with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. The mandatory domains previously identified for inclusion in all clinical trials measuring the GC effects include infection, bone fragility, mood disturbance, hypertension, diabetes, weight, fatigue, and mortality. Before progressing to instrument selection, the Working Group sought to establish precise definitions of all mandatory domains within the core domain set.
METHODS: OMERACT methodology was applied with the use of evidence and consensus-based decision making of all stakeholder groups (patient research partners, health care professionals, clinician researchers, industry members and methodologists) to develop detailed definitions for the broad domain, target domain and domain components, taking into consideration sources of variability that could affect measurement of the domain.  The working group synthesized prior qualitative studies, quantitative work, and results from Delphi rounds, to develop a rich definition of \'what\' is to be measured.
RESULTS: Between 2021 and 2023, the OMERACT Working Group on GC Impact conducted virtual meetings to establish domain definitions. First, we mapped each domain onto an OMERACT Core Area. All domains were primarily represented within the Pathophysiological Manifestations Core Area, except from Fatigue which was primarily Life Impact and Weight which spanned both Core Areas. Sources of variability included cultural factors, age, gender, education level, socioeconomic status, personal experiences, emotional state, and language barriers. The domain definitions will form the foundation for instrument selection and the initial step of domain / concept match and content validity in the OMERACT pillar of \'truth\' before moving on to feasibility and discrimination.
CONCLUSIONS: The OMERACT GC Impact Working Group has developed and agreed upon detailed domain definitions for core domains. Future steps of the working group are to select instruments and develop the core outcome measurement set for clinical trials measuring the impact of GC on patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) have been available for over three decades and are among the most commonly prescribed medications. They are effective in treating a variety of gastric acid-related disorders. They are freely available and based on current evidence, use of PPIs for inappropriate indications and duration appears to be common. Over the years, concerns have been raised on the safety of PPIs as they have been associated with several adverse effects. Hence, there is a need for PPI stewardship to promote the use of PPIs for appropriate indication and duration. With this objective, the Indian Society of Gastroenterology has formulated guidelines on the rational use of PPIs. The guidelines were developed using a modified Delphi process. This paper presents these guidelines in detail, including the statements, review of literature, level of evidence and recommendations. This would help the clinicians in optimizing the use of PPIs in their practice and promote PPI stewardship.

Randomized controlled trials remain the reference standard for healthcare research on effects of interventions, and the need to report both benefits and harms is essential. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (the main CONSORT) statement includes one item on reporting harms (i.e., all important harms or unintended effects in each group). In 2004, the CONSORT group developed the CONSORT Harms extension; however, it has not been consistently applied and needs to be updated. Here, we describe CONSORT Harms 2022, which replaces the CONSORT Harms 2004 checklist, and shows how CONSORT Harms 2022 items could be incorporated into the main CONSORT checklist. Thirteen items from the main CONSORT were modified to improve harms reporting. Three new items were added. In this article, we describe CONSORT Harms 2022 and how it was integrated into the main CONSORT checklist and elaborate on each item relevant to complete reporting of harms in randomized controlled trials. Until future work from the CONSORT group produces an updated checklist, authors, journal reviewers, and editors of randomized controlled trials should use the integrated checklist presented in this paper.

Guidelines and recommendations developed and endorsed by the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) are intended to provide guidance for particular pattern of practice for physicians who usually prescribe glucocorticoid (GC) therapy, and not to dictate the care of a particular patient. Adherence to the recommendations within this guideline is voluntary and the ultimate determination regarding their application should be made by the physician in light of each patient\'s circumstances. Guidelines and recommendations are intended to promote a desirable outcome but cannot guarantee any specific outcome. This guideline and its recommendations are not intended to dictate payment, reimbursement or insurance decisions. Guidelines and recommendations are subjected to periodic revisions as a consequence of the evolution of medicine, technology and clinical practice. A panel of Latin American (LATAM) experts specialized in osteoporosis with recognized clinical experience in managing patients with glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIO) met to produce evidence-based LATAM recommendations for the diagnosis and management of GIO. These guidelines are particularly intended to general practitioners and primary care physicians who prescribe GC treatments in LATAM to guide their daily clinical practice in terms of evaluation, prevention and treatment of GIO. These recommendations were based on systematic literature review using MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS and COCHRANE Library database during the period from 2012 to 2021. Randomized clinical trials (RCT), systematic reviews of RCT, controlled observational studies, guidelines and consensus were considered. Based on the review and expert opinion the panel members voted recommendations during two successive rounds of voting by panel members. Agreements for each statement were considered if a concordance of at least 70% was achieved following Delphi methodology. Grading of recommendations was made according to the Oxford Centre for the Evidence-based Medicine (EBM) criteria. Among five GIO guidelines and consensus initially identified, two of them (American College of Rheumatology 2017 and the Brazilian Guidelines 2021) were selected for comparison considering the latter as the most current guides in the LATAM region. Based on this methodology fifty statements were issued. All of them but four (1.20, 1.21, 1.23 and 4.2) attained agreement.

Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency is associated with severe fluoropyrimidines-induced toxicity. As of September 2018, French recommendations call for screening for DPD deficiency by plasma uracil quantification prior to all fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy. A dose reduction of fluoropyrimidine is recommended when uracil concentration is equal to or greater than 16 ng/mL. This matched retrospective study assessed the impact of DPD screening on the reduction of severe side effects and on the management of DPD-deficient patients. Using a propensity score, we balanced the factors influencing 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) toxicity. Then, the severity scores (G3 and G4 severity as well as their frequency) of patients who did not benefit from DPD screening were compared with those of patients who benefited from DPD screening for each treatment cycle (from 1 to 4). Among 349 screened patients, 198 treated patients were included. Among them, 31 (15.7%) had DPD deficiency (median uracilemia 19.8 ng/mL (range: 16.1−172.3)). The median toxicity severity score was higher in the unscreened group for each treatment cycle (0 vs. 1, p < 0.001 at each cycle from 1 to 4) as well as the cumulative score during all courses of treatment (p = 0.028). DPD-deficient patients received a significantly lower dose of 5-FU (p < 0.001). This study suggests that pretherapeutic plasmatic uracil assessment, along with 5-FU dosage adjustment, may be beneficial in reducing 5-FU toxicity in real-life patients.