SERUM MORNING CORTISOL AS A SCREENING TEST FOR ADRENAL INSUFFICIENCY.

Objective: To evaluate the performance of morning serum cortisol (MSC) compared to a 10 mg adrenocortico-tropic hormone (ACTH) stimulation test in the diagnosis of adrenal insufficiency (AI). Methods: A retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of ACTH stimulation tests were conducted. From a total of 312 potentially eligible ACTH stimulation tests, 306 met the inclusion criteria. The population was randomized into 2 groups: test (n = 159) and validation (n = 147). In the test group, the receiver operating characteristics curve test evaluated the diagnostic performance of MSC. Results: A subnormal cortisol response to ACTH was found in 25.8% of the test group. The area under the curve values of MSC to predict AI at +30 minutes, +60 minutes, or at maximal cortisol response were 0.874, 0.897, and 0.925 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.81 to 0.92, 0.83 to 0.93, and 0.87 to 0.96). The Youden index was 234.2 mmol/L with a sensitivity of 83.3% (95% CI 65.2 to 94.3%), and a specificity of 89.1% (95% CI 82.4 to 93.9%). Positive and negative predictive values were 64.1% (95% CI 47.1 to 78.8%) and 95.8% (95% CI 90.5 to 98.6%). There was no difference in age, gender, AI prevalence, or mean serum cortisol at +30 or +60 minutes in the validation group; however, a lower mean MSC value was found. Lower sensitivity and specificity values (88.3% and 60%, respectively) were found for the 234.2 mmol/L cutoff value. Conclusion: This study supports the role of MSC as a first-step diagnostic test in patients with clinically suspected AI. The short stimulation test could be omitted in almost half of the cases. Prospective and longitudinal studies to reproduce and confirm the cutoff values proposed are warranted. Abbreviations: ACTH = adrenocorticotropic hormone; AI = adrenal insufficiency; AUC = area under the curve; CI = confidence interval; HPA = hypothalamic pituitary adrenal; ITT = insulin tolerance test; MSC = morning serum cortisol.

Trends of sources of clinical research funding from 1990 to 2020: a meta-epidemiological study.

Evidence has raised concerns regarding the association between funding sources and doubtful data. Our main outcome was to analyze trends on funding sources in articles published from 1990 to 2020 in the more influential journals of internal and general medicine. In this meta-epidemiological study, we included peer-reviewed studies from the 10 highest impact journals in general and internal medicine published between January 1990 and February 2020 based on published original research according to the 2018 InCites Journal of Citation Reports, these consisted of the following: The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, JAMA, BMJ, JAMA Internal Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, PLOS Medicine, Cachexia, BMC Medicine, and Mayo Clinic Proceedings Two reviewers working in duplicate extracted data regarding year of publication, study design, and sources of funding. In total, 496 articles were found; of these, 311 (62.7%) were observational studies, 167 (33.7%) were experimental, and 16 (3.2%) were secondary analyses. Percentages of grant sources through the years were predominantly from government (60%), industry (23.83%), and non-governmental (16.06%) organizations. The percentage of industry subsidies tended to decrease, but this was not significant in a linear regression model (r=0.02, p≥0.05). Government and non-government funding sources showed a trend to decrease in the same univariate analysis with both significant associations (r=0.21, p≤0.001 and r=0.10, p≤0.001, respectively). The main funding source in medical research has consistently been government aid. Despite previous reported data, no association was found between the source of funding and statistically significant results favoring study authors' hypothesis.

HOMA-IR as a predictor of Health Outcomes in Patients with Metabolic Risk Factors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: There exists clinical interest in the following question: Is there an association between HOMA-IR and the risk of developing metabolic diseases? AIMS: Assessing the association between high values of HOMA-IR with the incidence of T2DM, MACE, essential hypertension, dyslipidemia, NASH, and cancer in healthy participants and participants with a component of metabolic syndrome. METHODS: Databases were searched by an experienced librarian to find eligible studies. Observational cohort studies enrolling healthy adults and adults with metabolic syndrome components that evaluated HOMA as a marker of IR were considered for inclusion. Eligibility assessment, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed independently and in duplicate. Baseline characteristics of patients, cutoff values of HOMA-IR to predict metabolic events were extracted independently and in duplicate. RESULTS: 38 studies (215,878 participants) proved eligible. A higher HOMA-IR value had a significant effect on the risk of developing T2DM (HR 1.87; CI 1.40-2.49), presenting non-fatal MACE (HR 1.46; CI 1.08-1.97) and hypertension (HR 1.35; CI 1.15-1.59). No association was found regarding cancer mortality and fatal MACE with higher HOMA-IR values, there was not enough information to carry out a meta-analysis to establish an association between higher values of HOMA with cancer incidence, dyslipidemia, and NASH. CONCLUSIONS: High values of HOMA were associated with an increased risk of diabetes, hypertension, and non-fatal MACE; yet, not for cardiovascular or cancer mortality. More research is needed to determine the value of the HOMA index in metabolic and cardiovascular outcomes. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020187645.

Values, preferences and burden of treatment for the initiation of GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT-2 inhibitors in adult patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Assess values, preferences and burden of treatment that patients with type 2 diabetes consider when initiating glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) or sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) compared with other glucose-lowering options. METHODS: Paired reviewers independently included studies reporting quantitative or qualitative methods to assess values, preferences and burden of treatment reported by patients with type 2 diabetes regarding the initiation of GLP-1 RA or SGLT-2i over other alternatives. A systematic search in MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception until May 2020 was performed by an experienced librarian. Risk of bias was assessed with a specifically designed tool for values and preferences studies. RESULTS: 17 studies (7296 patients) proved eligible. Studies fulfilling criteria for SGLT-2i were not identified. Five studies (2662 patients) evaluated preferences for GLP-1 RA compared with other glucose-lowering medications. 12 studies (4634 patients) evaluated preferences between, at least, two kinds of GLP-1 RA or their injection devices based on the following attributes: efficacy, dose, application frequency, device characteristics. Among studies comparing GLP-1 RA to other glucose-lowering medications, some preferences were observed for dypeptil peptidase-4 inhibitors compared with once daily liraglutide. Comparing different attributes of GLP-1 RA drugs and devices, cardiovascular risk reduction, glucose lowering potential, once weekly and simple administered regimens were the most preferred. CONCLUSIONS: As no evidence for preferences on SGLT-2i was available, only preferences for GLP-1 RA were assessed; however, evidence is still limited for the latter. Studies comparing preferences for GLP1-RA to other glucose-lowering alternatives only included twice daily or once daily injection regimens of GLP-1 RA drugs. According to our findings, once weekly alternatives are widely preferred than the formers. The extent to which patients with type 2 diabetes value reduced adverse cardiovascular and kidney outcomes, weighed benefits against harms and burden of treatment is limited and with very low certainty. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020159284.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter protein-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists for type 2 diabetes: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists in patients with type 2 diabetes at varying cardiovascular and renal risk. DESIGN: Network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL up to 11 August 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomised controlled trials comparing SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists with placebo, standard care, or other glucose lowering treatment in adults with type 2 diabetes with follow up of 24 weeks or longer. Studies were screened independently by two reviewers for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequentist random effects network meta-analysis was carried out and GRADE (grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation) used to assess evidence certainty. Results included estimated absolute effects of treatment per 1000 patients treated for five years for patients at very low risk (no cardiovascular risk factors), low risk (three or more cardiovascular risk factors), moderate risk (cardiovascular disease), high risk (chronic kidney disease), and very high risk (cardiovascular disease and kidney disease). A guideline panel provided oversight of the systematic review. RESULTS: 764 trials including 421 346 patients proved eligible. All results refer to the addition of SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists to existing diabetes treatment. Both classes of drugs lowered all cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and kidney failure (high certainty evidence). Notable differences were found between the two agents: SGLT-2 inhibitors reduced admission to hospital for heart failure more than GLP-1 receptor agonists, and GLP-1 receptor agonists reduced non-fatal stroke more than SGLT-2 inhibitors (which appeared to have no effect). SGLT-2 inhibitors caused genital infection (high certainty), whereas GLP-1 receptor agonists might cause severe gastrointestinal events (low certainty). Low certainty evidence suggested that SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists might lower body weight. Little or no evidence was found for the effect of SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists on limb amputation, blindness, eye disease, neuropathic pain, or health related quality of life. The absolute benefits of these drugs vary substantially across patients from low to very high risk of cardiovascular and renal outcomes (eg, SGLT-2 inhibitors resulted in 3 to 40 fewer deaths in 1000 patients over five years; see interactive decision support tool (https://magicevidence.org/match-it/200820dist/#!/) for all outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with type 2 diabetes, SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists reduced cardiovascular and renal outcomes, with some differences in benefits and harms. Absolute benefits are determined by individual risk profiles of patients, with clear implications for clinical practice, as reflected in the BMJ Rapid Recommendations directly informed by this systematic review. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019153180.

Diagnostic Accuracy of the Triglyceride and Glucose Index for Insulin Resistance: A Systematic Review.

Introduction. The triglyceride and glucose (TyG) index has been described as a biochemical marker of insulin resistance (IR); however, its diagnostic accuracy remains uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To summarize the evidence assessing the diagnostic accuracy of the TyG index regarding IR. METHODS: A comprehensive search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus was performed without any language restriction. Studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of the TyG index against the hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp (HIEC) or any other IR biochemical were assessed independently and in duplicate. Diagnostic accuracy measures (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and likelihood ratios) were extracted independently and in duplicate. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess the risk of bias of independent studies. RESULTS: We identified 15 eligible studies with 69,922 participants and an overall quality of low to moderate. The TyG index was evaluated by HIEC and HOMA as reference tests. The highest achieved sensitivity was 96% using HIEC, and the highest specificity was of 99% using HOMA-IR, with a cutoff value of 4.68. AUC values varied from 0.59 to 0.88. Cutoff values for IR were variable between studies, limiting its comparability. CONCLUSION: In this systematic review, we found moderate-to-low quality evidence about the usefulness of the TyG index as a surrogate biochemical marker of IR. Due to the lack of a standardized IR definition and heterogeneity between studies, further validation and standardized cutoff values are needed to be used in clinical practice.