Glucagon-like peptide receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) are used to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus and, more recently, have garnered attention for their effectiveness in promoting weight loss. They have been associated with several gastrointestinal adverse effects, including nausea and vomiting. These side effects are presumed to be due to increased residual gastric contents. Given the potential risk of aspiration and based on limited data, the American Society of Anesthesiologists updated the guidelines concerning the preoperative management of patients on GLP-1RA in 2023. They included the duration of mandated cessation of GLP-1RA before sedation and usage of \"full stomach\" precautions if these medications were not appropriately held before the procedure. This has led to additional challenges, such as extended waiting time, higher costs, and increased risk for patients. In this editorial, we review the current societal guidelines, clinical practice, and future directions regarding the usage of GLP-1RA in patients undergoing an endoscopic procedure.

BACKGROUND: The SAVVY project aims to improve the analyses of adverse events (AEs) in clinical trials through the use of survival techniques appropriately dealing with varying follow-up times and competing events (CEs). This paper summarizes key features and conclusions from the various SAVVY papers.
METHODS: Summarizing several papers reporting theoretical investigations using simulations and an empirical study including randomized clinical trials from several sponsor organizations, biases from ignoring varying follow-up times or CEs are investigated. The bias of commonly used estimators of the absolute (incidence proportion and one minus Kaplan-Meier) and relative (risk and hazard ratio) AE risk is quantified. Furthermore, we provide a cursory assessment of how pertinent guidelines for the analysis of safety data deal with the features of varying follow-up time and CEs.
RESULTS: SAVVY finds that for both, avoiding bias and categorization of evidence with respect to treatment effect on AE risk into categories, the choice of the estimator is key and more important than features of the underlying data such as percentage of censoring, CEs, amount of follow-up, or value of the gold-standard.
CONCLUSIONS: The choice of the estimator of the cumulative AE probability and the definition of CEs are crucial. Whenever varying follow-up times and/or CEs are present in the assessment of AEs, SAVVY recommends using the Aalen-Johansen estimator (AJE) with an appropriate definition of CEs to quantify AE risk. There is an urgent need to improve pertinent clinical trial reporting guidelines for reporting AEs so that incidence proportions or one minus Kaplan-Meier estimators are finally replaced by the AJE with appropriate definition of CEs.

OBJECTIVE: This study investigates the influence of socioeconomic status, health literacy, and numeracy on treatment decisions and the occurrence of adverse events in patients with breast, lung, and prostate cancer within a Nordic healthcare setting.
METHODS: A follow-up to a cross-sectional, mixed-methods, single-centre study.
METHODS: A Nordic, tertiary cancer clinic.
METHODS: A total of 244 participants with breast, lung and prostate cancer were initially identified, of which 138 first-line treatment participants were eligible for this study. First-line treatment participants (n=138) surpassed the expected cases (n=108).
METHODS: Not applicable as this was an observational study.
METHODS: The study\'s primary endpoint was the rate of guideline adherence. The secondary endpoint involved assessing treatment toxicity in the form of adverse events.
RESULTS: Guideline-adherent treatment was observed in 114 (82.6%) cases. First-line treatment selection appeared uninfluenced by participants\' education, occupation, income or self-reported health literacy. A minority (3.6%) experienced difficulties following treatment instructions, primarily with oral cancer medications.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicated lesser cancer health disparities regarding guideline adherence and treatment toxicity within the Nordic healthcare framework. A causal connection may not be established; however, the findings contribute to discourse on equitable cancer health provision.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is the leading modifiable cardiovascular risk factor with recognized sex- and gender-based differences. We assessed the incorporation of sex and gender reporting in the antihypertensive medication literature informing hypertension guidelines.
RESULTS: Literature cited in the International Society of Hypertension (2020), European Society of Cardiology/European Society of Hypertension (2018), American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (2017), Latin American Society of Hypertension (2017), Pan-African Society of Cardiology (2020), and Hypertension Canada (2020) guidelines was systematically reviewed. Observational studies, randomized controlled trials, and systematic reviews involving antihypertensive medications were included. Studies with participants of a single sex, guidelines, and commentaries were excluded. Data on study participation-to-prevalence ratio by sex, analysis of baseline demographics and study outcomes by sex, and stratification of adverse events by sex were extracted. Of 1659 unique citations, 331 studies met inclusion criteria. Of those, 81% reported the sex of participants, and 22% reported a male-to-female participation-to-prevalence ratio of 0.8 to 1.2. Three percent of studies stratified baseline characteristics by sex, and 20% considered sex during analysis through statistical adjustment or stratification. Although 32% of studies reported adverse events, only 0.6% stratified adverse events by sex. Most (58%) studies reporting sex/gender used sex and gender terms interchangeably.
CONCLUSIONS: Incorporation of sex- and gender-based considerations in study population, analysis, or reporting of results and adverse events is not common in the antihypertensive medication literature informing international hypertension guidelines. Greater attention to sex- and gender-based factors in research is required to optimally inform management of hypertension.

The incidence of adverse events (AEs) and length of stay (LOS) varies significantly following paraesophageal hernia surgery. We performed a Canadian multicenter positive deviance (PD) seminar to review individual center and national level data and establish holistic perioperative practice recommendations.
A national virtual PD seminar was performed in October 2021. Recent best evidence focusing on AEs and LOS was presented. Subsequently, anonymized center-level AE and LOS data collected between 01/2017 and 01/2021 from a prospective, web-based database that tracks postoperative outcomes was presented. The top two performing centers with regards to these metrics were chosen and surgeons from these hospitals discussed elements of their treatment pathways that contributed to these outcomes. Consensus recommendations were then identified with participants independently rating their level of agreement.
Twenty-eight surgeons form 8 centers took part in the seminar across 5 Canadian provinces. Of the 680 included patients included, Clavien-Dindo grade I and II/III/IV/V complications occurred in 121/39/12/2 patients (17.8%/5.7%/1.8%/0.3%). Respiratory complications were the most common (effusion 12/680, 1.7% and pneumonia 9/680, 1.3%). Esophageal and gastric perforation occurred in 7 and 4/680, (1.0% and 0.6% respectively). Median LOS varied significantly between institutions (1 day, range 1-3 vs. 7 days, 3-8, p < 0.001). A strong level of agreement was achieved for 10/12 of the consensus statements generated.
PD seminars provide a supportive forum for centers to review best evidence and experience and generate recommendations based on expert opinion. Further research is ongoing to determine if this approach effectively accomplishes this objective.

This is a revision of the online November 2021 Brighton thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) case definition and a new Brighton Collaboration case definition for vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia and thrombosis (VITT). These case definitions are intended for use in clinical trials and post-licensure pharmacovigilance activities to facilitate safety data comparability across multiple settings. They are not intended to guide clinical management. The case definitions were developed by a group of subject matter and Brighton Collaboration process experts as part of the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI)-funded Safety Platform for Evaluation of vACcines (SPEAC). The case definitions, each with defined levels of diagnostic certainty, are based on relevant published evidence and expert consensus and are accompanied by specific guidelines for TTS and VITT data collection and analysis. The document underwent peer review by a reference group of vaccine safety stakeholders and haematology experts to ensure case definition useability, applicability and scientific integrity.

BACKGROUND: Recommendations within clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are heavily influenced by results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Therefore, it is imperative that all RCT outcomes are reported thoroughly to ensure CPGs are created using accurate information. Here, we evaluate the quality of harms reporting using the CONSORT Extension for Harms in RCTs underpinning recommendations in the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS) Management of Hip Fractures in Older Adults CPG.
METHODS: Each RCT cited as evidence for recommendations in the AAOS Management of Hip Fractures in Older Adults CPG was evaluated using the CONSORT Extension for Harms to determine the quality of harms reporting. Descriptive statistics (frequencies, percentages, 95 % confidence intervals) were used to summarize adherence to CONSORT Harms items. A linear regression model was used to evaluate the CONSORT Harms influence on the quality of reporting over time.
RESULTS: Among the 156 RCTs identified, there were a total of 31,848 participants. Most RCTs were conducted at a single center (137; 87.8 %) and in a single-blind manner (130; 83.3 %). Fifty-four (34.6 %) RCTs did not provide funding statements. Trials adequately reported an average of 6.65 out of 18 CONSORT Extension for Harms items (37.0 %). One RCT adequately reported all items, while five reported zero items. Forty-seven RCTs (30.1 %) reported ≥ 50 % of items and 73 (46.8 %) reported ≤ 33.3 % of items. The linear regression model demonstrated no significant increase in mean adherence over time (adjusted R2 = -0.006; p = 0.563).
CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight inadequate harms reporting among RCTs in the AAOS Management of Hip Fractures in Older Patients CPG. While the CONSORT Harms Extension was intended to enhance reporting, the linear regression model did not demonstrate significant improvements over time.

Eosinophil-related diseases represent a group of pathologic conditions with highly heterogeneous clinical presentation and symptoms ranging from mild to critical. Both systemic and localized forms of disease are typically treated with glucocorticoids. The approval of novel biologic therapies targeting the interleukin-5 pathway can help reduce the use of systemic glucocorticoids (SGC) in eosinophilic diseases and reduce the risk of SGC-related adverse effects (AEs). In this article, a panel of experts from different medical specialties reviewed current evidence on the use of SGC in two systemic eosinophilic diseases: Eosinophilic Granulomatosis with PolyAngiitis (EGPA) and HyperEosinophilic Syndrome (HES); and in two single-organ (respiratory) eosinophilic diseases: Chronic RhinoSinusitis with Nasal Polyps (CRSwNP) and Severe Asthma with Eosinophil Phenotype (SA-EP), and contrasted it with their experience in clinical practice. Using nominal group technique, they reached consensus on key aspects related to the dose and tapering of SGC as well as on the initiation of biologics as SGC-sparing agents. Early treatment with biologics could help prevent AEs associated with medium and long-term use of SGC.

BACKGROUND: As a relatively new field, dissemination and implementation research has not been included as a separate study design category for ethical consideration compared with clinical and social/behavioral research, yet it should be based on unique study designs, targets of intervention, and corresponding risks.
METHODS: Research teams conducting dissemination and implementation research have raised important questions related to the responsible conduct of research such as collecting informed consent, site monitoring, identifying and mitigating risks of unintended consequences, and adverse event ascertainment and reporting in dissemination and implementation research. In this commentary, we highlight the need for guidance and consensus standards on ethical issues in dissemination and implementation research and describe some ethical domains and relevant questions in dissemination and implementation research. Additionally, we propose a process for conceptual development and a research agenda to create consensus standards for the responsible conduct of research for dissemination and implementation research.
CONCLUSIONS: Thorough research is needed to understand the depth of ethical issues in dissemination and implementation research. A consensus-seeking process will be needed to develop new bioethical standards that carefully identify, measure, and mitigate unintended consequences in dissemination and implementation research.

BACKGROUND: Around 1 billion peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVC) fail annually worldwide before prescribed intravenous therapy is completed, resulting in avoidable complications, dissatisfaction, and avoidable costs surging to ∼€4bn. We aimed to provide an international consensus on relevance and feasibility of clinical practice guideline recommendations to reduce PIVC failure.
METHODS: e-Delphi study with three rounds through an online questionnaire from March-September 2020 recruiting a multispecialty panel formed by clinicians, managers, academic researchers, and experts in implementation from seven developed and three developing countries, reflecting on experience in PIVC care and implementation of evidence. Further, we included a panel of chronic patients with previous experience in the insert, maintenance, and management of PIVC and intravenous therapy from Ireland and Spain as public and patient involvement (PPI) panel. All experts and patients scored each item on a 4-point Likert scale to assess the relevance and feasibility. We considered consensus descriptor in which the median was 4 with less than or equal to 1,5 interquartile intervals.
RESULTS: Over 90% participants (16 experts) completed the questionnaire on all rounds and 100% PPI (5 patients) completed round 1 due to high consensus they achieved. Our Delphi approach included 49 descriptors, which resulted in an agreed 30 across six domains emerged from the related to (i) general asepsis and cutaneous antisepsis (n = 4), (ii) catheter adequacy and insertion (n = 3), (iii) catheter and catheter site care (n = 6), (iv) catheter removal and replacement strategies (n = 4), (v) general principles for catheter management (n = 10), and (vi) organisational environment (n = 3).
CONCLUSIONS: We provide an international consensus of relevant recommendations for PIVC, deemed feasible to implement in clinical settings. In addition, this methodological approach included substantial representation from clinical experts, academic experts, patient and public expertise, mitigating uncertainty during the implementation process with high-value recommendations to prevent PIVC failure based contextual and individual features, and economic resources worldwide.