Gene of the month: the uroplakins.

Uroplakins are a family of membrane-spanning proteins highly specific to the urothelium. There are four uroplakin proteins in humans. These are encoded by the following UPK genes: UPK1A, UPK1B, UPK2 and UPK3 Uroplakin proteins span the apical membrane of umbrella cells of the urothelium, where they associate into urothelial plaques. This provides a barrier function to prevent passage of urine across the urothelium in the renal pelvis, ureters, and bladder. Uroplakins are also involved in developmental processes such as nephrogenesis. The specific localisation of uroplakins within the urothelium means that they are often expressed in primary and metastatic urothelial cell carcinoma and may be used as an immunohistochemical marker of urothelial malignancy.

The association of lower urinary tract symptoms with schizophrenia and its treatments: A narrative review.

BACKGROUND: A higher incidence of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in people with schizophrenia compared to the general population is often suggested. However, it is not clear whether this is a genuine association, and whether it is a direct result of schizophrenia itself, or a side-effect of certain antipsychotics. METHODS: We undertook a narrative review evaluating how the published literature reports the relationship between LUTS and schizophrenia and its treatments. We searched Embase, Ovid Emcare, and Ovid MEDLINE(R) ALL to August 2022, limited to the English language. We selected the following search terms: schizophrenia, schizophrenic, LUTS, overactive bladder, urinary urgency, urinary incontinence, overactive bladder, enuresis, nocturnal enuresis, and voiding dysregulation. We identified seven domains for assessment in advance of commencing the review. These were the categorization, description, and treatment status of schizophrenia; evaluation of LUTS; categorization of LUTS confounders; recapturing of the disease states of both schizophrenia and LUTS after therapies; assessment of the association between LUTS and schizophrenia and/or antipsychotics. RESULTS: The association between LUTS and schizophrenia was poorly described. The evidence was low quality and focused predominantly on urinary incontinence as an antipsychotic side effect, neglecting other LUTS. The status of schizophrenia was often incompletely characterized, and no papers made use of a bladder diary or LUTS-specific questionnaires to assess symptoms. No papers collected information about LUTS in patients not on antipsychotics, nor did any thoroughly evaluate the influence of confounding variables. Despite the tendency of symptoms and severity of both conditions to fluctuate over time, no studies fully assessed the status of both schizophrenia and LUTS at baseline, therapy initiation, and follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: It is not possible to state whether there is an association between LUTS and schizophrenia or its treatments. This review highlights the need to improve research and clinical management of the urinary tract in schizophrenia, with meticulously designed longitudinal studies.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on glycaemic control in people with diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: To identify, appraise and synthesize the available evidence on the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and lockdown (LD) on glycaemic control in people with diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched multiple databases up to 2 February 2021 for studies reporting HbA1c, time in range (TIR), average or fasting glucose, severe hypoglycaemia and diabetic ketoacidosis. Data were pooled using random effects meta-analysis and are presented as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). This review was preregistered on PROSPERO (CRD42020179319). RESULTS: We include 59 studies; 44 (n = 15 464) were included in quantitative syntheses and 15 were narratively synthesized. Pooled data were grouped by diabetes type. Results from 28 studies (n = 5048 type 1 diabetes [T1D] and combined diabetes participants) showed that TIR increased during LD compared with before LD (MD 2.74%, 95% CI 1.80% to 3.69%). Data from 10 studies (n = 1294 T1D participants) showed that TIR increased after LD compared with before LD (MD 5.14%, 95% CI 3.12% to 7.16%). Pooled results from 12 studies (n = 4810 T1D and type 2 diabetes participants) resulted in average glucose decreasing after LD compared with before LD (MD -6.86 mg/dl, 95% CI -8.54 to -5.18). Results for other outcomes, including HbA1c, were not statistically significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with small improvements across multiple outcomes of glycaemic control, although there was insufficient evidence to suggest that this led to changes in HbA1c. Most evidence came from people with access to diabetes technologies in high-income countries; more research is needed in less advantaged populations.

The association of weight loss with changes in the gut microbiota diversity, composition, and intestinal permeability: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The gut microbiome may be a mediator between obesity and health outcomes. However, it is unclear how intentional weight loss changes the gut microbiota and intestinal permeability. We aimed to systematically review and quantify this association. We searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane databases, and trial registries until June 2020 (PROSPERO: CRD42020205292). We included trials of weight loss interventions (energy-restricted diets, pharmacotherapy, bariatric surgery) reporting on the microbiome. Two reviewers independently completed screening, extraction, and risk assessment with the ROBINS-I tool. Pooled standardized mean differences (SMDs) were obtained from random-effects meta-analyses. Forty-seven trials with 1,916 participants (81% female) and a median follow-up of 6 months (range: 2-24) were included. Based on imprecise evidence but with fairly consistent direction of effect, weight loss was associated with a statistically significant increase in α-diversity [SMD: 0.4 (95% CI: 0.2, 0.6], p < .0001, I2 = 70%, n = 30 studies) and a statistically significant reduction in intestinal permeability [SMD: -0.7 (95% CI: -0.9, -0.4), p < .0001, I2 = 83%, n = 17 studies]. Each kg of weight loss was associated with a 0.012 (95% CI: 0.0003, 0.024, p = .045) increase in α-diversity and a -0.017 (95% CI: -0.034, -0.001, p = .038) reduction in intestinal permeability. There was clear evidence of increases in the relative abundance of Akkermansia, but no clear evidence of changes in individual phyla, species, or fecal short-chain fatty acids. Restricting the analyses to the studies with lower risk of bias did not materially alter the estimates. Increasing weight loss is positively associated with increases in gut microbiota α-diversity and reductions in intestinal permeability.

Risks of infection, hospital and ICU admission, and death from COVID-19 in people with asthma: systematic review and meta-analyses.

OBJECTIVES: To determine if and to what degree asthma may predispose to worse COVID-19 outcomes in order to inform treatment and prevention decisions, including shielding and vaccine prioritisation. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. SETTING: Electronic databases were searched (October 2020) for clinical studies reporting at least one of the following stratified by asthma status: risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2; hospitalisation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission or mortality with COVID-19. PARTICIPANTS: Adults and children who tested positive for or were suspected to have COVID-19. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Main outcome measures were the following stratified by asthma status: risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2; hospitalisation, ICU admission or mortality with COVID-19. We pooled odds ratios (ORs) and presented these with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Certainty was assessed using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations). RESULTS: 30 (n=112 420) studies were included (12 judged high quality, 15 medium, 3 low). Few provided indication of asthma severity. Point estimates indicated reduced risks in people with asthma for all outcomes, but in all cases the evidence was judged to be of very low certainty and 95% CIs all included no difference and the possibility of increased risk (death: OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.13, I2=58%; hospitalisation: OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.26; ICU admission: OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.24). Findings on hospitalisation are also limited by substantial unexplained statistical heterogeneity. Within people with asthma, allergic asthma was associated with less COVID-19 risk and concurrent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was associated with increased risk. In some studies, corticosteroids were associated with increased risk, but this may reflect increased risk in people with more severe asthma. CONCLUSIONS: Though absence of evidence of a clear association between asthma and worse outcomes from COVID-19 should not be interpreted as evidence of absence, the data reviewed indicate that risks from COVID-19 in people with asthma, as a whole, may be less than originally anticipated.

Asthma and COVID-19: review of evidence on risks and management considerations.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory illnesses typically present increased risks to people with asthma (PWA). However, data on the risks of COVID-19 to PWA have presented contradictory findings, with implications for asthma management. OBJECTIVE: To assess the risks and management considerations of COVID-19 in people with asthma (PWA). METHOD: We conducted a rapid literature review. We searched PubMed, medRxiv, LitCovid, TRIP, Google and Google Scholar for terms relating to asthma and COVID-19, and for systematic reviews related to specific management questions within our review, in April 2020. References were screened and data were extracted by one reviewer. RESULTS: We extracted data from 139 references. The evidence available is limited, with some sources suggesting an under-representation of PWA in hospitalised cases and others showing an increased risk of worse outcomes in PWA, which may be associated with disease severity. Consensus broadly holds that asthma medications should be continued as usual. Almost all aspects of asthma care will be disrupted during the pandemic due not only to limits in face-to-face care but also to the fact that many of the diagnostic tools used in asthma are considered aerosol-generating procedures. Self-management and remote interventions may be of benefit for asthma care during this time but have not been tested in this context. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence on COVID-19 and asthma is limited and continuing to emerge. More research is needed on the possible associations between asthma and COVID-19 infection and severity, as well as on interventions to support asthma care in light of constraints and disruptions to healthcare systems. We found no evidence regarding health inequalities, and this urgently needs to be addressed in the literature as the burdens of asthma and of COVID-19 are not equally distributed across the population.