Severe cases of COVID‐19 infection, often leading to death, have been associated with variants of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Cell therapy with mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) is a potential treatment for COVID‐19 ARDS based on preclinical and clinical studies supporting the concept that MSCs modulate the inflammatory and remodeling processes and restore alveolo‐capillary barriers. The authors performed a systematic literature review and random‐effects meta‐analysis to determine the potential value of MSC therapy for treating COVID‐19‐infected patients with ARDS. Publications in all languages from 1990 to March 31, 2020 were reviewed, yielding 2691 studies, of which nine were included. MSCs were intravenously or intratracheally administered in 117 participants, who were followed for 14 days to 5 years. All MSCs were allogeneic from bone marrow, umbilical cord, menstrual blood, adipose tissue, or unreported sources. Combined mortality showed a favorable trend but did not reach statistical significance. No related serious adverse events were reported and mild adverse events resolved spontaneously. A trend was found of improved radiographic findings, pulmonary function (lung compliance, tidal volumes, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, alveolo‐capillary injury), and inflammatory biomarker levels. No comparisons were made between MSCs of different sources.

A higher risk of thrombosis has been described as a prominent feature of COVID-19. This systematic review synthesizes current data on thrombosis risk, prognostic implications, and anticoagulation effects in COVID-19. We included 37 studies from 4,070 unique citations. Meta-analysis was performed when feasible. Coagulopathy and thrombotic events were frequent among patients with COVID-19, and further increased in those with more severe forms of the disease. We also present guidance on the prevention and management of thrombosis from a multidisciplinary panel of specialists from the Mayo Clinic. The current certainty of evidence is generally very low, and continues to evolve.

IMPORTANCEMigraine is common and can be associated with significant morbidity, and several treatment options exist for acute therapy.OBJECTIVE To evaluate the benefits and harms associated with acute treatments for episodic migraine in adults.DATA SOURCES Multiple databases from database inception to February 24, 2021.STUDY SELECTION Randomized clinical trials and systematic reviews that assessed effectiveness or harms of acute therapy for migraine attacks.DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Independent reviewers selected studies and extracted data. Meta-analysis was performed with the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model with Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman variance correction or by using a fixed-effect model based on the Mantel-Haenszel method if the number of studies was small. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe main outcomes included pain freedom, pain relief, sustained pain freedom, sustained pain relief, and adverse events. The strength of evidence (SOE) was graded with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews.FINDINGS Evidence on triptans and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs was summarized from 15 systematic reviews. For other interventions, 115 randomized clinical trials with 28 803 patients were included. Compared with placebo, triptans and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs used individually were significantly associated with reduced pain at 2 hours and 1 day (moderate to high SOE) and increased risk of mild and transient adverse events. Compared with placebo, calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists (low to high SOE), lasmiditan (5-HT 1F receptor agonist; high SOE), dihydroergotamine (moderate to high SOE), ergotamine plus caffeine (moderate SOE), acetaminophen (moderate SOE), antiemetics (low SOE), butorphanol (low SOE), and tramadol in combination with acetaminophen (low SOE) were significantly associated with pain reduction and increase in mild adverse events. The findings for opioids were based on low or insufficient SOE. Several nonpharmacologic treatments were significantly associated with improved pain, including remote electrical neuromodulation (moderate SOE), transcranial magnetic stimulation (low SOE), external trigeminal nerve stimulation (low SOE), and noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation (moderate SOE). No significant difference in adverse events was found between nonpharmacologic treatments and sham.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE There are several acute treatments for migraine, with varying strength of supporting evidence. Use of triptans, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, dihydroergotamine, calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonists, lasmiditan, and some nonpharmacologic treatments was associated with improved pain and function. The evidence for many other interventions, including opioids, was limited.

No abstract

Background We sought to evaluate the association between vitamin D deficiency and the severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) infection. Methods Multiple databases from 1 January 2019 to 3 December 2020 were searched for observational studies evaluating the association between vitamin D deficiency and severity of COVID‐19 infection. Independent reviewers selected studies and extracted data for the review. The main outcomes of interest were mortality, hospital admission, length of hospital stay and intensive care unit admission. Results Seventeen observational studies with 2756 patients were included in the analyses. Vitamin D deficiency was associated with significantly higher mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 2.47, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.50–4.05; 12 studies; hazard ratio [HR]: 4.11, 95% CI: 2.40–7.04; 3 studies), higher rates of hospital admissions (OR: 2.18, 95% CI: 1.48–3.21; 3 studies) and longer hospital stays (0.52 days; 95% CI: 0.25–0.80; 2 studies) as compared to nonvitamin D deficient status. Subgroup analyses based on different cut‐offs for defining vitamin D deficiency, study geographic locations and latitude also showed similar trends. Conclusions Vitamin D deficiency is associated with greater severity of COVID‐19 infection. Further studies are warranted to determine if vitamin D supplementation can decrease the severity of COVID‐19.

BackgroundAutomated approaches to improve the efficiency of systematic reviews are greatly needed. When testing any of these approaches, the criterion standard of comparison (gold standard) is usually human reviewers. Yet, human reviewers make errors in inclusion and exclusion of references. ObjectivesTo determine citation false inclusion and false exclusion rates during abstract screening by pairs of independent reviewers. These rates can help in designing, testing and implementing automated approaches. MethodsWe identified all systematic reviews conducted between 2010 and 2017 by an evidencebased practice center in the United States. Eligible reviews had to follow standard systematic review procedures with dual independent screening of abstracts and full texts, in which citation inclusion by one reviewer prompted automatic inclusion through the next level of screening. Disagreements between reviewers during full text screening were reconciled via consensus or arbitration by a third reviewer. A false inclusion or exclusion was defined as a decision made by a single reviewer that was inconsistent with the final included list of studies. ResultsWe analyzed a total of 139,467 citations that underwent 329,332 inclusion and exclusion decisions from 86 unique reviewers. The final systematic reviews included 5.48% of the potential references identified through bibliographic database search (95% confidence interval (CI): 2.38% to 8.58%). After abstract screening, the total error rate (false inclusion and false exclusion) was 10.76% (95% CI: 7.43% to 14.09%).

Summary Background Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is a common cause of chronic liver disease. There is a major need to understand the efficacy of different pharmacological agents for the treatment of NASH. Aim To assess the relative rank‐order of different pharmacological interventions in fibrosis improvement and NASH resolution. Methods A comprehensive search of several databases was conducted by an experienced librarian. We included randomised controlled‐trials (RCTs) comparing pharmacological interventions in patients with biopsy‐proven NASH. The primary outcome was ≥1 stage improvement in fibrosis. The secondary outcome was NASH resolution. Results A total of 26 RCTs with 23 interventions met the eligibility criteria. Lanifibranor and obeticholic acid had the highest probability of being ranked the most effective intervention for achieving ≥1 stage of fibrosis improvement (SUCRA 0.78) and (SUCRA 0.77), respectively. For NASH resolution, semaglutide, liraglutide and vitamin E plus pioglitazone had the highest probability of being ranked the most effective intervention for achieving NASH resolution (SUCRA 0.89), (SUCRA 0.84) and (SUCRA 0.83), respectively. Lanifibranor, obeticholic acid, pioglitazone and vitamin E were significantly better than placebo in achieving ≥1 stage of fibrosis improvement. Conversely, semaglutide, liraglutide, vitamine E plus pioglitazone, pioglitazone, lanifibranor and obeticholic acid were significantly better than placebo in achieving NASH resolution. Conclusion These data provide relative rank‐order efficacy of various NASH therapies in terms of their improvements in liver fibrosis and NASH resolution. Therapies that have been shown to improve NASH resolution may be combined with therapies that have an antifibrotic effect to further boost treatment response rate in future.

BACKGROUND As the use of injectable skin fillers increase in popularity, an increase in the reported adverse events is expected. OBJECTIVE This systematic review supports the development of American Society for Dermatologic Surgery practice guideline on the management of adverse events of skin fillers. METHODS AND MATERIALS Several databases for studies on risk factors or treatments of injection-related visual compromise (IRVC), skin necrosis, inflammatory events, and nodules were searched. Meta-analysis was conducted when feasible. RESULTS The review included 182 studies. However, IRVC was very rare (1–2/1,000,000 patients) but had poor prognosis with improvement in 19% of cases. Skin necrosis was more common (approximately 5/1,000) with better prognosis (up to 77% of cases showing improvement). Treatments of IRVC and skin necrosis primarily depend on hyaluronidase injections. Risk of skin necrosis, inflammatory events, and nodules may be lower with certain fillers, brands, injection techniques, and volume. Treatment of inflammatory events and nodules with antibiotics, corticosteroids, 5-FU, and hyaluronidase was associated with high response rate (75%–80%). Most of the studies were small and noncomparative, making the evidence certainty very low. CONCLUSION Practitioners must have adequate knowledge of anatomy, elicit history of skin filler use, and establish preemptive protocols that prepare the clinical practice to manage complications.