Search

Optimal glucocorticoid-induced hyperglycemia (GCIH) management is unclear. The COVID-19 pandemic has made this issue more prominent because dexamethasone became the standard of care in patients needing respiratory support. This systematic review aimed to describe the management of GCIH and summarize available management strategies for dexamethasone-associated hyperglycemia in patients with COVID-19.A systematic review was conducted using the PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases with results from 2011 through January 2022. Keywords included synonyms for "steroid-induced diabetes" or "steroid-induced hyperglycemia." Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included for review of GCIH management. All studies focusing on dexamethasone-associated hyperglycemia in COVID-19 were included regardless of study quality.Initial search for non-COVID GCIH identified 1230 references. After screening and review, 33 articles were included in the non-COVID section of this systematic review. Initial search for COVID-19-related management of dexamethasone-associated hyperglycemia in COVID-19 identified 63 references, whereas 7 of these were included in the COVID-19 section. RCTs of management strategies were scarce, did not use standard definitions for hyperglycemia, evaluated a variety of treatment strategies with varying primary end points, and were generally not found to be effective except for Neutral Protamine Hagedorn insulin added to basal-bolus regimens.Few RCTs are available evaluating GCIH management. Further studies are needed to support the formulation of clinical guidelines for GCIH especially given the widespread use of dexamethasone during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background It is unclear whether patients with intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasia harbor a higher risk of developing extrapancreatic malignancies. Aims We performed a pooled estimate of the incidence of extrapancreatic malignancies in patients with intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasia, with a particular focus on the comparison to the general population. Methods Computerized bibliographic search of main databases was performed through February 2021. The primary endpoint was the pooled incidence of extrapancreatic malignancies in patients with intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms. Additional outcome was the comparison between intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasia patients and the general population, expressed in terms of standardized incidence ratio along with 95% confidence intervals. Results Eighteen studies with 8709 patients were included. The pooled rate of metachronous extrapancreatic malignancies was 10 (6–13)/1000 persons-year. No difference was observed according to intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasia histology and sex, whereas a significantly superior incidence of extrapancreatic malignancies was observed in patients with main-duct (36.7%, 25.4%–48%) as compared to branch-duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasia (26.2%, 17.6%–34.8%; p = 0.03). Pooled standardized incidence ratio comparing expected rates in the general population was 1.01 (0.79–1.29); no difference was observed concerning rates of metachronous gastric cancer (standardized incidence ratio 1.60, 0.72–3.54) and colorectal cancer (1.29, 0.92–1.18), whereas biliary cancer was observed more frequently in intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasia patients (2.29, 1.07–4.93). Conclusion Patients with intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasia harbor an overall rate of extrapancreatic malignancies as high as 27.3%. The rate of metachronous extrapancreatic malignancies is not superior to the general population.

Background Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is associated with comorbidities that contribute to poor health, impaired life quality, and mortality risk. Objective To provide evidence-based screening recommendations for comorbidities linked to HS. Methods Systematic reviews were performed to summarize evidence on the prevalence and incidence of 30 comorbidities in patients with HS relative to the general population. The screening recommendation for each comorbidity was informed by the consistency and quality of existing studies, disease prevalence, and magnitude of association, as well as benefits, harms, and feasibility of screening. The level of evidence and strength of corresponding screening recommendation were graded by using the Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT) criteria. Results Screening is recommended for the following comorbidities: acne, dissecting cellulitis of the scalp, pilonidal disease, pyoderma gangrenosum, depression, generalized anxiety disorder, suicide, smoking, substance use disorder, polycystic ovary syndrome, obesity, dyslipidemia, diabetes mellitus, metabolic syndrome, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, inflammatory bowel disease, spondyloarthritis, and sexual dysfunction. It is also recommended to screen patients with Down syndrome for HS. The decision to screen for specific comorbidities may vary with patient risk factors. The role of the dermatologist in screening varies according to comorbidity. Limitations Screening recommendations represent one component of a comprehensive care strategy. Conclusions Dermatologists should support screening efforts to identify comorbid conditions in HS.

We conducted a meta-analysis of twenty-six randomized controlled trials that tested the effectiveness of home telemonitoring in patients with heart failure for reducing mortality and hospital use. We used the PICOT framework as a tool to address an important variable not previously studied: the timing or duration of monitoring. Specifically, we found that home telemonitoring decreased the odds of all-cause mortality and heart failure-related mortality at 180 days but not at 365 days. Home telemonitoring did not significantly affect the odds of all-cause hospitalization at 90 or 180 days, or of heart failure-related hospitalization at 180 days. At 180 days, home telemonitoring significantly increased the odds of all-cause emergency department visits. Home care provision did not moderate the effects of home telemonitoring on all-cause hospitalization. Recent regulatory changes that relaxed Medicare restrictions on telehealth reimbursement make it imperative that studies fully describe outcomes (for example, heart failure-related versus all-cause hospitalizations) and deliberately test all essential intervention elements, such as intervention duration.