Purpose: Down syndrome (DS) is associated with metabolic dysregulation, obesity, and increased risk of chronic inflammation. This study aimed to assess subclinical inflammation in children with DS by evaluating inflammatory biomarkers, such as high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), and their association with metabolic parameters including ghrelin, lipid profiles, and vitamin D levels. Methods: A total of 49 children with DS (aged 1–18 years) and 22 age-matched healthy controls were enrolled. Anthropometric data, body fat percentage, and metabolic parameters were assessed. Inflammatory markers (hs-CRP, apolipoprotein-B [Apo B], adiponectin), metabolic hormones (ghrelin, insulin), and lipid profiles were determined from venous blood samples. Statistical analyses included bivariate correlation, analysis of variance, and multiple linear regression to identify predictors of inflammation. Results: Children with DS exhibited significantly higher hs-CRP levels than controls (p=0.03), indicative of increased systemic inflammation. Higher hs-CRP levels were associated with older age (r=0.33, p=0.006), greater obesity (body mass index: r=0.32, p=0.011), and elevated serum insulin and low-density lipoprotein levels. Ghrelin levels correlated negatively with Apo B (r=-0.41, p<0.001) and positively with hs-CRP (r=0.30, p=0.012). Predictors of inflammation (based on hs-CRP) included older age, male sex, higher gamma-glutamyl transferase level, and a diagnosis of DS (adjusted R²=0.276). Conclusion Children with DS are prone to metabolic inflammation, with increasing age and obesity exacerbating inflammatory responses. Clinicians should monitor and manage weight, dyslipidemia, and inflammation in this population to prevent long-term complications such as cardiovascular diseases and insulin resistance.

BACKGROUND

The recent COVID-19 pandemic has led to a rise in the incidence of obesity both in children and adults. Studies on the effect of the pandemic on Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) trends in children are limited. In this study, we aim to evaluate the frequency, clinical characteristics and demographics of newly-diagnosed paediatric T2DM cases 4 years before and after the pandemic.

The frequency and clinical data of patients aged ≤18 years with newly-diagnosed T2DM in 4 tertiary centers in urban Malaysia from 18 March 2016 till 17 March 2020 (pre-pandemic) and 18 March 2020 till 17 March 2024 (postpandemic) was collected.

Seventy-five (75) patients were recorded with newly-diagnosed T2DM pre-pandemic and fifty-four (54) patients were recorded with newly-diagnosed T2DM post-pandemic. There was no significant increase in T2DM cases and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) during pandemic and T2DM cases fell to below pre-pandemic levels in the 3rd and 4th year postpandemic. HbA1c and serum glucose were lower post-pandemic than pre-pandemic: 10.1% vs 11.9%, p = 0.008 and 12.0 mmol/L vs 16.1 mmol/L, p = 0.038 respectively.

The incidence of T2DM and DKA did not increase during the pandemic and further declined in year 3 and 4 post-pandemic. Lower HbA1c and serum glucose in the post-pandemic group may suggest improved screening services and greater access to medical care.

Statins represent the first-line therapy for cholesterol management. However, for patients prone to statin side effects, unable to tolerate higher doses, or requiring additional low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) reduction, ezetimibe alone or in combination with statins is recommended. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of combining lowor moderate-intensity statins with ezetimibe compared to high-intensity statin monotherapy, yielding reliable evidence to guide clinical decision-making and personalize treatment strategies. PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were systematically searched from inception until May 2023. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing a high-intensity statin with a low/ moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe were included. The outcomes of interest comprised changes in concentrations of lipids—LDL-C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), total cholesterol (TC), and triglycerides (TGs)—and apolipoprotein (Apo) A1, Apo B, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), along with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). All data were analyzed using Review Manager version 5.4. p-values less than 0.05 were considered to indicate statistical significance. Overall, 20 RCTs, with 5,412 participants, were included. A low/moderate-intensity statin combined with ezetimibe yielded a significantly greater reduction in LDL-C levels than high-intensity statin monotherapy (mean difference [MD], −6.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], −10.95, −2.24; p=0.003; I 2 =84%). No significant differences were observed between combination and high-intensity statin monotherapy regarding TC, TG, or HDL-C levels. However, hs-CRP levels were significantly higher with combination therapy (MD, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.01, 0.64; p=0.04; I 2 =0%). Combination therapy involving a low/moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe was significantly associated with lower LDL-C levels than high-intensity statin monotherapy. No significant differences were observed for TC, TGs, HDL-C, alanine transaminase, or MACE. However, creatine phosphokinase levels significantly increased with monotherapy.

Statins represent the first-line therapy for cholesterol management. However, for patients prone to statin side effects, unable to tolerate higher doses, or requiring additional low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) reduction, ezetimibe alone or in combination with statins is recommended. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of combining lowor moderate-intensity statins with ezetimibe compared to high-intensity statin monotherapy, yielding reliable evidence to guide clinical decision-making and personalize treatment strategies. PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were systematically searched from inception until May 2023. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing a high-intensity statin with a low/ moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe were included. The outcomes of interest comprised changes in concentrations of lipids—LDL-C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), total cholesterol (TC), and triglycerides (TGs)—and apolipoprotein (Apo) A1, Apo B, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), along with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). All data were analyzed using Review Manager version 5.4. p-values less than 0.05 were considered to indicate statistical significance. Overall, 20 RCTs, with 5,412 participants, were included. A low/moderate-intensity statin combined with ezetimibe yielded a significantly greater reduction in LDL-C levels than high-intensity statin monotherapy (mean difference [MD], −6.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], −10.95, −2.24; p=0.003; I 2 =84%). No significant differences were observed between combination and high-intensity statin monotherapy regarding TC, TG, or HDL-C levels. However, hs-CRP levels were significantly higher with combination therapy (MD, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.01, 0.64; p=0.04; I 2 =0%). Combination therapy involving a low/moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe was significantly associated with lower LDL-C levels than high-intensity statin monotherapy. No significant differences were observed for TC, TGs, HDL-C, alanine transaminase, or MACE. However, creatine phosphokinase levels significantly increased with monotherapy.

Statins represent the first-line therapy for cholesterol management. However, for patients prone to statin side effects, unable to tolerate higher doses, or requiring additional low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) reduction, ezetimibe alone or in combination with statins is recommended. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of combining lowor moderate-intensity statins with ezetimibe compared to high-intensity statin monotherapy, yielding reliable evidence to guide clinical decision-making and personalize treatment strategies. PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were systematically searched from inception until May 2023. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing a high-intensity statin with a low/ moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe were included. The outcomes of interest comprised changes in concentrations of lipids—LDL-C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), total cholesterol (TC), and triglycerides (TGs)—and apolipoprotein (Apo) A1, Apo B, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), along with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). All data were analyzed using Review Manager version 5.4. p-values less than 0.05 were considered to indicate statistical significance. Overall, 20 RCTs, with 5,412 participants, were included. A low/moderate-intensity statin combined with ezetimibe yielded a significantly greater reduction in LDL-C levels than high-intensity statin monotherapy (mean difference [MD], −6.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], −10.95, −2.24; p=0.003; I 2 =84%). No significant differences were observed between combination and high-intensity statin monotherapy regarding TC, TG, or HDL-C levels. However, hs-CRP levels were significantly higher with combination therapy (MD, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.01, 0.64; p=0.04; I 2 =0%). Combination therapy involving a low/moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe was significantly associated with lower LDL-C levels than high-intensity statin monotherapy. No significant differences were observed for TC, TGs, HDL-C, alanine transaminase, or MACE. However, creatine phosphokinase levels significantly increased with monotherapy.

Statins represent the first-line therapy for cholesterol management. However, for patients prone to statin side effects, unable to tolerate higher doses, or requiring additional low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) reduction, ezetimibe alone or in combination with statins is recommended. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of combining lowor moderate-intensity statins with ezetimibe compared to high-intensity statin monotherapy, yielding reliable evidence to guide clinical decision-making and personalize treatment strategies. PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were systematically searched from inception until May 2023. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing a high-intensity statin with a low/ moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe were included. The outcomes of interest comprised changes in concentrations of lipids—LDL-C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), total cholesterol (TC), and triglycerides (TGs)—and apolipoprotein (Apo) A1, Apo B, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), along with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). All data were analyzed using Review Manager version 5.4. p-values less than 0.05 were considered to indicate statistical significance. Overall, 20 RCTs, with 5,412 participants, were included. A low/moderate-intensity statin combined with ezetimibe yielded a significantly greater reduction in LDL-C levels than high-intensity statin monotherapy (mean difference [MD], −6.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], −10.95, −2.24; p=0.003; I 2 =84%). No significant differences were observed between combination and high-intensity statin monotherapy regarding TC, TG, or HDL-C levels. However, hs-CRP levels were significantly higher with combination therapy (MD, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.01, 0.64; p=0.04; I 2 =0%). Combination therapy involving a low/moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe was significantly associated with lower LDL-C levels than high-intensity statin monotherapy. No significant differences were observed for TC, TGs, HDL-C, alanine transaminase, or MACE. However, creatine phosphokinase levels significantly increased with monotherapy.

Background: and Purpose We compared the outcomes of endovascular therapy (EVT) in an extended time window in patients with large-vessel occlusion (LVO) between patients with and without pre-stroke disability. Methods: In this prespecified analysis of the multinational CT for Late Endovascular Reperfusion study (66 participating sites, 10 countries between 2014 and 2022), we analyzed data from patients with acute ischemic stroke with a pre-stroke modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0–4 and LVO who underwent EVT 6–24 hours from the time last seen well. The primary outcome was the composite of functional independence (FI; mRS score 0–2) or return to the pre-stroke mRS score (return of Rankin, RoR) at 90 days. Outcomes were compared between patients with pre-stroke disability (pre-stroke mRS score 2–4) and those without (mRS score 0–1). Results: A total of 2,231 patients (median age, 72 years; median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, 16) were included in the present analysis. Of these, 564 (25%) had pre-stroke disability. The primary outcome (FI or RoR) was observed in 30.7% of patients with pre-stroke disability (FI, 16.5%; RoR, 30.7%) compared to 44.1% of patients without (FI, 44.1%; RoR, 13.0%) (P<0.001). In multivariable logistic regression analysis with inverse probability of treatment weighting, pre-stroke disability was not associated with significantly lower odds of achieving FI or RoR (adjusted odds ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.43–1.25). Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 6.3% of both groups (P=0.995). Conclusion A considerable proportion of patients with late-presenting LVO and pre-stroke disability regained pre-stroke mRS scores after EVT. EVT may be appropriate for patients with pre-stroke disability presenting in the extended time window.

Background: and Purpose Posterior cerebral artery occlusion (PCAo) can cause long-term disability, yet randomized controlled trials to guide optimal reperfusion strategy are lacking. We compared the outcomes of PCAo patients treated with endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) with or without intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) to patients treated with IVT alone. Methods: From the multicenter retrospective Posterior cerebraL ArTery Occlusion (PLATO) registry, we included patients with isolated PCAo treated with reperfusion therapy within 24 hours of onset between January 2015 and August 2022. The primary outcome was the distribution of the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at 3 months. Other outcomes comprised 3-month excellent (mRS 0–1) and independent outcome (mRS 0–2), early neurological improvement (ENI), mortality, and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH). The treatments were compared using inverse probability weighted regression adjustment. Results: Among 724 patients, 400 received EVT+/-IVT and 324 IVT alone (median age 74 years, 57.7% men). The median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score on admission was 7, and the occluded segment was P1 (43.9%), P2 (48.3%), P3–P4 (6.1%), bilateral (1.0%), or fetal posterior cerebral artery (0.7%). Compared to IVT alone, EVT+/-IVT was not associated with improved functional outcome (adjusted common odds ratio [OR] 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79–1.43). EVT increased the odds for ENI (adjusted OR [aOR] 1.49, 95% CI 1.05–2.12), sICH (aOR 2.87, 95% CI 1.23–6.72), and mortality (aOR 1.77, 95% CI 1.07–2.95). Conclusion Despite higher odds for early improvement, EVT+/-IVT did not affect functional outcome compared to IVT alone after PCAo. This may be driven by the increased risk of sICH and mortality after EVT.