Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a common and disabling disease with high rates of mortality and morbidity. The role of steroids in treating ARDS remains controversial. We aim to examine the evidence behind using glucocorticoids in the management of ARDS from the available studies. Methods We performed a literature review of major electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing glucocorticoids versus placebo in treating patients with ARDS. Our primary outcome was hospital mortality. Other outcomes included ICU mortality, number of ventilator-free days at day 28, incidence of nosocomial infections, and hyperglycemia. We performed a meta-analysis using a random effects model to calculate risk ratios (RR) and mean difference (MD) with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). A subsequent trial sequential analysis was performed to examine the strength of evidence and to guard against statistical type I and type II errors for our results. Results Eight RCTs were included in the final analysis totaling of 1091 patients, with a mean age of 57 ± 16, and 56.2% were male. In our pooled analysis, use of glucocorticoids was associated with a significant reduction in hospital mortality (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.64–0.98; P = 0.03) and ICU mortality (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.42–0.97; P = 0.04). Furthermore, glucocorticoid use was associated with an increased number of ventilator-free days at day 28 (MD 4.06 days; 95% CI 2.66–5.45; P < 0.01). Regarding adverse events, glucocorticoids use was not associated with an increased risk for nosocomial infections (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.68–1.00; P = 0.05); however, it was associated with an increased risk of hyperglycemia (RR 1.11; 95% CI 1.01–1.24; P = 0.04). In our trial sequential analysis, the required diversity-adjusted information size (sample size = 2692 patients) was not reached, and the evidence was insufficient from the available RCTs. Conclusion Among patients with ARDS, use of glucocorticoids is associated with a significant reduction in mortality and duration of mechanical ventilation, without increased risk of hospital-acquired infections. However, based on a trial sequential analysis, these findings may be secondary to a false-positive (type I) error. Further studies are needed for a firm conclusion with guarding against possible statistical errors.

A 77-year-old African American female was referred to oncology for evaluation of an adrenal fossa mass detected on computed tomography scan of the abdomen and pelvis (CT-scan A/P) that was ordered as a work-up for painless hematuria. Further evaluation by positron emission tomography (PET) scan showed hypermetabolic masses in the left suprarenal and right iliac region. The biopsy of the right iliac mass was consistent with IgG4-related disease (IgG4RD). It was supported by an elevated serum IgG4 level. She was treated with prednisone with a good response.

Infective endocarditis (IE) remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, with numerous pathogens as culprits. We present a case of IE that evolved to a septic embolic stroke caused by an extremely rare bacteria Trueperella (T.) pyogenes that primarily infects non-humans. In contrast to most cases occurring outside the United States (US), this is the second case of T. pyogenes-associated endocarditis and the first to present as a stroke in the US. T. pyogenes has undergone numerous taxonomic revisions over the years since first being reported and characterized as Bacillus pyogenes in the 1800s. T. pyogenes is a zoonotic infection, and despite advancements in chemotaxonomic detection methods, Trueperella is often misidentified and under-diagnosed. Although epidemiological data is scarce, T. pyogenes infections have the propensity to cause endocarditis, and we aim to summarize all isolated reports of T. pyogenes infections that have been reported in the literature thus far.

Background: In the USA cancer is the second leading cause of mortality, as such, primary prevention of cancer is a major public health concern. Vitamin D supplementation has been studied as a primary prevention method for multiple diseases including cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, diabetes mellitus and cancer. The role of Vitamin D as primary prevention of cancer is still controversial. With fast emergence of large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in that regards, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy of Vitamin D supplementation as primary prophylaxis for cancer. Methods: A comprehensive electronic database search was conducted for all RCTs where comparison of Vitamin D supplementation versus placebo for the prevention of any type of disease with at least 3 years of Vitamin D supplementation was used and where cancer incidence or mortality was reported. The primary outcome was cancer-related mortality and cancer incidence. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effects model at the longest follow-up. Results: We included 10 RCTs with 79,055 total patients, mean age of 68.07 years, a female percentage of 78.02% and a minimum follow-up of 4 years and more. Vitamin D was associated with significant reduction of cancer-related mortality compared with placebo (RR 0.87; 95% CI: 0.79-0.96; P = 0.05: I 2 = 0%). Compared with placebo, Vitamin D was not associated with significant reduction of cancer incidence (RR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.86-1.07; P = 0.46; I 2 = 31%). Conclusion: With inclusion of studies, which did not primarily examine vitamin D for the purpose of preventing cancer or reducing cancer mortality our meta-analysis highlights that the use of vitamin D supplementation for primary prevention of cancer is encouraged as it does possibly decrease cancer-related mortality once cancer is diagnosed; however, it has no role or effect on cancer incidence.

Abstract Insulin edema is a poorly understood complication of insulin therapy. It has been reported in patients with both type 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus and typically occurs in patients with newly diagnosed or poorly controlled diabetes mellitus either after initiation or intensification of insulin therapy. A 20-year-old man presented with anorexia, polydipsia, and weight loss. Serum glucose on admission was 824 mg/dL (45.8 mmol/L) and hemoglobin A1c was >14.0. Additional workup was notable for positive anti-IA2 antibodies and low C-peptide of 0.5 ng/mL (1.1-4.4 ng/mL). He was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes mellitus and was started on insulin therapy with glargine and lispro. Within 4 days after insulin initiation, he developed bilateral leg swelling and reported a 25-pound (11.3-kg) weight gain over the next 10 days. After excluding other systemic causes of edema such as heart failure, renal failure, and liver failure, a diagnosis of insulin edema was made. Insulin glargine was switched to insulin degludec. Complete resolution of edema occurred within 3 days of switching the insulins. Insulin edema is a diagnosis of exclusion. Insulin's role in renal sodium handling, vasodilation, and increased vascular permeability have been postulated as possible mechanisms. Clinicians should be aware of this rare complication.

Disclosure: J. Wood: None. V. Samji: None. F.S. Celi: None. P. Majety: None. Introduction: Insulin edema is an uncommon and poorly understood complication of insulin therapy in patients with diabetes. We report a patient with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) who developed edema within days of initiating insulin glargine that resolved with discontinuation of this medication. Case Report: A 20-year-old man with no past medical history presented with nausea, vomiting, polydipsia, and a 15-pound weight loss and was noted to have a hemoglobin A1c greater than 14.0%. Diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) was ruled out and was started on weight-based insulin therapy with glargine and lispro three units with meals. Additional diabetes workup was notable for positive Anti-IA2 antibodies. Blood glucose levels improved prior to discharge. A week after discharge, he complained of swelling of limbs. Patient denied any shortness of breath, cough, chest pain, orthopnea, or nocturnal dyspnea. He was found to have extensive 2+ pitting edema in bilateral feet extending up to his calves. Dorsalis Pedis pulses were 2+ bilaterally. No warmth or erythema of legs was noted. His weight in clinic was 70.2 kg (154.4 lbs), up 11.6 kg (25.5 lbs) ten days post discharge. Evaluation for bilateral pedal edema was performed. Labs were notable for normal liver enzymes, creatinine, glomerular filtration rate and urine albumin levels, ruling out hepatic and renal causes of edema. Thyroid function tests were normal. His presentation was discussed with cardiology and brain natriuretic peptide level was drawn which was also normal. No further cardiac workup was recommended at that time given the patient’s history and lack of other clinical signs or symptoms of heart failure. After ruling out other systemic causes of edema in our patient, a diagnosis of insulin edema was made. Based on prior case reports of glargine associated insulin edema, he was switched from insulin glargine to insulin degludec. He noted significant improvement within 24 hours of switching insulin with a 6.4-pound weight loss in just one day and complete resolution of edema within 3 days. He had no recurrence of edema once glargine was discontinued despite increasing insulin dosing for glycemic control. Conclusion: The pathophysiology of insulin edema is unclear. Insulin’s role in renal sodium handling, vasodilation, and increased vascular permeability, have been postulated as possible mechanisms. Risk factors for developing insulin edema include T1DM, high A1C, high dose of insulin, rapid correction of hyperglycemia, DKA on presentation and poor nutritional status. Additional risk factors for developing insulin edema include thiamine deficiency and an underlying genetic predisposition related to a mitochondrial mutation, although this seems to be rare. Insulin edema is a diagnosis of exclusion. Clinicians should be aware of this rare complication, and its occurrence should be documented and differentiated from other causes of edema. Presentation: Thursday, June 15, 2023

BackgroundIn the United States, cancer is the second leading cause of mortality, and millions more battle cancer worldwide. As such, primary prevention of cancer is a major interest globally. Aspirin has been studied as a primary prevention method for multiple diseases, mainly cardiovascular disease and various forms of cancer. The role of aspirin as a primary prevention of cancer is still controversial and may be more beneficial in certain cancers over others. With rapidly surfacing large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studying this subject, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of aspirin as a primary prophylaxis for cancer.MethodsA comprehensive electronic database search was conducted for all RCTs that compared aspirin versus placebo for the prevention of any type of disease, and where cancer incidence or mortality was reported. The primary outcome was cancerrelated mortality. Secondary outcomes were cancer incidence, all-cause mortality, major bleeding, any bleeding and gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effects model at the longest follow-up period.ResultsWe included 16 RCTs with 104,018 total patients, mean age of 60.51 years, mean follow-up of 5.48 years, and a male percentage of 38.72%. We found that aspirin was not associated with a significant reduction of cancer-related mortality compared with placebo (RR 0.99; 95% CI: 0.87–1.12; P = 0.85: I2 = 41%). Compared with placebo, aspirin was not associated with significant reduction of all-cause mortality (RR 0.97; 95% CI: 0.92–1.02; P = 0.19; I2 = 13%) or cancer incidence (RR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.92–1.04; P = 0.43; I2 = 16%). However, aspirin treatment was associated with significantly increased risks of any bleeding (RR 1.63; 95% CI: 1.31–2.03; P < 0.01), major bleeding (RR 1.41; 95% CI: 1.26–1.57; P < 0.01), and GI bleeding (RR 1.85; 95% CI: 1.38–2.48; P < 0.01) compared with placebo.ConclusionOur study did not find any significant reductions in cancer-related mortality or cancer incidence when compared aspirin use with placebo or no aspirin. Our study also highlights that the use of aspirin for primary prevention of cancer was found to cause higher rates of bleeding (any bleeding, major bleeding, and GI bleeding) compared to placebo or no aspirin at the longest follow-up period with no significant benefit in cancer primary prevention.

Serum sickness is a well-known immune complex deposition phenomenon, occurring as a reaction to proteins in antiserum from a non-human animal source. Serum sickness-like reaction (SSLR), typically associated with drugs and vaccines, sometimes occurs with acute hepatitis B infection and poses a diagnostic dilemma for clinicians, as other viral syndromes, vasculitic processes, and autoimmune conditions can have similar presentations. We present a 36-year-old intravenous drug user, with confirmed records of hepatitis B immunization, who presented with multi-joint pain, joint swelling, and a skin rash. There is a paucity of cases in the literature reporting occurrence of serum sickness-like reaction due to acute hepatitis B infection in a previously fully-immunized adult. This diagnosis should be kept in mind even in the clinical scenario of a fully-immunized patient.Serum sickness is a well-known immune complex deposition phenomenon, occurring as a reaction to proteins in antiserum from a non-human animal source. Serum sickness-like reaction (SSLR), typically associated with drugs and vaccines, sometimes occurs with acute hepatitis B infection and poses a diagnostic dilemma for clinicians, as other viral syndromes, vasculitic processes, and autoimmune conditions can have similar presentations. We present a 36-year-old intravenous drug user, with confirmed records of hepatitis B immunization, who presented with multi-joint pain, joint swelling, and a skin rash. There is a paucity of cases in the literature reporting occurrence of serum sickness-like reaction due to acute hepatitis B infection in a previously fully-immunized adult. This diagnosis should be kept in mind even in the clinical scenario of a fully-immunized patient.

Abstract Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) commonly causes infection of the skin, soft tissue, bones and heart. MRSA is a rarely reported organism of prostatic abscess (PA). We present a case of an intravenous drug user who presented with dyspareunia, dysuria and dyschezia after a traumatic injury to the rectum. He was diagnosed with PA, which was treated with transurethral resection of the prostate drainage and intravenous antibiotics. MRSA PA carries a low case fatality rate on early diagnosis and treatment with proper antibiotics with or without drainage of the abscess.