Achuta Uppu

Success of photodynamic therapy in palliating patients with nonresectable cholangiocarcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on clinical outcomes of photodynamic therapy (PDT) in non-resectable cholangiocarcinoma. METHODS Included studies compared outcomes with photodynamic therapy and biliary stenting (PDT group) vs biliary stenting only (BS group) in palliation of non-resectable cholangiocarcinoma. Articles were searched in MEDLINE, PubMed, and EMBASE. Pooled proportions were calculated using fixed and random effects model. Heterogeneity among studies was assessed using the I2 statistic. RESULTS Ten studies (n = 402) that met inclusion criteria were included in this analysis. The P for χ2 heterogeneity for all the pooled accuracy estimates was > 0.10. Pooled odds ratio for successful biliary drainage (decrease in bilirubin level > 50% within 7days after stenting) in PDT vs BS group was 4.39 (95%CI: 2.35-8.19). Survival period in PDT and BS groups were 413.04 d (95%CI: 349.54-476.54) and 183.41 (95%CI: 136.81-230.02) respectively. The change in Karnofsky performance scores after intervention in PDT and BS groups were +6.99 (95%CI: 4.15-9.82) and -3.93 (95%CI: -8.63-0.77) respectively. Odds ratio for post-intervention cholangitis in PDT vs BS group was 0.57 (95%CI: 0.35-0.94). In PDT group, 10.51% (95%CI: 6.94-14.72) had photosensitivity reactions that were self-limiting. Subgroup analysis of prospective studies showed similar results, except the incidence of cholangitis was comparable in both groups. CONCLUSION In palliation of unresectable cholangiocarcinoma, PDT seems to be significantly superior to BS alone. PDT should be used as an adjunct to biliary stenting in these patients.

Endoscopic versus Percutaneous Biliary Drainage in Palliation of Advanced Malignant Hilar Obstruction: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

Background. Palliation in advanced unresectable hilar malignancies can be achieved by endoscopic (EBD) or percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD). It is unclear if one approach is superior to the other in this group of patients. Aims. Compare clinical outcomes of EBD versus PTBD. Methods. (i) Study Selection Criterion. Studies using PTBD and EBD for palliation of advanced unresectable hilar malignancies. (ii) Data Collection and Extraction. Articles were searched in Medline, PubMed, and Ovid journals. (iii) Statistical Method. Fixed and random effects models were used to calculate the pooled proportions. Results. Initial search identified 786 reference articles, in which 62 articles were selected and reviewed. Data was extracted from nine studies (N = 546) that met the inclusion criterion. The pooled odds ratio for successful biliary drainage in PTBD versus EBD was 2.53 (95% CI = 1.57 to 4.08). Odds ratio for overall adverse effects in PTBD versus EBD groups was 0.81 (95% CI = 0.52 to 1.26). Odds ratio for 30-day mortality rate in PTBD group versus EBD group was 0.84 (95% CI = 0.37 to 1.91). Conclusions. In patients with advanced unresectable hilar malignancies, palliation with PTBD seems to be superior to EBD. PTBD is comparable to EBD in regard to overall adverse effects and 30-day mortality.

Role of endoscopic esophageal dilation in managing eosinophilic esophagitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic, immune-mediated disorder of the esophagus characterized by mucosal eosinophilic infiltration. Topical glucocorticoids are considered standard line of treatment, whereas endoscopic dilations are performed for patients presenting with treatment-resistant disease or manifestations of dysphagia and/or food impactions. Efficacy and safety of esophageal dilation in these patients are currently unclear. Aims: Primary outcomes were to evaluate the efficacy, adverse events, and mortality rates of endoscopic esophageal dilation in patients with EoE. Methods: Study Selection Criteria: Studies that reported the use of esophageal dilation in EoE patients were included in this meta-analysis. Data collection and extraction: Articles were searched in Medline, Pubmed, and Ovid journals. Two authors independently searched and extracted data. The study design was written in accordance to PRISMA statement. Clinical improvement was defined as patient-reported symptom relief noted by the authors of individual studies. The symptoms were assessed on various nonstandardized, however, relevant questionnaires that were deemed appropriate by the senior authors of individual studies. Statistical Method: Pooled proportions were calculated using fixed- and random-effects model. I2 statistic was used to assess heterogeneity among studies. Results: Initial search identified 491 reference articles, in which 39 articles were selected and reviewed. Data were extracted from 14 studies (N = 1607) using esophageal dilation for EoE management, which met the inclusion criterion. Mean age of patients was 41years. Pooled patients included 75% males. The pooled proportion of patients that showed clinical improvement with esophageal dilations, after the median follow-up period of 12 months, was 84.95%. No procedure-related deaths were noted. The pooled proportion of patients with post procedural esophageal perforation, chest pain, hospitalization, deep mucosal tear (involving muscularis propria), small mucosal tear, and hemorrhage were 0.61%, 0.06%, 0.74%, 4.04%, 22.32%, and 0.38% respectively. I2 (inconsistency) was 0% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0–49.8) and Egger: bias was 0.06 (95% CI = −0.30 to 0.42). Conclusions: In patients with conformed diagnosis of EoE, endoscopic esophageal dilation seems to be an effective and safe treatment option. Majority patients with chest pain and deep mucosal tears did not require hospitalization and symptoms were self-limiting

Association of clinical signs and symptoms of Ebola viral disease with case fatality: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Ebola virus disease (EVD) is a public health emergency of international concern. There is limited laboratory and clinical data available on patients with EVD. This is a meta-analysis to assess the utility of clinical signs, symptoms, and laboratory data in predicting mortality in EVD. Aim To assess the utility of clinical signs, symptoms, and laboratory data in predicting mortality in EVD. Method Study selection criterion: EVD articles with more than 35 EVD cases that described the clinical features were included. Data collection and extraction: Articles were searched in Medline, PubMed, Ovid journals, and CDC and WHO official websites. Statistical methods: Pooled proportions were calculated using DerSimonian Laird method (random effects model). Results Initial search identified 634 reference articles, of which 67 were selected and reviewed. Data were extracted from 10 articles (N=5,792) of EVD which met the inclusion criteria. Bleeding events (64.5% vs. 25.1%), abdominal pain (58.3% vs. 37.5%), vomiting (60.8% vs. 31.7%), diarrhea (69.9% vs. 37.8%), cough (31.6% vs. 22.3%), sore throat (47.7% vs. 19.8%), and conjunctivitis (39.3% vs. 20.3%) were more often present in pooled proportion of fatal cases as compared to EVD survivors. Conclusions Clinical features of EVD that may be associated with higher mortality include bleeding events, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, cough, sore throat, and conjunctivitis. These patients should be identified promptly, and appropriate management should be instituted immediately.

Progression from low-grade dysplasia to malignancy in patients with Barrett's esophagus diagnosed by two or more pathologists

AIM To evaluate annual incidence of low grade dysplasia (LGD) progression to high grade dysplasia (HGD) and/or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) when diagnosis was made by two or more expert pathologists. METHODS Studies evaluating the progression of LGD to HGD or EAC were included. The diagnosis of LGD must be made by consensus of two or more expert gastrointestinal pathologists. Articles were searched in Medline, Pubmed, and Embase. Pooled proportions were calculated using fixed and random effects model. Heterogeneity among studies was assessed using the I2 statistic. RESULTS Initial search identified 721 reference articles, of which 53 were selected and reviewed. Twelve studies (n = 971) that met the inclusion criteria were included in this analysis. Among the total original LGD diagnoses in the included studies, only 37.49% reached the consensus LGD diagnosis after review by two or more expert pathologists. Total follow up period was 1532 patient-years. In the pooled consensus LGD patients, the annual incidence rate (AIR) of progression to HGD and or EAC was 10.35% (95%CI: 7.56-13.13) and progression to EAC was 5.18% (95%CI: 3.43-6.92). Among the patients down staged from original LGD diagnosis to No-dysplasia Barrett’s esophagus, the AIR of progression to HGD and EAC was 0.65% (95%CI: 0.49-0.80). Among the patients down staged to Indefinite for dysplasia, the AIR of progression to HGD and EAC was 1.42% (95%CI: 1.19-1.65). In patients with consensus HGD diagnosis, the AIR of progression to EAC was 28.63% (95%CI: 13.98-43.27). CONCLUSION When LGD is diagnosed by consensus agreement of two or more expert pathologists, its progression towards malignancy seems to be at least three times the current estimates, however it could be up to 20 times the current estimates. Biopsies of all Barrett’s esophagus patients with LGD should be reviewed by two expert gastroenterology pathologists. Follow-up strict surveillance programs should be in place for these patients.