We performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess the efficacy and safety of the novel, ultra‐rapid‐acting insulins aspart and lispro in adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Our primary outcome was change in HbA1c from baseline. We additionally assessed eight efficacy and six safety endpoints. We calculated weighted mean differences (WMD) for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes, alongside 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We additionally assessed statistical heterogeneity among studies with the I ² statistic, considering values greater than 60% as indicative of substantial heterogeneity. Nine studies comprising 5931 patients were included in the systematic review; eight active‐controlled studies could be synthesized in terms of a meta‐analysis. Treatment with ultra‐rapid‐acting insulins had a similar effect on change in HbA1c compared with rapid‐acting insulins (WMD −0.02%, 95% CI −0.08 to 0.05, I ² = 61% for patients with type 1 diabetes and −0.02%, 95% CI −0.09 to 0.04, I ² = 19% for patients with type 2 diabetes). Similarly, no difference was evident in terms of change in fasting plasma glucose, self‐measured plasma glucose, body weight, basal or bolus insulin dose, incidence of serious adverse events and hypoglycaemia. Compared with rapid‐acting insulins, ultra‐rapid‐acting insulins reduced 1‐ and 2‐hour postprandial glucose (PPG) increment based on a liquid meal test, both in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes (WMD −0.94 mmol/L, 95% CI −1.17 to −0.72, I ² = 0% and −0.56 mmol/L, 95% CI −0.79 to −0.32, I ² = 0%, respectively, for change in 1‐hour PPG increment). In conclusion, ultra‐rapid‐acting insulins were as efficacious and safe as rapid‐acting insulins, showing a favourable effect solely on PPG control.

Introduction: Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) constitute a drug class primarily developed for the treatment of subjects with type 2 diabetes, although they have also provided significant benefit for subjects with obesity without underlying diabetes. Individuals with psychotic disorders who are receiving antipsychotic treatment are a patient population at risk of developing obesity, which is linked to other metabolic disturbances. Methods: We searched PubMed and the Cochrane Library from inception to 1 December 2022, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) enrolling obese or overweight adult subjects with an underlying psychotic disorder treated with antipsychotic drugs, randomized either to GLP-1RAs or a control. We set as the primary efficacy outcome the change in body weight and as secondary efficacy outcomes the change in body mass index (BMI) and in waist circumference, along with indices of glycemia, lipid profile, and blood pressure. Results: We pooled data from 4 trials (2 with liraglutide and 2 with exenatide) in a total of 199 enrolled subjects. GLP-1RA treatment, compared to control, resulted in a significant decrease in body weight by 3.8 kg [mean difference (MD) = −3.80, 95% CI; −6.35 to −1.24, I² = 64%]. In addition, GLP-1RA treatment led to a significant decrease in BMI, compared to control, of 1.04 kg/m² (MD = −1.04, 95% CI; −1.92 to −0.17, I² = 35%). However, no significant effect on waist circumference was shown (MD = −3.2, 95% CI; −6.47 to 0.08, I² = 88%). A significant improvement in glycemia and lipid profiles was also demonstrated with GLP-1RAs. No subgroup difference between liraglutide and exenatide was shown, and the use of GLP-1RAs did not increase the risk for treatment discontinuation compared to the control group. Conclusion: Treatment with GLP-1RAs can significantly improve weight loss and other cardiometabolic risk factors in obese people taking antipsychotic medications.

BACKGROUND:The worldwide spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-COV-2) has created unprecedented situations for healthcare professionals and healthcare systems. Although infection with this virus is considered the main health problem currently, other diseases are still prevalent. CASE REPORT:This report describes a 59-year-old man who presented with symptoms of dyspnea and fever that were attributed to Covid-19 infection. His clinical condition deteriorated and further examinations revealed a subjacent severe aortic regurgitation due to acute infective endocarditis. Surgical treatment was successful. CONCLUSIONS:The results of diagnostic tests for Covid-19 should be re-evaluated whenever there are clinical mismatches or doubts, as false-positive Covid-19 test results can occur. Clinical interpretation should not be determined exclusively by the Covid-19 pandemic. This case report highlights the importance of using validated and approved serological and molecular testing to detect infection with SARS-CoV-2, and to repeat tests when there is doubt about presenting symptoms.