Porter, Forbes D.

ABSTRACT In 2018, the International Niemann‐Pick Disease Alliance (INPDA) and the International Niemann‐Pick Disease Registry (INPDR) developed and published comprehensive clinical management guidelines to support inclusive and standardized care pathways in Niemann‐Pick disease type C (NPC)—an ultra‐rare, autosomal recessive, neurovisceral lysosomal disorder. Since then, advances in diagnostics, care, and the approval of two novel disease‐modifying agents have underscored the need to revise these guidelines to ensure safe, consistent, and high‐quality care for those affected by NPC. In response, the INPDA and INPDR convened a multidisciplinary Guidelines Development Group (GDG) comprising individuals with NPC expertise from 14 countries across five continents, representing a broad range of specialties, as well as patients and families involved in NPC care. Informed by a comprehensive literature review and two meetings, the GDG systematically reviewed, revised, and updated the 2018 guideline statements, re‐evaluating the level of evidence, strength of recommendations, and expert agreement for each. The resulting 2025 consensus clinical management guidelines constitute a timely, up‐to‐date, and internationally applicable resource for the diagnosis, treatment, and holistic management of individuals with NPC. These guidelines serve as a critical resource for specialist centers, hospital‐based medical teams, staff involved in NPC patient care, family physicians and other primary caregivers, and, importantly, patients and their families.

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.

AbstractCOVID-19 was declared a global pandemic by the WHO and has affected millions of patients around the world. COVID-19 disproportionately affects persons with endocrine conditions, thus putting them at an increased risk for severe disease. We discuss the mechanisms that place persons with endocrine conditions at an additional risk for severe COVID-19 and review the evidence. We also suggest precautions and management of endocrine conditions in the setting of global curfews being imposed and offer practical tips for uninterrupted endocrine care.