Topical corticosteroids for hives and itch (urticaria): systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Topical corticosteroids are widely used as a treatment for itch and wheals (urticaria), but their benefits and harms are unclear. OBJECTIVE: To systematically synthesize the benefits and harms of topical corticosteroids for the treatment of urticaria. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL from database inception to March 23, 2024, for randomized trials addressing comparing topical corticosteroid to placebo for patients with urticaria (either chronic spontaneous or inducible urticaria or acute urticaria elicited from skin/intradermal allergy testing). Paired reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analyses addressed urticaria severity, itch severity (numeric rating scale; range 0-10; higher is worse), and adverse events. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach informed certainty of evidence ratings. PROSPERO registration: CRD42023455182. RESULTS: Nineteen RCTs enrolled 379 participants with a median of mean age of 30.1 years (range 21.1 to 44.0). Compared to placebo, topical corticosteroids may reduce wheal size (ratio of means 0.47, 95%CI 0.38 to 0.59; low certainty) and itch severity (mean difference -1.30, 95%CI -5.07 to 2.46; very low certainty). Topical corticosteroids result in little to no difference in overall adverse events (94 fewer patients per 1000, 95%CrI 172 fewer to 12 more; high certainty). CONCLUSION: Compared to placebo, topical corticosteroids may result in a reduction of wheal size, and result in little to no difference in overall adverse events. Topical corticosteroids may reduce itch severity, but the evidence is very uncertain. Future large, randomized trials addressing the use of topical corticosteroids would further support optimal urticaria management.

Leukotriene receptor antagonists as add-on therapy to antihistamines for urticaria: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: The benefits and harms of adding antileukotrienes to H1-antihistamines for the management of urticaria (hives, itch, and/or angioedema) remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: We sought to systematically synthesize the treatment outcomes of antileukotrienes in combination with H1-antihistamines versus H1-antihistamines alone for acute and chronic urticaria. METHODS: As part of updating American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology and American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters urticaria guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, LILACS, WPRIM, IBECS, ICTRP, CBM, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, FDA, and EMA databases from inception to December 18th, 2023 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating antileukotrienes and H1-antihistamines versus H1-antihistamines alone in patients with urticaria. Paired reviewers independently screened citations, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Random effects models pooled effect estimates for urticaria activity, itch, wheal, sleep, quality of life, and harms. The GRADE approach informed certainty of evidence ratings. Open Science Framework registration: https://osf.io/h2bfx/. RESULTS: Thirty-four RCTs enrolled 3,324 children and adults. Compared to H1-antihistamines alone, the combination of a leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA) with H1-antihistamines probably modestly reduces urticaria activity (mean difference: -5.04, 95%CI -6.36 to -3.71; 7-day Urticaria Activity Score) with moderate certainty. We made similar findings for itch and wheal severity, and quality of life. Adverse events were probably not different between groups (moderate certainty), however, no RCT reported on neuropsychiatric adverse events. CONCLUSION: Among patients with urticaria, adding LTRAs to H1-antihistamines probably modestly improves urticaria activity with little to no increase in overall adverse events. The added risk of neuropsychiatric adverse events in this population with LTRAs is small and uncertain.

Induction therapy in heart transplantation: A systematic review and network meta-analysis for developing evidence-based recommendations.

INTRODUCTION: Induction therapy (IT) utility in heart transplantation (HT) remains contested. Commissioned by a clinical-practice guidelines panel to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of IT in adult HT patients, we conducted this systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA). METHODS: We searched for studies from January 2000 to October 2022, reporting on the use of any IT agent in adult HT patients. Based on patient-important outcomes, we performed frequentist NMAs separately for RCTs and observational studies with adjusted analyses, and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE framework. RESULTS: From 5156 publications identified, we included 7 RCTs and 12 observational studies, and report on two contemporarily-used IT agents-basiliximab and rATG. The RCTs provide only very low certainty evidence and was uninformative of the effect of the two agents versus no IT or one another. With low certainty in the evidence from observational studies, basiliximab may increase 30-day (OR 1.13; 95% CI 1.06-1.20) and 1-year (OR 1.11; 95% CI 1.02-1.22) mortality compared to no IT. With low certainty from observational studies, rATG may decrease 5-year cardiac allograft vasculopathy (OR .82; 95% CI .74-.90) compared to no IT, as well as 30-day (OR .85; 95% CI .80-.92), 1-year (OR .87; 95% CI .79-.96), and overall (HR .84; 95% CI .76-.93) mortality compared to basiliximab. CONCLUSION: With low and very low certainty in the synthetized evidence, these NMAs suggest possible superiority of rATG compared to basiliximab, but do not provide compelling evidence for the routine use of these agents in HT recipients.

GRADE concept paper 8: judging the certainty of discrimination performance estimates of prognostic models in a body of validation studies.

BACKGROUND: Prognostic models incorporate multiple prognostic factors to estimate the likelihood of future events for individual patients based on their prognostic factor values. Evaluating these models crucially involves conducting studies to assess their predictive performance, like discrimination. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of these validation studies play an essential role in selecting models for clinical practice. METHODS: In this paper, we outline 3 thresholds to determine the target for certainty rating in the discrimination of prognostic models, as observed across a body of validation studies. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: We propose 3 thresholds when rating the certainty of evidence about a prognostic model's discrimination. The first threshold amounts to rating certainty in the model's ability to classify better than random chance. The other 2 approaches involve setting thresholds informed by other mechanisms for classification: clinician intuition or an alternative prognostic model developed for the same disease area and outcome. The choice of threshold will vary based on the context. Instead of relying on arbitrary discrimination cut-offs, our approach positions the observed discrimination within an informed spectrum, potentially aiding decisions about a prognostic model's practical utility.

A brief step-by-step guide on conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic model studies.

Prognostic models provide an avenue to predict the risk of individual patients and support shared-decision making. Many prognostic models are published annually, and systematic reviews provide an avenue to collate the existing evidence behind prognostic models to determine whether a model demonstrates adequate predictive performance and is ready for real-world use. This article provides a brief step-by-step guide on how to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic model studies and how these reviews differ from systematic reviews of therapy and diagnosis.

Use of induction therapy post-heart transplantation: Clinical practice recommendations based on systematic review and network meta-analysis of evidence.

BACKGROUND: The use of induction therapy (IT) agents in the early post-heart transplant period remains controversial. The following recommendations aim to provide guidance on the use of IT agents, including Basiliximab and Thymoglobulin, as part of routine care in heart transplantation (HTx). METHODS: We recruited an international, multidisciplinary panel of 15 stakeholders, including patient partners, transplant cardiologists and surgeons, nurse practitioners, pharmacists, and methodologists. We commissioned a systematic review on benefits and harms of IT on patient-important outcomes, and another on patients' values and preferences to inform our recommendations. We used the GRADE framework to summarize our findings, rate certainty in the evidence, and develop recommendations. The panel considered the balance between benefits and harms, certainty in the evidence, and patient's values and preferences, to make recommendations for or against the routine post-operative use of Thymoglobulin or Basiliximab. RESULTS: The panel made recommendations on three major clinical problems in HTx: (1) We suggest against the routine post-operative use of Basiliximab compared to no IT, (2) we suggest against the routine use of Thymoglobulin compared to no IT, and (3) for those patients for whom IT is deemed desirable, we suggest for the use of Thymoglobulin as compared to Basiliximab. CONCLUSION: This report highlights gaps in current knowledge and provides directions for clinical research in the future to better understand the clinical utility of IT agents in the early post heart transplant period, leading to improved management and care.

Risk factors for long COVID in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The long-term sequelae of COVID-19 in children and adolescents remain poorly understood and characterized. This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to summarize the risk factors for long COVID in the pediatric population. METHODS: We searched six databases from January 2020 to May 2023 for observational studies reporting on risk factors for long COVID or persistent symptoms those were present 12 or more weeks post-infection using multivariable regression analyses. Trial registries, reference lists of included studies, and preprint servers were hand-searched for relevant studies. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to pool odds ratios for each risk factor. Individual study risk of bias was rated using QUIPS, and the GRADE framework was used to assess the certainty of evidence for each unique factor. RESULTS: Sixteen observational studies (N = 46,262) were included, and 19 risk factors were amenable to meta-analysis. With moderate certainty in the evidence, age (per 2-year increase), allergic rhinitis, obesity, previous respiratory diseases, hospitalization, severe acute COVID-19, and symptomatic acute COVID-19 are probably associated with an increased risk of long COVID. Female sex, asthma, comorbidity, and heart diseases may be associated with an increased risk of long COVID, and Asian and Black races may be associated with a decreased risk of long COVID. We did not observe any credible subgroup effects for any risk factor. CONCLUSIONS: The current body of literature presents several compelling risk factors for the development of long COVID in the pediatric population. Further research is necessary to elucidate the pathophysiology of long COVID.

Prognostic factors for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) is a novel condition that can occur post-SARS-CoV-2 infection in children and adolescents. There is a paucity of evidence on the prognostic factors associated with MIS-C. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarise the prognostic factors for MIS-C development. METHODS: Five databases were systematically searched from January 2020 to May 2023 for studies reporting on prognostic factors for MIS-C using multivariable regression models. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to pool odds ratios for each prognostic factor. Risk of bias was rated using QUIPS and the GRADE framework was used to assess the certainty of evidence for each unique factor. RESULTS: Twelve observational studies (N = 18 024) were included, and 13 unique prognostic factors were amenable to meta-analysis. With moderate certainty, age <12 years, male sex and Black race probably increase the risk of MIS-C. Malignancy and underlying respiratory disease probably decrease the risk of MIS-C. Low-certainty evidence suggests that Asian race may increase the risk of MIS-C, and comorbidity may decrease the risk of MIS-C. CONCLUSION: Current literature presents several prognostic factors related to MIS-C following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Further research is necessary to elucidate the pathophysiologic mechanisms related to MIS-C.

Topical treatments for atopic dermatitis (eczema): Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common skin condition with multiple topical treatment options, but uncertain comparative effects. OBJECTIVE: We sought to systematically synthesize the benefits and harms of AD prescription topical treatments. METHODS: For the 2023 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology and American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters AD guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, LILACS, ICTRP, and GREAT databases to September 5, 2022, for randomized trials addressing AD topical treatments. Paired reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects network meta-analyses addressed AD severity, itch, sleep, AD-related quality of life, flares, and harms. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach informed certainty of evidence ratings. We classified topical corticosteroids (TCS) using 7 groups-group 1 being most potent. This review is registered in the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/q5m6s). RESULTS: The 219 included trials (43,123 patients) evaluated 68 interventions. With high-certainty evidence, pimecrolimus improved 6 of 7 outcomes-among the best for 2; high-dose tacrolimus (0.1%) improved 5-among the best for 2; low-dose tacrolimus (0.03%) improved 5-among the best for 1. With moderate- to high-certainty evidence, group 5 TCS improved 6-among the best for 3; group 4 TCS and delgocitinib improved 4-among the best for 2; ruxolitinib improved 4-among the best for 1; group 1 TCS improved 3-among the best for 2. These interventions did not increase harm. Crisaborole and difamilast were intermediately effective, but with uncertain harm. Topical antibiotics alone or in combination may be among the least effective. To maintain AD control, group 5 TCS were among the most effective, followed by tacrolimus and pimecrolimus. CONCLUSIONS: For individuals with AD, pimecrolimus, tacrolimus, and moderate-potency TCS are among the most effective in improving and maintaining multiple AD outcomes. Topical antibiotics may be among the least effective.

Systemic treatments for atopic dermatitis (eczema): Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is an inflammatory skin condition with multiple systemic treatments and uncertainty regarding their comparative impact on AD outcomes. OBJECTIVE: We sought to systematically synthesize the benefits and harms of AD systemic treatments. METHODS: For the 2023 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology and American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters AD guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and GREAT databases from inception to November 29, 2022, for randomized trials addressing systemic treatments and phototherapy for AD. Paired reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects network meta-analyses addressed AD severity, itch, sleep, AD-related quality of life, flares, and harms. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach informed certainty of evidence ratings. This review is registered in the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/e5sna). RESULTS: The 149 included trials (28,686 patients with moderate-to-severe AD) evaluated 75 interventions. With high-certainty evidence, high-dose upadacitinib was among the most effective for 5 of 6 patient-important outcomes; high-dose abrocitinib and low-dose upadacitinib were among the most effective for 2 outcomes. These Janus kinase inhibitors were among the most harmful in increasing adverse events. With high-certainty evidence, dupilumab, lebrikizumab, and tralokinumab were of intermediate effectiveness and among the safest, modestly increasing conjunctivitis. Low-dose baricitinib was among the least effective. Efficacy and safety of azathioprine, oral corticosteroids, cyclosporine, methotrexate, mycophenolate, phototherapy, and many novel agents are less certain. CONCLUSIONS: Among individuals with moderate-to-severe AD, high-certainty evidence demonstrates that high-dose upadacitinib is among the most effective in addressing multiple patient-important outcomes, but also is among the most harmful. High-dose abrocitinib and low-dose upadacitinib are effective, but also among the most harmful. Dupilumab, lebrikizumab, and tralokinumab are of intermediate effectiveness and have favorable safety.

Global Comparison of Readmission Rates for Patients With Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) readmission rates are low in some jurisdictions. However, international comparisons are lacking and could serve as a foundation for identifying regional patient management strategies that could be shared to improve outcomes. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to summarize 30-day and 1-year all-cause readmission and mortality rates of hospitalized HF patients across countries and to explore potential differences in rates globally. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis using MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL for observational reports on hospitalized adult HF patients at risk for readmission or mortality published between January 2010 and March 2021. We conducted a meta-analysis of proportions using a random-effects model, and sources of heterogeneity were evaluated with meta-regression. RESULTS: In total, 24 papers reporting on 30-day and 23 papers on 1-year readmission were included. Of the 1.5 million individuals at risk, 13.2% (95% CI: 10.5%-16.1%) were readmitted within 30 days and 35.7% (95% CI: 27.1%-44.9%) within 1 year. A total of 33 papers reported on 30-day and 45 papers on 1-year mortality. Of the 1.5 million individuals hospitalized for HF, 7.6% (95% CI: 6.1%-9.3%) died within 30 days and 23.3% (95% CI: 20.8%-25.9%) died within 1 year. Substantial variation in risk across countries was unexplained by countries' gross domestic product, proportion of gross domestic product spent on health care, and Gini coefficient. CONCLUSIONS: Globally, hospitalized HF patients exhibit high rates of readmission and mortality, and the variability in readmission rates was not explained by health care expenditure, risk of mortality, or comorbidities.

Obesity as an independent risk factor for COVID-19 severity and mortality.

BACKGROUND: Since December 2019, the world has struggled with the COVID-19 pandemic. Even after the introduction of various vaccines, this disease still takes a considerable toll. In order to improve the optimal allocation of resources and communication of prognosis, healthcare providers and patients need an accurate understanding of factors (such as obesity) that are associated with a higher risk of adverse outcomes from the COVID-19 infection. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate obesity as an independent prognostic factor for COVID-19 severity and mortality among adult patients in whom infection with the COVID-19 virus is confirmed. SEARCH METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, two COVID-19 reference collections, and four Chinese biomedical databases were searched up to April 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included case-control, case-series, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, and secondary analyses of randomised controlled trials if they evaluated associations between obesity and COVID-19 adverse outcomes including mortality, mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, hospitalisation, severe COVID, and COVID pneumonia. Given our interest in ascertaining the independent association between obesity and these outcomes, we selected studies that adjusted for at least one factor other than obesity. Studies were evaluated for inclusion by two independent reviewers working in duplicate.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Using standardised data extraction forms, we extracted relevant information from the included studies. When appropriate, we pooled the estimates of association across studies with the use of random-effects meta-analyses. The Quality in Prognostic Studies (QUIPS) tool provided the platform for assessing the risk of bias across each included study. In our main comparison, we conducted meta-analyses for each obesity class separately. We also meta-analysed unclassified obesity and obesity as a continuous variable (5 kg/m2 increase in BMI (body mass index)). We used the GRADE framework to rate our certainty in the importance of the association observed between obesity and each outcome. As obesity is closely associated with other comorbidities, we decided to prespecify the minimum adjustment set of variables including age, sex, diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease for subgroup analysis.  MAIN RESULTS: We identified 171 studies, 149 of which were included in meta-analyses.  As compared to 'normal' BMI (18.5 to 24.9 kg/m2) or patients without obesity, those with obesity classes I (BMI 30 to 35 kg/m2), and II (BMI 35 to 40 kg/m2) were not at increased odds for mortality (Class I: odds ratio [OR] 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.94 to 1.16, high certainty (15 studies, 335,209 participants); Class II: OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.36, high certainty (11 studies, 317,925 participants)). However, those with class III obesity (BMI 40 kg/m2 and above) may be at increased odds for mortality (Class III: OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.39 to 2.00, low certainty, (19 studies, 354,967 participants)) compared to normal BMI or patients without obesity. For mechanical ventilation, we observed increasing odds with higher classes of obesity in comparison to normal BMI or patients without obesity (class I: OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.59, 10 studies, 187,895 participants, moderate certainty; class II: OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.42 to 1.96, 6 studies, 171,149 participants, high certainty; class III: OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.59 to 2.97, 12 studies, 174,520 participants, high certainty). However, we did not observe a dose-response relationship across increasing obesity classifications for ICU admission and hospitalisation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that obesity is an important independent prognostic factor in the setting of COVID-19. Consideration of obesity may inform the optimal management and allocation of limited resources in the care of COVID-19 patients.

Stabilization of a diphosphagermylene through pπ-pπ interactions with a trigonal-planar phosphorus center.

N-Heterocyclic carbenes and their heavier homologues are, in part, stabilized by delocalization of the N lone pairs into the vacant p-orbital at carbon (or a heavier Group 14 element center). These interactions are usually absent in the corresponding P-substituted species, owing to the large barrier to planarization of phosphorus. However, judicious selection of the substituents at phosphorus has enabled the synthesis of a diphosphagermylene, [(Dipp)2P]2 Ge, in which one of the P centers is planar (Dipp=2,6-diisopropylphenyl). The planar nature of this P center and the correspondingly short P-Ge distance suggest a significant degree of P-Ge multiple bond character that is due to delocalization of the phosphorus lone pair into the vacant p-orbital at germanium. DFT calculations support this proposition and NBO and AIM analyses are consistent with a Ge-P bond order greater than unity.