Zuñiga-Hernandez, Jorge Alberto

We assessed the available evidence regarding adverse effects on surrogate and patient-important health outcomes of third- and fourth-generation combined oral contraceptives among premenopausal women. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis including randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing third- and fourth-generation combined oral contraceptives with other generation contraceptives or placebo. Studies that enrolled women aged 15 to 50 years, with at least three cycles of intervention and 6 months of follow-up were included. A total of 33 studies comprising 629,783 women were included. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels were significantly lower in fourth-generation oral contraceptives (mean differences (MD): −0.24 mmol/L; [95% CI −0.39 to −0.08]), while total cholesterol was significantly increased in levonorgestrel users when compared to third-generation oral contraceptives (MD: 0.27 mmol/L; [95% CI 0.04 to 0.50]). A decreased arterial thrombosis incidence was shown in fourth-generation oral contraceptive users, as compared to levonorgestrel (incidence rate ratio (IRR): 0.41; [95% CI 0.19 to 0.86]). No difference was found in the occurrence of deep venous thrombosis between fourth-generation oral contraceptives and levonorgestrel users (IRR: 0.91; [95% CI 0.66 to 1.27]; p = 0.60; I 2 = 0%). Regarding the remaining outcomes, data were heterogeneous and showed no clear difference. In premenopausal women, the use of third- and fourth-generation oral contraceptives is associated with an improved lipid profile and lower risk of arterial thrombosis. Data were inconclusive regarding the rest of outcomes assessed. This review was registered in PROSPERO with CRD42020211133.

Background. The short cosyntropin test is widely used for adrenal insufficiency screening and diagnosis. Lower cosyntropin doses may have greater sensitivity vs. the standard dose in detecting adrenal dysfunction. Obesity and overweight are increasing, impacting the clinical presentation of some diseases. Currently more than 50% of the subjects diagnosed with autoimmune adrenal insufficiency have a BMI greater than 25, and hence individuals living with overweight and obesity are more frequently requiring evaluation of the adrenal cortical function. Fixed-dose cosyntropin stimulation may not be appropriate for individuals with obesity. Objective. The primary objective was to compare cortisol response to a weight-adapted cosyntropin dose vs. a fixed low dose (1 µg) and a more physiologically fixed dose (10 µg). Methods. Twenty individuals with obesity and 20 age-matched healthy controls underwent in a randomized sequence at least one-week apart, to the The short cosyntropin test with three different doses, 0.2 µg/kg of body weight, 1 or 10 µg fixed dose stimuli. The assessment and data analysis were blinded to the individual and the investigator. Results. Cortisol response was reduced in the group with obesity with the 1 µg fixed dose stimuli at 30 minutes (median, IQR) 649.6 µg, 567.3–738.4 µg for the control group vs. 568.6 µg, 528.4–623.13 µg, p = 0.04 ; there was a lower cortisol peak at 60′ in all the three evaluated doses, with a dose-dependent trend. A weight-adapted cosyntropin dose of 0.2 µg in obesity produces a similar response to the one observed in individuals without obesity. The 1 µg ACTH test falls short on stimulating the cortisol adrenal response in individuals with obesity.

Evidence has raised concerns regarding the association between funding sources and doubtful data. Our main outcome was to analyze trends on funding sources in articles published from 1990 to 2020 in the more influential journals of internal and general medicine. In this meta-epidemiological study, we included peer-reviewed studies from the 10 highest impact journals in general and internal medicine published between January 1990 and February 2020 based on published original research according to the 2018 InCites Journal of Citation Reports, these consisted of the following: The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, JAMA, BMJ, JAMA Internal Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, PLOS Medicine, Cachexia, BMC Medicine, and Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Two reviewers working in duplicate extracted data regarding year of publication, study design, and sources of funding. In total, 496 articles were found; of these, 311 (62.7%) were observational studies, 167 (33.7%) were experimental, and 16 (3.2%) were secondary analyses. Percentages of grant sources through the years were predominantly from government (60%), industry (23.83%), and non-governmental (16.06%) organizations. The percentage of industry subsidies tended to decrease, but this was not significant in a linear regression model (r=0.02, p≥0.05). Government and non-government funding sources showed a trend to decrease in the same univariate analysis with both significant associations (r=0.21, p ≤0.001 and r=0.10, p≤0.001, respectively). The main funding source in medical research has consistently been government aid. Despite previous reported data, no association was found between the source of funding and statistically significant results favoring study authors’ hypothesis.

Objectives To improve the trustworthiness of evidence, studies should be prospectively registered and research reports should adhere to existing standards. We aimed to systematically assess the degree to which endocrinology and internal medicine journals endorse study registration and reporting standards for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews (SRs) and observational studies (ObS). Additionally, we evaluated characteristics that predict endorsement of reporting or registration mechanism by these journals. Design Meta-epidemiological study. Setting Journals included in the ‘Endocrinology and Metabolism’ and ‘General and Internal Medicine’ 2017 Journal Citation Reports. Participants Journals with an impact factor of ≥1.0, focused on clinical medicine, and those who publish RCTs, SRs and ObS were included. Primary outcomes Requirement of adherence to reporting guideline and study registration as determined from the journals’ author instructions. Results Of the 170 (82 endocrinology and 88 internal medicine) eligible journals, endorsing of reporting standards was the highest for RCTs, with 35 (43%) of endocrine journals and 55 (63%) of internal medicine journals followed by SRs, with 21 (26%) and 48 (55%), respectively, and lastly, by ObS with 41 (50%) of endocrine journals and 21 (24%) of internal medicine journals. In 78 (46%) journals RCTs were required to be registered and published in adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement. Only 11 (6%) journals required registration of SRs. Internal medicine journals were more likely to endorse reporting guidelines than endocrine journals except for Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology. No other journal characteristic proved to be an independent predictor of reporting standard endorsement for RCTs besides trial registration. Conclusion Our results highlight that study registration requirement and reporting guideline endorsement are suboptimal in internal medicine and endocrine journals. This malpractice may be further enhanced since endorsement does not imply enforcement, impairing the practice of evidence-based medicine.

Objectives: The objective was to assess the effect of menopausal hormonal therapy (MHT) on all-cause and cause-specific mortality. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of several databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus) from inception until August 2013. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of more than 6 months of duration comparing MHT with no treatment. Pairs of independent reviewers selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We estimated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the random-effects model. Results: We included 43 RCTs at moderate risk of bias. Meta-analysis showed no effect on mortality (RR 0.99 [95% CI, 0.94–1.05]), regardless of MHT type or history of preexisting heart disease. No association was found between MHT and cardiac death (RR 1.04 [95% CI 0.87–1.23]) or stroke (RR 1.49 [95% CI 0.95–2.31]). Estrogen plus progesterone use was associated with a likely increase in breast cancer mortality (RR 1.96 [95% CI 0.98–3.94]), whereas estrogen use was not. MHT use was not associated with mortality of other types of cancer. In 5 trials, MHT was likely started at a younger age: 2 RCTs with mean age less than 60 and 3 RCTs with MHT started less than 10 years after menopause. Meta-analysis of these 5 RCTs showed a reduction of mortality with MHT (RR 0.70 [95% CI 0.52–0.95]). Conclusion: The current evidence suggests that MHT does not affect the risk of death from all causes, cardiac death and death from stroke or cancer. These data may be used to support clinical and policy deliberations about the role of MHT in the care of symptomatic postmenopausal women.