Silicone breast implants and connective tissue diseases: How does current evidence add to the no-association consensus? Systematic review and meta-analysis.

To evaluate the current state of the evidence regarding the association of silicone breast implantation with the onset of connective tissue diseases, constitutional symptoms, and rheumatic serological profile in adult women. A comprehensive search was carried out using MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and Scopus, from inception to September 2, 2020. Cohort studies assessing the clinical and serological profile of women with cosmetic breast implants were included. Meta-analyses were conducted using risk ratios. A total of 10 cohorts with overall moderate quality of evidence were included in this systematic review. Exposure to silicone breast implants was slightly associated with the development of rheumatoid arthritis [RR: 1.35; (95% CI 1.08 to 1.68); P = .008; I2 = 0%]. However, no significant differences were exhibited between the breast implant-exposed population and controls regarding the rest of the outcomes. In adult women, exposure to silicone breast implantation is not associated with the onset of constitutional symptoms and most connective tissue diseases. A marginal association with rheumatoid arthritis was exhibited, but the certainty of this result is jeopardized by the significant amount of self-reported data for this outcome. Further research is required to adequately explore the clinical significance of these results.

Effect of metformin on microvascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: Examine the efficacy of metformin compared to placebo or other glucose-lowering medications on microvascular outcomes in patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched from database inception to March 2020. We included randomized clinical trials of patients with T2DM receiving metformin compared with another active glucose-lowering treatment or placebo in which a microvascular outcome was assessed. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Microvascular complications included kidney-related outcomes, retinopathy, and peripheral neuropathy. An inverse-weighted variance random-effect meta-analysis was performed to estimate drugs effect over microvascular disease. PROSPERO (CRD42019120365). RESULTS: Nineteen RCTs (n = 18,181) were included. Metformin increased estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) by a mean difference (MD) of 1.08 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.33 ml/min/1.73 m2) after 24 weeks. No effect was found on urinary albumin-creatinine ratio, serum creatinine, and end-stage kidney disease; Patient-important outcomes regarding kidney disease, retinal outcomes, peripheral neuropathy or quality of life were not assessed by any of the included studies and could not be analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence of clinically significant beneficial effect of metformin therapy as compared to other glucose-lowering medications or placebo on the examined microvascular complications.

Effect of Diameter and Fenestration Area of the Liposuction Cannula on the Viability of the Adipocytes.

BACKGROUND: Loss of volume is perhaps the most frustrating problem of fat grafting. The process of fat grafting depends on different variables such as harvesting, processing, and injection techniques. Results between studies that evaluate the effect of the cannula size on fat graft survival have been controversial. However, the role of the fenestration area of the cannula has not been described. METHODS: Four custom-made cannulas with a single fenestration were used for this study. Cannulas vary in diameter and area of the fenestration. Healthy patients seeking primary liposuction of the abdomen for aesthetic reasons were included. Lipoaspiration was performed in a clockwise pattern, and the order of the cannulas was rotated. Negative pressure was maintained at 0.8 atm at all times. Ten ml of fat, obtained from the suction tube, was poured into 20-ml conical centrifugal tubes for further processing. One gram of lipoaspirate was extracted from each sample, and acridine orange stain was added. Adipocytes were extracted, extended in a frotis, and observed by a histologist (masked fashion) under fluorescence microscopy. Viability was reported in percentages per sample. RESULTS: The overall viability was 64.75% ± 18.58. The viability of the obtained samples ranged from 66.51± 20.66 % to 62.83 ± 18.1. In further analysis, comparing the viability according to the shaft diameter and fenestration area, there was no significant difference among groups. CONCLUSIONS: Neither the diameter of the cannula nor the size of the fenestrations are determining factors to affect the viability of the adipocytes. NO LEVEL ASSIGNED: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable. This excludes Review Articles, Book Reviews, and manuscripts that concern Basic Science, Animal Studies, Cadaver Studies, and Experimental Studies. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Scoping review of COVID-19-related systematic reviews and meta-analyses: can we really have confidence in their results?

AIM: The aim of this study was to systematically appraise the quality of a sample of COVID-19-related systematic reviews (SRs) and discuss internal validity threats affecting the COVID-19 body of evidence. DESIGN: We conducted a scoping review of the literature. SRs with or without meta-analysis (MA) that evaluated clinical data, outcomes or treatments for patients with COVID-19 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We extracted quality characteristics guided by A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2 to calculate a qualitative score. Complementary evaluation of the most prominent published limitations affecting the COVID-19 body of evidence was performed. RESULTS: A total of 63 SRs were included. The majority were judged as a critically low methodological quality. Most of the studies were not guided by a pre-established protocol (39, 62%). More than half (39, 62%) failed to address risk of bias when interpreting their results. A comprehensive literature search strategy was reported in most SRs (54, 86%). Appropriate use of statistical methods was evident in nearly all SRs with MAs (39, 95%). Only 16 (33%) studies recognised heterogeneity in the definition of severe COVID-19 as a limitation of the study, and 15 (24%) recognised repeated patient populations as a limitation. CONCLUSION: The methodological and reporting quality of current COVID-19 SR is far from optimal. In addition, most of the current SRs fail to address relevant threats to their internal validity, including repeated patients and heterogeneity in the definition of severe COVID-19. Adherence to proper study design and peer-review practices must remain to mitigate current limitations.

Benefits and Harms of Levothyroxine/L-Triiodothyronine Versus Levothyroxine Monotherapy for Adult Patients with Hypothyroidism: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Combined therapy with levothyroxine (LT4)/L-triiodothyronine (LT3) has garnered attention among clinicians and patients as a potential treatment alternative to LT4 monotherapy. The objective of this study was to compare the benefits and harms of LT4/LT3 combined therapy and LT4 monotherapy for patients with hypothyroidism. Methods: A systematic search in MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed by a librarian from inception date until September 2020. Randomized clinical trials and quasiexperimental studies comparing combined therapy (LT4/LT3) versus monotherapy (LT4) for adult patients with hypothyroidism were considered for inclusion. Independent data extraction was performed by paired reviewers. A meta-analysis comparing standardized mean differences of the effect of each therapy was performed on clinical outcomes and patient preferences. Proportions of adverse events and reactions were assessed narratively. Results: A total of 1398 references were retrieved, from which 18 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Results supported by evidence at low-to-moderate certainty evidence did not display a difference in treatment effect between therapies on clinical status, quality of life, psychological distress, depressive symptoms, and fatigue; all measured with standardized questionnaires. Furthermore, meta-analysis of patient preferences revealed higher proportions of choice for combined therapy (43%) when compared with monotherapy (23%) or having no preference (30%). When evaluating treatment adverse events or adverse reactions, similar proportions were observed between treatment groups; meta-analysis was not possible. Conclusions: The available evidence at low-to-moderate certainty demonstrates that there is no difference in clinical outcomes between LT4/LT3 combined therapy and LT4 monotherapy for treating hypothyroidism in adults, except for a higher proportion of patient preferring combined therapy. Adverse events and reactions appear to be similar across both groups, however, this observation is only narrative. These results could inform shared decision-making conversations between patients with hypothyroidism and their clinicians. PROSPERO Registration ID: CRD42020202658.

Prevalence of Diabetes and Hypertension and Their Associated Risks for Poor Outcomes in Covid-19 Patients.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) has affected millions of people and may disproportionately affect those with hypertension and diabetes. Because of inadequate methods in published systematic reviews, the prevalence of diabetes and hypertension and associated risks of poor outcomes in Covid-19 patients are unknown. We searched databases from December 1, 2019, to April 6, 2020, and selected observational peer-reviewed studies in English of patients with Covid-19. Independent reviewers extracted data on study participants, interventions, and outcomes and assessed risk of bias, and the certainty of evidence. We included 65 (15 794 participants) observational studies at moderate to high risk of bias. Overall prevalence of diabetes and hypertension was 12% (95% confidence interval [CI], 10-15; n = 12 870; I 2: 89%), and 17% (95% CI, 13-22; n = 12 709; I 2: 95%), respectively. In severe Covid-19, the prevalence of diabetes and hypertension were 18% (95% CI, 16-20; n = 1099; I 2: 0%) and 32% (95% CI, 16-54; n = 1078; I 2: 63%), respectively. Unadjusted relative risk for intensive care unit admission and mortality were 1.96 (95% CI, 1.19-3.22; n = 8890; I 2: 80%; P = .008) and 2.78 (95% CI, 1.39-5.58; n = 2058; I 2: 75%; P = .0004) for diabetics; and 2.95 (95% CI, 2.18-3.99; n = 1737; I 2: 0%; P < .001) and 2.39 (95% CI, 1.54-3.73; n = 3107; I 2: 66%; P < .001) for hypertensives. Neither diabetes (1.50; 95% CI, 0.90-2.50; n = 1991; I 2: 74%; P = .119) nor hypertension (1.48; 95% CI, 0.99-2.23; n = 2023; I 2: 69%; P = .058) was associated with severe Covid-19. In conclusion, the risk of intensive care unit admission and mortality for patients with diabetes or hypertension who developed Covid-19 is increased compared with those without these comorbidities. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020176582.