-
Endocrine Oct 2021The association between glucocorticoid replacement therapy for adrenal insufficiency (AI) and osteoporosis is unclear. Fracture is a major cause of morbidity in patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
The association between glucocorticoid replacement therapy for adrenal insufficiency (AI) and osteoporosis is unclear. Fracture is a major cause of morbidity in patients with osteoporosis. This study aims to determine if patients on glucocorticoid replacement therapy for AI have an increased rate of fractures compared to the general population.
METHODS
We included all studies with adult patients receiving glucocorticoid replacement therapy for either congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), primary adrenal insufficiency (PAI), or secondary adrenal insufficiency (SAI). Studies without fracture data were excluded, as well as meeting abstracts. Studies with fractures but without a control group were eligible to be included in the systematic review but not in the meta-analysis. The primary outcome was the number of fractures, which was further differentiated into osteoporotic fractures. In addition, the glucocorticoid dose equivalents used were noted whenever possible.
RESULTS
Seventeen studies were included in the systematic review. Seven were used in the meta-analysis of any fracture and six were used for osteoporotic fracture. The reported fracture rate ranged between no fracture to 60.8% in the patient group and no fracture to 43.8% in the control group. The odds ratio (OR) for any fracture was 2.71 (95%CI: 1.36-5.43, P = 0.005) and for osteoporotic fracture 2.76 (95%CI: 2.39-3.19 P < 0.00001), favoring the control group.
CONCLUSIONS
Patients with AI on glucocorticoid replacement therapy have a higher rate of fractures compared to the control population.
Topics: Addison Disease; Adrenal Hyperplasia, Congenital; Adrenal Insufficiency; Adult; Fractures, Bone; Glucocorticoids; Hormone Replacement Therapy; Humans
PubMed: 33846948
DOI: 10.1007/s12020-021-02723-z -
Endocrine Practice : Official Journal... Feb 2021Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) targeting cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 or programmed death 1 and its ligand (programmed death ligand 1) have been approved for... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) targeting cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 or programmed death 1 and its ligand (programmed death ligand 1) have been approved for the treatment of a variety of cancers. However, ICI therapy is associated with a risk of immune-related adverse events. In this study, we reviewed reported cases of adrenalitis and primary adrenal insufficiency (PAI)-rare but lethal endocrine immune-related adverse events-in patients who underwent ICI therapy.
METHODS
We searched multiple databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Scopus) up to February 2020 for case reports on adrenalitis and PAI caused by ICIs.
RESULTS
We identified 15 case reports on ICI-induced adrenalitis and PAI and reviewed their clinical presentation, characteristics, immunologic and imaging features, and treatment. We also developed a screening strategy for PAI in patients treated with ICIs.
CONCLUSION
Given the morbidity and mortality associated with acute adrenal crisis, physicians-especially endocrinologists and oncologists-should be aware of this particular risk. PAI caused by autoimmune adrenalitis predominantly occurs in patients treated with programmed death 1 inhibitor monotherapy. PAI often coexists with other endocrinopathies and requires mineralocorticoid as well as glucocorticoid replacement. Even after withdrawal of ICIs, PAI can persist and requires lifelong replacement therapy.
Topics: Addison Disease; Adrenal Insufficiency; Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological; Humans; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Neoplasms
PubMed: 33554872
DOI: 10.1016/j.eprac.2020.09.016 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Sep 2020The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in efforts to identify therapies to ameliorate adverse clinical outcomes. The recognition of the... (Review)
Review
The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in efforts to identify therapies to ameliorate adverse clinical outcomes. The recognition of the key role for increased inflammation in COVID-19 has led to a proliferation of clinical trials targeting inflammation. The purpose of this review is to characterize the current state of immunotherapy trials in COVID-19, and focuses on associated cardiotoxicities, given the importance of pharmacovigilance. The search terms related to COVID-19 were queried in ClinicalTrials.gov. A total of 1621 trials were identified and screened for interventional trials directed at inflammation. Trials ( = 226) were fully assessed for the use of a repurposed drug, identifying a total of 141 therapeutic trials using a repurposed drug to target inflammation in COVID-19 infection. Building on the results of the Randomized Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy (RECOVERY) trial demonstrating the benefit of low dose dexamethasone in COVID-19, repurposed drugs targeting inflammation are promising. Repurposed drugs directed at inflammation in COVID-19 primarily have been drawn from cancer therapies and immunomodulatory therapies, specifically targeted anti-inflammatory, anti-complement, and anti-rejection agents. The proposed mechanisms for many cytokine-directed and anti-rejection drugs are focused on evidence of efficacy in cytokine release syndromes in humans or animal models. Anti-complement-based therapies have the potential to decrease both inflammation and microvascular thrombosis. Cancer therapies are hypothesized to decrease vascular permeability and inflammation. Few publications to date describe using these drugs in COVID-19. Early COVID-19 intervention trials have re-emphasized the subtle, but important cardiotoxic sequelae of potential therapies on outcomes. The volume of trials targeting the COVID-19 hyper-inflammatory phase continues to grow rapidly with the evaluation of repurposed drugs and late-stage investigational agents. Leveraging known clinical safety profiles and pharmacodynamics allows swift investigation in clinical trials for a novel indication. Physicians should remain vigilant for cardiotoxicity, often not fully appreciated in small trials or in short time frames.
PubMed: 32932930
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9092935 -
Journal of Endocrinological... Sep 2020Polyglandular autoimmune syndromes (PAS) are complex, heterogeneous disorders in which various autoimmune diseases can occur, affecting both endocrine and non-endocrine... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Polyglandular autoimmune syndromes (PAS) are complex, heterogeneous disorders in which various autoimmune diseases can occur, affecting both endocrine and non-endocrine organs. In this meta-analysis, the prevalence of associated autoimmune disorders was investigated in PAS II and III.
METHODS
A comprehensive search in MEDLINE and Embase databases identified 479 studies with the keywords of PAS II and PAS III. 18 records containing a total of 1312 patients fulfilled our inclusion criteria (original studies reporting at least 10 cases and containing the combination of other autoimmune disorders) and were selected for further analysis. A meta-analysis of prevalence was performed using the random-effects model with the calculation of 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results of each meta-analysis were displayed graphically using forest plots.
RESULTS
Distinction between PAS II and PAS III was made in 842 cases, of which 177 and 665 were PAS II and III (21.1 vs 78.9%), respectively. The prevalence of Hashimoto's thyroiditis was significantly higher than that of Graves's disease (39% [95% CI 17-65%] vs. 4% [95% CI 0-10%], respectively; p = 0.001). In PAS II, Addison's disease (AD) coexisted with AITDs, T1DM or the combination of these conditions in 65, 18 and 10% of cases, respectively. In addition, one other endocrine and five non-endocrine organ-specific autoimmune disorders were reported. In PAS III, two other autoimmune endocrinopathies, six non-endocrine organ-specific, and four systemic autoimmune disorders were found in combination with AITDs.
CONCLUSIONS
AITDs, T1DM and AD are the most common combinations in PAS, thus screening for these conditions seems to be reasonable.
Topics: Addison Disease; Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Autoimmune Diseases; Child; Child, Preschool; Comorbidity; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1; Female; Graves Disease; Hashimoto Disease; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Polyendocrinopathies, Autoimmune; Prevalence; Young Adult
PubMed: 32227311
DOI: 10.1007/s40618-020-01229-1 -
Respiratory Research Jan 2020Blood eosinophil count has been proposed as a predictor of response to inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) in the prevention of acute exacerbations of COPD. An optimal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Blood eosinophil count, a marker of inhaled corticosteroid effectiveness in preventing COPD exacerbations in post-hoc RCT and observational studies: systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Blood eosinophil count has been proposed as a predictor of response to inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) in the prevention of acute exacerbations of COPD. An optimal threshold of blood eosinophil count for prescribing ICS has not been agreed. Doubt has been cast on the role by observational studies. The role of inhaled corticosteroids in this relationship, independent of long-acting bronchodilators, has not been examined.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of post-hoc analyses of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies examining three blood eosinophil thresholds and the independent role of ICS. Included studies were categorised by the form (relative or absolute count) and cut point of eosinophil threshold used. Thresholds assessed were relative eosinophil count of 2%, and absolute counts of 150 cells/μL and 300 cells/μL. Three meta-analyses of the effect of ICS use in post-hoc analyses of RCTs based on these counts were carried out. Initial analysis included all studies of ICS vs. any non-ICS regimen. Further analysis examined the effect of ICS, independent of the effect of long-acting bronchodilators.
RESULTS
Sixteen studies examined the association between blood eosinophil count and response of exacerbation risk to ICS, in COPD patients. Eleven studies (25,881 patients) were post-hoc analyses of RCTs. Five studies (109,704 patients) were retrospective observational studies. The independent effect of ICS on the reduction of exacerbation risk was 20% at ≥2% blood eosinophil threshold (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.74-0.85), 35% at ≥150 cells/μL blood eosinophil threshold (RR, 0.65; 0.52-0.79), and 39% at ≥300 cells/μL blood eosinophil threshold (RR, 0.61; 0.44-0.78). No association was found in four out of five observational studies.
CONCLUSION
This is the first systematic review to assess, in post-hoc analyses of RCTs, the independent effect of ICS in reducing the risk of COPD exacerbation across a range of blood eosinophil thresholds. Association between ICS prescription and reduced exacerbation risk at these thresholds was confirmed. The lack of association found in the observational studies questions the relevance of these observations to a "real world" COPD population. To clarify the clinical utility of this biomarker, the association should be tested in prospective effectiveness studies.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Disease Progression; Eosinophils; Humans; Leukocyte Count; Observational Studies as Topic; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31900184
DOI: 10.1186/s12931-019-1268-7 -
American Journal of Hypertension Mar 2020Studies have shown that self-monitoring of blood pressure (BP) is effective when combined with co-interventions, but its efficacy varies in the presence of some... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Studies have shown that self-monitoring of blood pressure (BP) is effective when combined with co-interventions, but its efficacy varies in the presence of some co-morbidities. This study examined whether self-monitoring can reduce clinic BP in patients with hypertension-related co-morbidity.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted of articles published in Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to January 2018. Randomized controlled trials of self-monitoring of BP were selected and individual patient data (IPD) were requested. Contributing studies were prospectively categorized by whether they examined a low/high-intensity co-intervention. Change in BP and likelihood of uncontrolled BP at 12 months were examined according to number and type of hypertension-related co-morbidity in a one-stage IPD meta-analysis.
RESULTS
A total of 22 trials were eligible, 16 of which were able to provide IPD for the primary outcome, including 6,522 (89%) participants with follow-up data. Self-monitoring was associated with reduced clinic systolic BP compared to usual care at 12-month follow-up, regardless of the number of hypertension-related co-morbidities (-3.12 mm Hg, [95% confidence intervals -4.78, -1.46 mm Hg]; P value for interaction with number of morbidities = 0.260). Intense interventions were more effective than low-intensity interventions in patients with obesity (P < 0.001 for all outcomes), and possibly stroke (P < 0.004 for BP control outcome only), but this effect was not observed in patients with coronary heart disease, diabetes, or chronic kidney disease.
CONCLUSIONS
Self-monitoring lowers BP regardless of the number of hypertension-related co-morbidities, but may only be effective in conditions such obesity or stroke when combined with high-intensity co-interventions.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Blood Pressure; Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory; Female; Humans; Hypertension; Male; Middle Aged; Multimorbidity; Predictive Value of Tests; Prognosis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Factors; Self Care; Time Factors
PubMed: 31730171
DOI: 10.1093/ajh/hpz182 -
Rheumatology and Therapy Sep 2019In 2016, SB4 (Benepali) became the first etanercept (ETN) biosimilar to obtain marketing authorisation in Europe. Despite robust analytical and clinical comparisons,... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
In 2016, SB4 (Benepali) became the first etanercept (ETN) biosimilar to obtain marketing authorisation in Europe. Despite robust analytical and clinical comparisons, outstanding questions remain on SB4 use in routine practice.
METHODS
A systematic search for publications on real-world evidence of SB4 effectiveness, safety and drug survival was undertaken using search terms (SB4 OR Benepali OR biosimilar etanercept OR innovator etanercept) in the BIOSIS Toxicology, BIOSIS Previews, Embase and MEDLINE databases up to 17 January 2019.
RESULTS
Of 959 articles identified, eight journal articles, two journal letters and 23 congress abstracts were selected on criteria of original real-world evidence with a clinical focus. As expected with real-world evidence, quality scoring showed that the evidence had high external validity but lower internal validity. A total of 13,552 patients were described across nine European countries and all approved SB4 indications: 2499 were ETN-naïve and 11,053 switched from reference ETN to SB4 (switchers). Switch acceptance rates (a combination of clinicians offering and patients accepting initiation on SB4) ranged between 51.6% and 99.0%; patient support programmes positively contributed to acceptance. Disease activity was generally similar pre- and post-switch (typically 3-month timeframe). Retention rates across studies were at least 75% (up to 12 months follow-up). No new safety signals were identified. Differences in discontinuation rates versus historic controls reported in some studies may have been influenced by differences in treatment practices, lack of clinician confidence and nocebo effects.
CONCLUSION
Nearly 2500 ETN-naïve patients have been initiated on SB4 and outcomes are similar to those patients receiving reference ETN. Overall this systematic review of real-world evidence provides additional reassurance that SB4 is as effective and safe as reference ETN in both switched and naïve patients.
FUNDING
Biogen International GmbH.
PubMed: 31385263
DOI: 10.1007/s40744-019-00169-4 -
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology... Oct 2019This mini-review offers an update on the rare autoimmune polyendocrinopathy (AP) syndrome with a synopsis of recent developments.
CONTEXT
This mini-review offers an update on the rare autoimmune polyendocrinopathy (AP) syndrome with a synopsis of recent developments.
DESIGN AND RESULTS
Systematic search for studies related to pathogenesis, immunogenetics, screening, diagnosis, clinical spectrum, and epidemiology of AP. AP (orphan code ORPHA 282196) is defined as the autoimmune-induced failure of at least two glands. AP is divided into the rare juvenile type I and the adult types II to IV. The prevalence is 1:100,000 and 1:20,000 for types I and types II to IV, respectively. Whereas type I (ORPHA 3453) is a monogenetic syndrome with an autosomal recessive transmission related to mutations in the autoimmune regulator (AIRE) gene, types II to IV are genetically complex multifactorial syndromes that are strongly associated with certain alleles of HLA genes within the major histocompatibility complex located on chromosome 6, as well as the cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen 4 and the protein tyrosine phosphatase nonreceptor type 22 genes. Addison disease is the major endocrine component of type II (ORPHA 3143), whereas the coexistence of type 1 diabetes and autoimmune thyroid disease is characteristic for type III (ORPHA 227982). Genetic screening for the AIRE gene is useful in patients with suspected type I, whereas serological screening (i.e., diabetes/adrenal antibodies) is required in patients with monoglandular autoimmunity and suspected AP. If positive, functional endocrine testing of the antibody-positive patients as well as serological screening of their first-degree relatives is recommended.
CONCLUSION
Timely diagnosis, genetic counseling, and optimal long-term management of AP is best offered in specialized centers.
Topics: Adult; Autoimmunity; Child; Comorbidity; Genetic Counseling; Genetic Testing; Humans; Long-Term Care; Polyendocrinopathies, Autoimmune; Prevalence
PubMed: 31127843
DOI: 10.1210/jc.2019-00602