Hassett, Leslie C.

Background and Aim: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a complex and heterogeneous disorder. Sensory, motor and barrier dysfunctions are the key physiological endophenotypes of IBS. Our aim is to review studies evaluating barrier dysfunction in adults and children with IBS, as well as to link those changes with IBS symptomatology and quality of life. Methods: A comprehensive and systematic review of multiple databases was performed up to March 2020 to identify studies comparing intestinal permeability in IBS patients with healthy controls. Both in vivo and in vitro studies were considered. Results: We identified 66 studies, of which 27 used intestinal probes to quantify barrier function. The prevalence of barrier dysfunction differed between PI-IBS (17–50%), IBS-D (37–62%) and IBS-C (4–25%). At a group level, permeability was increased compared with healthy controls in IBS-D (9/13 studies) and PI-IBS (4/4 studies), but only a minority of IBS-C (2/7 studies) and not in the only IBS-M study. All four studies in children with IBS demonstrated loss of barrier function. A heterogeneous set of tight junction genes were found to be altered in small and large intestines of adults with IBS, but these have not been evaluated in children. Positive associations were identified between barrier dysfunction and bowel disturbances (6/9 studies), abdominal pain (9/13 studies), overall symptom severity (1/6 studies), depression and anxiety (1/1 study) and quality of life (1/4 studies). Fecal slurry or supernatants of IBS patients were found to induce barrier disruption in animal models (5/6 studies). Conclusions: Barrier dysfunction is present in a significant proportion of adult and all pediatric IBS studies, especially in the IBS-D and PI-IBS subtype. The majority of studies indicated a positive association between loss of barrier function and symptoms such as abdominal pain and changes in the bowel function.

Background: SARS-CoV-2 infects its target cells via angiotensin converting enzyme 2 receptor, a membrane-bound protein found on the surface of many human cells. Treatment with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) or angiotensin receptors blockers (ARB) has been shown to increase angiotensin converting enzyme 2 expression by up to 5-fold. Areas of uncertainty: These findings coupled with observations of the high prevalence and mortality among SARS-CoV-2-infected patients with underlying cardiovascular disease have led to a speculation that ACEIs/ARBs may predispose to higher risk of being infected with SARS-CoV-2. Therefore, we systematically reviewed the literature and performed a meta-analysis of the association between prior use of ACEIs and ARBs and the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection or hospitalization due to COVID-19 disease. Data sources: We searched 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, Web of Science, Scopus, and Medrxiv.org preprint server until June 18, 2020. Therapeutic advances: Ten studies (6 cohorts and 4 case control) that enrolled a total of 23,892 patients and 853,369 controls were eligible for inclusion in our meta-analysis. One study was excluded from the analysis because of high risk of bias. Prior use of ACEIs was not associated with an increased risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 or hospitalization due to COVID-19 disease, odds ratio 0.98, 95% confidence interval (0.91–1.05), I2 = 15%. Similarly, prior use of ARBs was not associated with an increased risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2, odds ratio 1.04, 95% confidence interval (0.98–1.10), I2 = 0%. Conclusion: Cumulative evidence suggests that prior use of ACEIs or ARBs is not associated with a higher risk of COVID-19 or hospitalization due to COVID-19 disease. Our results provide a reassurance to the public not to discontinue prescribed ACEIs/ARBs because of fear of COVID-19.

Background: Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are known to increase the expression of angiotensin converting enzyme 2 receptor, which has been shown to be the receptor for the acute severe respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Areas of Uncertainty: Based on these observations, speculations raised the concerns that ACEIs/ARBs users would be more susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection and would be at higher risk for severe COVID-19 disease and death. Therefore, we systematically reviewed the literature and performed a meta-analysis of the association between prior use of ACEIs and ARBs and mortality due to COVID-19 disease. Data Sources: A comprehensive search of several databases from November 2019 to June 18, 2020 was conducted. The databases included Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily, Ovid Embase, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, and Scopus. Medrxiv.org was also searched for unpublished data. Therapeutic Advances: Nine studies with a total of 18,833 patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 met our eligibility criteria. Prior use of ACEIs and/or ARBs was associated with reduced mortality among SARS-CoV-2-infected patients, with a pooled adjusted relative risk (aRR) from 6 studies of 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.42–0.94) (I 2 = 65%). Three studies reported separately on ACEIs or ARBs and their association with survival among SARS-CoV-2-infected patients, with a pooled adjusted relative risk of 0.78, 95% CI (0.58–1.04) (I 2 = 0%) and 0.97, 95% CI (0.73–1.30) (I 2 = 0%) respectively. The results of sensitivity analyses were consistent with the main analysis. Conclusion: Our meta-analysis suggests that use of ACEIs/ARBs is associated with a decreased risk of death among SARS-CoV-2-infected patients. This finding provides a reassurance to the public not to stop prescribed ACEIs/ARBs because of fear of severe COVID-19.

Background: Levothyroxine (LT4) is one of the most commonly prescribed medications. Although considered a life-long replacement therapy, LT4 therapy can be discontinued for some patients. This study aims at: (i) reviewing the evidence on clinical outcomes of patients undergoing thyroid hormone replacement discontinuation, (ii) identifying the predictors of successful discontinuation, and (iii) systematically appraising frameworks used for deprescribing thyroid hormone. Methods: We searched multiple bibliographic databases, including 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, and Scopus, from inception to February 2020 for studies in which thyroid hormone replacement was discontinued. Clinical outcomes assessed included: proportion of patients that remained euthyroid or needed to restart thyroid hormone replacement after discontinuation and frequency of clinical symptoms of hypothyroidism and adverse effects. We also evaluated predictors for discontinuation and deprescribing frameworks. Reviewers (F.J.K.T., N.B., N.M.S.O., S.M.) evaluated studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality independently and in duplicate. Results: Seventeen observational studies at moderate to high risk of bias met inclusion criteria, including a total of 1103 patients (86% women) with an age range of 2–81 years. Approximately a third of patients undergoing thyroid hormone discontinuation remained euthyroid at follow-up (37.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI 24.2–50.1%], I 2 97.5%). Subgroup analysis showed that patients with a previous diagnosis of overt hypothyroidism (OH) were less likely to remain euthyroid (11.8% [CI 0.4–23.2%], I 2 90.3%) than patients with a prior diagnosis of subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH) (35.6% [CI 8.2–62.9%], I 2 94.0%). No study followed a framework for systematically deprescribing LT4. Conclusions: Low-quality evidence suggests that up to a third of patients remained euthyroid after thyroid hormone discontinuation, with a higher proportion of patients with an initial diagnosis of SCH remaining euthyroid than patients with an initial diagnosis of OH. A deprescribing framework focusing on adequate selection of patients for deprescribing LT4 and a systematic process is warranted to guide clinicians in re-evaluating the need for LT4 in their patients.