Prokop, Larry

AbstractMetabolic syndrome (MetS) is a prevalent comorbidity in patients with chronic pain conditions. Emerging evidence suggests that the relationship between MetS and chronic pain is bidirectional. This interplay involves complex mechanisms, including proinflammatory mediators in nociceptive modulation and pain‐induced lifestyle changes affecting metabolic function. This scoping review examines the association between MetS and chronic pain. We conducted a scoping review, including 28 studies. This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. We included observational studies (cross‐sectional, case–control, and cohort studies) from the following databases: Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus. We identified studies on migraine (n = 9), spinal pain (n = 8), general chronic pain (n = 4), fibromyalgia syndrome (n = 3), carpal tunnel syndrome (n = 1), osteoarthritis (n = 1), shoulder pain (n = 1), and neuropathic pain (n = 1). Most studies used a cross‐sectional design and standard criteria to define MetS, with some exceptions. Individuals with MetS and spinal pain, fibromyalgia, or general chronic pain showed higher pain scores and increased functional limitations. MetS was common in patients with migraine, but its effect on pain severity was inconclusive. The relationship between MetS and other pain conditions requires further investigation to clarify the association and potential mechanisms. MetS is prevalent in patients with chronic pain and is associated with worse pain and functional outcomes. Health care providers should acknowledge the wide spectrum of MetS beyond obesity. This understanding may help identify those at risk for more severe chronic pain.

Background: Informal support of a bereaved parent is common after the loss of a child (stillborn, young or adult child); however, it is not clear which aspects of informal support were perceived to be helpful by the bereaved parent. The aim of this scoping review is to clarify from the standpoint of bereaved parents what are considered helpful and unhelpful characteristics of informal support given by the support network of bereaved parents. Methods: A comprehensive search of databases from 2000 to April 20, 2020 was conducted for clinical studies published in English on informal bereavement support of adult bereaved parents of stillborn to adult children; 52 articles met criteria for the scoping review. The databases included Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, and Daily, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Ovid PsycINFO, and Scopus. Results: Specific supportive strategies reported by parents as helpful more frequently included talking with other supportive persons felt to be supportive, meeting another person with a similar type of loss, and a loss-specific peer support group. Other support included peer support groups in general, tangible aid, talking with the spouse about the child who died and/or accepting each other's different grieving styles, and remembrance gestures. Specific supportive strategies reported by parents as unhelpful more frequently included feeling of stigma or blame due to type of death or feeling that the type of death was not considered equal to other deaths and platitudes & insensitive comments. Other unhelpful support included talking with others felt to be unsupportive about discussing the loss, others stating a time limit to grief, others actively avoiding or stopping all communication with the bereaved parent, and one spouse not accepting the grieving style of the other or the spouse not willing to discuss the loss. Conclusion: Support focused on supportive verbal and nonverbal communication towards the bereaved parent and tangible aid were noted to be helpful informal support. Feeling stigma for or judged by others due to the type of death or the death not being considered equal (such as in deaths due to suicide and stillborn deaths) to other types of deaths as well as informational support (utilization of clichés/platitudes, advice giving, statements about the process and end point of grieving) were noted to be unhelpful informal support.

344 Background: ICI with anti-PD-1 therapy was approved by the US FDA as 1st/2nd-line treatment of advanced GEC regardless of PD-L1 status. It is argued that patients (pts) with PD-L1-low GEC do not benefit from ICI. To avoid spurious exclusion of pts, we systematically reviewed phase 3 trials to assess the magnitude and consistency of PD-L1 to predict benefit from ICI. We also examined other potential predictive factors to understand their magnitude and consistency in comparison with PD-L1 status. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register were searched for all randomized clinical trials (RCT; 2000-2021) in advanced GEC comparing ICI, alone or with chemotherapy, vs standard of care (SOC). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Study screening, data abstraction, and bias assessment were done independently by two reviewers per PRISMA guidelines. The mean HR for ICI vs SOC was calculated by random effects model. The predictive value of a factor was quantified using relative magnitude and consistency (table). Results: 14 RCTs at low risk of bias were included (N = 9,210 pts; KN62, CM649, CM648, ESCORT1st, KN590, ATT4, JAV100, KN181, KN61, ATT3, ESCORT, RATIONALE302, JAV300, ATT2). 6 trials were 1st-line, 8 were after 1st-line. Treatment comparisons were ICI + chemo vs chemo (6 trials), ICI vs chemo (9 trials), and ICI vs placebo (1 trial). ICI was always anti-PD-1/-L1 (1 trial also had anti-CTLA-4). Table shows primary results. To enable head to head comparisons, subgroup analyses of trials containing both levels of a factor or having similar design were done and generally yielded consistent results. Conclusions: PD-L1 CPS is the strongest predictive biomarker, after MSI, for OS benefit from ICI-containing therapy vs SOC. Additional research on gender is warranted.[Table: see text]

Importance: Right bundle branch block (RBBB) is observed in approximately 5-14% of patients with heart failure (HF). Multiple observational studies have reported the association of RBBB with clinical outcomes in patients with HF. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the prognostic significance of RBBB for patients with HF. Data Sources: We have systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science and Scopus through January 2014. Study Selection: Reviewers working independently and in duplicate screened all eligible abstracts that described all cause or cardiovascular mortality in patients with RBBB and HF. We excluded studies that reported unadjusted outcome, i.e.: unadjusted event rates. Knowledge synthesis: We pooled reported risk ratio and hazard ratio. Main Outcomes: All-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality (death). Results: We found 12 relevant observational studies enrolling over 38,000 patients. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Included studies had at least a moderate quality. Seven of those evaluated prognosis of patients with RBBB and heart failure. After a mean follow up period of 2.5 years (range: 1-5 years), RBBB was associated with a statistically significant increased risk of all-cause mortality compared to patients with heart failure but no BBB, RR 1.27, 95% CI (1.08-1.50), Figure 1. The other 5 studies evaluated CHF patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), comparing outcomes of patients with RBBB to those with LBBB. After a mean f/u period of 3 years, patients with RBBB were once again found to have an increased risk of all-cause mortality, RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.12-1.89. Conclusion and Relevance: RBBB in patients with HF is associated with higher all-cause mortality in comparison to patients without inter-ventricular conduction defects, as well as LBBB patients in patients undergoing CRT setting.

Objective: Multiple large population based observational studies have evaluated the association of various ECG changes with long term adverse outcomes demonstrating conflicting results regarding the significance of right bundle branch block (RBBB). Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the prognostic significance of RBBB in healthy population. Methods: This systematic review follows an a priori established protocol and is reported following the PRISMA statement (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). We systematically searched EMBASE, Web of Science and Scopus through January 2014. We also consulted with content experts to recommend studies for screening. Reviewers working independently and in duplicate screened all eligible abstracts, selecting randomized trials and prospective cohort studies that described all cause mortality or cardiovascular death in patients with RBBB. We excluded studies that reported unadjusted outcome or unadjusted event rates. For statistical analysis, hazard ratios were considered to approximate risk ratios. The main outcomes of the study are all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. Results: Based on the eligibility, four large cohorts, with total patient count > 100,000 were included in the meta-analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and included studies were deemed to be of high quality. As demonstrated in Figure 1, RBBB was not associated increase in all-cause mortality (RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.89-1.25) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.70-1.69). Conclusion: In asymptomatic healthy patients, RBBB is not associated with poor outcome.

Abstract Lifestyle interventions are pivotal for successful management of type 2 diabetes (T2D), however, the proportion of people with T2D adhering to physical activity advice has not been thoroughly studied. The purpose of this systematic review was to summarise the evidence on adherence to exercise or physical activity components in lifestyle interventions in those with T2D. We searched MEDLINE EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Scopus on 12 November 2019. Eligible studies enrolled adults with T2D and reported the proportion of adherence to lifestyle interventions as a primary or secondary outcome. We included 11 studies (nine randomised controlled trials (RCTs) enrolling 1717 patients and two nonrandomised studies enrolling 62 patients). Only one of the studies had low risk of bias. The proportion of participants adhering to physical activity varied from 32% to 100% with a median of 58%. Adherence was higher in interventions using supervised training and lowest in interventions using remote coaching and the adherence rate in observational studies was higher compared to RCTs (92% vs. 55%; p < 0.01). Study duration, risk of bias, or participants' sex, were not associated with adherence to physical activity. The proportion of those with T2D adhering to physical activity interventions for T2D varies widely and most of the included studies had a high risk of bias. These findings have important implications for planning and power analysis of future trials and when counselling patients about lifestyle interventions including physical activity or exercise components.

AbstractBackground & AimsAlthough transient elastography (TE) is used to determine liver stiffness as a surrogate to hepatic fibrosis, the normal range in children is not well defined. We performed a systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta‐analysis to determine the range of liver stiffness in healthy children and evaluate the influence of important biological parameters.MethodsWe pooled data from 10 studies that examined healthy children using TE. We divided 1702 children into two groups: ≥3 years (older group) and < 3 years of age (younger group). Univariate and multivariate linear regression models predicting liver stiffness were conducted.ResultsAfter excluding children with obesity, diabetes, or abnormal liver tests, 652 children were analysed. Among older children, mean liver stiffness was 4.45 kPa (95% confidence interval 4.34‐4.56), and increased liver stiffness was associated with age, sedation status, and S probe use. In the younger group, the mean liver stiffness was 4.79 kPa (95% confidence interval 4.46‐5.12), and increased liver stiffness was associated with sedation status and Caucasian race. In a subgroup analysis, hepatic steatosis on ultrasound was significantly associated with increased liver stiffness. We define a reference range for normal liver stiffness in healthy children as 2.45‐5.56 kPa.ConclusionsWe have established TE‐derived liver stiffness ranges for healthy children and propose an upper limit of liver stiffness in healthy children to be 5.56 kPa. We have identified increasing age, use of sedation, probe size, and presence of steatosis on ultrasound as factors that can significantly increase liver stiffness.

Background: The prevalence of familial hypercholesterolemia is 1 in 250, but <10% of patients are diagnosed. Cascade testing enables early detection of cases through systematic family tracing. Establishment of familial hypercholesterolemia cascade testing programs in the US could be informed by approaches used elsewhere. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of published studies in the English language of cascade testing for familial hypercholesterolemia, which reported the number of index cases and number of relatives tested and specified methods of contacting relatives and testing modalities methods utilized. For each study, we calculated yield (proportion of relatives who test positive) and new cases per index case, to facilitate comparison. Results: We identified 10 studies from the literature that met inclusion criteria; the mean number of probands and relatives per study was 242 and 826, respectively. The average yield was 44.76% with a range of 30% to 60.5%, and the mean new cases per index case was 1.65 with a range of 0.22 to 8.0. New cases per index case tended to be greater in studies that used direct contact versus indirect contact (2.06 versus 0.86), tested beyond first-degree relatives versus only first-degree relatives (3.65 versus 0.80), used active sample collection versus collection at clinic (4.11 versus 1.06), and utilized genetic testing versus biochemical testing (2.47 versus 0.42). Conclusions: New case detection in familial hypercholesterolemia cascade testing programs tended to be higher with direct contact of relatives, testing beyond first-degree relatives, in-home–based sample collection, and genetic testing. These findings should be helpful for establishing cascade testing programs in the United States.