Citations

ObjectivePsoriatic arthritis (PsA) and ankylosing spondylitis (AS) are chronic inflammatory diseases associated with a higher risk of cardiometabolic comorbidities compared to the general population. Individual studies examining mortality in these patients have produced conflicting results. The present study was undertaken to perform a systematic review and meta‐analysis to analyze the all‐cause and cause‐specific mortality in PsA and AS from the available literature.MethodsA comprehensive database search was performed for studies reporting all‐cause or cause‐specific mortality in patients with PsA and AS compared with the general population. Pooled relative risks (RRs) were calculated using a random‐effects model.ResultsWe included 19 studies (11 of PsA, 7 of AS, 1 of both). In PsA studies, there was no increased mortality compared to the general population (RR 1.12 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.96–1.30]; n = 10 studies). We found a higher all‐cause mortality in female (RR 1.19 [95% CI 1.04–1.36]) but not in male (RR 1.02 [95% CI 0.66–1.59]) PsA patients. Cardiovascular‐, respiratory‐, and infection‐specific mortality risks were significantly higher for PsA patients (RR 1.21 [95% CI 1.06–1.38], RR 3.37 [95% CI 1.30–8.72], and RR 2.43 [95% CI 1.01–5.84], respectively), but not cancer‐related mortality (RR 1.01 [95% CI 0.91–1.11]). In AS, we found a higher risk of death from all causes (RR 1.64 [95% CI 1.49–1.80]; n = 6 studies) and cardiovascular causes (RR 1.35 [95% CI 1.01–1.81]; n = 3 studies) compared to the general population. All‐cause mortality was high in both male (RR 1.56 [95% CI 1.43–1.71]) and female (RR 1.85 [95% CI 1.56–2.18]) AS patients. The included AS studies did not report mortality data for non‐cardiovascular causes.ConclusionThis systematic review and meta‐analysis showed a significantly increased risk of overall mortality in AS but not PsA. Cardiovascular‐specific mortality was higher for both PsA and AS, which emphasizes the importance of early screening and management of cardiovascular risk factors.

Hypertension is a major cause of cardiovascular disease and deaths worldwide especially in low- and middle-income countries. Despite the availability of safe, well-tolerated, and cost-effective blood pressure (BP)-lowering therapies, <14% of adults with hypertension have BP controlled to a systolic/diastolic BP <140/90 mm Hg. We report new hypertension treatment guidelines, developed in accordance with the World Health Organization Handbook for Guideline Development. Overviews of reviews of the evidence were conducted and summary tables were developed according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations approach. In these guidelines, the World Health Organization provides the most current and relevant evidence-based guidance for the pharmacological treatment of nonpregnant adults with hypertension. The recommendations pertain to adults with an accurate diagnosis of hypertension who have already received lifestyle modification counseling. The guidelines recommend BP threshold to initiate pharmacological therapy, BP treatment targets, intervals for follow-up visits, and best use of health care workers in the management of hypertension. The guidelines provide guidance for choice of monotherapy or dual therapy, treatment with single pill combination medications, and use of treatment algorithms for hypertension management. Strength of the recommendations was guided by the quality of the underlying evidence; the tradeoffs between desirable and undesirable effects; patient’s values, resource considerations and cost-effectiveness; health equity; acceptability, and feasibility consideration of different treatment options. The goal of the guideline is to facilitate standard approaches to pharmacological treatment and management of hypertension which, if widely implemented, will increase the hypertension control rate world-wide.

Abstract Background Since its emergence in late 2019, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to pose a risk to healthcare personnel (HCP) and patients in healthcare settings. Although all clinical interactions likely carry some risk of transmission, human actions, such as coughing, and care activities, such as aerosol-generating procedures, likely have a higher risk of transmission. The rapid emergence and global spread of SARS-CoV-2 continues to create significant challenges in healthcare facilities, particularly with shortages of the personal protective equipment (PPE) used by HCP. Evidence-based recommendations for what PPE to use in conventional, contingency, and crisis standards of care continue to be needed. Where evidence is lacking, the development of specific research questions can help direct funders and investigators. The purpose of the current study was to develop evidence-based rapid guidelines intended to support HCP in their decisions about infection prevention when caring for patients with suspected or known coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel including frontline clinicians, infectious disease specialists, experts in infection control, and guideline methodologists, with representation from the disciplines of public health, medical microbiology, pediatrics, critical care medicine and gastroenterology. The 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 8 recommendations, including 2 updated recommendations and 1 new recommendation added since the first version of the guideline. Narrative summaries of other interventions undergoing evaluations are also included. Conclusions Using a combination of direct and indirect evidence, the panel was able to provide recommendations for 8 specific questions on the use of PPE by HCP providing care for patients with suspected or known COVID-19. Where evidence was lacking, attempts were made to provide potential avenues for investigation. There remain significant gaps in the understanding of the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2, and PPE recommendations may need to be modified in response to new evidence. These recommendations should serve as a minimum for PPE use in healthcare facilities and do not preclude decisions based on local risk assessments or requirements of local health jurisdictions or other regulatory bodies.

Introduction Hypercalcaemia of malignancy (HCM) is the second most common cause of hypercalcaemia and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Several treatment options are available including pharmacological therapy with bisphosphonates, denosumab, glucocorticoids and calcimimetics, as well as conventional therapy with hydration and possibly calcitonin. While guidelines have previously considered treatment effects, no guideline has yet considered a range of contextual factors impacting recommendations for the management. The aim of this study was to summarise the available evidence on important decisional factors for the development of guidelines for the treatment of HCM. These include patient’s values and preferences, cost, acceptability, feasibility and equity. Methods and analysis This protocol is registered in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42021264371). This is a systematic review of observational studies, case series, trials, reviews and qualitative studies involving treatment of adult patients with HCM. We will develop and execute two independent search strategies using five databases: PubMed, Medline (OVID), Embase.com, CINAHL (EBSCO) and Cochrane, and review their combined output. Two reviewers will screen titles and abstracts and full texts and will implement data abstraction from relevant studies independently and in duplicate. The outcomes of interest are the decisional factors that influence drug selection, with possible subgroup summaries by drug class or aetiology of HCM. We will present the data collected in a narrative and thematic approach. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval is not applicable for our study, since we will only collect data from available literature. This systematic review will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal when completed.

BACKGROUND: Cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy is the standard of care for muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of the two most commonly used cisplatin-based regimens; gemcitabine, and cisplatin (GC) vs. accelerated (dose-dense: dd) or conventional methotrexate, vinblastine, adriamycin, and cisplatin (MVAC). METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus and other sources. Outcomes of interest included overall survival, downstaging to pT≤1, pathologic complete response (pCR), recurrence, and toxicity. Meta-analysis was conducted using the random-effects model. RESULTS: We identified 24 studies. Efficacy outcomes were comparable between MVAC and GC for MIBC. dd-MVAC was associated with favorable efficacy compared to GC in terms of downstaging (OR 1.45; 95%CI 1.15–1.82) and all-cause mortality at longest follow-up (OR 0.63; 95%CI 0.44–0.81). However, GC was associated with a better safety profile in terms of febrile neutropenia (OR 0.32; 95%CI 0.13–0.80), anemia (OR 0.32; 95%CI 0.18–0.54), nausea and vomiting (OR 0.27; 95%CI 0.12–0.65) compared to dd-MVAC. Compared to MVAC, patients receiving GC had an increased risk of developing grade 3–4 thrombocytopenia (OR 4.70; 95%CI 1.59–13.89) and a lower risk of nausea and vomiting (OR 0.05; 95%CI 0.01–0.31). Certainty in the estimates was very low for most outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy and safety outcomes were comparable between MVAC and GC for MIBC. Including non-peer-reviewed studies showed higher efficacy with dd-MVAC. A phase III randomized trial comparing the two regimens is needed to guide clinical practice.

Abstract Background: Sickle cell disease (SCD) is a life-limiting inherited hemoglobinopathy that results in significant complications and affects quality of life. Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is currently the only curative intervention for SCD; however, guidelines are needed to inform how to apply HSCT in clinical practice. Objective: These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and health professionals in their decisions about HSCT for SCD. Methods: The multidisciplinary guideline panel formed by ASH included 2 patient representatives and was balanced to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The Mayo Evidence-Based Practice Research Program supported the guideline development process, including performing systematic evidence reviews (through 2019). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, including GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks, to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment. Results: The panel agreed on 8 recommendations to help patients and providers assess how individuals with SCD should consider the timing and type of HSCT. Conclusions: The evidence review yielded no randomized controlled clinical trials for HSCT in SCD; therefore, all recommendations are based on very low certainty in the evidence. Key recommendations include considering HSCT for those with neurologic injury or recurrent acute chest syndrome at an early age and to improve nonmyeloablative regimens. Future research should include the development of a robust SCD registry to serve as a comparator for HSCT 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.