Search

Background: Convincing evidence is lacking on the benefit of follow-up biopsy in celiac disease. Regardless, achieving mucosal recovery (MR) has remained a desirable goal of therapy. We aimed to conduct a systematic review to determine whether MR is a protective factor and persisting villous atrophy (PVA) has negative consequences on long-term outcomes of celiac disease.Methods: Seven databases were searched for articles discussing celiac patients subjected to a gluten-free diet who had a follow-up biopsy, and clinical and laboratory characteristics were reported by follow-up histology (MR vs. PVA). Outcomes included clinical symptoms, mortality, malignant tumors, nutritional parameters, and metabolic bone disease. Comparative and descriptive studies were included. Since data proved to be ineligible for meta-analysis, the evidence was synthesized in a systematic review.Results: Altogether, 31 studies were eligible for systematic review. Persisting symptoms were more frequently associated with PVA than with MR, although a lot of symptom-free patients had PVA and a lot of symptomatic patients achieved MR. PVA might be a risk factor of lymphomas, but mortality and the overall rate of malignant tumors seemed independent of follow-up histology. Patients with PVA tended to develop metabolic bone disease more often, although fracture risk remained similar in the groups except in hip fractures of which PVA was a risk factor. Reports on nutritional markers are only anecdotal.Conclusions: The limited evidence calls for high-quality prospective cohort studies to be arranged to clarify the exact role of follow-up histology in celiac disease.

BackgroundC-reactive protein level (CRP) and white blood cell count (WBC) have been variably used in clinical trials on acute pancreatitis (AP). We assessed their potential role.MethodsFirst, we investigated studies which have used CRP or WBC, to describe their current role in trials on AP. Second, we extracted the data of 1435 episodes of AP from our registry. CRP and WBC on admission, within 24 h from the onset of pain and their highest values were analyzed. Descriptive statistical tools as Kruskal–Wallis, Mann–Whitney U, Levene’s F tests, Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and AUC (Area Under the Curve) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were performed.ResultsOur literature review showed extreme variability of CRP used as an inclusion criterion or as a primary outcome or both in past and current trials on AP. In our cohort, CRP levels on admission poorly predicted mortality and severe cases of AP; AUC: 0.669 (CI:0.569–0.770); AUC:0.681 (CI: 0.601–0.761), respectively. CRP levels measured within 24 h from the onset of pain failed to predict mortality or severity; AUC: 0.741 (CI:0.627–0.854); AUC:0.690 (CI:0.586–0.793), respectively. The highest CRP during hospitalization had equally poor predictive accuracy for mortality and severity AUC:0.656 (CI:0.544–0.768); AUC:0.705 (CI:0.640–0.769) respectively. CRP within 24 h from the onset of pain used as an inclusion criterion markedly increased the combined event rate of mortality and severe AP (13% for CRP > 25 mg/l and 28% for CRP > 200 mg/l).ConclusionCRP within 24 h from the onset of pain as an inclusion criterion elevates event rates and reduces the number of patients required in trials on AP.

Background: The management of the moderate and severe forms of acute pancreatitis (AP) with necrosis and multiorgan failure remains a challenge. To predict the severity and mortality of AP multiple clinical, laboratory-, and imaging-based scoring systems are available.Aim: To investigate, if the computed tomography severity index (CTSI) can predict the outcomes of AP better than other scoring systems.Methods: A systematic search was performed in three databases: Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Eligible records provided data from consecutive AP cases and used CTSI or modified CTSI (mCTSI) alone or in combination with other prognostic scores [Ranson, bedside index of severity in acute pancreatitis (BISAP), Acute Physiology, and Chronic Health Examination II (APACHE II), C-reactive protein (CRP)] for the evaluation of severity or mortality of AP. Area under the curves (AUCs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated and aggregated with STATA 14 software using the metandi module.Results: Altogether, 30 studies were included in our meta-analysis, which contained the data of 5,988 AP cases. The pooled AUC for the prediction of mortality was 0.79 (CI 0.73–0.86) for CTSI; 0.87 (CI 0.83–0.90) for BISAP; 0.80 (CI 0.72–0.89) for mCTSI; 0.73 (CI 0.66–0.81) for CRP level; 0.87 (CI 0.81–0.92) for the Ranson score; and 0.91 (CI 0.88–0.93) for the APACHE II score. The APACHE II scoring system had significantly higher predictive value for mortality than CTSI and CRP (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively), while the predictive value of CTSI was not statistically different from that of BISAP, mCTSI, CRP, or Ranson criteria. The AUC for the prediction of severity of AP were 0.80 (CI 0.76–0.85) for CTSI; 0.79, (CI 0.72–0.86) for BISAP; 0.83 (CI 0.75–0.91) for mCTSI; 0.73 (CI 0.64–0.83) for CRP level; 0.81 (CI 0.75–0.87) for Ranson score and 0.80 (CI 0.77–0.83) for APACHE II score. Regarding severity, all tools performed equally.Conclusion: Though APACHE II is the most accurate predictor of mortality, CTSI is a good predictor of both mortality and AP severity. When the CT scan has been performed, CTSI is an easily calculable and informative tool, which should be used more often in routine clinical practice.

Background: Clopidogrel and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are metabolized by cytochrome P450 enzymes. Contradictory results have been reported on possible complications of simultaneous PPI and clopidogrel use. Our aim was to investigate the clinical relevance of this debate with a systematic review and meta-analysis.Methods: The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials electronic databases were searched for human studies [randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies] using the PICO format (P: patients on clopidogrel; I: patients treated with PPI; C: patients without PPI treatment; O: cardiovascular risk). We screened eligible studies from 2009 to 2016. After study exclusions, we extracted data from 27 articles for three outcomes: major adverse cardiac event (MACE), myocardial infarction (MI) and cardiovascular (CV) death. The meta-analysis was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42017054316).Results: Data were extracted on 156,823 patients from the 27 trials included (MACE: 23, CV death: 10, MI: 14). The risks of MACE (RR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.06–1.396, p = 0.004) and MI (RR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.24–1.66, p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the PPI plus clopidogrel group. However, subgroup analysis demonstrated that this significance disappeared in RCTs (RR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.76–1.28, p = 0.93) in the MACE outcome group. There was no effect of combined PPI and clopidogrel therapy on CV death outcome (RR = 1.21, 95% CI = 0.97–1.50, p = 0.09).Conclusion: Concomitant use of PPIs and clopidogrel has been proved not to be associated with elevated cardiovascular risks according to RCTs. Based on our results, no restrictions should be applied whenever PPIs and clopidogrel are administered simultaneously.