Asghar, Muhammad Sohaib

Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) is a chronic, one of the commonest and persistent gastrointestinal (GI) disorder. Previously, the management plan for IBS-D included enhancing awareness; first line treatment included an increased dietary fiber intake, opioids for diarrhea and antispasmodics for pain management. A recent treatment guideline by the American Gastroenterology Association (AGA) suggests a modified approach to treating patients with IBS-D. Eight drug recommendations were made, and a set of instructions on when to employ which medication was devised. With the incorporation of these structured guidelines, a more tailored and focused approach to IBS management may become plausible.

AbstractBackground and ObjectivesSince publishing successful clinical trial results of mRNA coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) vaccines in December 2020, multiple reports have arisen about cardiovascular complications following the mRNA vaccination. This study provides an in‐depth account of various cardiovascular adverse events reported after the mRNA vaccines' first or second dose including pericarditis/myopericarditis, myocarditis, hypotension, hypertension, arrhythmia, cardiogenic shock, stroke, myocardial infarction/STEMI, intracranial hemorrhage, thrombosis (deep vein thrombosis, cerebral venous thrombosis, arterial or venous thrombotic events, portal vein thrombosis, coronary thrombosis, microvascular small bowel thrombosis), and pulmonary embolism.MethodsA systematic review of original studies reporting confirmed cardiovascular manifestations post‐mRNA COVID‐19 vaccination was performed. Following the PRISMA guidelines, electronic databases (PubMed, PMC NCBI, and Cochrane Library) were searched until January 2022. Baseline characteristics of patients and disease outcomes were extracted from relevant studies.ResultsA total of 81 articles analyzed confirmed cardiovascular complications post‐COVID‐19 mRNA vaccines in 17,636 individuals and reported 284 deaths with any mRNA vaccine. Of 17,636 cardiovascular events with any mRNA vaccine, 17,192 were observed with the BNT162b2 (Pfizer−BioNTech) vaccine, 444 events with mRNA‐1273 (Moderna). Thrombosis was frequently reported with any mRNA vaccine (n = 13,936), followed by stroke (n = 758), myocarditis (n = 511), myocardial infarction (n = 377), pulmonary embolism (n = 301), and arrhythmia (n = 254). Stratifying the results by vaccine type showed that thrombosis (80.8%) was common in the BNT162b2 cohort, while stroke (39.9%) was common with mRNA‐1273 for any dose. The time between the vaccination dosage and the first symptom onset averaged 5.6 and 4.8 days with the mRNA‐1273 vaccine and BNT162b2, respectively. The mRNA‐1273 cohort reported 56 deaths compared to the 228 with BNT162b2, while the rest were discharged or transferred to the ICU.ConclusionAvailable literature includes more studies with the BNT162b2 vaccine than mRNA‐1273. Future studies must report mortality and adverse cardiovascular events by vaccine types.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD), a broad-spectrum term comprising coronary artery disease, stroke, hypertension, and heart failure, presents as one of the most significant strains on global healthcare systems. Coronary artery disease, caused by atherosclerosis, has various modifiable risk factors such as dietary changes and exercise. Since these risk factors are found to be linked to oxidative stress and inflammations, the dietary supplementation with vitamins’ role in treating and preventing the diseases has been of much debate. With various vitamins having anti-inflammatory and antioxidative properties, studies have explored their correlation with cardiovascular health. Therefore, this narrative review explores and evaluates the benefits and risks of all vitamin supplementations in patients with CVD and provides future recommendations.

AbstractBackgroundThe menstrual cycle in women is the main indicator of their reproductive health which is affected by the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic. This review aims to summarize the effects of the COVID‐19 infection and the global pandemic on the menstrual health of women.MethodsThe literature search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane library, and Google Scholar using keywords “COVID‐19,” “Menstrual Cycle,” “Menstrual Cycle Irregularities,” “Amenorrhea,” “Polymenorrhea,” and “Dysmenorrhea.” The articles were selected according to the following inclusion criteria: (i) cross‐sectional studies, (ii) cohort studies, (iii) surveys, and (iv) other observational studies observing the effects of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection or COVID‐19 pandemic on menstrual health of women. Exclusion criteria included: case reports, gray literature, and website articles regarding menstrual health.ResultsA total of 30,510 articles were shortlisted after a comprehensive search. Sixteen articles were included out of which 13 studies investigated the effects of the COVID‐19 pandemic on the menstrual cycle while 3 evaluated the possible effects of COVID‐19 infection on the menstrual health of women. Menstrual disorders or irregularities were a more common finding during the pandemic as compared to before (p = 0.008). Women affected by pandemic‐related stress were more prone to changes in the duration of their menses (p = 0.0008), reported heavier bleeding (p = 0.028), and increased incidence of painful periods (p < 0.0001). COVID‐19 infected women also reported changes in their menstrual cycle including irregular menstruation, increased symptoms of premenstrual syndrome, and infrequent menstruation.ConclusionsWomen suffering from COVID‐19 infection or pandemic‐associated stress and anxiety were more likely to experience irregular menstruation, dysmenorrhea, amenorrhea, and other menstrual abnormalities compared to those who were less exposed.

ImportanceThere is limited evidence for therapeutic options for pediatric COVID-19 outside of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C).ObjectiveTo determine whether the use of steroids within 2 days of admission for non–MIS-C COVID-19 in children is associated with hospital length of stay (LOS). The secondary objective was to determine their association with intensive care unit (ICU) LOS, inflammation, and fever defervescence.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cohort study analyzed data retrospectively for children (&amp;lt;18 years) who required hospitalization for non–MIS-C COVID-19. Data from March 2020 through September 2021 were provided by 58 hospitals in 7 countries who participate in the Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study (VIRUS) COVID-19 registry.ExposureAdministration of steroids within 2 days of admission.Main Outcomes and MeasuresLength of stay in the hospital and ICU. Adjustment for confounders was done by mixed linear regression and propensity score matching.ResultsA total of 1163 patients met inclusion criteria and had a median (IQR) age of 7 years (0.9-14.3). Almost half of all patients (601/1163, 51.7%) were male, 33.8% (392/1163) were non-Hispanic White, and 27.9% (324/1163) were Hispanic. Of the study population, 184 patients (15.8%) received steroids within 2 days of admission, and 979 (84.2%) did not receive steroids within the first 2 days. Among 1163 patients, 658 (56.5%) required respiratory support during hospitalization. Overall, patients in the steroids group were older and had greater severity of illness, and a larger proportion required respiratory and vasoactive support. On multivariable linear regression, after controlling for treatment with remdesivir within 2 days, country, race and ethnicity, obesity and comorbidity, number of abnormal inflammatory mediators, age, bacterial or viral coinfection, and disease severity according to ICU admission within first 2 days or World Health Organization ordinal scale of 4 or higher on admission, with a random intercept for the site, early steroid treatment was not significantly associated with hospital LOS (exponentiated coefficient, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.81-1.09; P = .42). Separate analyses for patients with an LOS of 2 days or longer (n = 729), those receiving respiratory support at admission (n = 286), and propensity score–matched patients also showed no significant association between steroids and LOS. Early steroid treatment was not associated with ICU LOS, fever defervescence by day 3, or normalization of inflammatory mediators.Conclusions and RelevanceSteroid treatment within 2 days of hospital admission in a heterogeneous cohort of pediatric patients hospitalized for COVID-19 without MIS-C did not have a statistically significant association with hospital LOS.

Background Semiquantitative visual inspection for glomerulosclerosis, interstitial fibrosis, and arteriosclerosis is often used to assess chronic changes in native kidney biopsies. Morphometric evaluation of these and other chronic changes may improve the prognostic assessment. Methods We studied a historical cohort of patients who underwent a native kidney biopsy between 1993 and 2015 and were followed through 2021 for ESKD and for progressive CKD (defined as experiencing 50% eGFR decline, temporary dialysis, or ESKD). Pathologist scores for the percentages of globally sclerosed glomeruli (GSG), interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy (IFTA), and arteriosclerosis (luminal stenosis) were available. We scanned biopsy sections into high-resolution images to trace microstructures. Morphometry measures were percentage of GSG; percentage of glomerulosclerosis (percentage of GSG, ischemic-appearing glomeruli, or segmentally sclerosed glomeruli); percentage of IFTA; IFTA foci density; percentage of artery luminal stenosis; arteriolar hyalinosis counts; and measures of nephron size. Models assessed risk of ESKD or progressive CKD with biopsy measures adjusted for age, hypertension, diabetes, body mass index, eGFR, and proteinuria. Results Of 353 patients (followed for a median 7.5 years), 75 developed ESKD and 139 experienced progressive CKD events. Visually estimated scores by pathologists versus morphometry measures for percentages of GSG, IFTA, and luminal stenosis did not substantively differ in predicting outcomes. However, adding percentage of glomerulosclerosis, IFTA foci density, and arteriolar hyalinosis improved outcome prediction. A 10-point score using percentage of glomerulosclerosis, percentage of IFTA, IFTA foci density, and any arteriolar hyalinosis outperformed a 10-point score based on percentages of GSG, IFTA, and luminal stenosis >50% in discriminating risk of ESKD or progressive CKD. Conclusion Morphometric characterization of glomerulosclerosis, IFTA, and arteriolar hyalinosis on kidney biopsy improves prediction of long-term kidney outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the association of prior use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors (RAASIs) with mortality and outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: Multicenter, international COVID-19 registry. Subjects: Adult hospitalized COVID-19 patients on antihypertensive agents (AHAs) prior to admission, admitted from March 31, 2020, to March 10, 2021. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Data were compared between three groups: patients on RAASIs only, other AHAs only, and those on both medications. Multivariable logistic and linear regressions were performed after controlling for prehospitalization characteristics to estimate the effect of RAASIs on mortality and other outcomes during hospitalization. Of 26,652 patients, 7,975 patients were on AHAs prior to hospitalization. Of these, 1,542 patients (19.3%) were on RAASIs only, 3,765 patients (47.2%) were on other AHAs only, and 2,668 (33.5%) patients were on both medications. Compared with those taking other AHAs only, patients on RAASIs only were younger (mean age 63.3 vs 66.9 yr; p < 0.0001), more often male (58.2% vs 52.4%; p = 0.0001) and more often White (55.1% vs 47.2%; p < 0.0001). After adjusting for age, gender, race, location, and comorbidities, patients on combination of RAASIs and other AHAs had higher in-hospital mortality than those on RAASIs only (odds ratio [OR] = 1.28; 95% CI [1.19–1.38]; p < 0.0001) and higher mortality than those on other AHAs only (OR = 1.09; 95% CI [1.03–1.15]; p = 0.0017). Patients on RAASIs only had lower mortality than those on other AHAs only (OR = 0.87; 95% CI [0.81–0.94]; p = 0.0003). Patients on ACEIs only had higher mortality compared with those on ARBs only (OR = 1.37; 95% CI [1.20–1.56]; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized for COVID-19 who were taking AHAs, prior use of a combination of RAASIs and other AHAs was associated with higher in-hospital mortality than the use of RAASIs alone. When compared with ARBs, ACEIs were associated with significantly higher mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: The use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for hypoxemic respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 are recommended by critical-care guidelines; however, apprehension about viral particle aerosolization and patient self-inflicted lung injury may have limited use. We aimed to describe hospital variation in the use and clinical outcomes of HFNC and NIV for the management of COVID-19. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study of adults hospitalized with COVID-19 who received supplemental oxygen between February 15, 2020, and April 12, 2021, across 102 international and United States hospitals by using the COVID-19 Registry. Associations of HFNC and NIV use with clinical outcomes were evaluated by using multivariable adjusted hierarchical random-effects logistic regression models. Hospital variation was characterized by using intraclass correlation and the median odds ratio. RESULTS: Among 13,454 adults with COVID-19 who received supplemental oxygen, 8,143 (60%) received nasal cannula/face mask only, 2,859 (21%) received HFNC, 878 (7%) received NIV, 1,574 (12%) received both HFNC and NIV, with 3,640 subjects (27%) progressing to invasive ventilation. The hospital of admission contributed to 24% of the risk-adjusted variation in HFNC and 30% of the risk-adjusted variation in NIV. The median odds ratio for hospital variation of HFNC was 2.6 (95% CI 1.4–4.9) and of NIV was 3.1 (95% CI 1.2-8.1). Among 5,311 subjects who received HFNC and/or NIV, 2,772 (52%) did not receive invasive ventilation and survived to hospital discharge. Hospital-level use of HFNC or NIV were not associated with the rates of invasive ventilation or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital variation in the use of HFNC and NIV for acute respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 was great but was not associated with intubation or mortality. The wide variation and relatively low use of HFNC/NIV observed within our study signaled that implementation of increased HFNC/NIV use in patients with COVID-19 will require changes to current care delivery practices. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT04323787.)