Search

Abstract: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory rheumatic disease affecting multiple joints and can also be a systemic widespread, affecting major organs. Rheumatoid arthritis is associated with greater adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes in comparison to the general obstetric population. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to investigate the pregnancy outcomes in RA patients in comparison to the general pregnant population.Nine studies involving 11,999 RA patients met the eligibility criteria with 9,921,808 controls. Rheumatoid arthritis patients were compared with their control counterparts according to random-effects model statistical analysis.We searched databases from inception to September 8, 2021. Eligible studies reported maternal outcomes (preeclampsia, cesarean delivery, and preterm delivery) and/or neonatal outcomes. Data were pooled across using random-effects model. Subgroup analysis was conducted on RA patients alone. The review was registered prospectively with PROSPERO (CRD42021250521).In terms of maternal outcomes, there was an increased rate of cesarean delivery (odds ratio [OR], 1.55), preeclampsia (OR, 1.61), and preterm delivery (OR, 1.83) in RA patients compared with their control counterparts. In terms of neonatal outcomes, a higher rate of lower gestational weight (mean difference [MD], -0.19 kg), requirement for neonate intensive care unit admission (OR, 1.34), and stillbirths (OR, 1.99) were observed in RA patients compared with the controls. A subgroup analysis of 4 studies involving only RA patients (n = 3761) was conducted. A total of 33.2% of patients had a cesarean delivery, 7.3% had preeclampsia, 14.8% had a preterm delivery, and 9.5% of neonates had low birth weight.Compared with the general pregnant population, women with RA tend to have a higher risk of maternal and neonatal complications. As a result, this study hopes to increase awareness into the importance of counseling and managing RA patients., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (BPD-DS) is an effective yet technically challenging bariatric surgery with many complications. Alternatively, single anastomosis duodenal-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (SADI-S) was recently introduced as a simplified bariatric procedure. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of SADI-S compared with BPD-DS in the management of patients with obesity., Methods: Cochrane, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for articles from their inception to May 2022 by 2 independent reviewers using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis system. The review was registered prospectively with PROSPERO (CRD42022333521)., Results: From 123 studies screened, 6 studies met the eligibility criteria, with a total of 1847 patients with obesity undergoing either SADI-S (n=818) or BPD-DS (n=1029). Preoperative body mass index was similar between the 2 groups, and the BPD-DS group had a greater % excess body mass index loss (EBMIL) (MD=-10.16%, 95% confidence interval: -11.80, -8.51, I 2 =0%) at 2 years compared with the SADI-S group. There was no difference observed in preoperative comorbidities and remission, including diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia between SADI-S and BPD-DS cohorts. Compared with BPD-DS, SADI-S had shorter hospital stays (MD=-1.36 d, 95% CI: -2.39, -0.33, I 2 =86%), and fewer long-term (>30 d) complications (OR=0.56, 95% CI: 0.42, 0.74, I 2 =20%). Conversely, among nutritional deficiency outcomes, the SADI-S group had few patients with abnormal vitamin D (OR=0.51, 95% CI: 0.36, 0.72, I 2 =0%) values than the BPD-DS group., Conclusions: SADI-S has shown to be a possible alternative treatment option to BPD-DS in managing patients with obesity. Despite the promising results, further randomized controlled studies with more extended follow-up periods are necessary to ascertain the safety and efficacy of the treatment., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)