Rodríguez-Gutiérrez, René

Background: Despite the association of insulin resistance (IR) in the pathophysiology of Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease (MASLD), few studies have evaluated the utility of acanthosis nigricans (AN) as a clinical predictor for this condition. Thus, we aimed to determine the role of AN as a risk factor and clinical predictor of MASLD. Methods: This cross-sectional study conducted a comprehensive clinical history and physical examination. The presence of acanthosis nigricans was assessed in the neck, elbows, axillae, and knuckles. Liver biochemical parameters were measured, hepatic fat was analyzed using the controlled attenuation parameter (CAP), while hepatic stiffness was evaluated in kilopascals (kPA) with the FibrosScan 530 Compact and Smart Exam software. Multiple analyses were performed to determine the relationship between acanthosis nigricans and MASLD. Results: We recruited 251 adult participants. The mean BMI was 29.9 ± 7.3 kg/m 2 , including 40.2% of participants with obesity and 63.7% with AN. Transient elastography evaluation resulted in 65.7% and 6% participants with hepatic steatosis (S3, 48.6%) and fibrosis, respectively. A non-adjusted (OR 2.63, 95% CI 1.57-4.52) and adjusted model (OR 1.97, 95% CI 0.95-4.12) were determined for AN as a risk factor for liver steatosis. Furthermore, the presence of AN in knuckles resulted in an association to predict liver steatosis (OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.01-4.35), while a multivariate analysis indicated that AN predicts a higher steatosis grade (S2 OR = 6.58, CI 95% 1.18-36.53; S3 OR = 2.36, CI 95% 1.04-5.3). Conclusions: Acanthosis nigricans demonstrated to predict a higher steatosis grade in adults with overweight and obesity. Our study supports the clinical applicability of AN as a screening tool for MASLD to identify high-risk subjects in resource-limited settings. Additional studies are needed to define alternative diagnostic tools for the early identification of metabolic risk factors in populations with specific clinical or demographic characteristics.

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.

Background: The use of prescribed medications during pregnancy is a challenge and an underestimated source of treatment burden. Levothyroxine (LT4) for the treatment of overt and subclinical hypothyroidism is extensively prescribed during pregnancy. To this end, we aimed to explore the patients' perceived benefits and risks, knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, and related burden of LT4 therapy during pregnancy. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we surveyed pregnant women who were treated with LT4 during pregnancy from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2019, in a tertiary academic medical center of the United States. The anonymous online survey included questions to gather demographic data and multiple-choice questions regarding the benefits and risks, knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, and burden related to LT4 use during pregnancy. Results: Sixty-four pregnant women (mean age 31.5 years) completed the study survey (response rate: 96%): 62% were diagnosed with hypothyroidism more than 12 months before pregnancy, 16% less than or about 12 months before pregnancy, and 22% during pregnancy. We found that one-third of pregnant women using LT4 had a feeling of uneasiness/anxiety due to their hypothyroidism diagnosis. About half of the respondents (45%) reported that they did not receive an explanation by their clinician regarding the maternal/fetal risks of uncontrolled hypothyroidism or the benefits of adequate control. Finally, two in three patients expressed various concerns of LT4-related treatment burden. Conclusions: Our findings support the need for increased effective communication and tailored counseling to address fears, anxiety, and uncertainties about the benefits and risks of LT4 use in pregnancy. For patients with clear benefits from LT4 treatment in pregnancy, it could help to overcome their concerns, promote adherence, and decrease adverse maternal/fetal outcomes. For patients with no clear benefits established, clinicians need to be aware of LT4-related treatment burden in pregnancy and implement patient-centered approaches in their clinical practices.

Objectives To improve the trustworthiness of evidence, studies should be prospectively registered and research reports should adhere to existing standards. We aimed to systematically assess the degree to which endocrinology and internal medicine journals endorse study registration and reporting standards for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews (SRs) and observational studies (ObS). Additionally, we evaluated characteristics that predict endorsement of reporting or registration mechanism by these journals. Design Meta-epidemiological study. Setting Journals included in the ‘Endocrinology and Metabolism’ and ‘General and Internal Medicine’ 2017 Journal Citation Reports. Participants Journals with an impact factor of ≥1.0, focused on clinical medicine, and those who publish RCTs, SRs and ObS were included. Primary outcomes Requirement of adherence to reporting guideline and study registration as determined from the journals’ author instructions. Results Of the 170 (82 endocrinology and 88 internal medicine) eligible journals, endorsing of reporting standards was the highest for RCTs, with 35 (43%) of endocrine journals and 55 (63%) of internal medicine journals followed by SRs, with 21 (26%) and 48 (55%), respectively, and lastly, by ObS with 41 (50%) of endocrine journals and 21 (24%) of internal medicine journals. In 78 (46%) journals RCTs were required to be registered and published in adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement. Only 11 (6%) journals required registration of SRs. Internal medicine journals were more likely to endorse reporting guidelines than endocrine journals except for Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology. No other journal characteristic proved to be an independent predictor of reporting standard endorsement for RCTs besides trial registration. Conclusion Our results highlight that study registration requirement and reporting guideline endorsement are suboptimal in internal medicine and endocrine journals. This malpractice may be further enhanced since endorsement does not imply enforcement, impairing the practice of evidence-based medicine.

AbstractObjectivesLong-term follow-up is important for determining performance characteristics of thyroid fine-needle aspiration (FNA).MethodsHistologic or 3 or more years of clinical follow-up was used to calculate performance characteristics of thyroid FNA before and after implementation of The Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology (TBSRTC). The impact of noninvasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features (NIFTP) classification was also investigated.ResultsFollow-up was obtained for 1,277/1,134 and 1,616/1,393 aspirates/patients (median clinical follow-up, 9.9 and 4.4 years, pre- and post-TBSRTC, respectively). Nondiagnostic, suspicious for follicular neoplasm, and suspicious for malignancy (SFM) diagnoses decreased and benign diagnoses increased post-TBSRTC, while atypical rate remained less than 1%. Negative predictive value for benign nodules and positive predictive value (PPV) for SFM increased significantly. Eleven nodules were reclassified as NIFTP, slightly decreasing PPV/risk of malignancy (ROM).ConclusionsAppropriate ROM for thyroid FNA can be achieved through application of TBSRTC terminology with minimal use of atypical category.

Introduction Sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors are a relatively new drug-class of glucose-lowering medications. Several trials and systematic reviews have demonstrated their beneficial effect on some macrovascular outcomes. Their effect on microvascular outcomes has been reported as positive in several trials, however, their effect remains uncertain. Therefore, we report the protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at determining the effect of SGLT-2 inhibitors regarding patient-important and surrogate microvascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. Methods and analysis A comprehensive search will be conducted to find eligible articles from each database’s earliest inception to November 2017. These databases will include Ovid, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus. We will search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compare any of the SGLT-2 inhibitors with any other active treatment or placebo assessing microvascular outcomes in either their primary or secondary outcomes. Reviewers working independently and in duplicate will review all abstracts, and full-text manuscripts for eligibility, and will systematically extract the data and will assess the risk of bias in the included studies. Random-effects models will also be used. Ethics and dissemination The results of the systematic review will be disseminated via publication in a peer-reviewed journal regardless of outcome and will be presented at relevant conferences. The data we will use do not include individual patient data, so ethical approval is not required PROSPERO registration number CRD42017076460.