Murad, M Hassan

Abstract Context Hyperthyroidism is associated with low levels of cholesterol and triglycerides, and hypothyroidism is associated with hypercholesterolemia and hypertriglyceridemia. Objective The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the impact of therapy for overt and subclinical hyper- and hypothyroidism on serum lipids. Data Sources We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus from 1970 through April 5, 2018. Study Selection Pairs of independent reviewers selected randomized and observational studies evaluating lipid parameters in patients undergoing treatment for hyper- or hypothyroidism. Data Extraction Pairs of independent reviewers extracted data and appraised studies. Data Synthesis Treatment of overt hyperthyroidism showed a significant increase in total cholesterol (TC) by 44.50 mg/dL (95% confidence interval [CI]: 37.99, 51.02), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) by 31.13 mg/dL (95% CI: 24.33, 37.93), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) by 5.52 mg/dL (95% CI: 1.48, 9.56), apolipoprotein A (Apo A) by 15.6 mg/dL (95% CI: 10.38, 20.81), apolipoprotein B (apo B) by 26.12 mg/dL (95% CI: 22.67, 29.57), and lipoprotein (Lp[a]) by 4.18 mg/dL (95% CI: 1.65, 6.71). There was no significant change in triglyceride (TG) levels. Treatment of subclinical hyperthyroidism did not change any lipid parameters significantly. Levothyroxine therapy in overt hypothyroidism showed a statistically significant decrease in TC by -58.4 mg/dL (95% CI: -64.70, -52.09), LDL-C by -41.11 mg/dL (95% CI: -46.53, -35.69), HDL-C by -4.14 mg/dL (95% CI: -5.67, -2.61), TGs by -7.25 mg/dL (95% CI: -36.63, 17.87), apo A by -12.59 mg/dL (95% CI: -17.98, -7.19), apo B by -33.96 mg/dL (95% CI: 41.14, -26.77), and Lp(a) by -5.6 mg/dL (95% CI: -9.06, -2.14). Levothyroxine therapy in subclinical hypothyroidism showed similar changes but with a smaller magnitude. The studies contained varied population characteristics, severity of thyroid dysfunction, and follow-up duration. Conclusions Treatment of overt but not subclinical hyperthyroidism is associated with worsening of the lipid profile. Levothyroxine therapy in both overt and subclinical hypothyroidism leads to improvement in the lipid profile, with a smaller magnitude of improvement in subclinical hypothyroidism.

AbstractSevere cases of COVID-19 infection, often leading to death, have been associated with variants of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Cell therapy with mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) is a potential treatment for COVID-19 ARDS based on preclinical and clinical studies supporting the concept that MSCs modulate the inflammatory and remodeling processes and restore alveolo-capillary barriers. The authors performed a systematic literature review and random-effects meta-analysis to determine the potential value of MSC therapy for treating COVID-19-infected patients with ARDS. Publications in all languages from 1990 to March 31, 2020 were reviewed, yielding 2691 studies, of which nine were included. MSCs were intravenously or intratracheally administered in 117 participants, who were followed for 14 days to 5 years. All MSCs were allogeneic from bone marrow, umbilical cord, menstrual blood, adipose tissue, or unreported sources. Combined mortality showed a favorable trend but did not reach statistical significance. No related serious adverse events were reported and mild adverse events resolved spontaneously. A trend was found of improved radiographic findings, pulmonary function (lung compliance, tidal volumes, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, alveolo-capillary injury), and inflammatory biomarker levels. No comparisons were made between MSCs of different sources.Significance statement The potential benefits of mesenchymal stromal cell (MSC) therapy for patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome support the rapid commencement of clinical trials, as well as the compassionate use of MSCs that already have documented safety profiles from FDA-approved studies.

SummaryBackgroundWhen opioid‐induced constipation is treated with centrally acting opioid antagonists, there may be opioid withdrawal or aggravation of pain due to inhibition of μ‐opioid analgesia. This led to the development of peripherally acting μ‐opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs).AimTo evaluate the efficacy of available PAMORAs and other approved or experimental treatments for relieving constipation in patients with opioid‐induced constipation, based on a systematic review and meta‐analysis of published studies.MethodsA search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and EBM Reviews Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was completed in July 2019 for randomised trials compared to placebo. FDA approved doses or highest studied dose was evaluated. Efficacy was based on diverse endpoints, including continuous variables (the bowel function index, number of spontaneous bowel movements and stool consistency based on Bristol Stool Form Scale), or responder analysis (combination of >3 spontaneous bowel movements or complete spontaneous bowel movements plus 1 spontaneous bowel movement or complete spontaneous bowel movements, respectively, over baseline [so‐called FDA endpoints]). Adverse effects evaluated included central opioid withdrawal, serious adverse events, abdominal pain and diarrhoea.ResultsWe included 35 trials at low risk of bias enrolling 13 566 patients. All PAMORAs demonstrated efficacy on diverse patient response endpoints. There was greater efficacy with approved doses of the PAMORAs (methylnaltrexone, naloxegol and naldemidine), with lower efficacy or lower efficacy and greater adverse effects with combination oxycodone with naloxone, lubiprostone and linaclotide.ConclusionsTherapeutic response in opioid‐induced constipation is best achieved with the PAMORAs, methylnaltrexone, naloxegol and naldemidine, which are associated with low risk of serious adverse events.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTVES Four direct‐acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Limited efficacy and safety data are available for their use in older adults (aged ≥75 years). METHODS Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, EBSCO, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases were searched for trials comparing DOACs with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for the treatment of VTE in older adults from inception through January 1, 2020. Meta‐analysis was performed to assess the combined endpoint of recurrent VTE and related deaths and bleeding events (composite of major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding). The Mantel‐Haenszel relative risk (RR) random effects model was used to pool results across studies. RESULTS Six randomized controlled trials at low risk of bias met criteria for inclusion with a total of 3,665 patients aged 75 years and older with follow‐up of 24 weeks or longer. Data for bleeding events were not available for dabigatran. Overall, DOACs had an improved efficacy over VKAs (RR = .56; 95% confidence interval [CI] = .38‐.82). There was no statistically significant difference in the safety outcomes (RR = .77; 95% CI = .56‐1.05). No significant heterogeneity was observed for efficacy outcome, and only moderate heterogeneity was observed for safety outcome. CONCLUSION In older adults with VTE, DOACs appear to improve rates of recurrent VTE and VTE‐related deaths compared with VKAs with similar bleeding outcomes.

To evaluate the effectiveness of an admixture of ketamine and propofol on peri-induction hemodynamics during airway manipulation, we searched electronic databases of randomized controlled trials from January 1, 2000, to October 17, 2018. Trial screening, selection, and data extraction were done independently by two reviewers with outcomes pooled across included trials using the random-effects model. We included 10 randomized trials (722 patients, mean age of 53.99 years, 39.96% female). American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status was reported in 9 trials with classes I and II representing the majority. Ketamine/propofol admixture was associated with a nonsignificant increase in heart rate (weighted mean difference, 3.36 beats per minute (95% CI, −0.88, 7.60), I2 = 88.6%), a statistically significant increase in systolic blood pressure (weighted mean difference, 9.67 mmHg (95% CI, 1.48, 17.86), I2 = 87.2%), a nonsignificant increase in diastolic blood pressure (weighted mean difference, 2.18 mmHg (95% CI, −2.82, 7.19), I2 = 73.1%), and a nonsignificant increase in mean arterial pressure (weighted mean difference, 3.28 mmHg (95% CI, −0.94, 7.49), I2 = 69.9%) compared to other agents. The risk of bias was high and the certainty of evidence was low. In conclusion, among patients undergoing airway manipulation and needing sedation, the use of a ketamine/propofol admixture may be associated with better hemodynamics compared to nonketamine/propofol sedation. This trial is registered with CRD42019125725.

INTRODUCTION: We applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework to evaluate the performance of fecal calprotectin (FC) as an alternative to endoscopy in patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC) treated with a biologic agent or tofacitinib. METHODS: Individual participant data from the trials of infliximab, golimumab, vedolizumab, and tofacitinib for UC were pooled to generate prevalence of endoscopic activity (Mayo endoscopy score) across different combinations of the rectal bleeding score (RBS) and stool frequency score (SFS). These estimates were then combined with the data from an updated systematic review of the operating properties of FC to generate clinical scenario–specific assessments of the performance of FC as a predictor of endoscopic disease activity. A prespecified threshold of acceptability for false-negative (FN) and false-positive (FP) test results was set at 5%. RESULTS: For patients with UC achieving RBS 0 + SFS 0/1, FC ≤ 50 μg/g may avoid endoscopy in 50% patients with a FN rate <5%. Similarly, for patients with RBS 2/3 + SFS 2/3, FC ≥ 250 μg/g potentially avoids endoscopy in approximately 50% patients with an FP rate <5%. The greatest uncertainty in the diagnostic performance for FC was observed in patients with UC achieving RBS 0 but having SFS 2/3, where FN and FP rates were consistently >10%, and endoscopic evaluation may be warranted. DISCUSSION: Two clinical scenarios were identified where FC can be used with confidence for monitoring treatment response to biologics or tofacitinib in patients with UC without the requirement for endoscopy.

Abstract Background There are many pharmacologic therapies that are being used or considered for treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). There is a need for frequently updated practice guidelines on their use, based on critical evaluation of rapidly emerging literature. The objective was to develop evidence-based rapid guidelines intended to support patients, clinicians, and other healthcare professionals in their decisions about treatment and management of patients with COVID-19. Methods The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel of infectious disease clinicians, pharmacists, and methodologists with varied areas of expertise. Process followed a rapid recommendation checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. Then a systematic review of the peer-reviewed and gray literature was conducted. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations. Results The IDSA guideline panel agreed on 7 treatment recommendations and provided narrative summaries of other treatments undergoing evaluations. Conclusions The panel expressed the overarching goal that patients be recruited into ongoing trials, which would provide much-needed evidence on the efficacy and safety of various therapies for COVID-19, given that we could not make a determination whether the benefits outweigh harms for most treatments.