Diabetic Control Agents and Their Impact on Cardiac Surgery Patients: A Clinical Overview.

Chronic hyperglycemia is associated with poor cardiovascular surgical outcomes due to microvascular and macrovascular complications. This is a major concern as over one third of cardiovascular surgical patients have diabetes mellitus which greatly increases their risk of experiencing adverse cardiovascular events. A literature review was performed to identify articles discussing the effects of anti-diabetic medications (ADMs) on cardiovascular outcomes and surgical mortality and morbidity rates. Optimizing perioperative glucose levels remains a key factor in producing good surgical outcomes. In addition, recognizing gender differences, increasing patient satisfaction, and implementing dedicated diabetic teams all improve surgical mortality and morbidity rates in the diabetic population.

Effects of antidiabetic medications on cardiovascular outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: Hyperglycemia is associated with an increased risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes, such as heart failure, coronary heart disease, stroke, and in-hospital mortality. For those receiving cardiac surgery, up to half develop hyperglycemia while 30% have a diagnosis of diabetes, which is defined by chronic hyperglycemia. Due to a prothrombic state and endovascular damage, patients with diabetes have a twofold increased risk of cardiovascular events. METHODS: Electronic literature search was done to identify articles that have discussed antidiabetic medications and how it is impacting the glycemia status as well as cardiovascular outcomes. No limits were placed on timing of the publication or type of the article. Key words and MeSH terms were used to conduct the search and the results are summarized in a narrative manner within each relevant section. RESULTS: Antidiabetic medications play a key role in lowering blood glucose levels to reduce adverse cardiovascular outcomes. However, it is a challenge to assess their cardiovascular safety due to confounding factors, such as age, obesity, smoking, hyperlipidemia, and high blood pressure. Further research in this field is required to understand this correlation closely. CONCLUSION: Optimizing blood glucose level during the perioperative period with correct medication and dose have a significant role in reducing morbidities. Measures should be taken to provide a safe blood glucose level for optimum outcomes.

Sublingual immunotherapy for asthma.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a common long-term respiratory disease affecting approximately 300 million people worldwide. Approximately half of people with asthma have an important allergic component to their disease, which may provide an opportunity for targeted treatment. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) aims to reduce asthma symptoms by delivering increasing doses of an allergen (e.g. house dust mite, pollen extract) under the tongue to induce immune tolerance. Fifty-two studies were identified and synthesised in the original Cochrane Review in 2015, but questions remained about the safety and efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy for people with asthma. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy compared with placebo or standard care for adults and children with asthma. SEARCH METHODS: The original searches for trials from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and reference lists of all primary studies and review articles found trials up to 25 March 2015. The most recent search for trials for the current update was conducted on 29 October 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel randomised controlled trials, irrespective of blinding or duration, that evaluated sublingual immunotherapy versus placebo or as an add-on to standard asthma management. We included both adults and children with asthma of any severity and with any allergen-sensitisation pattern. We included studies that recruited participants with asthma, rhinitis, or both, providing at least 80% of trial participants had a diagnosis of asthma. We selected outcomes to reflect recommended outcomes for asthma clinical trials and those most important to people with asthma. Primary outcomes were asthma exacerbations requiring a visit to the emergency department (ED) or admission to hospital, validated measures of quality of life, and all-cause serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes were asthma symptom scores, exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids, response to provocation tests, and dose of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the search results for included trials, extracted numerical data, and assessed risk of bias, all of which were cross-checked for accuracy. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) or risk differences (RDs) using study participants as the unit of analysis; we analysed continuous data as mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) using random-effects models. We considered the strength of evidence for all primary and secondary outcomes using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: Sixty-six studies met the inclusion criteria for this update, including 52 studies from the original review. Most studies were double-blind and placebo-controlled, varied in duration from one day to three years, and recruited participants with mild or intermittent asthma, often with comorbid allergic rhinitis. Twenty-three studies recruited adults and teenagers; 31 recruited only children; three recruited both; and nine did not specify. The pattern of reporting and results remained largely unchanged from the original review despite 14 further studies and a 50% increase in participants studied (5077 to 7944). Reporting of primary efficacy outcomes to measure the impact of SLIT on asthma exacerbations and quality of life was infrequent, and selective reporting may have had a serious effect on the completeness of the evidence; 16 studies did not contribute any data, and a further six studies could only be included in a post hoc analysis of all adverse events. Allocation procedures were generally not well described; about a quarter of the studies were at high risk of performance or detection bias (or both); and participant attrition was high or unknown in around half of the studies. The primary outcome in most studies did not align with those of interest to the review (mostly asthma or rhinitis symptoms), and only two small studies reported our primary outcome of exacerbations requiring an ED or hospital visit; the pooled estimate from these studies suggests SLIT may reduce exacerbations compared with placebo or usual care, but the evidence is very uncertain (OR 0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 1.20; n = 108; very low-certainty evidence). Nine studies reporting quality of life could not be combined in a meta-analysis and, whilst the direction of effect mostly favoured SLIT, the effects were often uncertain and small. SLIT likely does not increase SAEs compared with placebo or usual care, and analysis by risk difference suggests no more than 1 in 100 people taking SLIT will have a serious adverse event (RD -0.0004, 95% CI -0.0072 to 0.0064; participants = 4810; studies = 29; moderate-certainty evidence). Regarding secondary outcomes, asthma symptom and medication scores were mostly measured with non-validated scales, which precluded meaningful meta-analysis or interpretation, but there was a general trend of SLIT benefit over placebo. Changes in ICS use (MD -17.13 µg/d, 95% CI -61.19 to 26.93; low-certainty evidence), exacerbations requiring oral steroids (studies = 2; no events), and bronchial provocation (SMD 0.99, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.82; low-certainty evidence) were not often reported. Results were imprecise and included the possibility of important benefit or little effect and, in some cases, potential harm from SLIT. More people taking SLIT had adverse events of any kind compared with control (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.49 to 2.67; high-certainty evidence; participants = 4251; studies = 27), but events were usually reported to be transient and mild. Lack of data prevented most of the planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite continued study in the field, the evidence for important outcomes such as exacerbations and quality of life remains too limited to draw clinically useful conclusions about the efficacy of SLIT for people with asthma. Trials mostly recruited mixed populations with mild and intermittent asthma and/or rhinitis and focused on non-validated symptom and medication scores. The review findings suggest that SLIT may be a safe option for people with well-controlled mild-to-moderate asthma and rhinitis who are likely to be at low risk of serious harm, but the role of SLIT for people with uncontrolled asthma requires further evaluation.

COVID-19 and Oncology: Service transformation during pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has challenged healthcare systems around the world, where resources have refocused on increasing critical bed capacity to prepare for the peak in incidence of COVID-19. Oncology faces an unprecedented challenge as patients require multidisciplinary care and are more likely to be immunosuppressed. Services in oncology have been transformed using minimal resources over a short period of time. This transformation continues and telemedicine is playing a key role. AIMS: We explore how services in oncology have transformed to deliver services including consultations, systemic anticancer therapy, and surgery for patients, while shielding them from contracting COVID-19. We assess the risks and benefits of the service transformation in the immediate, interim, and long term, and how telemedicine supports the process. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive review of the literature using suitable keywords on the search engines of PubMed, SCOPUS, Google Scholar, and latest official data from May to June 2020. RESULTS: Through the published literature on this topic, we discuss the transformations in oncology and the impact on patients and healthcare workers due to the COVID-19 pandemic. We reflect on the lessions from COVID-19 and assess the role of telemedicine in the future of oncology services. CONCLUSION: Transformation of services in oncology effectively shields patients from COVID-19 infections, and telemedicine plays a role in virtual consultations. The long-term effects are yet to be seen, such as safety of home-based treatment, and effectiveness of virtual communication on patient care. As oncology requires a multidisciplinary approach, telemedicine will play a key role to improve patient-centered cancer care in the future.

The need to manage the risk of thromboembolism in COVID-19 patients.

COVID-19 first appeared in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China, in December 2019. Thought to be of zoonotic origin, it has been named SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) and has spread rapidly. As of April 20, 2020, there have been >2.4 million cases recorded worldwide. The inflammatory process, cytokine storm, and lung injury that are associated with COVID-19 can put patients at an increased risk of thrombosis. The total incidence of thrombotic events in COVID-19 patients is currently uncertain. Those with more severe disease and with other risk factors, including increasing age, male sex, obesity, cancer, comorbidities, and intensive care unit admission, are at higher risk of these events. However, there is little international guidance on managing these risks in COVID-19 patients. In this paper, we explore the current evidence and theories surrounding thrombosis in these unique patients and reflect on experience from our center.

Feasibility of a paediatric radiology escape room for undergraduate education.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a paediatric radiology themed escape room session for undergraduate education and secondly, to determine participant satisfaction and improvement in knowledge. METHODS: A paediatric radiology escape room with accompanying tutorial was developed around key learning objectives set within the RCR and ESR undergraduate curriculum. Students were recruited from two different universities and undertook the escape room themed teaching. An 8-question single best answer (SBA) test was completed before, immediately after and at 2 weeks post-teaching to determine participant improvement and retention of knowledge. The general feedback was also collected. RESULTS: The escape room sessions were held three times, for 19 students (6-7 students per session). All groups completed the escape room in ≤ 20 min. Students enjoyed the experience, assigning an average satisfaction score of 9.4/10 (range 7-10). The majority (17/19, 89.5%) preferred this method of teaching to a lecture-based tutorial alone, although all said they found the tutorial component useful. For the SBA test, there was an average increase in 3.6 marks (range 1-6 marks) per participant between before and after the escape room. This improved knowledge was mostly sustained after 2 weeks, with an average increase of 3.4 marks difference (range 1 to 6) per participant compared to before the teaching. CONCLUSIONS: A paediatric radiology themed escape room is a feasible teaching method, enjoyed by participants and associated with an increase in radiological knowledge. Further work with larger sample size and direct comparison with other traditional teaching methods is required.