Search

Background: Rebleeding is a serious complication of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhaging. To date, there are conflicting data regarding the factors contributing to rebleeding and their significance. Methods: A systematic review of PubMed and Embase databases was conducted for studies pertaining to aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) and rebleeding in order to assess the associated risk factors. Odds ratios (ORs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated from fourteen studies comprised of a total of 5693 patients that met the inclusion criteria. Results: Higher rebleeding rates were observed < 6 h after the initial aSAH (OR  = 3.22, 95% CI  = 1.46–7.12), and were associated with high systolic blood pressure (OR  = 1.93, 95% CI  = 1.31–2.83), poor Hunt-Hess grade (III–IV) (OR  = 3.43, 95% CI  = 2.33–5.05), intracerebral or intraventricular hematomas (OR  = 1.65, 95% CI  = 1.33–2.05), posterior circulation aneurysms (OR  = 2.15, 95% CI  = 1.32–3.49), and aneurysms >10 mm in size (OR  = 1.70, 95% CI  = 1.35–2.14). Conclusions: Aneurysmal rebleeding occurs more frequently within the first 6 hours after the initial aSAH. Risk factors associated with rebleeding include high systolic pressure, the presence of an intracerebral or intraventricular hematoma, poor Hunt-Hess grade (III-IV), aneurysms in the posterior circulation, and an aneurysm >10 mm in size. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Background: We intended to compare and rank all the immunotherapies including immunosuppressant agents or monoclonal antibodies for myasthenia gravis (MG). Methods: A network meta‐analysis was performed to synthesize the direct evidence and indirect evidence. Quantitative MG score (QMGS) was defined as the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes included the glucocorticoid reduction and hazard ratios (HR) from the counts of adverse events (AEs). Results: We identified 14 studies including 808 MG patients. For the primary outcome, cyclosporine A (CsA) was hierarchically the best with statistical significances of −1.18 (−1.81, −0.59) vs placebo (PLA), −0.98 (−1.72, −0.23) vs mycophenolate mofetil, and −0.77 (−1.57, −0.032) vs tacrolimus (TAC). When the intervention periods were controlled, both eculizumab (ECZ) of −1.50 (−2.81, −0.18) and CsA of −1.23 (−1.81, −0.64) vs PLA reached a statistical significance. Belimumab and ECZ ranked the most tolerable therapies while CsA of 2.41 (0.58, 10.01) ranked the last vs PLA. Conclusion: These findings demonstrated that ECZ represented the most effective and tolerable therapeutic alternative to be recommended for refractory MG. TAC may be a beneficial therapy to treat MG extensively while the efficacy of CsA and cyclophosphamide may be limited by their multiple or severe AEs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of corneal confocal microscopy (CCM) as a non-invasive test to assess diabetic peripheral neuropathy in Chinese patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes.Research Design and Methods: Diabetic distal symmetric polyneuropathy (DSPN) and its severity degrees were assessed based on the modified Toronto diagnostic criteria in 128 patients with type 2 diabetes (No DSPN [n = 49], mild DSPN [n = 43], moderate-to-severe DSPN [n = 36]) and 24 age-matched controls. CCM was also examined in all enrolled subjects. Corneal nerve fiber length (CNFL), corneal nerve branch density (CNBD) and corneal nerve fiber density (CNFD) were analyzed by Fiji imaging analysis software. The efficacy of CCM as a non-invasive test to assess diabetic peripheral neuropathy was determined.Results: CNFL was 17.99 ± 0.66, 15.82 ± 0.64, 14.98 ± 0.63, and 12.49 ± 0.93 in healthy controls, T2DM patients with no, mild, and moderate-to-severe DPN, respectively. CNFL in type 2 diabetes patients with no, mild, and moderate-to-severe DSPN demonstrated a significant reduction than in healthy controls (P = .012, .003 and <.001, respectively). CNFL in patients with moderate-to-severe DSPN was significantly shorter than in patients with no or mild DSPN (P < .001 and .004, respectively). CNBD was 41.48 ± 3.35, 33.02 ± 2.50, 30.91 ± 2.33, and 18.00 ± 2.33 in healthy controls, T2DM patients with no, mild, and moderate-to-severe DPN, respectively. CNBD in healthy control was significantly higher than in type 2 diabetes patients with no, mild, and moderate-to-severe DSPN (P = .036, 0.016 and < .001, respectively). CNBD in patients with moderate-to-severe DSPN was significantly lower than in patients with no or mild DSPN (P < .001 for both). CNFD was 35.32 ± 1.18, 35.68 ± 1.10, 34.54 ± 1.12, and 32.28 ± 1.76 in healthy controls, T2DM patients with no, mild, and moderate-to-severe DPN, respectively. CNFD did not differ among the four groups. In an analysis that divided CNFL, CNFD and CNBD into quartiles, there were no significant differences in electromyography findings and vibration perception threshold among the 4 groups; however, significant differences were seen in the positive distribution of temperature perception measurements following CNFL and CNBD stratification (P = .001 and < .001, respectively).Conclusion: CCM might be a non-invasive method for detecting DSPN and its severity degree in Chinese patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: The preferred treatment for osteoporosis in men is debated, and pairwise meta-analysis cannot obtain hierarchies of these treatments. Objective: The objective of this study was to integrate the evidence and provide hierarchies of eight drugs based on their effect on the bone mineral density in the lumbar spine (BMD in LS) and the fracture rate. Data Sources: Eligible studies were identified by searching Amed, British Nursing Index, EMBASE, PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Google Scholar, SIGLE, the National Technical Information Service, the National Research Register (UK), and the Current Controlled Trials databases. Study Selection: RCTs or quasi-RCTs reporting at least two drugs (two active drugs or one active drug and a placebo) used to treat osteoporosis in men were selected by two authors. Data Extraction: Two authors independently extracted the data. Data Synthesis: Thirteen studies involving 3647 patients were included. Compared with placebo therapy, zoledronate (SMDs 13.48, 95% credible intervals 11.88-15.08) yielded the most significant effect on increasing the BMD in LS, followed by alendronate (11.04, 9.68-12.41), teriparatide (20mcg) + risedronate (10.98, 8.55-13.48), risedronate (10.33, 8.68-12.01), teriparatide (20mcg) (9.33, 6.87-11.76), strontium ranelate (8.88, 7.51-10.24), ibandronate (5.49, 3.82-7.16), parathyroid hormone (1-84) (4.89, 3.12-6.62) and alfacalcidol (3.42, 1.7-5.2). Placebo therapy had a significantly higher fracture rate in contrast to risedronate (OR 2.51, 95% CrI 1.23-4.24) or zoledronate (2.92, 1.29-5.62) or teriparatide (20mcg) (4.04, 1.36-8.49) or teriparatide (40mcg) (3.5, 1.14-8.34). Zoledronate ranked first for increasing the BMD in LS, and teriparatide (20mg) was ranked first for decreasing the fracture rate. Conclusions: Zoledronate might be the best choice to increase the BMD in LS and teriparatide (20mg) might lead to the lowest fracture rate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Alendronate may relate to the incidence of cancers, especially esophageal and colon cancer. But the results are inconsistent in different studies. Objective: To quantify the association between the use of alendronate and the occurrence of different types of cancer. Data Sources: We searched Embase, Pubmed, CENTRAL, SIGLE and , up to 2014 June. Study Selection: Cohort studies reporting association between alendronate or bisphosphonate therapy including alendronate in patients with osteoporosis and risk of cancer were selected by two authors. Data Extraction: Two authors independently extracted the data. The Chi-square test and the I-square test were used for testing heterogeneity between studies. Data Synthesis: Eight cohort studies were included in the meta-analysis. Meta-analysis result manifested that alendronate significantly increased the incidence of lung cancer (HR 1.23, 95%CI 1.03 to 1.47, P value = 0.03), nevertheless, there was no significant difference after we excluded either Lee’s 2012 study (HR 1.17, 95%CI 0.95 to 1.44, P value = 0.13) or Chiang’s 2012 study (HR 1.47, 95%CI 1 to 2.17, P value = 0.05). For the incidence of colorectal cancer, no significant difference occurred (HR 0.91, 95%CI 0.74 to 1.13, P value = 0.39), but there was a positive relationship when we used fixed model (HR 0.85, 95%CI 0.78 to 0.93, P value = 0.004). For the incidence of liver cancer, there was no significant difference (HR 1.36, 95%CI 0.9 to 2.04, P value = 0.14), however, the result changed after we excluded Chiang’s 2012 study (HR 1.69, 95%CI 1.03 to 2.77, P value = 0.04). There was no significant difference in other types of cancer. Conclusion: Based on current evidences, alendronate therapy may be associated with a high risk of lung cancer, may with an excess risk of liver cancer, a low risk of colorectal and no related risk of other cancers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]