Search

BACKGROUND: Alcoholic hepatitis is a form of alcoholic liver disease, characterised by steatosis, necroinflammation, fibrosis, and potential complications to the liver disease. Typically, alcoholic hepatitis presents in people between 40 and 50 years of age. Alcoholic hepatitis can be resolved if people abstain from drinking, but the risk of death will depend on the severity of the liver damage and abstinence from alcohol. Glucocorticosteroids are used as anti-inflammatory drugs for people with alcoholic hepatitis. Glucocorticosteroids have been studied extensively in randomised clinical trials in order to assess their benefits and harms. However, the results have been contradictory. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of glucocorticosteroids in people with alcoholic hepatitis. SEARCH METHODS: We identified trials through electronic searches in Cochrane Hepato-Biliary's (CHB) Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and Science Citation Index Expanded. We looked for ongoing or unpublished trials in clinical trials registers and pharmaceutical company sources. We also scanned reference lists of the studies retrieved. The last search was 20 October 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials assessing glucocorticosteroids versus placebo or no intervention in people with alcoholic hepatitis, irrespective of year, language of publication, or format. We considered trials with adult participants diagnosed with alcoholic hepatitis, which could have been established through clinical or biochemical diagnostic criteria or both. We defined alcoholic hepatitis as mild (Maddrey's score less than 32) and severe (Maddrey's score 32 or more). We allowed co-interventions in the trial groups, provided they were similar. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed Cochrane and CHB methodology, performing the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5 and Trial Sequential Analysis. We presented the results of dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) and those of the continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD). We applied both the fixed-effect model and the random-effects model meta-analyses. Whenever there were significant discrepancies in the results, we reported the more conservative point estimate of the two. We considered a P value of 0.01 or less, two-tailed, as statistically significant if the required information size was reached due to our three primary outcomes (all-cause mortality, health-related quality of life, and serious adverse events during treatment) and our post hoc decision to include analyses of mortality at more time points. We presented heterogeneity using the I² statistic. If trialists used intention-to-treat analysis to deal with missing data, we used these data in our primary analysis; otherwise, we used the available data. We assessed the bias risk of the trials using bias risk domains and the quality of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: Sixteen trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria. All trials were at high risk of bias. Fifteen trials provided data for analysis (927 participants received glucocorticosteroids and 934 participants received placebo or no intervention). The glucocorticosteroids were administered orally or parenterally for a median of 28 days (range 3 days to 12 weeks). The participants were between 25 and 70 years old, had different stages of alcoholic liver disease, and 65% were men. The follow-up of trial participants, when it was reported, was up to the moment of discharge from the hospital, until they died (a median of 63 days), or for at least a year. There was no evidence of effect of glucocorticosteroids on all-cause mortality up to three months following randomisation neither with traditional meta-analysis (random-effects RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.15; participants = 1861; trials = 15; I² = 45% (moderate heterogeneity) nor with Trial Sequential Analysis. Meta-analysis showed no evidence of effect on health-related quality of life up to three months (MD -0.04 points; 95% CI -0.11 to 0.03; participants = 377; trial = 1; low-quality evidence), measured with the European Quality of Life - 5 Dimensions-3 Levels (EQ- 5D-3L) scale. There was no evidence of effect on the occurrence of serious adverse events during treatment, neither with traditional meta-analysis (random-effects RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.29; participants = 1861; trials = 15; I² = 36% (moderate heterogeneity), liver-related mortality up to three months following randomisation (random-effects RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.14; participants = 1861; trials = 15; I² = 46% (moderate heterogeneity), frequency of any complications up to three months following randomisation (random-effects RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.27; participants = 1861; I² = 42% (moderate heterogeneity), and frequency of non-serious adverse events up to three months' follow-up after end of treatment (random-effects RR 1.99, 95% CI 0.72 to 5.48; participants = 160; trials = 4; I² = 0% (no heterogeneity) nor with Trial Sequential Analysis. Nine of the trials were industry-funded. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence of a difference between glucocorticosteroids and placebo or no intervention on all-cause mortality, health-related quality of life, and serious adverse events during treatment. The risk of bias was high and the quality of evidence was very low or low. Therefore, we are very uncertain about this effect estimate. Due to inadequate reporting, we cannot exclude increases in adverse events. As the confidence intervals were wide, we cannot rule out significant benefits and harms of glucocorticosteroids. Therefore, we need placebo-controlled, randomised clinical trials, designed according to the SPIRIT guidelines and reported according to the CONSORT guidelines. Future trials ought to report depersonalised individual participant data, so that proper individual participant data meta-analyses of the effects of glucocorticosteroids in subgroups can be conducted. PMID: 29096421 DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD001511.pub3 https://www.sechenov.ru/science_and_innovation/repo/?PAGEN_1=15#134864 &nbsp

Purpose: To estimate cancer screening coverage among a large sample of Greek individuals. Methods: 7012 adults from 30 Hellenic areas were surveyed. Tests included: faecal occult blood test, sigmoidoscopy, chest X-ray, urine test, testicular examination, trans-rectal ultrasound, full blood count, skin examination, digital rectal examination, PSA, Pap test, mammography, clinical breast examination (CBE), self breast examination and breast ultrasound. Results: Eighty-eight percent of males and 93% of females declared being interested in cancer screening; 37.8% of men and 37.9% of women had had a medical consultation for screening purpose in the previous 2 years. Less than 2% reported having received screening for colorectal cancer or skin malignancies. Screening for cervical cancer, mammography and CBE was reported by 39.6%, 22.8% and 27.9% of females respectively. Twenty percent of males reported screening for prostate cancer. Conclusion: The actual opportunistic screening approach presents important deficiencies with displaced priorities in test performance and a low proportion of individuals undergoing recommended tests. © Feseo 2009. 11 4 228 236