Managing Fever in adults with possible or confirmed COVID-19 in Primary Care

The current evidence does not support routine antipyretic administration to treat fever in acute respiratory infections and COVID-19. Many protocols and professionals advise patients to self-medicate for Covid-19 using antipyretics (e.g. paracetamol and ibuprofen). The rapid and widespread purchase of antipyretic medication over-the-counter has led to temporary shortages

Oral hormone pregnancy tests and the risks of congenital malformations: a systematic review and meta-analysis [version 2; referees: 3 approved]

Background: Oral hormone pregnancy tests (HPTs), such as Primodos, containing ethinylestradiol and high doses of norethisterone, were given to over a million women from 1958 to 1978, when Primodos was withdrawn from the market because of concerns about possible teratogenicity. We aimed to study the association between maternal exposure to oral HPTs and congenital malformations. Methods: We have performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies that included data from pregnant women and were exposed to oral HPTs within the estimated first three months of pregnancy, if compared with a relevant control group. We used random-effects meta-analysis and assessed the quality of each study using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale for non-randomized studies. Results: We found 16 case control studies and 10 prospective cohort studies, together including 71 330 women, of whom 4,209 were exposed to HPTs. Exposure to oral HPTs was associated with a 40% increased risk of all congenital malformations: pooled odds ratio (OR) = 1.40 (95% CI 1.18 to 1.66; P<0.0001; I2 = 0%). Exposure to HPTs was associated with an increased risk of congenital heart malformations: pooled OR = 1.89 (95% CI 1.32 to 2.72; P = 0.0006; I2=0%); nervous system malformations  OR = 2.98 (95% CI 1.32 to 6.76; P = 0.0109 I2 = 78%); gastrointestinal malformations, OR = 4.50 (95% CI 0.63 to 32.20; P = 0.13; I2 = 54%); musculoskeletal malformations, OR = 2.24 (95% CI 1.23 to 4.08; P= 0.009; I2 = 0%); the VACTERL syndrome (Vertebral defects, Anal atresia, Cardiovascular anomalies, Tracheoesophageal fistula, Esophageal atresia, Renal anomalies, and Limb defects), OR = 7.47 (95% CI 2.92 to 19.07; P < 0.0001; I2 = 0%). Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis shows that use of oral HPTs in pregnancy is associated with increased risks of congenital malformations

Case-based review and olinical guidance on the use of genomic assays for early-stage breast cancer: Breast Cancer Therapy Expert Group (BCTEG)

In addition to classical clinicopathologic factors, such as hormone receptor positivity, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status, and tumor size, grade, and lymph node status, a number of commercially available genomic tests may be used to help inform treatment decisions for early breast cancer patients. Although these tests improve our understanding of breast cancer and help to individualize treatment decisions, clinicians face challenges when deciding on the most appropriate test to order, and the advantages, if any, of one test over another. The Breast Cancer Therapy Expert Group (BCTEG) recently convened a roundtable meeting to discuss issues surrounding the use of genomic testing in early breast cancer, with the goal of providing practical guidance on the use of these tests by the community oncologist, for whom breast cancer may be only one of many tumor types they treat. The group recognizes that genomic testing can provide important prognostic (eg, risk for recurrence), and in some cases predictive, information (eg, benefit of chemotherapy, or extended adjuvant endocrine therapy), which can be used to help guide treatment decisions in breast cancer. The available tests differ in the types of information they provide, and in the patient populations and clinical trials that were conducted to validate them. We summarize the discussion of the BCTEG on this topic, and we also consider several patient cases and clinical scenarios in which genomic testing may, or may not, be useful to guide treatment decisions for the practicing community oncologist

Oral hormone pregnancy tests and the risks of congenital malformations: a systematic review and meta-analysis [version 1; referees: 2 approved]

Background: Oral hormone pregnancy tests (HPTs), such as Primodos, containing ethinylestradiol and high doses of norethisterone, were given to over a million women from 1958 to 1978, when Primodos was withdrawn from the market because of concerns about possible teratogenicity. We aimed to study the association between maternal exposure to oral HPTs and congenital malformations. Methods: We have performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies that included data from pregnant women and were exposed to oral HPTs within the estimated first three months of pregnancy, if compared with a relevant control group. We used random-effects meta-analysis and assessed the quality of each study using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale for non-randomized studies. Results: We found 16 case control studies and 10 prospective cohort studies, together including 71 330 women, of whom 4209 were exposed to HPTs. Exposure to oral HPTs was associated with a 40% increased risk of all congenital malformations: pooled odds ratio (OR) = 1.40 (95% CI 1.18 to 1.66; P<0.0001; I2 = 0%). Exposure to HPTs was associated with an increased risk of congenital heart malformations: pooled OR = 1.89 (95% CI 1.32 to 2.72; P = 0.0006; I2=0%); nervous system malformations  OR = 2.98 (95% CI 1.32 to 6.76; P = 0.0109 I2 = 78%); gastrointestinal malformations, OR = 4.50 (95% CI 0.63 to 32.20; P = 0.13; I2 = 54%); musculoskeletal malformations, OR = 2.24 (95% CI 1.23 to 4.08; P= 0.009; I2 = 0%); the VACTERL syndrome (Vertebral defects, Anal atresia, Cardiovascular anomalies, Tracheoesophageal fistula, Esophageal atresia, Renal anomalies, and Limb defects), OR = 7.47 (95% CI 2.92 to 19.07; P < 0.0001; I2 = 0%). Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis shows that use of oral HPTs in pregnancy is associated with increased risks of congenital malformations

Critical thinking in healthcare and education

Imagine you are a primary care doctor. A patient comes into your office with acute, atypical chest pain. Immediately you consider the patient’s sex and age, and you begin to think about what questions to ask and what diagnoses and diagnostic tests to consider. You will also need to think about what treatments to consider and how to communicate with the patient and potentially with the patient’s family and other healthcare providers. Some of what you do will be done reflexively, with little explicit thought, but caring for most patients also requires you to think critically about what you are going to do. Critical thinking, the ability to think clearly and rationally about what to do or what to believe, is essential for the practice of medicine. Few doctors are likely to argue with this. Yet, until recently, the UK regulator the General Medical Council and similar bodies in North America did not mention “critical thinking” anywhere in their standards for licensing and accreditation,1 and critical thinking is not explicitly taught or assessed in most education programmes for health professionals. Moreover, although more than 2800 articles indexed by PubMed have “critical thinking” in the title or abstract, most are about nursing. We argue that it is important for clinicians and patients to learn to think critically and that the teaching and learning of these skills should be considered explicitly. Given the shared interest in critical thinking with broader education, we also highlight why healthcare and education professionals and researchers need to work together to enable people to think critically about the health choices they make throughout life.</p

The ion channel TRPV5 regulates B-cell signaling and activation

IntroductionB-cell activation triggers the release of endoplasmic reticulum calcium stores through the store-operated calcium entry (SOCE) pathway resulting in calcium influx by calcium release-activated calcium (CRAC) channels on the plasma membrane. B-cell-specific murine knockouts of SOCE do not impact humoral immunity suggesting that alternative channels may be important.MethodsWe identified a member of the calcium-permeable transient receptor potential (TRP) ion channel family, TRPV5, as a candidate channel expressed in B cells by a quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) screen. To further investigate the role of TRPV5 in B-cell responses, we generated a murine TRPV5 knockout (KO) by CRISPR–Cas9. ResultsWe found TRPV5 polarized to B-cell receptor (BCR) clusters upon stimulation in a PI3K–RhoA-dependent manner. TRPV5 KO mice have normal B-cell development and mature B-cell numbers. Surprisingly, calcium influx upon BCR stimulation in primary TRPV5 KO B cells was not impaired; however, differential expression of other calcium-regulating proteins, such as ORAI1, may contribute to a compensatory mechanism for calcium signaling in these cells. We demonstrate that TRPV5 KO B cells have impaired spreading and contraction in response to membrane-bound antigen. Consistent with this, TRPV5 KO B cells have reduced BCR signaling measured through phospho-tyrosine residues. Lastly, we also found that TRPV5 is important for early T-dependent antigen specific responses post-immunization. DiscussionThus, our findings identify a role for TRPV5 in BCR signaling and B-cell activation

Transseptal puncture for left atrial ablation: Risk factors for cardiac tamponade and a proposed causative classification system

AIMS: Cardiac tamponade is a high morbidity complication of transseptal puncture (TSP). We examined the associations of TSP‐related cardiac tamponade (TRCT) for all patients undergoing left atrial ablation at our center from 2016 to 2020. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patient and procedural variables were extracted retrospectively. Cases of cardiac tamponade were scrutinized to adjudicate TSP culpability. Adjusted multivariate analysis examined predictors of TRCT. A total of 3239 consecutive TSPs were performed; cardiac tamponade occurred in 51 patients (incidence: 1.6%) and was adjudicated as TSP‐related in 35 (incidence: 1.1%; 68.6% of all tamponades). Patients of above‐median age [odds ratio (OR): 2.4 (1.19–4.2), p = .006] and those undergoing re‐do procedures [OR: 1.95 (1.29–3.43, p = .042] were at higher risk of TRCT. Of the operator‐dependent variables, choice of transseptal needle (Endrys vs. Brockenbrough, p > .1) or puncture sheath (Swartz vs. Mullins vs. Agilis vs. Vizigo vs. Cryosheath, all p > .1) did not predict TRCT. Adjusting for operator, equipment and demographics, failure to cross the septum first pass increased TRCT risk [OR: 4.42 (2.45–8.2), p = .001], whilst top quartile operator experience [OR: 0.4 (0.17–0.85), p = .002], transoesophageal echocardiogram [TOE prevalence: 26%, OR: 0.51 (0.11–0.94), p = .023], and use of the SafeSept transseptal guidewire [OR: 0.22 (0.08–0.62), p = .001] reduced TRCT risk. An increase in transseptal guidewire use over time (2016: 15.6%, 2020: 60.2%) correlated with an annual reduction in TRCT (R (2) = 0.72, p < .001) and was associated with a relative risk reduction of 70%. CONCLUSIONS: During left atrial ablation, the risk of TRCT was reduced by operator experience, TOE‐guidance, and use of a transseptal guidewire, and was increased by patient age, re‐do procedures, and failure to cross the septum first pass

An international modified Delphi process supported updating the web-based "right review" tool

Objectives: The proliferation of evidence synthesis methods makes it challenging for reviewers to select the ‘‘right’’ method. This study aimed to update the Right Review tool (a web-based decision support tool that guides users through a series of questions for recommending evidence synthesis methods) and establish a common set of questions for the synthesis of both quantitative and qualitative studies (https://rightreview.knowledgetranslation.net/). Study Design and Setting: A 2-round modified international electronic modified Delphi was conducted (2022) with researchers, health-care providers, patients, and policy makers. Panel members rated the importance/clarity of the Right Review tool's guiding questions, evidence synthesis type definitions and tool output. High agreement was defined as at least 70% agreement. Any items not reaching high agreement after round 2 were discussed by the international Project Steering Group. Results: Twenty-four experts from 9 countries completed round 1, with 12 completing round 2. Of the 46 items presented in round 1, 21 reached high agreement. Twenty-seven items were presented in round 2, with 8 reaching high agreement. The Project Steering Group discussed items not reaching high agreement, including 8 guiding questions, 9 review definitions (predominantly related to qualitative synthesis), and 2 output items. Three items were removed entirely and the remaining 16 revised and edited and/or combined with existing items. The final tool comprises 42 items; 9 guiding questions, 25 evidence synthesis definitions and approaches, and 8 tool outputs. Conclusion: The freely accessible Right Review tool supports choosing an appropriate review method. The design and clarity of this tool was enhanced by harnessing the Delphi technique to shape ongoing development. The updated tool is expected to be available in Quarter 1, 2025