Murad, M. Hassan

Abstract Vitamin D plays a critical role in many physiological functions, including calcium metabolism and musculoskeletal health. This commentary aims to explore the intricate relationships among skin complexion, race, and 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) levels, focusing on challenges the Endocrine Society encountered during clinical practice guideline development. Given that increased melanin content reduces 25(OH)D production in the skin in response to UV light, the guideline development panel addressed the potential role for 25(OH)D screening in individuals with dark skin complexion. The panel discovered that no randomized clinical trials have directly assessed vitamin D related patient-important outcomes based on participants' skin pigmentation, although race and ethnicity often served as presumed proxies for skin pigmentation in the literature. In their deliberations, guideline panel members and selected Endocrine Society leaders underscored the critical need to distinguish between skin pigmentation as a biological variable and race and ethnicity as socially determined constructs. This differentiation is vital to maximize scientific rigor and, thus, the validity of resulting recommendations. Lessons learned from the guideline development process emphasize the necessity of clarity when incorporating race and ethnicity into clinical guidelines. Such clarity is an essential step toward improving health outcomes and ensuring equitable healthcare practices.

ObjectiveOur objective was to evaluate the effect of glucocorticoid regimens on renal response, infections, and mortality among patients with lupus nephritis (LN).MethodsWe performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis of the control arms of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). We included RCTs of biopsy‐proven LN that used a protocolized regimen of glucocorticoids in combination with mycophenolic acid analogs or cyclophosphamide and reported the outcomes of complete response (CR), serious infections, and death. The starting dosage of glucocorticoids, tapering method, and administration of glucocorticoid pulses were abstracted. Meta‐analysis of proportions, meta‐regression, and subgroup meta‐analysis were performed at 6 and 12 months for all outcomes.ResultsFifty RCT arms (3,231 patients with LN) were included. The predicted rates of CR, serious infections, and death when starting on oral prednisone at 25 mg/day without pulses were 19.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 7.3–31.5), 3.2% (95% CI 2.4–4.0), and 0.2% (95% CI 0.0–0.4), respectively. Starting on prednisone at 60 mg/day (without pulses) increased the rates to 34.6% (95% CI 16.9–52.3), 12.1% (95% CI 9.3–14.9), and 2.7% (95% CI 0.0–5.3), respectively. Adding glucocorticoid pulses increased the rates of CR and death but not serious infections. We observed a dose–response gradient between the initial glucocorticoid dosage and all the outcomes at six months after accounting for the administration of glucocorticoid pulses, underlying immunosuppressant, and baseline proteinuria.ConclusionA higher exposure to glucocorticoids during the initial therapy of LN was associated with better renal outcomes at the cost of increased infections and death.

Introduction Gastrointestinal hospitalisations in the USA cause over US$130 billion in expenditures, and acute pancreatitis is a leading cause of these hospitalisations. Adequate pain control is one of the primary treatment goals for acute pancreatitis. Though opioids are commonly used for analgesia in these patients, there have been concerns about short-term and long-term side effects of using opioids. Recently, non-opioid medications have been studied to treat pain in patients with acute pancreatitis. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to assess the comparative efficacy of analgesic medication for non-severe, acute pancreatitis. Methods and analysis We will search multiple electronic databases for randomised controlled trials that study pain management in patients with non-severe, acute pancreatitis. The intervention will be any analgesic for acute pancreatitis in the hospital setting. The comparison group will be patients who received a placebo or other active interventions for pain management. The primary outcomes of interest include pain scores and the need for supplementary analgesia. The secondary outcomes will be serious adverse events, local complications, progression to severe pancreatitis, transfer to the intensive care unit, length of hospitalisation, time to start enteral feeds, 30-day all-cause mortality and Quality of Life Scale scores. If sufficient homogeneity exists among included studies, the findings will be pooled using a traditional pairwise and network meta-analysis. The risk of bias in randomised control trials will be evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach will be used to report the certainty of evidence. Ethics and dissemination This systematic review will not involve direct contact with human subjects. The findings of this review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. They will give healthcare providers a better awareness of the optimal analgesic medication for pain treatment in non-severe, acute pancreatitis.

Abstract Context Low vitamin D status is common and is associated with various common medical conditions. Objective To support the development of the Endocrine Society's Clinical Practice Guideline on Vitamin D for the Prevention of Disease. Methods We searched multiple databases for studies that addressed 14 clinical questions prioritized by the guideline panel. Of the 14 questions, 10 clinical questions assessed the effect of vitamin D vs no vitamin D in the general population throughout the lifespan, during pregnancy, and in adults with prediabetes; 1 question assessed dosing; and 3 questions addressed screening with serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to assess certainty of evidence. Results Electronic searches yielded 37 007 citations, from which we included 151 studies. In children and adolescents, low-certainty evidence suggested reduction in respiratory tract infections with empiric vitamin D. There was no significant effect on select outcomes in healthy adults aged 19 to 74 years with variable certainty of evidence. There was a very small reduction in mortality among adults older than 75 years with high certainty of evidence. In pregnant women, low-certainty evidence suggested possible benefit on various maternal, fetal, and neonatal outcomes. In adults with prediabetes, moderate certainty of evidence suggested reduction in the rate of progression to diabetes. Administration of high-dose intermittent vitamin D may increase falls, compared to lower-dose daily dosing. We did not identify trials on the benefits and harms of screening with serum 25(OH)D. Conclusion The evidence summarized in this systematic review addresses the benefits and harms of vitamin D for the prevention of disease. The guideline panel considered additional information about individuals’ and providers’ values and preferences and other important decisional and contextual factors to develop clinical recommendations.

Abstract Background Numerous studies demonstrate associations between serum concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) and a variety of common disorders, including musculoskeletal, metabolic, cardiovascular, malignant, autoimmune, and infectious diseases. Although a causal link between serum 25(OH)D concentrations and many disorders has not been clearly established, these associations have led to widespread supplementation with vitamin D and increased laboratory testing for 25(OH)D in the general population. The benefit-risk ratio of this increase in vitamin D use is not clear, and the optimal vitamin D intake and the role of testing for 25(OH)D for disease prevention remain uncertain. Objective To develop clinical guidelines for the use of vitamin D (cholecalciferol [vitamin D3] or ergocalciferol [vitamin D2]) to lower the risk of disease in individuals without established indications for vitamin D treatment or 25(OH)D testing. Methods A multidisciplinary panel of clinical experts, along with experts in guideline methodology and systematic literature review, identified and prioritized 14 clinically relevant questions related to the use of vitamin D and 25(OH)D testing to lower the risk of disease. The panel prioritized randomized placebo-controlled trials in general populations (without an established indication for vitamin D treatment or 25[OH]D testing), evaluating the effects of empiric vitamin D administration throughout the lifespan, as well as in select conditions (pregnancy and prediabetes). The panel defined “empiric supplementation” as vitamin D intake that (a) exceeds the Dietary Reference Intakes (DRI) and (b) is implemented without testing for 25(OH)D. Systematic reviews queried electronic databases for publications related to these 14 clinical questions. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and guide recommendations. The approach incorporated perspectives from a patient representative and considered patient values, costs and resources required, acceptability and feasibility, and impact on health equity of the proposed recommendations. The process to develop this clinical guideline did not use a risk assessment framework and was not designed to replace current DRI for vitamin D. Results The panel suggests empiric vitamin D supplementation for children and adolescents aged 1 to 18 years to prevent nutritional rickets and because of its potential to lower the risk of respiratory tract infections; for those aged 75 years and older because of its potential to lower the risk of mortality; for those who are pregnant because of its potential to lower the risk of preeclampsia, intra-uterine mortality, preterm birth, small-for-gestational-age birth, and neonatal mortality; and for those with high-risk prediabetes because of its potential to reduce progression to diabetes. Because the vitamin D doses in the included clinical trials varied considerably and many trial participants were allowed to continue their own vitamin D–containing supplements, the optimal doses for empiric vitamin D supplementation remain unclear for the populations considered. For nonpregnant people older than 50 years for whom vitamin D is indicated, the panel suggests supplementation via daily administration of vitamin D, rather than intermittent use of high doses. The panel suggests against empiric vitamin D supplementation above the current DRI to lower the risk of disease in healthy adults younger than 75 years. No clinical trial evidence was found to support routine screening for 25(OH)D in the general population, nor in those with obesity or dark complexion, and there was no clear evidence defining the optimal target level of 25(OH)D required for disease prevention in the populations considered; thus, the panel suggests against routine 25(OH)D testing in all populations considered. The panel judged that, in most situations, empiric vitamin D supplementation is inexpensive, feasible, acceptable to both healthy individuals and health care professionals, and has no negative effect on health equity. Conclusion The panel suggests empiric vitamin D for those aged 1 to 18 years and adults over 75 years of age, those who are pregnant, and those with high-risk prediabetes. Due to the scarcity of natural food sources rich in vitamin D, empiric supplementation can be achieved through a combination of fortified foods and supplements that contain vitamin D. Based on the absence of supportive clinical trial evidence, the panel suggests against routine 25(OH)D testing in the absence of established indications. These recommendations are not meant to replace the current DRIs for vitamin D, nor do they apply to people with established indications for vitamin D treatment or 25(OH)D testing. Further research is needed to determine optimal 25(OH)D levels for specific health benefits.

Abstract Background We compared long-term mortality and readmission rates after COVID-19 hospitalization based on rural-urban status and assessed the impact of COVID-19 vaccination introduction on clinical outcomes by rurality. Methods The study comprised adults hospitalized for COVID-19 at 17 hospitals in 4 US states between March 2020 and July 2022, followed until May 2023. The main analysis included all patients, whereas a sensitivity analysis focused on residents from 4 states containing 17 hospitals. Additional analyses compared the pre- and postvaccination periods. Results The main analysis involved 9325 COVID-19 hospitalized patients: 31% were from 187 rural counties in 31 states; 69% from 234 urban counties in 44 states; the mean age was 65 years (rural, 66 years; urban, 64 years); 3894 women (rural, 41%; urban, 42%); 8007 Whites (rural, 87%; urban, 83%); 1738 deaths (rural, 21%; urban, 17%); and 2729 readmissions (rural, 30%; urban, 29%). During a median follow-up of 602 days, rural residence was associated with a 22% higher all-cause mortality (log-rank, P < .001; hazard ratio, 1.22; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.34, P < .001), and a trend toward a higher readmission rate (log-rank, P = .038; hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, .98-1.15; P = .130). The results remained consistent in the sensitivity analysis and in both pre- and postvaccination time periods. Conclusions and Relevance Patients from rural counties experienced higher mortality and tended to be readmitted more frequently following COVID-19 hospitalization over the long term compared with those from urban counties, a difference that remained even after the introduction of COVID-19 vaccines.

Background and Aims: Transient elastography (TE), shear wave elastography, and/or magnetic resonance elastography (MRE), each providing liver stiffness measurement (LSM), are the most studied imaging-based noninvasive liver disease assessment (NILDA) techniques. To support the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases guidelines on NILDA, we summarized the evidence on the accuracy of these LSM methods to stage liver fibrosis (F). Approach and Results: A comprehensive search for studies assessing LSM by TE, shear wave elastography, or MRE for the identification of significant fibrosis (F2-4), advanced fibrosis (F3-4), or cirrhosis (F4), using histopathology as the standard of reference by liver disease etiology in adults or children from inception to April 2022 was performed. We excluded studies with <50 patients with a single disease entity and mixed liver disease etiologies (with the exception of HCV/HIV coinfection). Out of 9447 studies, 240 with 61,193 patients were included in this systematic review. In adults, sensitivities for the identification of F2-4 ranged from 51% to 95%, for F3-4 from 70% to 100%, and for F4 from 60% to 100% across all techniques/diseases, whereas specificities ranged from 36% to 100%, 74% to 100%, and 67% to 99%, respectively. The largest body of evidence available was for TE; MRE appeared to be the most accurate method. Imaging-based NILDA outperformed blood-based NILDA in most comparisons, particularly for the identification of F3-4/F4. In the pediatric population, imaging-based NILDA is likely as accurate as in adults. Conclusions: LSM from TE, shear wave elastography, and MRE shows acceptable to outstanding accuracy for the detection of liver fibrosis across various liver disease etiologies. Accuracy increased from F2-4 to F3-4 and was the highest for F4. Further research is needed to better standardize the use of imaging-based NILDA, particularly in pediatric liver diseases.

Abstract Background The role of serologic testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has evolved during the pandemic as seroprevalence in global populations has increased. The Infectious Diseases Society of America convened an expert panel to perform a systematic review of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) serology literature and construct updated best practice guidance related to SARS-CoV-2 serologic testing. This guideline is an update to the fourth in a series of rapid, frequently updated COVID-19 guidelines developed by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Objective To develop evidence-based recommendations and identify unmet research needs pertaining to the use of anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests for diagnosis, decisions related to vaccination and administration of monoclonal antibodies or convalescent plasma in immunocompromised patients, and identification of a serologic correlate of immunity. Methods A multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists, and experts in systematic literature reviewed, identified, and prioritized clinical questions related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 serologic tests. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. Results The panel recommends against serologic testing to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 infection in the first 2 weeks after symptom onset (strong recommendations, low certainty of evidence). Serologic testing should not be used to provide evidence of COVID-19 in symptomatic patients with a high clinical suspicion and repeatedly negative nucleic acid amplification test results (strong recommendation, very low certainty of evidence). Serologic testing may assist with the diagnosis of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (strong recommendation, very low certainty of evidence). To seek evidence for prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, the panel suggests testing for immunoglobulin G (IgG), IgG/IgM, or total antibodies to nucleocapsid protein 3 to 5 weeks after symptom onset (conditional recommendation, low certainty of evidence). In individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination, the panel suggests against routine serologic testing given no demonstrated benefit to improving patient outcomes (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence). The panel acknowledges further that a negative spike antibody test may be a useful metric to identify immunocompromised patients who are candidates for immune therapy. Conclusions The high seroprevalence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 worldwide limits the utility of detecting anti-SARS CoV-2 antibody. The certainty of available evidence supporting the use of serology for diagnosis was graded as very low to low. Future studies should use serologic assays calibrated to a common reference standard.