Search

Eric I Benchimol,1–5 M Ellen Kuenzig,1,2,5 Charles N Bernstein,6,7 Geoffrey C Nguyen,5,8 Astrid Guttmann,5,9 Jennifer L Jones,10 Beth K Potter,4 Laura E Targownik,6,7 Christina A Catley,5 Zoann J Nugent,6,11 Divine Tanyingoh,12,13 Nassim Mojaverian,5 Fox E Underwood,12,13 Shabnaz Siddiq,1,2 Anthony R Otley,14 Alain Bitton,15 Matthew W Carroll,16 Jennifer C deBruyn,17 Trevor JB Dummer,18 Wael El-Matary,19 Anne M Griffiths,9 Kevan Jacobson,20,21 Desmond Leddin,10 Lisa M Lix,22 David R Mack,1–3 Sanjay K Murthy,4,23 Juan Nicolás Peña-Sánchez,24 Harminder Singh,6,7 Gilaad G Kaplan12,13 On behalf of the Canadian Gastro-Intestinal Epidemiology Consortium 1Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario IBD Centre, Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, Canada; 2Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada; 3Department of Pediatrics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada; 4School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada; 5ICES, Toronto, Canada; 6University of Manitoba IBD Clinical and Research Centre, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada; 7Department of Internal Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada; 8Department of Medicine, Mount Sinai Hospital Centre for Inflammatory Bowel Disease, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada; 9Department of Paediatrics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada; 10Department of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada; 11CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada; 12Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; 13Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; 14Department of Pediatrics, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada; 15Division of Gastroenterology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada; 16Division of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition, Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada; 17Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Pediatrics, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada; 18School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, British Columbia, Canada; 19Department of Pediatrics, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada; 20Department of Pediatrics, The University of British Columbia, British Columbia, Canada; 21Child and Family Research Institute, The University of British Columbia, British Columbia, Canada; 22Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada; 23The Ottawa Hospital IBD Centre, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; 24Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada Background and aims: Canada’s large geographic area and low population density pose challenges in access to specialized health care for remote and rural residents. We compared health services use, surgical rate, and specialist gastroenterologist care in rural and urban inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients in Canada.Methods: We used validated algorithms that were applied to population-based health administrative data to identify all people living with the following three Canadian provinces: Alberta, Manitoba, and Ontario (ON). We compared rural residents with urban residents for time to diagnosis, hospitalizations, outpatient visits, emergency department (ED) use, surgical rate, and gastroenterologist care. Multivariable regression compared the outcomes in rural/urban patients, controlling for confounders. Provincial results were meta-analyzed using random-effects models to produce overall estimates.Results: A total of 36,656 urban and 5,223 rural residents with incident IBD were included. Outpatient physician visit rate was similar in rural and urban patients. IBD-specific and IBD-related hospitalization rates were higher in rural patients (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.17, 95% CI 1.02–1.34, and IRR 1.27, 95% CI 1.04–1.56, respectively). The rate of ED visits in ON were similarly elevated for rural patients (IRR 1.53, 95% CI 1.42–1.65, and IRR 1.33, 95% CI 1.25–1.40). There were no differences in surgical rates or prediagnosis lag time between rural and urban patients. Rural patients had fewer IBD-specific gastroenterologist visits (IRR 0.79, 95% CI 0.73–0.84) and a smaller proportion of their IBD-specific care was provided by gastroenterologists (28.3% vs 55.2%, P65 years (33.0% vs 59.2%, P

Thyroid carcinoma is rare comprising 1% of all malignancies and commonly presents as a neck lump. Papillary thyroid carcinoma unlike follicular thyroid carcinoma tends not to metastasise to distant sites.We present a case of papillary thyroid carcinoma presenting as a solitary asymptomatic pelvic bone metastases and highlight current management of bone metastases. A 59-year old female was found on abdominal computerised tomography to have an incidental finding of a 4.5 cm soft tissue mass in the right iliac bone. Biopsy of the lesion confirmed metastatic thyroid carcinoma. There was no history of a neck lump, head and neck examination was normal. Further imaging confirmed focal activity in the right lobe of the thyroid. A total thyroidectomy and level VI neck dissection was performed and histology confirmed follicular variant of papillary carcinoma.Early detection of bone metastases have been shown to improve prognosis and thyroid carcinoma should be considered as a potential primary malignancy.

The SARS-CoV-2, has caused a pandemic of acute respiratory disease, 'coronavirus disease 2019' (Covid-19), posed a major threat to health and the international economy during past few years. It is believed that vaccine can stop the rapid spread of the disease. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of the Sinopharm vaccine in terms of mortality and severity of the disease among Covid-19 positive patients. This observational cross-sectional study was done at the Department of Medicine and Department of Pathology Shaikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Al-Nahyan/CMH Teaching Hospital (Poonch Medical College), Rawalakot AJK Pakistan from July 2021 to September 2021. Total 350 individuals with greater than or equal to 18 years of age, who were tested positive for Covid-19, were included. Patients who had received two doses of the vaccine at least 28 days apart were considered as vaccinated. The Sinopharm vaccination status was checked among patients. The severity of Covid-19 was categorized as mild, moderate and severe. A log rank regression test was applied to determine significant difference in disease severity and survival rate. The patients age range was 25-60 years (the patients mean age was 55 years). The majority of participants, 69.1% (n=242), were vaccinated by Sinopharm, and 30.9% (n=108) were non-vaccinated. Most patients had mild disease 80% (n=280) followed by moderate disease 9.7% (n=34), and severe disease 6.6% (n=23), and stratification analysis had significant (p ≤ 0.05) association between vaccinated individuals and disease severity. The overall mortality rate was 3.7%. The mortality rate was 8% (n=9) in none vaccinated individuals, whereas 1.65% (n=4) in vaccinated individuals. The Sinopharm vaccine after both doses was found effective in reducing mortality and disease severity by 98.3% and 94.4%. The study concluded that Sinopharm vaccine after two doses at least 28 days apart given to patients, after two weeks of vaccination is highly effective in reducing the mortality, disease severity and hospital admission in Covid-19 positive patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives:Epistaxis can be caused or exacerbated by anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy. This prospective study assessed the prevalence of epistaxis in patients taking anticoagulant and antiplatelet medication, and monitored differences in patients’ clinical courses.Method:Prospective data were collected for consecutive patients referred with epistaxis from the emergency department over a seven-month period. Emergency department records were used to investigate prevalence and referral rates.Results:Over the study period, 290 patients presented to the emergency department with epistaxis; this represented 0.9 per cent of all emergency attendances. Of these patients, 119 (39 per cent) were referred on to the ENT department, 62 per cent of whom were currently taking anticoagulant or antiplatelet medication. Patients taking anticoagulant and antiplatelet medication were a significantly older group (relative risk 1.50 (1.08–2.28), p = 0.01) requiring longer in-patient stays (relative risk 2.50 (1.01–4.97), p = 0.01) and more aggressive local haemostasis measures. Most patients taking warfarin had an international normalised ratio outside the appropriate range for their disease. Hypertension was not a factor in these patients’ clinical course.Conclusion:Increasingly, emergency and ENT departments are being presented with epistaxis in patients taking anticoagulant or antiplatelet medication. A better understanding of such medication and its effects may enable more effective management of these patients. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]