Dose-dependent renoprotection efficacy of sglt2 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

AIM: To compare the relative effects of different dosages of sodium-glucose cotransport inhibitors (SGLT2i) for renoprotection in Type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: The study searched different databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science) for studies comparing dose-dependent renoprotective efficacy defined as a decline in eGFR with the different "-flozins namely Empagliflozin, Canagliflozin, Dapagliflozin, Ertugliflozin, Ipragliflozin, Luseogliflozin, Remogliflozin and Sotagliflozin. The studies were compared with the Bayesian approach of network meta-analysis coupled with the random-effect model using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 2.0), and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) score was allotted to each dosage of different SGLT-2i. RESULTS: A total of 43,434 citations were identified, out of which forty-five randomized trials with 48,067 patients, mentioning the flozin dose and eGFR as an endpoint, were found to be eligible for further analysis. The median duration of the follow-up in the trials was 12 months (IQR 5.5-16 months). Canagliflozin 100 mg demonstrated distinct eGFR benefit with an odds ratio of 2.3 (CI 0.72-3.9) compared to placebo. A statistically non-significant eGFR benefit was observed with all other "-flozins." Canagliflozin 100 mg drug dose category showed the highest sucra rank probability score of 93%, followed by the Canagliflozin 300 mg and Dapagliflozin 5 mg with sucra rank probability scores of 69% and 65%, respectively. The Flozin-dose assessment against eGFR was similar to the albumin-creatinine ratios as the secondary endpoint in the SUCRA ranking. CONCLUSION: The renoprotective efficacy of SGLT2i is independent of the incremental doses suggesting lower doses may suffice for renal outcomes.

Comparison of 4D computed tomography and F-18 fluorocholine PET for localisation of parathyroid lesions in primary hyperparathyroidism: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Minimally invasive parathyroidectomy (MIP) is the standard of care for primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT). Four dimensional computed tomography(4DCT) and F-18 Fluorocholine positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FCH PET/CT) localize adenomas accurately to perform MIP. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and metanalysis to evaluate the diagnostic performance of 4DCT and FCH PET/CT scan for quadrant wise localisation in PHPT patients and to do head-to-head comparison between these two modalities. DESIGN, PATIENTS AND MEASUREMENT : After searching through PubMed and EMBASE databases, 46 studies (using histology as a gold standard) of 4DCT and FCH PET/CT were included. RESULTS: Total number of patients included were 1651 and 952 for 4DCT scan (studies n = 26) and FCH PET/CT scan (studies n = 24) respectively. In per patient analysis, FCH PET/CT and 4DCT had pooled sensitivities of 92% (88-94) and 85% (73-92) respectively and in per lesion analysis, 90% (86-93) and 79% (71-84), respectively. In the subgroup with negative conventional imaging/persistent PHPT, FCH PET/CT had comparable sensitivity to 4DCT (84% [74-90] vs. 72% [46-88]). As per patient wise analysis, FCH PET/CT had better detection rates than 4DCT ([92.4 vs. 76.85], odds ratio -3.89 [1.6-9.36] p = .0024) in the subpopulation where both FCH PET/CT and 4DCT were reported. CONCLUSION: Both 4DCT and FCH PET/CT scan performed well in newly diagnosed patients, patients with persistent disease and in those with inconclusive conventional imaging results. FCH PET/CT scan had a higher pooled sensitivity than 4DCT in detecting patients with PHPT in head to head comparison.

Deflazacort dose optimization and safety evaluation in Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DOSE): A randomized, double-blind non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: US food and drug administration has recently approved deflazacort for Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) and recommended the dosage of 0.9 mg/kg/d for patients aged ≥5years. However, data assessing the minimal efficacious dose and need of dose-titration based on age or disease severity is limited. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether deflazacort 0.45 mg/kg/d (proposed lower dosage) is non-inferior to 0.9 mg/kg/d among newly diagnosed patients with DMD. METHOD: A double-blinded, non-inferiority, randomized trial, conducted between December 2018 and July 2020. Newly diagnosed patient aged 5-15 years with genetic or muscle biopsy confirmed DMD and baseline 6-min walk distance (6MWD) > 150 m were screened. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), stratified to prespecified subgroups by age (≤7years and >7years), and baseline 6MWD (≤350 m and >350 m), to receive either 0.45 mg/kg/d or 0.9 mg/kg/d regimens. The primary endpoint was the change in 6MWD, from baseline to week-24 of intervention. The trial was powered with a predefined, non-inferiority margin of 30 m. The analyses were by modified intention-to-treat (mITT). RESULT: A total of 97 patients were enrolled, 40 receiving 0.45 mg/kg/d and 45 receiving 0.9 mg/kg/d deflazacort comprised of mITT population. For primary endpoint analysis the mean (SD) change in 6MWD from baseline to week-24 was 9.7 m (41.5) in deflazacort 0.45 mg/kg/d, and 34.7 m (43.5) for 0.9 mg/kg/d. The mean difference in change in 6MWD across the group was 24.8 m (95% CI 6.7 to 43, p value 0.008). The mean difference in change in 6MWD in the subgroups of boys ≤7 years of age was 21.8 m (95% CI -0.82, 44.5, p = 0.059), with baseline 6MWD of >350 m was 19.9 m (95% CI -2.4, 42.4; p = 0.08). The incidence of combined moderate to severe treatment-related adverse events was significant in the 0.9 mg/kg/d group by week 24 (odds ratio 0.36 [95% CI, 0.14 to 0.89], p = 0.03). DISCUSSION: The efficacy of proposed low dose deflazacort in comparison to the standard dose did not meet the prespecified criteria for non-inferiority. The low dose deflazacort was non-inferior in subgroup of patients with age ≤7 years and baseline 6MWD of >350 m. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trial Registry-India Identifier: CTRI/2019/02/017388.

Single ascending dose safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetic study of econazole in healthy volunteers.

INTRODUCTION: Econazole has been found efficacious as antitubercular in in vitro and in vivo animal studies. However, limited information is available for its safety and pharmacokinetics in humans. In our present study we have conducted single ascending dose, safety, and pharmacokinetic evaluation in healthy human volunteers with the purpose of enabling translation for tuberculosis. METHODS: This study was conducted as a single-center, ascending-dose, placebo-controlled, double blind design. Three ascending dose were chosen (250 , 500 , and 1000 mg) to be administered as a single oral dose. The volunteers were screened for potential eligibility. Participants were randomized to receive either Econazole or Placebo in a 6:2 design. Safety assessments and pharmacokinetic evaluations were carried out for each cohort. RESULTS: Econazole was found to be safe at all dose levels. No serious or severe adverse events occurred during the study. The AUC (0-∞) showed a response relationship with a value of 49 ± 3.47 h* µg/ml, 17. 86 ± 8.40 hr* µg/ml, 35.54 ± 13.94 hr* µg/ml for 250 mg, 500 mg, and 1000 mg, respectively. CONCLUSION: Based on the findings of our study, a dose of 500 mg Econazole, once a day orally was considered as appropriate for further evaluation.

Perforations from Endoscopic Dilation of Corrosive Strictures in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic dilation is an important therapeutic option for treatment of corrosive strictures. Its safety is unclear with variable perforation rates in previous studies. We aimed to evaluate its safety with regard to perforations and the effect of dilator type to perforation risk. METHODS: A systematic review of published literature from inception to April 24, 2021, using PubMed and EMBASE databases was conducted. Studies in adult subjects (mean age ≥ 18 years) reporting perforation rates of endoscopic dilation of corrosive esophageal and/or gastric strictures were included. Pooled cumulative perforation rates were computed as primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included, perforation with each dilator subtypes, surgical or conservative modes of management and mortality. Random effect meta-analysis was used to estimate the frequency of each of these outcomes. Variables were reported as percentages with 95% CI. RESULTS: A total of 712 subjects (N) who underwent 4840 dilations (n) were noted in the 15 studies that were included. Of which, eight were retrospective, while the remaining seven were prospective. On meta-analysis, the cumulative pooled perforation rate was 1% (1-2%) of the number of dilations (n%). The perforation rates with SG (1%, 0-3%) and balloon (1%, 0-5%) dilators were similar (p value < 0.01). 45/64 (59%, 11-94%) perforations were subjected to surgery while the remaining 14/64 (41%, 6-89%) was managed conservatively. Choice of management strategy was biased to the norms of the treating team. About 3/712 patients (0%, 0-2%) succumbed following perforation. CONCLUSION: Perforation from endoscopic dilation of corrosive strictures occurs rarely, and there is no significant difference in perforation risk related to the type of dilator.

Assessment of Appropriateness of Antimicrobial Therapy in Resource-Constrained Settings: Development and Piloting of a Novel Tool-AmRAT.

Inappropriate antimicrobial prescribing is considered to be the leading cause of high burden of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in resource-constrained lower- and middle-income countries. Under its global action plan, the World Health Organization has envisaged tackling the AMR threat through promotion of rational antibiotic use among prescribers. Given the lack of consensus definitions and other associated challenges, we sought to devise and validate an Antimicrobial Rationality Assessment Tool-AmRAT-for standardizing the assessment of appropriateness of antimicrobial prescribing. A consensus algorithm was developed by a multidisciplinary team consisting of intensivists, internal medicine practitioners, clinical pharmacologists, and infectious disease experts. The tool was piloted by 10 raters belonging to three groups of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) personnel: Master of Pharmacology (M.Sc.) (n = 3, group A), Doctor of Medicine (MD) residents (n = 3, group B), and DM residents in clinical pharmacology (n = 4, group C) using retrospective patient data from 30 audit and feedback forms collected as part of an existing AMS program. Percentage agreement and the kappa (κ) coefficients were used to measure inter-rater agreements amongst themselves and with expert opinion. Sensitivity and specificity estimates were analyzed comparing their assessments against the gold standard. For the overall assessment of rationality, the mean percent agreement with experts was 76.7% for group A, 68.9% for group B, and 77.5% for group C. The kappa values indicated moderate agreement for all raters in group A (κ 0.47-0.57), and fair to moderate in group B (κ 0.22-0.46) as well as group C (κ 0.37-0.60). Sensitivity and specificity for the same were 80% and 68.6%, respectively. Though evaluated by raters with diverse educational background and variable AMS experience in this pilot study, our tool demonstrated high percent agreement and good sensitivity and specificity, assuring confidence in its utility for assessing appropriateness of antimicrobial prescriptions in resource-constrained healthcare environments.