Inflammation and Treatment-Resistant Depression from Clinical to Animal Study: A Possible Link?

The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between treatment-resistant depression (TRD) and inflammation in humans and experimental models. For the human study, a retrospective cohort study was conducted with 206 participants; half were on antidepressants for major depressive disorder. The patients were divided into healthy and depressed groups. Inflammation was assessed based on the values of the main inflammatory biomarkers (CRP, WBC and ESR). For the animal experiments, 35 adult male Wistar rats were assigned to stressed and non-stressed groups. Inflammation and stress were induced using lipopolysaccharide and chronic unpredictable mild stress. A 10 mg/kg intraperitoneal injection of fluoxetine (FLX), a known antidepressant, was simultaneously administered daily for 4 weeks. Behavioral tests were performed. The plasma levels of inflammatory and stress biomarkers were measured and were significantly higher in the stressed and non-responsive groups in both studies. This study provides evidence of the link between inflammation and TRD. We further observed a possible link via the Phosphorylated Janus Kinase 2 and Phosphorylated Signal Transducer and Activator of Transcription 3 (P-JAK2/P-STAT3) signaling pathway and found that chronic stress and high inflammation hinder the antidepressant effects of FLX. Thus, non-response to antidepressants could be mitigated by treating inflammation to improve the antidepressant effect in patients with TRD.

Quality assessment of clinical practice guidelines for neonatal sepsis using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II Instrument: A systematic review of neonatal guidelines.

Background and objective: Neonatal sepsis (NS) continues to be a critical healthcare priority for the coming decades worldwide. The aim of this study was to critically appraise the quality of recent clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for neonatal sepsis and to summarize and compare their recommendations. Methods: This study involves a systematic review of CPGs. We identified clinical questions and eligibility criteria and searched and screened for CPGs using bibliographic and CPG databases and professional societies. Each included CPG was assessed by four independent appraisers using the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch & Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. We summarized the recommendations in a comparison practical table. The systematic review was drafted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Its protocol was registered in the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (ID: CRD42021258732). Results: Our search retrieved 4,432 citations; of which five CPGs were eligible and appraised: American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP 2018) (35 and 34 weeks); Canadian Pediatric Society (CPS 2017); National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE 2021); and Queensland Maternity and Neonatal Services (QH 2020). Among these, the overall assessment of two evidence-based CPGs scored > 70% (NICE and QH), which was consistent with their higher scores in the six domains of the AGREE II instrument. In domain 3 (rigor of development), NICE and QH scored 99 and 60%, respectively. In domain 5 (applicability), they scored 96 and 74%, respectively, and in domain 6 (editorial independence), they scored 90 and 71%, respectively. Conclusion: The methodological quality of the NICE CPG was superior followed by the QH CPG with relevant recommendations for use in practice. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021258732, PROSPERO (CRD42021258732).

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for the management of perioperative hypothermia: Systematic review, critical appraisal, and quality assessment with the AGREE II instrument.

Inadvertent perioperative hypothermia is considered an emergency life-threatening situation. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on how to manage hypothermia, based on evidence and expert opinions, could save lives. This systematic review assessed and compared the most recently approved international CPGs with the AGREE II instrument. We searched international bibliographic databases to identify relevant guidelines for managing perioperative hypothermia. Four independent reviewers (consultant anesthesiologists) critically appraised the selected guidelines with the AGREE II instrument. We analyzed inter-rater agreement and calculated an intra-class correlation coefficient (Kappa). We identified five CPGs for perioperative hypothermia that were eligible for critical appraisal. These CPGs were issued by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE-2016); the American Society of Peri-Anesthesia Nurses/Agency for Health Care Research and Quality (ASPAN/AHRQ-2006); the University of Southern Mississippi (USM/CPG-2017); The University Assistance Complex of Salamanca (UACS/CPG-2018); and the Justus-Liebig University of Giessen (UKGM/CPG-2015). The overall assessments of NICE-2016 and ASPAN/AHRQ-2006 scored >80%. These results were consistent with high scores achieved in the six domains of AGREE II: (1) scope and purpose, (2) stakeholder involvement, (3) rigor of development, (4) clarity of presentation, (5) applicability, and (6) editorial independence domains. The NICE-2016, ASPAN/AHRQ-2006, and USM/CPG-2017) scored, respectively, 94%, 81%, and 70% for domain 3, 91%, 87%, and 66% for domain 5, and 90%, 82%, and 77% for domain 6. Generally, the NICE CPGs received significantly better clinical recommendations. However, all five evidence-based CPGs were of high methodological quality and were recommended for use in practice. Saudi Arabia should formulate its own national CPGs for diagnosis and management of perioperative hypothermia and to be published on NICE.

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for the management of psoriasis: systematic review, critical appraisal, and quality assessment with the AGREE II instrument.

BACKGROUND: Psoriasis is considered one of the stubborn lifelong dermatologic diseases, making the patients seized in their social cage. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and expert opinions ensure that patients with psoriasis render the most recent and developed care. This systematic review assessed and compared the most recently approved international CPGs with the AGREE II instrument. METHODS: After we identified our research question, we searched the bibliographic international databases to identify and screen for relevant and eligible guidelines that address the topic of interest. Four independent reviewers (Senior Expert Dermatologist in Psoriasis) have critically appraised the selected guidelines via the AGREE II instrument. We conducted inter-rater analysis and percent agreement among raters and calculation of intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) 'Kappa'. RESULTS: Out of 33 articles for CPGs, only Four eligible CPGs fulfill the inclusion criteria. Selected CPGs were critically appraised; first from the American College of Rheumatology that is also National Psoriasis Foundation (ACR/NPF-2018), second from the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE-2017) for Psoriasis: Assessment and Management, third from the Saudi practical guidelines on the biologic treatment for Psoriasis (Saudi CPGs, 2015), and lastly from the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD/NPF-2019) Management and Treatment of Psoriasis with Awareness and Attention to Comorbidities. The complete assessments (OA) of two CPGs (AAD/NPF and NICE) scored greater than 80%; 'six domains' of AGREE II had greater score that is congruent with results; (1) scope and motive, (2) shareholder involvement, (3) rigor of growth, (4) clarity of speech, (5) validity, and (6) journalistic independence domains. Domain (3) scored (84, 71, and 90%), domain (5) (51%, 47, and 90%), domain (6) (70, 52, and 90%) for (Saudi CPGs, AAD/NPF, and NICE), respectively. Generally, the clinical recommendations were significantly better for NICE CPGs. CONCLUSIONS: Four evidence-based 'CPGs' introduced a high-quality methodological analysis. NICE indicated the greatest quality followed by Saudi CPGs and AAD/NPF and all four CPGs were suggested for practice.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and risk of inhospital mortality among end-stage renal disease patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A scientific perspective.

According to the elevated infection mortality risks, the incidence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) could be raised in rheumatoid arthritis patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Our objectives are to describe the impact of COVID-19 infection on rheumatoid arthritis patients with end-stage renal disease and to identify the risk of in-hospital mortality, comorbid conditions. and the proper way to deal with this category. It was a retrospective analysis of COVID-19 patients in Saudi Arabia from March 1, 2020 to April 27, 2020 and from May 27, 2020 to August 20, 2020. Of 10,482 patients with COVID-19, 419 had ESRD. We assessed main (in-hospital death) outcomes and secondary (mechanical breathing and residence) outcomes. Patients with ESRD were aged and more comorbid disorders. Rheumatoid arthritis patients with ESRD were aged. ESRD rheumatoid arthritis patients have a higher hospital mortality risk relative to rheumatoid arthritis patients not getting complicated with ESRD (31.7% vs. 25.4%, chances 1.38, and 95% trust range 1.12-1.70). After population and comorbid conditions had changed, the rate of rise stayed the same (changed chances: 1.37, 1.09-1.73). In both the crude and modified study (1.62, 1.26-2.07; vs. 1.57, 1.22-2.02), chances for the period of stay of seven or more days have been higher inside a group than in the non-ESRD group. Old age, respiratory support, lymphopenia, and elevated blood urea nitrogen and low serum ferritin were the independent contributing factors for the in-hospital mortality of ESRD rheumatoid arthritis patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.

Risk of General Anesthesia in Pediatric Skin Procedures with Projection on Tumescent Anesthesia.

BACKGROUND: Uses of general anaesthesia in outpatient invasive procedures have increased, especially in dermatology. Being uncooperative, children often require general anaesthesia, since surgical skin operations are mostly painful. AIM: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the safety, significant adverse events, and the complication rates related to general anaesthesia, when used among pediatric population undergoing skin procedures. METHODS: We conducted a first retrospective cohort study of patient chart review during the period from September 1, 2017 through September 2019. All patients admitted for pediatric skin procedures during this period have participated in our study. We reviewed selected charts to document any unexpected admissions, adverse events, or complications. Surgical outcomes and anaesthesia complications were reviewed by three anesthesiologists. We assessed inter-rater reliability. RESULTS: A total of 211 procedures were reported for 211 patients with 19 diagnoses. No adverse events related to anaesthesia were recognized, apart from minor complications noticed in twelve patients. The kappa value range is between 0.78 and 1.00 (95% C.I., 0.46809 to 1.00). CONCLUSION: Dermatologist and pediatricians can safely do necessary procedures under general anaesthesia with the supervision of pediatric-trained anesthesiologists while considering other safety and risk precautions and the pediatric age group.