The prevalence of rheumatic diseases in central Greece: a population survey

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Rheumatic diseases are a major health and financial burden for societies. The prevalence of rheumatic diseases may change over time, and therefore, we sought to estimate the prevalence of rheumatic diseases in an adult population of central Greece.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In this prospective cross-sectional population survey, a random sample of adult population was drawn from poll catalogues of a region in central Greece. A postal questionnaire was sent to 3,528 people for the presence of any rheumatic disease. All positive cases were further confirmed by clinical examination using the American College of Rheumatoloy criteria. Multiple regression analysis was used to assess risk factors for rheumatic diseases.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The response rate was 48.3% (1,705 answers). Four hundred and twenty individuals (24.6%) had a rheumatic disease. The prevalence of rheumatoid arthritis was 0.58% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32-0.87), of psoriatic arthritis was 0.35% (95% CI, 0.33-1.13), of ankylosing spondylitis was 0.29% (95% CI, 0.28-0.94), of primary Sjögren's syndrome was 0.23% (95% CI, 0.22-0.75) and of systemic lupus erythematosus was 0.11% (95% CI, 0.11-0.37). One individual had systemic sclerosis (prevalence, 0.058%), 1 individual had dermatomyositis (prevalence, 0.058%; 95% CI, 0.05-0.18), 2 individuals had vasculitis (prevalence 0.11%; 95% CI, 0.11-0.37), 81 individuals had gout (prevalence, 4.75%; 95% CI, 4.41-5.13), and 304 individuals had osteoarthritis (OA) (prevalence 17.82%; 95% CI, 16.50-19.34). Gout was associated with male gender, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension, and OA was associated with age, female gender, and hypertension.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Rheumatic diseases are common in central Greece, affecting nearly a quarter of adult population. OA and gout are the most common joint disorders.</p

Vaccine-Related Autoimmune Hepatitis: Emerging Association with SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination or Coincidence?

Background: There is an increasing number of liver injury cases resembling autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination; however, an association has not yet been established. Methods/Materials: A literature review was performed to identify articles regarding the association of AIH with vaccination, emphasizing on SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, and the proposed mechanisms. We then performed a literature search for AIH-like cases following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, and we evaluated the included cases for AIH diagnosis using simplified diagnostic criteria (SDC), and for vaccination causality using the Naranjo score for adverse drug reactions. Results: We identified 51 AIH-like cases following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Forty cases (80%) were characterized as &ldquo;probable&rdquo;, &ldquo;at least probable&rdquo;, or &ldquo;definite&rdquo; for AIH diagnosis according to SDC. Forty cases (78.4%) were characterized as &ldquo;probable&rdquo;, four (7.8%) as &ldquo;possible&rdquo;, and three (5.8%) as &ldquo;definite&rdquo; for vaccine-related AIH according to the Naranjo score. Conclusion: SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-related AIH carries several phenotypes and, although most cases resolve, immunosuppressive therapy seems to be necessary. Early diagnosis is mandatory and should be considered in any patient with acute or chronic hepatitis after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, especially in those with pre-existing liver disease

Cardiac Injury in COVID-19: A Systematic Review of Relevant Meta-Analyses

Background: Cardiac injury (CI) is not a rare condition among hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Its prognostic value has been extensively reported through the literature, mainly in the context of observational studies. An impressive number of relevant meta-analyses has been conducted. These meta-analyses present similar and consistent results; yet interesting methodological issues emerge. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted aiming to identify all relevant meta-analyses on (i) the incidence, and (ii) the prognostic value of CI among hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Results: Among 118 articles initially retrieved, 73 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review. Various criteria were used for CI definition mainly based on elevated cardiac biomarkers levels. The most frequently used biomarker was troponin. 30 meta-analyses reported the pooled incidence of CI in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 that varies from 5% to 37%. 32 meta-analyses reported on the association of CI with COVID-19 infection severity, with only 6 of them failing to show a statistically significant association. Finally, 46 meta-analyses investigated the association of CI with mortality and showed that patients with COVID-19 with CI had increased risk for worse prognosis. Four meta-analyses reported pooled adjusted hazard ratios for death in patients with COVID-19 and CI vs those without CI ranging from 1.5 to 3. Conclusions: The impact of CI on the prognosis of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 has gained great interest during the pandemic. Methodological issues such as the inclusion of not peer-reviewed studies, the inclusion of potentially overlapping populations or the inclusion of studies with unadjusted analyses for confounders should be taken into consideration. Despite these limitations, the adverse prognosis of patients with COVID-19 and CI has been consistently demonstrated

The Effect of Anakinra in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The role of immunomodulatory agents in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 has been of increasing interest. Anakinra, an interleukin-1 inhibitor, has been shown to offer significant clinical benefits in patients with COVID-19 and hyperinflammation. An updated systematic review and meta-analysis regarding the impact of anakinra on the outcomes of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 was conducted. Studies, randomized or non-randomized with adjustment for confounders, reporting on the adjusted risk of death in patients treated with anakinra versus those not treated with anakinra were deemed eligible. A search was performed in PubMed/EMBASE databases, as well as in relevant websites, until 1 August 2021. The meta-analysis of six studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria (n = 1553 patients with moderate to severe pneumonia, weighted age 64 years, men 66%, treated with anakinra 50%, intubated 3%) showed a pooled hazard ratio for death in patients treated with anakinra at 0.47 (95% confidence intervals 0.34, 0.65). A meta-regression analysis did not reveal any significant associations between the mean age, percentage of males, mean baseline C-reactive protein levels, mean time of administration since symptoms onset among the included studies and the hazard ratios for death. All studies were considered as low risk of bias. The current evidence, although derived mainly from observational studies, supports a beneficial role of anakinra in the treatment of selected patients with COVID-19

The changing treatment of metastatic her2-positive breast cancer

Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-overexpressing breast cancer has been historically associated with an aggressive disease course with common distant metastasis and poor prognosis. HER2-targeting therapies have significantly changed treatment and drastically improved outcomes for this group of patients. However, primary or acquired resistance to anti-HER2 regimens leads almost universally to disease progression, often with difficult to treat central nervous system (CNS) metastases. The current review summarized the existing therapeutic options for HER2-positive metastatic disease in the first, second and further line setting. Furthermore, novel agents currently under development were presented, which have demonstrated encouraging results in heavily pretreated patients or specific subgroups, such as HR-positive/HER2-positive tumors and CNS disease

High versus Standard Intensity of Thromboprophylaxis in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 has been associated with a survival benefit and is strongly recommended. However, the optimal dose of thromboprophylaxis remains unclear. A systematic review and meta-analysis (PubMed/EMBASE) of studies comparing high (intermediate or therapeutic dose) versus standard (prophylactic dose) intensity of thrombo-prophylaxis with regard to outcome of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 was performed. Randomized and non-randomized studies that provided adjusted effect size estimates were included. Meta-analysis of 7 studies comparing intermediate versus prophylactic dose of thromboprophylaxis (2 randomized and 5 observational, n = 2009, weighted age 61 years, males 61%, ICU 53%) revealed a pooled adjusted relative risk (RR) for death at 0.56 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.34, 0.92) in favor of the intermediate dose. For the same comparison arms, the pooled RR for venous thromboembolism was 0.84 (95% CI 0.54, 1.31), and for major bleeding events was 1.63 (95% CI 0.79, 3.37). Meta-analysis of 17 studies comparing therapeutic versus prophylactic dose of thromboprophylaxis (2 randomized and 15 observational, n = 7776, weighted age 64 years, males 54%, ICU 21%) revealed a pooled adjusted RR for death at 0.73 (95% CI 0.47, 1.14) for the therapeutic dose. An opposite trend was observed in the unadjusted analysis of 15 observational studies (RR 1.24 (95% CI 0.88, 1.74)). For the same comparison arms, the pooled RR for venous thromboembolism was 1.13 (95% CI 0.52, 2.48), and for major bleeding events 3.32 (95% CI 2.51, 4.40). In conclusion, intermediate compared with standard prophylactic dose of thromboprophylaxis appears to be rather safe and is associated with additional survival benefit, although most data are derived from observational retrospective analyses. Randomized studies are needed to define the optimal thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients with COVID-19

High versus Standard Intensity of Thromboprophylaxis in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 has been associated with a survival benefit and is strongly recommended. However, the optimal dose of thromboprophylaxis remains unclear. A systematic review and meta-analysis (PubMed/EMBASE) of studies comparing high (intermediate or therapeutic dose) versus standard (prophylactic dose) intensity of thrombo-prophylaxis with regard to outcome of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 was performed. Randomized and non-randomized studies that provided adjusted effect size estimates were included. Meta-analysis of 7 studies comparing intermediate versus prophylactic dose of thromboprophylaxis (2 randomized and 5 observational, n = 2009, weighted age 61 years, males 61%, ICU 53%) revealed a pooled adjusted relative risk (RR) for death at 0.56 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.34, 0.92) in favor of the intermediate dose. For the same comparison arms, the pooled RR for venous thromboembolism was 0.84 (95% CI 0.54, 1.31), and for major bleeding events was 1.63 (95% CI 0.79, 3.37). Meta-analysis of 17 studies comparing therapeutic versus prophylactic dose of thromboprophylaxis (2 randomized and 15 observational, n = 7776, weighted age 64 years, males 54%, ICU 21%) revealed a pooled adjusted RR for death at 0.73 (95% CI 0.47, 1.14) for the therapeutic dose. An opposite trend was observed in the unadjusted analysis of 15 observational studies (RR 1.24 (95% CI 0.88, 1.74)). For the same comparison arms, the pooled RR for venous thromboembolism was 1.13 (95% CI 0.52, 2.48), and for major bleeding events 3.32 (95% CI 2.51, 4.40). In conclusion, intermediate compared with standard prophylactic dose of thromboprophylaxis appears to be rather safe and is associated with additional survival benefit, although most data are derived from observational retrospective analyses. Randomized studies are needed to define the optimal thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients with COVID-19

Enteric plexus neuropathy associated with PD-L1 blockade in a patient with small-cell lung cancer

Lay abstract Immunotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors has improved the life expectancy in many cancer patients. However, the stimulation of immune system to fight cancer may also affect healthy tissues, bringing about the risk of adverse events. These adverse events may affect almost every organ system of the body and may vary from mild to life-threatening. Immunotherapy-related damage to nervous plexuses, which supply the guts with nerves, has been reported only in a small number of cases. The symptoms usually mimic those of gut inflammation, including diarrhea, constipation, abdominal distension, and vomiting. Upon these symptoms, enteric nervous system toxicity should be considered. Early recognition and management are crucial to stop further neurological damage. We present a rare case of enteric nerve damage in a patient with small-cell lung cancer treated with immunotherapy. Immune checkpoint inhibitors have revolutionized the management of patients with cancer. The increasing use of these agents has brought up a new set of adverse events which are widely heterogenous and potentially life-threatening. Rare immune-related adverse events associated with nervous system have not been described thoroughly, but their early recognition and management may be crucial. Immune-related autonomic neuropathy may be presented with a constellation of symptoms ranging from gastrointestinal and urinary complaints, to sweating and hypotension. Intestinal pseudo-obstruction as consequence of immune-related myenteric autonomic neuropathy is an under-recognized, not-well described and potentially fatal adverse event. We herein, present a unique case of enteric plexus neuropathy induced by PD-L1 blockade in a patient with small-cell lung cancer

Takotsubo Cardiomyopathy in Cancer Patients Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Summary of Included Cases

Background: There are emerging reports of Takotsubo syndrome (TTS) in cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs); however, the association of the two remains uncertain. Methods: A systematic literature review was performed in the PubMed database and web sources (Google Scholar) according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Case reports/series or studies including cancer patients treated with ICIs and presenting with TTS were considered. Results: Seventeen cases were included in the systematic review. Most patients were males (59%) with median age of 70 years (30–83). Most common tumor types were lung cancer (35%) and melanoma (29%). Most patients were on first-line immunotherapy (35%) and after the first cycle (54%) of treatment. The median time on immunotherapy at the time of TTS presentation was 77 days (1–450). The most used agents were pembrolizumab and the combination of nivolumab–ipilimumab (35%, respectively). Potential stressors were recognized in 12 cases (80%). Six patients (35%) presented with concurrent cardiac complications. Corticosteroids were used in the management of eight patients (50%). Fifteen patients (88%) recovered from TTS, two patients (12%) relapsed, and one patient died. Immunotherapy was reintroduced in five cases (50%). Conclusion: TTS may be associated with immunotherapy for cancer. Physicians should be alert for TTS diagnosis in any patient with myocardial infarction-like presentation under treatment with ICIs

Prone Positioning in Patients With COVID-19: Analysis of Multicenter Registry Data and Meta-analysis of Aggregate Data

Background/Aim: Evidence suggests a beneficial effect of prone positioning (PP) in COVID-19.Materials and Methods: Meta-analysis of individual (7 investigators' groups) and aggregate data (PubMed/EMBASE) regarding the impact of PP on the ratio of arterial partial pressure of oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (PO2/FiO(2)) in patients with COVID-19.Results: Among 121 patients (mean age +/- SD 59.1 +/- 10.7 years, 55% males, 57% intubated) the mean post versus pre-PP PO2/FiO(2) difference was: (i) 50.4 +/- 64.3 mmHg, p<0.01, (ii) similar in awake (58.7 +/- 72.1 mmHg) versus intubated patients (44.1 +/- 57.5 mmHg, p=NS), (iii) inversely correlated with body mass index (r=-0.43, p<0.01). Meta analysis of 23 studies (n=547, weighted age 58.3 +/- 4.1, 73% males, 59% intubated) showed a pooled PO2/FiO(2) difference of 61.8 [95% confidence intervals=49.9-73.6] mmHg. Meta regression analysis revealed no associations with baseline demographics, the time in PP before assessment, and the risk of bias of the studies.Conclusion: PP seems to improve oxygenation of patients with COVID-19