-
Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome Mar 2024The impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on pregnant women, especially those with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), has yet to be fully... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
The impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on pregnant women, especially those with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), has yet to be fully understood. This review aims to examine the interaction between GDM and COVID-19 and to elucidate the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying the comorbidity of these two conditions.
METHODS
We performed a systematic literature search using the databases of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science with appropriate keywords and MeSH terms. Our analysis included studies published up to January 26, 2023.
RESULTS
Despite distinct clinical manifestations, GDM and COVID-19 share common pathophysiological characteristics, which involve complex interactions across multiple organs and systems. On the one hand, infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 may target the pancreas and placenta, resulting in β-cell dysfunction and insulin resistance in pregnant women. On the other hand, the hormonal and inflammatory changes that occur during pregnancy could also increase the risk of severe COVID-19 in mothers with GDM. Personalized management and close monitoring are crucial for treating pregnant women with both GDM and COVID-19.
CONCLUSIONS
A comprehensive understanding of the interactive mechanisms of GDM and COVID-19 would facilitate the initiation of more targeted preventive and therapeutic strategies. There is an urgent need to develop novel biomarkers and functional indicators for early identification and intervention of these conditions.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Pregnancy; Diabetes, Gestational; Female; SARS-CoV-2; Pregnancy Complications, Infectious; Pandemics; Coronavirus Infections; Pneumonia, Viral; Betacoronavirus
PubMed: 38569447
DOI: 10.1016/j.dsx.2024.102991 -
Cureus Mar 2024Acute pancreatitis, marked by sudden inflammation of the pancreas, presents a complex spectrum of causative factors including gallstone obstruction, alcohol abuse, and... (Review)
Review
Acute pancreatitis, marked by sudden inflammation of the pancreas, presents a complex spectrum of causative factors including gallstone obstruction, alcohol abuse, and viral infections. Recent studies have illuminated the emergence of vaccine-induced acute pancreatitis, notably associated with COVID-19 vaccinations, presenting diverse mechanisms ranging from direct viral-mediated injury to autoimmune reactions. Understanding this link is pivotal for public health, yet challenges persist in identifying and managing cases post-vaccination. Comprehensive literature reviews employing the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement outline the potential pathways and mechanisms leading to vaccine-induced pancreatitis, emphasizing the need for deeper investigations into underlying health conditions and modifications to vaccine components. Notably, the rare occurrences of vaccine-induced pancreatitis extend beyond COVID-19 vaccines, with reports also documenting associations with measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR), human papillomavirus (HPV), and other viral vaccinations. Mechanistically, hypotheses such as molecular mimicry and immunologic injury have been proposed, necessitating ongoing vigilance and exploration. Regulatory agencies play a crucial role in monitoring and communicating vaccine safety concerns, emphasizing transparency to address potential risks and maintain public trust. Understanding and communicating these rare adverse events with transparency remain integral for informed vaccination policies and to allay concerns surrounding vaccine safety.
PubMed: 38571842
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.55426 -
Endoscopy International Open Sep 2023Recently studies have compared early (<4 weeks) vs. late or standard (>4 weeks) endoscopic treatment of pancreatic necrotic collections (PNC) and have reported... (Review)
Review
Recently studies have compared early (<4 weeks) vs. late or standard (>4 weeks) endoscopic treatment of pancreatic necrotic collections (PNC) and have reported favorable results for early treatment. In this meta-analysis, we compared the efficacy and safety of early vs. late endoscopic treatment of PNC. We reviewed several databases from inception to September 30, 2021 to identify studies that compared early with late endoscopic treatment of PNC. Our outcomes of interest were adverse events (AEs), resolution of PNC, performance of direct endoscopic necrosectomy, need for further interventions, and mean number of endoscopic necrosectomy sessions. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for categorical variables and mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs for continuous variables. Data were analyzed by random effect model. Heterogeneity was assessed by I statistic. We included four studies with 427 patients. We found no significant difference in rates of AEs, RR (95% CI) 1.70 (range, 0.56-5.20), resolution of necrotic or fluid collections, RR (95% CI) 0.89 (range, 0.71-1.11), need for further interventions, RR (95% CI) 1.47 (range, 0.70-3.08), direct necrosectomy, RR (95% CI) 1.39 (range, 0.22-8.80), mortality, RR (95% CI) 2.37 (range, 0.26-21.72) and mean number of endoscopic necrosectomy sessions, MD (95% CI) 1.58 (range,-0.20-3.36) between groups. Early endoscopic treatment of PNC can be considered for indications such as infected necrosis or sterile necrosis with symptoms or complications; however, future large multicenter studies are required to further evaluate its safety.
PubMed: 37671081
DOI: 10.1055/a-2100-9076 -
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery :... Jun 2024Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use has been investigated as a modifiable risk factor for postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after pancreatoduodenectomy... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use has been investigated as a modifiable risk factor for postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). This study comprises a systematic review and meta-analysis examining the impact of perioperative NSAID use on rates of POPF after PD.
METHODS
A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020-compliant systematic review was performed. Pooled mean differences (MD), odds ratios (OR), and risk ratios with 95% CIs were calculated.
RESULTS
Seven studies published from 2015 to 2021 were included, reporting 2851 PDs (1372 receiving NSAIDs and 1479 not receiving NSAIDs). There were no differences regarding blood loss (MD -99.40 mL; 95% CI, -201.71 to 2.91; P = .06), overall morbidity (OR 1.05; 95% CI, 0.68-1.61; P = .83), hemorrhage (OR 2.35; 95% CI, 0.48-11.59; P = .29), delayed gastric emptying (OR 0.98; 95% CI, 0.60-1.60; P = .93), bile leak (OR 0.68; 95% CI, 0.12-3.89; P = .66), surgical site infection (OR 1.02; 95% CI, 0.33-3.22; P = .97), abscess (OR 0.99; 95% CI, 0.51-1.91; P = .97), clinically relevant POPF (OR 1.18; 95% CI, 0.84-1.64; P = .33), readmission (OR 0.94; 95% CI, 0.61-1.46; P = .78), or reoperation (OR 0.82; 95% CI, 0.33-2.06; P = .68). NSAID use was associated with a shorter hospital stay (MD -1.05 days; 95% CI, -1.39 to 0.71; P < .00001).
CONCLUSION
The use of NSAIDs in the perioperative period for patients undergoing PD was not associated with increased rates of POPF.
PubMed: 38906318
DOI: 10.1016/j.gassur.2024.06.016 -
Cureus Apr 2024Type 1 diabetes mellitus is an autoimmune condition characterized by insulin deficiency resulting from loss of function of beta cells in the pancreas, leading to... (Review)
Review
Type 1 diabetes mellitus is an autoimmune condition characterized by insulin deficiency resulting from loss of function of beta cells in the pancreas, leading to hyperglycemia and associated long-term systemic complications and even death. Immunotherapy demonstrates beta cell function-preserving potential; however, its impact on C-peptide levels, a definitive biomarker of beta cell function, and endogenous insulin secretion remain unclear. A systematic review of various immunotherapeutic interventions is hence needed for a comprehensive assessment of their effectiveness as well as identifying research gaps and influencing future research and clinical decisions. An extensive literature search was done in PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases using precise keywords and filters to identify relevant studies. Three independent reviewers assessed eligibility according to predetermined eligibility criteria, and data was extracted. The Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool (RoB 2.0) was used to evaluate the quality and validity of the included studies. A senior reviewer resolved discrepancies and differences of opinion between independent reviewers. A total of 11 studies were included, with 1464 study participants. Both Phase II and III trials were included. Within the included studies, four studies assessed the anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody otelixizumab as an intervention. Another anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody, teplizumab, was assessed as an intervention in four studies, whereas two studies assessed the anti-CD20 antibody rituximab and one study assessed abatacept as its interventional drug. Otelixizumab demonstrated benefits at higher doses but was associated with adverse effects like Ebstein-Barr virus reactivation and cytomegalovirus infection, while at lower doses it failed to show a significant difference in C-peptide levels or glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c). Teplizumab, on the other hand, showed promise in reducing C-peptide loss and exogenous insulin requirements and was associated with adverse events such as rash, lymphopenia, urinary tract infection, and cytokine release syndrome. However, these reactions were only associated with therapy initiation, and they subsided on their own. Rituximab improved C-peptide responses, and abatacept therapy demonstrated reduced loss of C-peptide, improved C-peptide levels, and lowered HbA1c. Teplizumab, rituximab, otelixizumab, and abatacept show potential for preserving beta cell function by reducing C-peptide loss in patients with type I diabetes mellitus. However, careful monitoring of adverse reactions, particularly viral infections and cytokine release syndrome, is necessary for the safe implementation of these therapies.
PubMed: 38800168
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.58981 -
Cirugia Y Cirujanos 2024The effect of a pre-operative biliary stent on complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) remains controversial. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The effect of a pre-operative biliary stent on complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) remains controversial.
MATERIALS AND METHOD
We conducted a meta-analysis according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines, and PubMed, Web of Science Knowledge, and Ovid's databases were searched by the end of February 2023. 35 retrospective studies and 2 randomized controlled trials with a total of 12641 patients were included.
RESULTS
The overall complication rate of the pre-operative biliary drainage (PBD) group was significantly higher than the no-PBD group (odds ratio [OR] 1.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.22-1.74; p < 0.0001), the incidence of post-operative delayed gastric emptying was increased in patients with PBD compared those with early surgery (OR 1.21, 95% CI: 1.02-1.43; p = 0.03), and there was a significant increase in post-operative wound infections in patients receiving PBD with an OR of 2.2 (95% CI: 1.76-2.76; p < 0.00001).
CONCLUSIONS
PBD has no beneficial effect on post-operative outcomes. The increase in post-operative overall complications and wound infections urges the exact indications for PBD and against routine pre-operative biliary decompression, especially for patients with total bilirubin < 250 umol/L waiting for PD.
Topics: Humans; Drainage; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Preoperative Care; Postoperative Complications; Stents; Surgical Wound Infection; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Gastric Emptying; Ampulla of Vater; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Common Bile Duct Neoplasms
PubMed: 38862121
DOI: 10.24875/CIRU.23000318 -
Pancreas May 2024Proximal migration is one of the complications after pancreatic duct stenting. This study aimed to determine the incidence of proximal migration and to analyze the...
OBJECTIVES
Proximal migration is one of the complications after pancreatic duct stenting. This study aimed to determine the incidence of proximal migration and to analyze the rescue methods.
METHODS
A search was performed in MEDLINE/EMBASE database. The literatures included were reviewed and analyzed. Retrieval tools were classified into 3 classes: Class A works by indirectly contacting the outer surface of the stent. Class B works by directly contacting the outer surface. Class C works by directly contacting the inner surface.
RESULTS
416 literatures were retrieved from 1983 to 2021. 15 literatures were included. The incidence of proximal migration of pancreatic stents was 4.7% (106/2246). The success rate of endotherapy was 86.6% (214/247), and the surgical conversion rate of it was 9.3%. Among the 214 cases in which the displaced stents were successfully removed under endoscopy, 49 cases (22.9%) used Class A methods, 154 cases (72.0%) used Class B methods and 11 cases (5.1%) used Class C methods. The overall rate of postoperative complication was 12.1%, including postprocedure pancreatitis (9.1%, 18/247), followed by bleeding (1.5%), perforation (1.0%) and biliary infection (0.5%).
CONCLUSIONS
Endoscopy is an effective method for the treatment of proximal displacement of pancreatic stents with acceptable complication rate.
PubMed: 38696448
DOI: 10.1097/MPA.0000000000002354