Murad, Mohammed

Background and Aims: Primary biliary cholangitis is a chronic cholestatic liver disease that may progress to cirrhosis and liver failure. For patients with inadequate response or intolerance to ursodeoxycholic acid, peroxisome proliferator–activated receptor (PPAR) agonists have emerged as second-line options. This study assessed the comparative effectiveness and safety of PPAR agonists in primary biliary cholangitis through a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Approach and Results: A systematic review identified randomized controlled trials evaluating PPAR agonists versus ursodeoxycholic acid, with or without placebo. A frequentist network meta-analysis assessed biochemical response (primary outcome) and ALP normalization (secondary outcome). Pairwise meta-analyses were performed for percentage change in ALP and total bilirubin, and adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation. Data were stratified by baseline ALP, and a random-effects model was used. Eight randomized controlled trials (727 participants) evaluating 4 PPAR agonists were included. All agents outperformed placebo in achieving biochemical response and ALP normalization. Bezafibrate ranked highest for the primary outcome; both bezafibrate and seladelpar ranked highest for the secondary outcome. Percentage ALP reduction did not vary by baseline ALP. Total bilirubin changes were similar across arms, and treatment discontinuations due to adverse events were infrequent. Conclusions: PPAR agonists are effective second-line therapies for primary biliary cholangitis. Treatment ranking differences likely reflect variations in outcomes, populations, and drug mechanisms. In the absence of head-to-head trials, network meta-analysis provides important insights into comparative effectiveness. Further studies are warranted to confirm long-term safety and improve the evaluation of patient-centered outcomes.

Abstract Introduction Case reports and series are critical to guide initial decision-making in a pandemic, but may have lower rigor because of the need to publish them quickly. This meta-epidemiologic study compares the methodological quality of case series that described the acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in 2020 versus those that described long-haul cases. Methods We conducted a systematic review in multiple databases for long-haul case series and reports. We identified early cases of acute COVID-19 synthesized in published systematic reviews. We evaluated the methodological quality by pairs of independent reviewers using a tool dedicated for appraising case series. Results We included 239 original case series (81 published in the first year of the pandemic and 158 published later describing long-haul COVID). The methodological quality of both groups of case series was very good (80–100% of series satisfying quality items) except for two items, the selection approach of cases included in the series and ruling out other causes that can explain the main finding described in the series. The appraisal tool demonstrated high agreement and reliability between reviewers. Conclusion The methodological quality of modern case series is high, except for two quality items that represent an area for potential for improvement for authors of case series describing future pandemics.

Abstract Objectives IBM is characterized by slowly progressive muscle weakness making it challenging to detect significant changes in weakness during a clinical trial. Trial participants receiving placebo may behave differently from in natural history studies. We aimed to quantify the change in muscle strength and IBM Functional Rating Scale (IBMFRS) of IBM patients receiving placebo during clinical trials. Methods Several databases were searched. Randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trials without treatment intervention on the placebo group were included. Standardized mean differences (SMD) for change in muscle strength and mean differences for IBMFRS were used to calculate pooled effects, using DerSimonian-Laird continuous random effect models. Meta-regression determined change in muscle strength. Heterogeneity was evaluated using the I2 indicator. Results Eleven eligible trials were identified with 257 participants receiving placebo and a low risk of bias per the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias 2 (RoB2) tool. Participants receiving placebo on average had a measurable decline in muscle strength with a mean effect size of –0.398 (95% CI –0.652, –0.144) (P = 0.002). SMD changed by –0.009 (–0.016, –0.002) points per week (P = 0.015). Manual muscle testing was associated with higher heterogeneity (I2 = 67.68%) compared with quantitative muscle testing (I2 = 0%). Only three studies reported IBMFRS results. The pooled change in IBMFRS at 12 months was –2.189 points (–3.893, –0.485) on this 0 to 40-point scale (P = 0.012), with relatively high heterogeneity. Conclusion Participants with IBM displayed a measurable decline in their muscle strength and IBMFRS during clinical trials, in keeping with the disease’s slowly progressive nature. These estimates can inform sample size calculations in future studies.

AbstractCorticosteroid dosing in the range of 0.5–2 mg/kg/day of methylprednisolone equivalents has become a standard part of the management of intensive care unit (ICU) patients with COVID‐19 pneumonia based on positive results of randomized trials and a meta‐analysis. Alongside such conventional dosing, administration of 1 gm of methylprednisolone daily (pulse dosing) has also been reported in the literature with claims of favorable outcomes. Comparisons between such disparate approaches to corticosteroids for Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pneumonia are lacking. In this retrospective study of patients admitted to the ICU with COVID‐19 pneumonia, we compared patients treated with 0.5–2 mg/kg/day in methylprednisolone equivalents (high‐dose corticosteroids) and patients treated with 1 gm of methylprednisolone (pulse‐dose corticosteroids) to those who did not receive any corticosteroids. The endpoints of interest were hospital mortality, ICU‐free days at Day 28, and complications potentially attributable to corticosteroids. Pulse‐dose corticosteroid therapy was associated with a significant increase in ICU‐free days at Day 28 compared to no receipt: adjusted relative risk (aRR): 1.45 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05–2.02; p = 0.03) and compared with high‐dose corticosteroid administration (p = 0.003). Nonetheless, receipt of high‐dose corticosteroids—but not of pulse‐dose corticosteroids—significantly reduced the odds of hospital mortality compared to no receipt: adjusted Odds ratio (aOR) 0.31 (95% CI: 0.12–0.77; p = 0.01). High‐dose corticosteroids reduced mortality compared to pulse‐dose corticosteroids (p = 0.04). Pulse‐dose corticosteroids—but not high‐dose corticosteroids—significantly increased the odds of acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy compared to no receipt: aOR 3.53 (95% CI: 1.27–9.82; p = 0.02). The odds of this complication were also significantly higher in the pulse‐dose group when compared to the high‐dose group (p = 0.05 for the comparison). In this single‐center study, pulse‐dose corticosteroid therapy for COVID‐19 pneumonia in the ICU was associated with an increase in ICU‐free days but failed to impact hospital mortality, perhaps because of its association with development of severe renal failure. In line with existing trial data, the effect of high‐dose corticosteroids on mortality was favorable.