Murad, M. Hassan

Abstract Background Excess adipose tissue is associated with an abnormal lipid profile that may improve with weight reduction. In this meta-analysis, we aimed to estimate the magnitude of change in lipid parameters associated with weight loss in adults who are overweight or obese. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus from 2013 to September, 2018. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated interventions to treat adult obesity (lifestyle, pharmacologic and surgical) with follow-up of 6 months or more. Results We included 73 RCTs with moderate-to-low risk of bias, enrolling 32 496 patients (mean age, 48.1 years; weight, 101.6 kg; and body mass index [BMI], 36.3 kg/m2). Lifestyle interventions (diet, exercise, or both), pharmacotherapy, and bariatric surgery were associated with reduced triglyceride (TG) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) concentrations and increased high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) at 6 and 12 months. The following data are for changes in lipid parameters after 12 months of the intervention with 95% CI. Following lifestyle interventions, per 1 kg of weight lost, TGs were reduced by –4.0 mg/dL (95% CI, –5.24 to –2.77 mg/dL), LDL-C was reduced by –1.28 mg/dL (95% CI, –2.19 to –0.37 mg/dL), and HDL-C increased by 0.46 mg/dL (95% CI, 0.20 to 0.71 mg/dL). Following pharmacologic interventions, per 1 kg of weight lost, TGs were reduced by –1.25 mg/dL (95% CI, –2.94 to 0.43 mg/dL), LDL-C was reduced by –1.67 mg/dL (95% CI, –2.28 to –1.06 mg/dL), and HDL-C increased by 0.37 mg/dL (95% CI, 0.23 to 0.52 mg/dL). Following bariatric surgery, per 1 kg of weight lost, TGs were reduced by –2.47 mg/dL (95% CI, –3.14 to –1.80 mg/dL), LDL-C was reduced by –0.33 mg/dL (95% CI, –0.77 to 0.10 mg/dL), and HDL-C increased by 0.42 mg/dL (95% CI, 0.37 to 0.47 mg/dL). Low-carbohydrate diets resulted in reductions in TGs and increases in HDL-C, whereas low-fat diets resulted in reductions in TGs and LDL-C and increases in HDL-C. Results were consistent across malabsorptive and restrictive surgery. Conclusions Weight loss in adults is associated with statistically significant changes in serum lipids. The reported magnitude of improvement can help in setting expectations, inform shared decision making, and facilitate counseling.

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.

Abstract Objective This guideline will provide the practicing endocrinologist with an approach to the assessment and treatment of dyslipidemia in patients with endocrine diseases, with the objective of preventing cardiovascular (CV) events and triglyceride-induced pancreatitis. The guideline reviews data on dyslipidemia and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk in patients with endocrine disorders and discusses the evidence for the correction of dyslipidemia by treatment of the endocrine disease. The guideline also addresses whether treatment of the endocrine disease reduces ASCVD risk. Conclusion This guideline focuses on lipid and lipoprotein abnormalities associated with endocrine diseases, including diabetes mellitus, and whether treatment of the endocrine disorder improves not only the lipid abnormalities, but also CV outcomes. Based on the available evidence, recommendations are made for the assessment and management of dyslipidemia in patients with endocrine diseases.

Abstract Background The availability of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serologic testing has rapidly increased. Current assays use a variety of technologies, measure different classes of immunoglobulin or immunoglobulin combinations, and detect antibodies directed against different portions of the virus. The overall accuracy of these tests, however, has not been well defined. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) convened an expert panel to perform a systematic review of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) serology literature and construct best-practice guidance related to SARS-CoV-2 serologic testing. This guideline is the fourth in a series of rapid, frequently updated COVID-19 guidelines developed by IDSA. Objective IDSA’s goal was to develop evidence-based recommendations that assist clinicians, clinical laboratories, patients, and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 serologic tests in a variety of settings. We also highlight important unmet research needs pertaining to the use of anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests for diagnosis, public health surveillance, vaccine development, and the selection of convalescent plasma donors. Methods A multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists, and experts in systematic literature review identified and prioritized clinical questions related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 serologic tests. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. Results The panel agreed on 8 diagnostic recommendations. Conclusions Information on the clinical performance and utility of SARS-CoV-2 serologic tests is rapidly emerging. Based on available evidence, detection of anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies may be useful for confirming the presence of current or past infection in selected situations. The panel identified 3 potential indications for serologic testing, including (1) evaluation of patients with a high clinical suspicion for COVID-19 when molecular diagnostic testing is negative and ≥2 weeks have passed since symptom onset, (2) assessment of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, and (3) conducting serosurveillance studies. The certainty of available evidence supporting the use of serology for either diagnosis or epidemiology was, however, graded as very low to moderate. For the most updated version of these guidelines, please go to https://www.idsociety.org/covid19guidelines.

Abstract Background Hypercalcemia of malignancy is the second most common cause of hypercalcemia 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. Objective The aim of this study is to summarize the available evidence on important decisional factors for the development of guidelines for the treatment of hypercalcemia of malignancy. These include patient’s values and preferences, cost, acceptability, feasibility, and equity. Methods/Design: This is a systematic review of observational studies, case series, trials, reviews and qualitative studies involving treatment of adult patients with hypercalcemia of malignancy. We developed and executed two independent search strategies using five databases: Pubmed, Medline (OVID), Embase.com, CINAHL (EBSCO) and Cochrane, and reviewed their combined output. Two reviewers screened 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 analyses by drug class or etiology of hypercalcemia of malignancy. We will present the data collected in a narrative and thematic approach. Discussion This systematic review will identify important treatment decisional factors, and will assist guidelines panels, physicians and patients to decide on therapeutic options based on the current evidence.

Abstract Objectives Clinical studies of chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in COVID-19 disease reported conflicting results. We sought to systematically evaluate the effect of CQ and HCQ with or without azithromycin on outcomes of COVID-19 patients. Methods We searched multiple databases, preprints and grey literature up to 17 July 2020. We pooled only adjusted-effect estimates of mortality using a random-effect model. We summarized the effect of CQ or HCQ on viral clearance, ICU admission/mechanical ventilation and hospitalization. Results Seven randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and 14 cohort studies were included (20 979 patients). Thirteen studies (1 RCT and 12 cohort studies) with 15 938 hospitalized patients examined the effect of HCQ on short-term mortality. The pooled adjusted OR was 1.05 (95% CI 0.96–1.15, I2 = 0%). Six cohort studies examined the effect of the HCQ+azithromycin combination with a pooled adjusted OR of 1.32 (95% CI 1.00–1.75, I2 = 68.1%). Two cohort studies and four RCTs found no effect of HCQ on viral clearance. One small RCT demonstrated improved viral clearance with CQ and HCQ. Three cohort studies found that HCQ had no significant effect on mechanical ventilation/ICU admission. Two RCTs found no effect for HCQ on hospitalization risk in outpatients with COVID-19. Conclusions Moderate certainty evidence suggests that HCQ, with or without azithromycin, lacks efficacy in reducing short-term mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 or risk of hospitalization in outpatients with COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: To assess the effects of sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) on acid reflux and esophageal motor function and to evaluate the observation of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) after bariatric surgery. METHODS: We searched 5 databases for adults who underwent SG or RYGB and had esophageal pH test and/or esophageal manometry before and after surgery. A separate systemic search of observational studies and a retrospective review at 3 institutions of adults who developed EAC after these surgeries were conducted. Outcomes were changes in manometric and pH parameters and EAC cases after SG and RYGB. RESULTS: A total of 27 nonrandomized studies (SG: 612 patients; RYGB: 470 patients) were included. After SG, lower esophageal sphincter pressure and esophageal body amplitude were decreased and the risk of ineffective esophageal motility was increased. Total and recumbent acid exposure times were increased. After RYGB, an increased risk of ineffective esophageal motility was observed. Total, upright, and recumbent acid exposure times were decreased. The total reflux episodes remained unchanged but with increased nonacid reflux and decreased acid reflux events. Including our largest series, 31 EAC cases have been reported to date after SG and RYGB. DISCUSSION: This systematic review demonstrates increased acid reflux after SG and decreased acid reflux after RYGB. An observed increased nonacid reflux after RYGB might contribute to failure of gastroesophageal reflux disease improvement. This refluxate might be noxious to the esophagus, warranting further studies. RYGB might not entirely preserve esophageal function as previously believed.

Often clinicians are interested in determining whether a subject's measurement falls within a normal range, defined as a range of values of a continuous outcome which contains some proportion (eg, 95%) of measurements from a healthy population. Several studies in the biomedical field have estimated reference ranges based on a meta‐analysis of multiple studies with healthy individuals. However, the literature currently gives no guidance about how to estimate the reference range of a new subject in such settings. Instead, meta‐analyses of such normative range studies typically report the pooled mean as a reference value, which does not incorporate natural variation across healthy individuals in different studies. We present three approaches to calculating the normal reference range of a subject from a meta‐analysis of normally or lognormally distributed outcomes: a frequentist random effects model, a Bayesian random effects model, and an empirical approach. We present the results of a simulation study demonstrating that the methods perform well under a variety of scenarios, though users should be cautious when the number of studies is small and between‐study heterogeneity is large. Finally, we apply these methods to two examples: pediatric time spent awake after sleep onset and frontal subjective postural vertical measurements.

SummaryBackgroundHyperbaric oxygen has been reported to improve disease activity in hospitalised ulcerative colitis (UC) patients.AimTo evaluate dosing strategies with hyperbaric oxygen for hospitalised UC patients.MethodsWe enrolled UC patients hospitalised for acute flares (Mayo score 6‐12). Initially, all patients received 3 days of hyperbaric oxygen at 2.4 atmospheres (90 minutes with two air breaks) in addition to intravenous steroids. Day 3 responders (reduction of partial Mayo score ≥ 2 points and rectal bleeding score ≥ 1 point) were randomised to receive a total of 5 days vs 3 days of hyperbaric oxygen.ResultsWe treated 20 patients with hyperbaric oxygen (75% prior biologic failure). Day 3 response was achieved in 55% (n = 11/20), with significant reductions in stool frequency, rectal bleeding and CRP (P < 0.01). A more significant reduction in disease activity was observed with 5 days vs 3 days of hyperbaric oxygen (P = 0.03). Infliximab or colectomy was required in only three patients (15%) despite a predicted probability of 80% for second‐line therapy. Day 3 hyperbaric oxygen responders were less likely to require re‐hospitalisation or colectomy by 3 months vs non‐responders (0% vs 66%, P = 0.002). No treatment‐related adverse events were observed.ConclusionHyperbaric oxygen appears to be effective for optimising response to intravenous steroids in UC patients hospitalised for acute flares, with low rates of re‐hospitalisation or colectomy at 3 months. An optimal clinical response is achieved with 5 days of hyperbaric oxygen. Larger phase 3 trials are needed to confirm efficacy and obtain labelled approval.

ObjectiveAntirheumatic disease therapies have been used to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) and its complications. We conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis to describe the current evidence.MethodsA search of published and preprint databases in all languages was performed. Included studies described ≥1 relevant clinical outcome for ≥5 patients who were infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and were treated with antirheumatic disease therapy between January 1, 2019 and May 29, 2020. Pairs of reviewers screened articles, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A meta‐analysis of effect sizes using random‐effects models was performed when possible.ResultsThe search identified 3,935 articles, of which 45 were included (4 randomized controlled trials, 29 cohort studies, and 12 case series). All studies evaluated hospitalized patients, and 29 of the 45 studies had been published in a peer‐reviewed journal. In a meta‐analysis of 3 cohort studies with a low risk of bias, hydroxychloroquine use was not significantly associated with mortality (pooled hazard ratio [HR] 1.41 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.83, 2.42]). In a meta‐analysis of 2 cohort studies with some concerns/higher risk of bias, anakinra use was associated with lower mortality (pooled HR 0.25 [95% CI 0.12, 0.52]). Evidence was inconclusive with regard to other antirheumatic disease therapies, and the majority of other studies had a high risk of bias.ConclusionIn this systematic review and meta‐analysis, hydroxychloroquine use was not associated with benefit or harm regarding COVID‐19 mortality. The evidence supporting the effect of other antirheumatic disease therapies in COVID‐19 is currently inconclusive.