Barrera, Francisco J.

AbstractDespite the fact that the choice of bearing design has been thought to influence the functional outcomes and longevity of unicompartimental knee arthroplasty (UKA), there is a lack of clinical evidence supporting the decision‐making process in patients who have undergone high tibial osteotomy (HTO). A systematic review of studies was carried out that reported the outcomes of fixed‐bearing (FB) or mobile‐bearing (MB) medial UKA in patients with a previous HTO. A random effect meta‐analysis using a generalized linear mixed‐effects model to calculate revision rates was done. Seven retrospective cohort studies were included for this study. Regarding the fixation method, 40 were the FB‐UKA and 47 were MB‐UKA. For both groups, the mean post‐operative follow‐up was 5.8 years. The survival rates were 92% for the FB‐UKA with a mean follow‐up of 10 years. For the MB‐UKA, it ranged from 35.7 to 93%, with a mean follow‐up of 4.2 years. For the FB, the time to revision was reported as 9.3 years, while 1.2, 2.5 and 2.91 years was reported for the MB. The results of the meta‐analysis showed that the revision rate for the patients receiving a FB‐UKA after failed HTO was 8%, compared to 17% in those who received an MB‐UKA. The results of the review suggest that the use of the FB‐UKA is associated with lower revision rates and a longer survival time than the MB‐UKA and have similar functional ability scores.Level of evidence: III (systematic review of level‐III studies).

Abstract Background: Patients with differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) may benefit of radioiodine ablation (RAI) to reduce the probability of thyroid cancer recurrence. Guidelines recommend that thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) of >30mIU/L before RAI to optimize treatment response. However, evidence regarding this recommendation is conflicting. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare outcomes (thyroid cancer recurrence and survival at 10 years of follow up) of stimulated TSH threshold before RAI with primary analysis focus on <30 mIU/L versus ≥30 mIU/L, and subgroup analysis on <90 mIU/L versus ≥90 mIU/L in patients with DTC after initial total thyroidectomy. Methods: The protocol for this study is registered and available online (CRD42020158354). Briefly, we searched several databases from their inception to April 2020. Reviewers, working independently and in duplicate selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and evaluated each study’s risk of bias. We excluded studies that used recombinant human thyroid stimulating hormone before ablation. Results: We included five retrospective cohort studies, which enrolled a total of 2,514 patients. Risk of bias was low in four studies and high in one study. Mean age was 47 years old (ranged from 40.7 to 47.9) and most of them were female (69%). The most common DTC type was papillary thyroid cancer (78%). From those articles that reported tumor characteristics, 48% had a size ≤2cm (T1b) and 47% >2cm. Moreover, 73% of the patients had no regional lymph metastasis (N0). Two studies reported radioiodine mean dose given of 30 and 100 mci. A total of 301 patients were included in the TSH threshold <30 mIU/L group and 1788 patients in the TSH ≥30 mIU/L group. Comparing stimulated TSH threshold before RAI (<30 mIU/L versus ≥30 mIU/L), there was difference in recurrence at 1 year (RR 2.46 (C.I. 1.09-5.55) and at 20 years (RR 1.71 (C.I. 1.19 – 2.47). However, there was no difference in mortality at 20 years (RR 0.53 (Confidence Interval (C.I.) 0.12-2.23). In addition, 10-years recurrence was not different when we compared <90 mIU/L versus ≥90 mIU/L TSH (RR 1.06; 95%CI: 0.88 – 1.27). Conclusions: Mortality do not differ between recommended TSH goal (≥30 mIU/L) vs <30 mIU/L in thyroid hormone withdrawal-aided radioiodine ablation in DTC patients. However, the risk of recurrence is reduced when patients achieved a TSH level >30 UI/mL. These results suggest that patients may need to reach a stimulated TSH ≥30 mIU/L stimulated TSH threshold to be treated. Randomized trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Objective Shared decision making (SDM) tools can help implement guideline recommendations for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) considering stroke prevention strategies. We sought to characterize all available SDM tools for this purpose and examine their quality and clinical impact. Methods We searched through multiple bibliographic databases, social media, and an SDM tool repository from inception to May 2020 and contacted authors of identified SDM tools. Eligible tools had to offer information about warfarin and ≥1 direct oral anticoagulant. We extracted tool characteristics, assessed their adherence to the International Patient Decision Aids Standards, and obtained information about their efficacy in promoting SDM. Results We found 14 SDM tools. Most tools provided up-to-date information about the options, but very few included practical considerations (e.g., out-of-pocket cost). Five of these SDM tools, all used by patients prior to the encounter, were tested in trials at high risk of bias and were found to produce small improvements in patient knowledge and reductions in decisional conflict. Conclusion Several SDM tools for stroke prevention in AF are available, but whether they promote high-quality SDM is yet to be known. The implementation of guidelines for SDM in this context requires user-centered development and evaluation of SDM tools that can effectively promote high-quality SDM and improve stroke prevention in patients with AF.

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.

AbstractCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has affected millions of people across the world but disproportionately and severely affects persons with metabolic disorders such as obesity, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension. In this brief review, we discuss the pathways of immune dysregulation that may lead to severe COVID-19 in persons with metabolic conditions.

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.