Shorter versus longer durations of antibiotic treatment for patients with community-acquired pneumonia: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), frequently encountered in both outpatient and inpatient settings, is the leading cause of infectious disease-related mortality. While equipoise regarding the optimal duration of antimicrobial therapy to treat CAP remains, recent studies suggest shorter durations of therapy may achieve optimal outcomes. We have therefore planned a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the impact of shorter versus longer durations of antibiotic therapy for patients with CAP. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to September 2021 for randomised controlled trials evaluating shorter versus longer duration of antibiotics. Eligible studies will compare durations with a minimum difference of two days of antibiotic therapy, irrespective of antibiotic agent, class, route, frequency or dosage, and will report on any patient-important outcome of benefit or harm. Paired reviewers working independently will conduct title and abstract screening, full-text screening, data extraction and risk of bias (RoB) evaluation using a modified Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool. We will perform random-effects modelling for meta-analyses, with study weights generated using the inverse variance method, and will assess certainty in effect estimates using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. The Instrument for assessing the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses (ICEMAN) tool will inform assessments of credibility of subgroup effects based on severity of illness, drug class, duration of therapy, setting of CAP acquisition and RoB. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The results will be of importance to general practitioners and internists managing CAP, and may directly inform international clinical guidance. Where concerns regarding antimicrobial resistance continue to grow internationally, this evidence summary may motivate new recommendations regarding shorter durations of therapy. We intend to disseminate our findings via national and international conferences, and publication in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021283990.

Management of Acute Pain From Non-Low Back, Musculoskeletal Injuries : A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND: Patients and clinicians can choose from several treatment options to address acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries. PURPOSE: To assess the comparative effectiveness of outpatient treatments for acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries by performing a network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to 2 January 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Pairs of reviewers independently identified interventional RCTs that enrolled patients presenting with pain of up to 4 weeks' duration from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries. DATA EXTRACTION: Pairs of reviewers independently extracted data. Certainty of evidence was evaluated by using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. DATA SYNTHESIS: The 207 eligible studies included 32 959 participants and evaluated 45 therapies. Ninety-nine trials (48%) enrolled populations with diverse musculoskeletal injuries, 59 (29%) included patients with sprains, 13 (6%) with whiplash, and 11 (5%) with muscle strains; the remaining trials included various injuries ranging from nonsurgical fractures to contusions. Topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDs) proved to have the greatest net benefit, followed by oral NSAIDs and acetaminophen with or without diclofenac. Effects of these agents on pain were modest (around 1 cm on a 10-cm visual analogue scale, approximating the minimal important difference). Regarding opioids, compared with placebo, acetaminophen plus an opioid improved intermediate pain (1 to 7 days) but not immediate pain (≤2 hours), tramadol was ineffective, and opioids increased the risk for gastrointestinal and neurologic harms (all moderate-certainty evidence). LIMITATIONS: Only English-language studies were included. The number of head-to-head comparisons was limited. CONCLUSION: Topical NSAIDs, followed by oral NSAIDs and acetaminophen with or without diclofenac, showed the most convincing and attractive benefit-harm ratio for patients with acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries. No opioid achieved benefit greater than that of NSAIDs, and opioids caused the most harms. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Safety Council. (PROSPERO: CRD42018094412).

Diabetogenic Effects of Immunosuppression: An Integrative Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Posttransplant diabetes mellitus (PTDM) affects up to 50% of solid organ transplant recipients and compromises long-term outcomes. The goal of this study was to investigate how immunosuppressants affect gene expression in a manner that increases diabetes risk, by performing integrative analysis on publicly available, high-throughput gene expression data. METHODS: All high-throughput gene expression datasets of solid organ transplant recipients were retrieved from the Gene Expression Omnibus. Significantly dysregulated genes and pathways were determined, and those in common with type 2 diabetes were identified. THP-1 and HepG2 cells were exposed in vitro to tacrolimus, and validation of genes involved in insulin signaling and glucose metabolism was performed using specific arrays. These cells were then treated with the hypoglycemic agents, metformin, and insulin to assess for appropriate reversion of specific diabetogenic genes. RESULTS: Insulin signaling and secretion were the most commonly dysregulated pathways that overlapped with diabetes in transplant recipients. KRAS, GRB2, PCK2, BCL2L1, INSL3, DOK3, and PTPN1 were among the most significantly upregulated genes in both immunosuppression and diabetes subsets and were appropriately reverted by metformin as confirmed in vitro. CONCLUSIONS: We discovered that the significantly dysregulated genes in the context of immunosuppression are implicated in insulin signaling and insulin secretion, as a manifestation of pancreatic ß-cell function. In vitro validation confirmed key diabetes-related genes in the context of immunosuppression. Further analysis and in vitro validation revealed that metformin optimally reverts diabetogenic genes dysregulated in the context of immunosuppression. The optimal therapeutic management of posttransplant diabetes mellitus needs to be further investigated, taking into account the mechanistic impact of immunosuppressants.