Does fully closed-loop automated insulin delivery improve glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

AIMS: This meta-analysis investigated the efficacy and safety of fully closed-loop automated insulin delivery (AID) in patients with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We systemically searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central from inception until April 26, 2023. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing fully closed-loop AID versus conventional insulin therapy. The outcomes were pooled as the mean difference (MD) and risk ratio with 95% confidence interval (CI) in the random effect model. Our primary outcome was the proportion of time in the target glucose range (5.6-10 mmol/L, 3.9-10 mmol/L, or 3.9-8 mmol/L, depending on the study). Key secondary outcomes included the proportion of time spent in hyperglycaemia or hypoglycaemia. RESULTS: We included seven RCTs (three crossover and four parallel design), compromising 390 patients. Our analysis showed that compared to the control group, fully closed-loop AID increased the proportion of time spent within the target glucose range by additional 337 min per 24 h (MD = 23.39%, 95% CI [16.64%, 30.14%], p < 0.01), additional 108 min overnight (MD = 22.40%, 95% CI [12.88%, 31.91%], p < 0.01), and additional 258 min during the daytime period (MD = 26.85%, 95% CI [21.06%, 32.63%], p < 0.01). Compared to the control group, the overall time in hyperglycaemia was shortened by 326 min per 24 h (MD = -22.67%, 95% CI [-30.87%, -14.46%], p < 0.01). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of overall, overnight, and daytime periods spent in hypoglycaemia. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis suggests that fully closed-loop AID may improve glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes, particularly for those with more challenging diabetes management. Further research is required to establish the feasibility of implementing these systems in clinical practice. [Correction added on 26 August 2023 after first online publication: Under Results, the first sentence "We included seven RCTs (three crossover and one parallel designs)" has been changed to "We included seven RCTs (three crossover and four parallel designs)".].

Does baricitinib reduce disease activity in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Baricitinib is a selective Janus kinase inhibitor that has recently been approved for treating certain autoimmune disorders. This meta-analysis pooled the conflicting results from all published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about the efficacy and safety of baricitinib in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). We systemically searched four electronic databases. RCTs comparing baricitinib versus placebo were included. Our outcomes were pooled as the risk ratio (RR) in the random effects model. Our primary outcome was the proportion of patients who achieved a SLE Responder Index-4 (SRI-4) response. A total of three RCTs, comprising 1849 patients, were included. Baricitinib 4 mg was associated with a significantly higher proportion of patients who attained SRI-4 response at week 24 (RR = 1.19, 95% CI [1.05, 1.35], P < 0.01). However, this did not reach statistical significance with baricitinib 4 mg at week 52 and baricitinib 2 mg at both week 24 and week 52 (RR = 1.13, 95% CI [0.96, 1.34], P = 0.15; RR = 1.09, 95% CI [0.96, 1.24], P = 0.20; RR = 1.05, 95% CI [0.92, 1.19], P = 0.50, respectively). The risk for serious infections was higher in the baricitinib 4 mg group (RR = 2.23, 95% CI [1.13, 4.37], P = 0.02). Baricitinib 2 mg did not show any clinical benefit. In contrast, baricitinib 4 mg might have the potential to reduce SLE disease activity; however, further research is required to evaluate its long-term efficacy. Until higher-quality evidence is developed, the benefits and risks of baricitinib should be considered before initiating its therapy. Key Points • Baricitinib is a selective Janus kinase inhibitor that has recently been approved for treating certain autoimmune disorders; however, its efficacy in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is still inconclusive. • In our meta-analysis, baricitinib 2 mg did not show any clinical benefit. In contrast, baricitinib 4 mg significantly reduced SLE activity in terms of SRI-4 response at week 24. However, this did not reach statistical significance at week 52. • Further studies are required to investigate the long-term efficacy of baricitinib 4 mg in patients with SLE.

Efficacy and safety of extrafascial injection versus intrafascial injection for interscalene brachial plexus block: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of interscalene brachial plexus block (ISB) techniques in upper limb and shoulder surgeries. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Medline, and Scopus databases up to May 14th, 2023. We employed a search strategy involving keywords such as "brachial plexus block," "interscalene brachial plexus block," "ISB," "extrafascial," and "intrafascial," without applying search restrictions or filters. Eligible studies consisted of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared extrafascial and intrafascial ISB techniques in adult patients undergoing upper limb and shoulder surgeries. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Our analysis included six RCTs encompassing 485 participants. Extrafascial injection demonstrated superiority over intrafascial injection in reducing the incidence of hemidiaphragmatic paresis (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.124 to 0.47, P<0.00001) and preserving respiratory function (MS 0.31, 95% CI 0.1 to 0. 52, P=0.003 FEV1 in liters). Additionally, extrafascial ISB exhibited a lower risk of block-related complications (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.50, P<0.00001). However, the intrafascial technique offered a faster sensory and motor block onset. The duration of sensory block did not significantly differ. The incidence of Horner syndrome showed no statistically significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings favor extrafascial ISB techniques because they reduce hemidiaphragmatic paresis, preserve respiratory function, and lower block-related complications. However, further research is necessary to establish their safety and efficacy in specific patient populations.

Ultrasound-based Accuro system versus traditional palpation technique for neuraxial anaesthesia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: This review evaluates the efficacy and safety of Accuro, a handheld ultrasound device, compared to the palpation technique for neuraxial anaesthesia. Accuro provides real-time imaging guidance, potentially improving accuracy and efficiency. METHODS: A comprehensive search across six electronic databases identified randomised clinical trials comparing Accuro with palpation for neuraxial anaesthesia. Risk ratios or mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Bias risk was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. RESULTS: Five studies (n=369) met the inclusion criteria. Accuro showed a favourable risk ratio for first insertion success (1.44 [95% CI [1.01, 2.05], p=0.05]). It significantly reduced needle skin passes (MD -0.63; 95% CI [-1.05, -0.21]; p<0.01), but not needle redirection (MD -1.31; 95% CI [-2.71, 0.11]; p=0.07). Procedure time was shorter in palpation (MD 127.82; 95% CI [8.68, -246.97]; p=0.04). Four studies had a low risk of bias; one had some concerns. CONCLUSION: Accuro can potentially improve success rates and reduce skin passes in neuraxial anaesthesia. Further trials with larger samples are needed, especially in patients with anticipated difficulties.

Risk Factors for Cardiovascular-Specific Mortality in Patients With Prostate Cancer: A Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Based Study.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer (PC) is responsible for large numbers of cancer-related deaths in males worldwide, and it has been linked to an increase in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality (CVM). The purpose of this research is to identify the incidence and risk factors for CVM in PC patients. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we collected data from patients with PC diagnosed between 2000 and 2014 from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. CVM among PC patients was identified and compared to the general population using the standardized mortality ratio (SMR). The multivariable competing risk model with subdistribution hazard ratio (SHR) was used to analyze the data in a more complex method to discover the risk factors associated with CVM among PC patients. RESULTS: Of the 171,147 identified PC patients, the median survival time was 117 months, with 17,168 dying from cardiovascular disease (CVD). Patients diagnosed at age 45-54 had a higher CVM risk than the age-standardized general population (SMR (95% CI): 19.01 (17.17-21.0)). Using multivariate competing risk regression analysis, aged 85 and older (SHR (95% CI): 20.9 (18.628-23.467)), black ethnicities (SHR (95% CI): 1.3 (1.264-1.398)), and patients without surgical intervention (SHR (95% CI): 1.35 (1.305-1.410)) had higher CVM. On the other hand, being of Asian/Pacific Islander or American Indian/Native Alaskan ethnicity (SHR (95% CI): 0.94 (0.891-0.993)), being diagnosed between 2007 and 2014 (SHR (95% CI): 0.63 (0.613-0.655)), and having an advanced disease stage and a lack of disease differentiation in the histology were found to be related with a lower CVM. CONCLUSION: Patients with PC have a greater likelihood of dying from CVD. Several important risk factors for CVD have been discovered, including advanced age, black ethnicity, and patients without surgical intervention. These findings are limited by the retrospective nature of the analysis, relying solely on the SEER database, which imposes restrictions on accessing comprehensive patient data, including lifestyle factors and medical history.