Moreno‐Peña, Pablo J.

Background: Combined therapy with levothyroxine (LT4)/L-triiodothyronine (LT3) has garnered attention among clinicians and patients as a potential treatment alternative to LT4 monotherapy. The objective of this study was to compare the benefits and harms of LT4/LT3 combined therapy and LT4 monotherapy for patients with hypothyroidism. Methods: A systematic search in MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed by a librarian from inception date until September 2020. Randomized clinical trials and quasiexperimental studies comparing combined therapy (LT4/LT3) versus monotherapy (LT4) for adult patients with hypothyroidism were considered for inclusion. Independent data extraction was performed by paired reviewers. A meta-analysis comparing standardized mean differences of the effect of each therapy was performed on clinical outcomes and patient preferences. Proportions of adverse events and reactions were assessed narratively. Results: A total of 1398 references were retrieved, from which 18 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Results supported by evidence at low-to-moderate certainty evidence did not display a difference in treatment effect between therapies on clinical status, quality of life, psychological distress, depressive symptoms, and fatigue; all measured with standardized questionnaires. Furthermore, meta-analysis of patient preferences revealed higher proportions of choice for combined therapy (43%) when compared with monotherapy (23%) or having no preference (30%). When evaluating treatment adverse events or adverse reactions, similar proportions were observed between treatment groups; meta-analysis was not possible. Conclusions: The available evidence at low-to-moderate certainty demonstrates that there is no difference in clinical outcomes between LT4/LT3 combined therapy and LT4 monotherapy for treating hypothyroidism in adults, except for a higher proportion of patient preferring combined therapy. Adverse events and reactions appear to be similar across both groups, however, this observation is only narrative. These results could inform shared decision-making conversations between patients with hypothyroidism and their clinicians. PROSPERO Registration ID: CRD42020202658.

AbstractAimThe aim of this study was to systematically appraise the quality of a sample of COVID-19-related systematic reviews (SRs) and discuss internal validity threats affecting the COVID-19 body of evidence.DesignWe conducted a scoping review of the literature. SRs with or without meta-analysis (MA) that evaluated clinical data, outcomes or treatments for patients with COVID-19 were included.Main outcome measuresWe extracted quality characteristics guided by A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2 to calculate a qualitative score. Complementary evaluation of the most prominent published limitations affecting the COVID-19 body of evidence was performed.ResultsA total of 63 SRs were included. The majority were judged as a critically low methodological quality. Most of the studies were not guided by a pre-established protocol (39, 62%). More than half (39, 62%) failed to address risk of bias when interpreting their results. A comprehensive literature search strategy was reported in most SRs (54, 86%). Appropriate use of statistical methods was evident in nearly all SRs with MAs (39, 95%). Only 16 (33%) studies recognised heterogeneity in the definition of severe COVID-19 as a limitation of the study, and 15 (24%) recognised repeated patient populations as a limitation.ConclusionThe methodological and reporting quality of current COVID-19 SR is far from optimal. In addition, most of the current SRs fail to address relevant threats to their internal validity, including repeated patients and heterogeneity in the definition of severe COVID-19. Adherence to proper study design and peer-review practices must remain to mitigate current limitations.

Abstract Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) has affected millions of people and may disproportionately affect those with hypertension and diabetes. Because of inadequate methods in published systematic reviews, the prevalence of diabetes and hypertension and associated risks of poor outcomes in Covid-19 patients are unknown. We searched databases from December 1, 2019, to April 6, 2020, and selected observational peer-reviewed studies in English of patients with Covid-19. Independent reviewers extracted data on study participants, interventions, and outcomes and assessed risk of bias, and the certainty of evidence. We included 65 (15 794 participants) observational studies at moderate to high risk of bias. Overall prevalence of diabetes and hypertension was 12% (95% confidence interval [CI], 10-15; n = 12 870; I2: 89%), and 17% (95% CI, 13-22; n = 12 709; I2: 95%), respectively. In severe Covid-19, the prevalence of diabetes and hypertension were 18% (95% CI, 16-20; n = 1099; I2: 0%) and 32% (95% CI, 16-54; n = 1078; I2: 63%), respectively. Unadjusted relative risk for intensive care unit admission and mortality were 1.96 (95% CI, 1.19-3.22; n = 8890; I2: 80%; P = .008) and 2.78 (95% CI, 1.39-5.58; n = 2058; I2: 75%; P = .0004) for diabetics; and 2.95 (95% CI, 2.18-3.99; n = 1737; I2: 0%; P < .001) and 2.39 (95% CI, 1.54-3.73; n = 3107; I2: 66%; P < .001) for hypertensives. Neither diabetes (1.50; 95% CI, 0.90-2.50; n = 1991; I2: 74%; P = .119) nor hypertension (1.48; 95% CI, 0.99-2.23; n = 2023; I2: 69%; P = .058) was associated with severe Covid-19. In conclusion, the risk of intensive care unit admission and mortality for patients with diabetes or hypertension who developed Covid-19 is increased compared with those without these comorbidities. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020176582.