-
Genetics and Molecular Research : GMR Jul 2015We used a meta-analysis approach to investigate the association between proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use and risk of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) in cirrhotic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
We used a meta-analysis approach to investigate the association between proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use and risk of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) in cirrhotic patients. We searched Ovid Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to identify eligible studies. We included studies that compared cirrhotic patients who did or did not use PPIs. The primary outcome was SBP, and the secondary outcome was overall bacterial infection. Results were pooled using random-effect models. This process led to identification of 12 journal articles and 5 conference abstracts. The pooled data showed that PPI use in patients with cirrhosis and ascites was significantly associated with an increased risk of SBP [odds ratio (OR) = 2.17; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.46-3.23; P < 0.05; I2 = 85.6%] and overall risk of bacterial infection (OR = 1.98; 95%CI = 1.36-2.87; P < 0.05; I2 = 0). Subgroup analysis revealed that journal articles and studies reporting adjusted effect estimates demonstrated that PPI users had a significantly increased risk of SBP (OR = 2.13; 95%CI = 1.61-2.82; P < 0.05; I2 = 29.4%; and OR = 1.98; 95%CI = 1.42-2.77; P < 0.05; I2 = 67%, respectively). In conclusion, PPI use increased the risk of SBP and overall bacterial infection in patients with cirrhosis and ascites. PPIs should be administered after careful assessment of the indications in cirrhotic patients. Future well-designed prospective studies are warranted to clarify the dose relationships and to compare infection risks associated with different classes of PPIs.
Topics: Aged; Bacterial Infections; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Humans; Liver Cirrhosis; Middle Aged; Peritonitis; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Risk Factors
PubMed: 26214428
DOI: 10.4238/2015.July.3.25 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2017Hepatorenal syndrome is defined as severe renal failure occurring in people with cirrhosis and ascites. Systematic reviews of randomised clinical trials found that,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Hepatorenal syndrome is defined as severe renal failure occurring in people with cirrhosis and ascites. Systematic reviews of randomised clinical trials found that, compared with placebo, terlipressin may reduce mortality and improve renal function in people with hepatorenal syndrome, but we need current evidence from systematic reviews on the benefits and harms of terlipressin versus other vasoactive drugs.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of terlipressin versus other vasoactive drugs for people with hepatorenal syndrome.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Science Citation Index Expanded; conducted manual searches of references in relevant literature; and wrote to experts and pharmaceutical companies (date of last search November 2016).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised clinical trials comparing terlipressin versus any other type of vasoactive drugs for hepatorenal syndrome. We allowed albumin and other cointerventions if provided equally in the comparison groups.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three authors independently extracted data. The primary outcomes were mortality, hepatorenal syndrome (persistent hepatorenal syndrome despite treatment), and serious adverse events. We conducted meta-analyses and present the results as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We performed sensitivity, subgroup, and Trial Sequential Analyses and evaluated bias control based on the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group domains.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 randomised clinical trials with 474 participants. The trials compared terlipressin versus noradrenaline (seven trials), octreotide (one trial), midodrine and octreotide (one trial), or dopamine (one trial). All participants in both groups received albumin as cointervention. We classified two trials at low risk of bias and eight trials at high risk of bias in the assessment of mortality and all trials at high risk of bias for remaining outcomes. In five trials, investigators specifically stated that they did not receive funding from for-profit organisations. We had no information about the funding source from the remaining five trials.Terlipressin was not superior or inferior compared with other vasoactive drugs in regard to mortality when including the two trials with a low risk of bias (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.36; 94 participants, very low quality evidence) or when including all 10 trials (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.06; 474 participants; I² = 0%; very low quality evidence). One meta-analysis including nine trials suggested a beneficial effect of terlipressin on hepatorenal syndrome (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.99; 394 participants; I² = 26%; very low quality evidence). Due to the high mortality of hepatorenal syndrome, the registration of other serious adverse events is uncertain, but comparing terlipressin and other vasoactive drugs we found no significant difference (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.06; 474 participants; I² = 0%; very low quality evidence). Several trials did not report systematically of adverse events, but terlipressin seemed to increase the risks of diarrhoea or abdominal pain, or both (RR 3.50, 95% CI 1.19 to 10.27; 221 participants; 5 trials, I² = 0%). However, Trial Sequential Analyses found insufficient evidence to support or refute any differences between interventions for all outcomes. Considering reversal of hepatorenal syndrome, subgroup analyses on the type of other vasoactive drugs found that terlipressin was superior compared with midodrine and octreotide (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.72) or octreotide alone (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.96), but each subgroup only included one small trial. None of the remaining subgroup or sensitivity analyses found differences between terlipressin and other vasoactive drugs. We downgraded the evidence to very low quality because of the high risk of bias, imprecision, and the results of the Trial Sequential Analyses.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review found insufficient evidence to support or refute beneficial or harmful effects of terlipressin and albumin versus other vasoactive drugs and albumin. Additional research is needed to evaluate if clinically meaningful differences exist between interventions.
Topics: Antihypertensive Agents; Dopamine; Hepatorenal Syndrome; Humans; Lypressin; Midodrine; Norepinephrine; Octreotide; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Terlipressin; Vasoconstrictor Agents
PubMed: 28953318
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011532.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2017Millions of people worldwide suffer from hepatitis C, which can lead to severe liver disease, liver cancer, and death. Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) are relatively new... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Millions of people worldwide suffer from hepatitis C, which can lead to severe liver disease, liver cancer, and death. Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) are relatively new and expensive interventions for chronic hepatitis C, and preliminary results suggest that DAAs may eradicate hepatitis C virus (HCV) from the blood (sustained virological response). However, it is still questionable if eradication of hepatitis C virus in the blood eliminates hepatitis C in the body, and improves survival and leads to fewer complications.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of DAAs in people with chronic HCV.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched for all published and unpublished trials in The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, LILACS, and BIOSIS; the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), China Network Knowledge Information (CNKI), the Chinese Science Journal Database (VIP), Google Scholar, The Turning Research into Practice (TRIP) Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, European Medicines Agency (EMA) (www.ema.europa.eu/ema/), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (www.fda.gov), and pharmaceutical company sources for ongoing or unpublished trials. Searches were last run in October 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised clinical trials comparing DAAs versus no intervention or placebo, alone or with co-interventions, in adults with chronic HCV. We included trials irrespective of publication type, publication status, and language.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were hepatitis C-related morbidity, serious adverse events, and quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, ascites, variceal bleeding, hepato-renal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, hepatocellular carcinoma, non-serious adverse events (each reported separately), and sustained virological response. We systematically assessed risks of bias, performed Trial Sequential Analysis, and followed an eight-step procedure to assess thresholds for statistical and clinical significance. The overall quality of the evidence was evaluated using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included a total of 138 trials randomising a total of 25,232 participants. The 138 trials assessed the effects of 51 different DAAs. Of these, 128 trials employed matching placebo in the control group. All included trials were at high risk of bias. Eighty-four trials involved DAAs on the market or under development (13,466 participants). Fifty-seven trials administered withdrawn or discontinued DAAs. Trial participants were treatment-naive (95 trials), treatment-experienced (17 trials), or both treatment-naive and treatment-experienced (24 trials). The HCV genotypes were genotype 1 (119 trials), genotype 2 (eight trials), genotype 3 (six trials), genotype 4 (nine trials), and genotype 6 (one trial). We identified two ongoing trials.Meta-analysis of the effects of all DAAs on the market or under development showed no evidence of a difference when assessing hepatitis C-related morbidity or all-cause mortality (OR 3.72, 95% CI 0.53 to 26.18, P = 0.19, I² = 0%, 2,996 participants, 11 trials, very low-quality evidence). As there were no data on hepatitis C-related morbidity and very few data on mortality (DAA 15/2377 (0.63%) versus control 1/617 (0.16%)), it was not possible to perform Trial Sequential Analysis on hepatitis C-related morbidity or all-cause mortality.Meta-analysis of all DAAs on the market or under development showed no evidence of a difference when assessing serious adverse events (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.15, P = 0.52, I² = 0%, 15,817 participants, 43 trials, very low-quality evidence). The Trial Sequential Analysis showed that the cumulative Z-score crossed the trial sequential boundary for futility, showing that there was sufficient information to rule out that DAAs compared with placebo reduced the relative risk of a serious adverse event by 20%. The only DAA that showed a significant difference on risk of serious adverse events when meta-analysed separately was simeprevir (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.86). However, Trial Sequential Analysis showed that there was not enough information to confirm or reject a relative risk reduction of 20%, and when one trial with an extreme result was excluded, then the meta-analysis result showed no evidence of a difference.DAAs on the market or under development seemed to reduce the risk of no sustained virological response (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.52, P < 0.00001, I² = 77%, 6886 participants, 32 trials, very low-quality evidence) and Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this meta-analysis result.Only 1/84 trials on the market or under development assessed the effects of DAAs on health-related quality of life (SF-36 mental score and SF-36 physical score).Withdrawn or discontinued DAAs had no evidence of a difference when assessing hepatitis C-related morbidity and all-cause mortality (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.79, P = 0.40, I² = 0%; 5 trials, very low-quality evidence). However, withdrawn DAAs seemed to increase the risk of serious adverse events (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.73, P = 0.001, I² = 0%, 29 trials, very low-quality evidence), and Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this meta-analysis result.Most of all outcome results were short-term results; therefore, we could neither confirm nor reject any long-term effects of DAAs. None of the 138 trials provided useful data to assess the effects of DAAs on the remaining secondary outcomes (ascites, variceal bleeding, hepato-renal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, and hepatocellular carcinoma).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, DAAs on the market or under development do not seem to have any effects on risk of serious adverse events. Simeprevir may have beneficial effects on risk of serious adverse event. In all remaining analyses, we could neither confirm nor reject that DAAs had any clinical effects. DAAs seemed to reduce the risk of no sustained virological response. The clinical relevance of the effects of DAAs on no sustained virological response is questionable, as it is a non-validated surrogate outcome. All trials and outcome results were at high risk of bias, so our results presumably overestimate benefit and underestimate harm. The quality of the evidence was very low.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Cause of Death; Hepacivirus; Hepatitis C, Chronic; Humans; Nucleic Acid Synthesis Inhibitors; Placebos; Protease Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Safety-Based Drug Withdrawals; Simeprevir
PubMed: 28585310
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012143.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2017Millions of people worldwide suffer from hepatitis C, which can lead to severe liver disease, liver cancer, and death. Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs), e.g. sofosbuvir,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Millions of people worldwide suffer from hepatitis C, which can lead to severe liver disease, liver cancer, and death. Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs), e.g. sofosbuvir, are relatively new and expensive interventions for chronic hepatitis C, and preliminary results suggest that DAAs may eradicate hepatitis C virus (HCV) from the blood (sustained virological response). Sustained virological response (SVR) is used by investigators and regulatory agencies as a surrogate outcome for morbidity and mortality, based solely on observational evidence. However, there have been no randomised trials that have validated that usage.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of DAAs in people with chronic HCV.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched for all published and unpublished trials in The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, LILACS, and BIOSIS; the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), China Network Knowledge Information (CNKI), the Chinese Science Journal Database (VIP), Google Scholar, The Turning Research into Practice (TRIP) Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, European Medicines Agency (EMA) (www.ema.europa.eu/ema/), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (www.fda.gov), and pharmaceutical company sources for ongoing or unpublished trials. Searches were last run in October 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised clinical trials comparing DAAs versus no intervention or placebo, alone or with co-interventions, in adults with chronic HCV. We included trials irrespective of publication type, publication status, and language.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were hepatitis C-related morbidity, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, ascites, variceal bleeding, hepato-renal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, hepatocellular carcinoma, non-serious adverse events (each reported separately), and SVR. We systematically assessed risks of bias, performed Trial Sequential Analysis, and followed an eight-step procedure to assess thresholds for statistical and clinical significance. We evaluated the overall quality of the evidence, using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included a total of 138 trials randomising a total of 25,232 participants. The trials were generally short-term trials and designed primarily to assess the effect of treatment on SVR. The trials evaluated 51 different DAAs. Of these, 128 trials employed matching placebo in the control group. All included trials were at high risk of bias. Eighty-four trials involved DAAs on the market or under development (13,466 participants). Fifty-seven trials administered DAAs that were discontinued or withdrawn from the market. Study populations were treatment-naive in 95 trials, had been exposed to treatment in 17 trials, and comprised both treatment-naive and treatment-experienced individuals in 24 trials. The HCV genotypes were genotype 1 (119 trials), genotype 2 (eight trials), genotype 3 (six trials), genotype 4 (nine trials), and genotype 6 (one trial). We identified two ongoing trials.We could not reliably determine the effect of DAAs on the market or under development on our primary outcome of hepatitis C-related morbidity or all-cause mortality. There were no data on hepatitis C-related morbidity and only limited data on mortality from 11 trials (DAA 15/2377 (0.63%) versus control 1/617 (0.16%); OR 3.72, 95% CI 0.53 to 26.18, very low-quality evidence). We did not perform Trial Sequential Analysis on this outcome.There is very low quality evidence that DAAs on the market or under development do not influence serious adverse events (DAA 5.2% versus control 5.6%; OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.15 , 15,817 participants, 43 trials). The Trial Sequential Analysis showed that there was sufficient information to rule out that DAAs reduce the relative risk of a serious adverse event by 20% when compared with placebo. The only DAA that showed a lower risk of serious adverse events when meta-analysed separately was simeprevir (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.86). However, Trial Sequential Analysis showed that there was not enough information to confirm or reject a relative risk reduction of 20%, and when one trial with an extreme result was excluded, the meta-analysis result showed no evidence of a difference.DAAs on the market or under development may reduce the risk of no SVR from 54.1% in untreated people to 23.8% in people treated with DAA (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.52, 6886 participants, 32 trials, low quality evidence). Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this meta-analysis result.Only 1/84 trials on the market or under development assessed the effects of DAAs on health-related quality of life (SF-36 mental score and SF-36 physical score).There was insufficient evidence from trials on withdrawn or discontinued DAAs to determine their effect on hepatitis C-related morbidity and all-cause mortality (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.79; 5 trials, very low-quality evidence). However, these DAAs seemed to increase the risk of serious adverse events (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.73; 29 trials, very low-quality evidence). Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this meta-analysis result.None of the 138 trials provided useful data to assess the effects of DAAs on the remaining secondary outcomes (ascites, variceal bleeding, hepato-renal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, and hepatocellular carcinoma).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence for our main outcomes of interest come from short-term trials, and we are unable to determine the effect of long-term treatment with DAAs. The rates of hepatitis C morbidity and mortality observed in the trials are relatively low and we are uncertain as to how DAAs affect this outcome. Overall, there is very low quality evidence that DAAs on the market or under development do not influence serious adverse events. There is insufficient evidence to judge if DAAs have beneficial or harmful effects on other clinical outcomes for chronic HCV. Simeprevir may have beneficial effects on risk of serious adverse event. In all remaining analyses, we could neither confirm nor reject that DAAs had any clinical effects. DAAs may reduce the number of people with detectable virus in their blood, but we do not have sufficient evidence from randomised trials that enables us to understand how SVR affects long-term clinical outcomes. SVR is still an outcome that needs proper validation in randomised clinical trials.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Cause of Death; Hepacivirus; Hepatitis C, Chronic; Humans; Nucleic Acid Synthesis Inhibitors; Placebos; Protease Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Safety-Based Drug Withdrawals; Simeprevir
PubMed: 28922704
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012143.pub3 -
Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) Jun 2019The aim of this study was to review the scientific literature available on the comparison of hand-held ultrasound devices with high-end systems for abdominal and pleural... (Review)
Review
The aim of this study was to review the scientific literature available on the comparison of hand-held ultrasound devices with high-end systems for abdominal and pleural applications. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane were searched following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Original research describing hand-held ultrasound devices compared with high-end systems was included and assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2. The search was limited to articles published since 1 January 2012. A total of 2486 articles were found and screened by title and abstract. A total of 16 articles were chosen for final review. All of the included articles showed good overall agreement between hand-held and high-end ultrasound systems. Strong correlations were found when evaluating ascites, hydronephrosis, pleural cavities, in detection of abdominal aortic aneurysms and for use with obstetric and gynaecological patients. Other articles found good agreement for cholelithiasis and for determining the best site for paracentesis. QUADAS-2 analysis suggested few risks of bias and almost no concerns regarding applicability. For distinct clinical questions, hand-held devices may be a valuable supplement to physical examination. However, evidence is inadequate, and more research is needed on the abdominal and pleural use of hand-held ultrasound with more standardised comparisons, using only blinded reviewers.
PubMed: 31208078
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics9020061 -
Romanian Journal of Internal Medicine =... Jun 2019In the last years an uprising interest for a relatively unknown entity, eosinophilic ascites (EA), has been recorded. Our aim is to investigate the potential causes of...
BACKGROUND
In the last years an uprising interest for a relatively unknown entity, eosinophilic ascites (EA), has been recorded. Our aim is to investigate the potential causes of EA development, as well as clinical, laboratory, endoscopic and radiologic features, management and outcome in these patients.
METHODS
The following research was performed on PubMed (MEDLINE) database using the medical subject headings [Mesh] terms "Ascites" AND "Eosinophils".
RESULTS
A total of 284 results, dating from 1962 onwards, were found and abstracts were examined. 131 papers were excluded and the remaining 153 publications, consisting in case reports and series of cases, were analyzed. From 171 patients with EA, 127 subjects (74%) had EGE, 17 (10%) parasitic and fungal infections, 11(7%) Hypereosinophilic syndrome and 16 patients (9%) less common diseases (eosinophilic pancreatitis, chronic eosinophilic leukemia, myelofibrosis, T-cell lymphoma, Churg Strauss Syndrome, Systemic lupus erythematosus, Familial paroxysmal polyserositis and Ménétrier's disease). High eosinophil blood count and IgE levels as well as gastrointestinal symptoms are frequent. The diagnosis is based on ascitic fluid analysis, imaging and endoscopic biopsies. Therapy with corticosteroids results in resolution of eosinophilic ascites in almost all patients.
CONCLUSION
In most cases, in the absence of allergy, parasitic infections, malignancy, hematological disorders, peritoneal tuberculosis, inflammatory bowel disease or autoimmune disease, EA develops as a manifestation of eosinophilic gastroenteritis.
Topics: Ascites; Eosinophilia; Humans
PubMed: 30864403
DOI: 10.2478/rjim-2018-0041 -
Annals of Hepatology Dec 2021Ascites is the most common presentation of decompensated liver cirrhosis. It is treated with therapeutic paracentesis which is associated with several complications. The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Ascites is the most common presentation of decompensated liver cirrhosis. It is treated with therapeutic paracentesis which is associated with several complications. The role of human albumin in patients with cirrhotic ascites remains elusive and has been extensively studied with conflicting results. Thus, in order to fully appraise the available data we sought to perform this systematic review and meta-analysis. Herein we included studies comparing the efficacy and safety of human albumin comparing with other volume expanders and vasoactive agents in patients undergoing paracentesis in cirrhotic ascites. Odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) were used to estimate the outcome with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Albumin use reduced the odds of paracentesis induced circulatory dysfunction (PICD) by 60% (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.27-0.58). While performing subgroup analysis, albumin use lowered the odds of PICD significantly (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.22-0.52) in comparison to other colloid volume expanders, but did not lower the odds of PICD in comparison to vasoconstrictor therapy (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.35-2.45). Albumin was associated with a statistically significant lower incidence of hyponatremia (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.39-0.88). Albumin did not reduce the overall mortality, readmission rate, recurrence of ascites, mean arterial pressure, incidence of renal impairment, hepatic encephalopathy, and gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Thus, treatment with albumin in cirrhotic ascites reduced PICD and hyponatremia although there was no benefit in terms of mortality, readmission rate, recurrence of ascites, hepatic encephalopathy, and GI bleeding.
Topics: Ascites; Humans; Liver Cirrhosis; Paracentesis; Serum Albumin, Human
PubMed: 34626828
DOI: 10.1016/j.aohep.2021.100547 -
Cancers Mar 2024Malignant Brenner tumors are rare ovarian tumors, accounting for less than 1% of malignant ovarian neoplasms. The aim of this manuscript is to systematically review the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Malignant Brenner tumors are rare ovarian tumors, accounting for less than 1% of malignant ovarian neoplasms. The aim of this manuscript is to systematically review the current literature concerning malignant Brenner tumors.
METHODS
We searched three medical databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) for relevant articles published until 15 September 2023.
RESULTS
After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 48 manuscripts describing 115 cases were included in this study from the English literature.
CONCLUSIONS
We analyzed the demographic, clinical, pathological, and oncological characteristics of 115 patients with malignant Brenner tumors. The statistical analysis showed that recurrence was marginally statistically significantly related to tumor stage and was more common in patients with ascites and in women with abnormal CA-125 levels; patients that were treated with lymphadenectomy had better disease-specific survival.
PubMed: 38539441
DOI: 10.3390/cancers16061106 -
Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy =... Feb 2022Ascites is one of the common complications in patients with decompensated liver cirrhosis and liver cancer. Wuling powder (WLP) is a classic prescription for the...
Ascites is one of the common complications in patients with decompensated liver cirrhosis and liver cancer. Wuling powder (WLP) is a classic prescription for the treatment of water retention caused by bladder gasification. It is also widely used in the treatment of ascites. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of WLP and determine its effective chemical components based on a large number of related pieces of literature. The pharmacological effects and chemical constituents of WLP were summarized. Besides, the clinical research status of WLP in the treatment of ascites caused by liver cancer and cirrhosis was analyzed. The key targets and pathways of WLP in the treatment of ascites based on network pharmacology analysis were also discussed. Furthermore, the core components and core targets of WLP in the treatment of ascites using molecular docking were verified and the interaction sites were predicted, to provide a theoretical and scientific basis for the clinical application of WLP.
Topics: Ascites; Drugs, Chinese Herbal; Humans; Molecular Docking Simulation; Network Pharmacology; Powders; Signal Transduction
PubMed: 34883450
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopha.2021.112506 -
Gastroenterology Research Dec 2022Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) is a procedure typically utilized to treat refractory ascites and variceal bleeding. However, TIPS can lead to...
BACKGROUND
Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) is a procedure typically utilized to treat refractory ascites and variceal bleeding. However, TIPS can lead to significant complications, most commonly hepatic encephalopathy (HE). Advanced age has been described as a risk factor for HE, as the elderly population tends to have decreased cognitive reserve and increased sarcopenia. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature to summarize the association between advanced age and risk of adverse events after undergoing TIPS.
METHODS
A comprehensive search strategy to identify reports of specific outcomes (HE, 30-day and 90-day mortality, and 30-day readmission due to HE) in elderly patients after undergoing TIPS was developed in Embase (Embase.com, Elsevier). We compared outcomes and performed separate data analyses for patients aged < 70 vs. > 70 years and patients aged < 65 vs. > 65 years.
RESULTS
Six studies with a total of 1,591 patients met our inclusion criteria and were included in the final meta-analysis. Three studies divided patients by age < 65 vs. > 65 years, with a total of 816 patients who were 54% male. The remaining three studies divided patients by age < 70 vs. > 70 years, with a total of 775 patients who were 63% male. Results demonstrated a significantly lower risk of post-TIPS HE (risk ratio (RR): 0.42, confidence interval (CI): 0.185 - 0.953, P = 0.03, I = 49%), 30-day mortality (RR: 0.37, CI: 0.188 - 0.74, P = 0.005, I = 0%), and 90-day mortality (RR: 0.35, CI: 0.24 - 0.49, P = 0.001, I = 0%) in patients aged > 70 vs. < 70 years, as well as a trend towards lower risk of 30-day readmission due to HE. There was no significant difference in post-TIPS HE, 30-day or 90-day mortality, or 30-day readmission due to HE between patients aged < 65 vs. > 65 years.
CONCLUSION
Age > 70 years is associated with significantly higher rates of HE and 30-day and 90-day mortality rates in patients after undergoing TIPS, as well as a trend towards higher 30-day readmission due to HE.
PubMed: 36660467
DOI: 10.14740/gr1571