Search

Background: Diabetes is a risk factor for cognitive impairment, and disease duration is associated with geriatric decline and functional disabilities. Objective: This study aimed to examine the association of diabetes duration with domain-specific cognitive impairment in elderly. Methods: A total of 3,142 participants from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from the period between 2011 and 2014 were included. We assessed cognitive function using the Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST), the CERAD Word Learning (CERAD-WL) test, the CERAD Delayed Recall (CERAD-DR) test and animal fluency (AF) test. Results: After adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education level, and annual household income, we found that diabetes with a duration longer than 20 years were at 3.32-fold increased risk of DSST impairment (OR = 3.32, 95% CI: 1.95 to 5.67), 1.72-fold increased risk of CERAD-WL impairment (OR = 1.72, 95% CI: 1.13 to 2.62), and 1.76-fold increased risk of AF impairment (OR = 1.76, 95% CI: 1.23 to 2.53), compared with those with no diabetes. Associations were generally stronger in women than in men. Participants with diabetes, who were diagnosed at 50–59 years old were at increased risk of DSST impairment, CERAD-WL impairment, CERAD-DR impairment, and AF impairment per 5 years longer duration of diabetes. Conclusion: Longer diabetes duration was associated with the increased risk of cognitive impairment, especially in processing speed and attention. The presence of chronic kidney disease was associated with the increased risk of DSST impairment.

Background Remote triage for suspected head and neck cancer (HNC) referrals was adopted by many institutions during the initial peak of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Its safety in this population has not been established. Methods A 16-week, prospective, multicenter national service evaluation was started on March 23, 2020. Suspected HNC referrals undergoing remote triage in UK secondary care centers were identified and followed up for a minimum of 6 months to record the cancer status. Triage was supported by risk stratification using a validated calculator. Results Data for 4568 cases were submitted by 41 centers serving a population of approximately 26 million. These represented 14.1% of the predicted maximum referrals for this population outside of pandemic times, and this gave the study a margin of error of 1.34% at 95% confidence. Completed 6-month follow-up data were available for 99.8% with an overall cancer rate of 5.6% (254 of 4557). The rates of triage were as follows: urgent imaging investigation, 25.4% (n = 1156); urgent face-to-face review, 27.8%; (n = 1268); assessment deferral, 30.3% (n = 1382); and discharge, 16.4% (n = 749). The corresponding missed cancers rates were 0.5% (5 of 1048), 0.3% (3 of 1149), 0.9% (12 of 1382), and 0.9% (7 of 747; P = .15). The negative predictive value for a nonurgent triage outcome and no cancer diagnosis was 99.1%. Overall harm was reported in 0.24% (11 of 4557) and was highest for deferred assessments (0.58%; 8 of 1382). Conclusions Remote triage, incorporating risk stratification, may facilitate targeted investigations for higher risk patients and prevent unnecessary hospital attendance for lower risk patients. The risk of harm is low and may be reduced further with appropriate safety netting of deferred appointments. Lay summary This large national study observed the widespread adoption of telephone assessment (supported by a risk calculator) of patients referred to hospital specialists with suspected head and neck cancer during the initial peak of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. The authors identified 4568 patients from 41 UK centers (serving a population of more than 26 million people) who were followed up for a minimum of 6 months. Late cancers were identified, whether reviewed or investigated urgently (0.4%) or nonurgently (0.9%), but the overall rate of harm was low (0.2%), with the highest rate being seen with deferred appointments (0.6%).

Purpose This review is aimed at examining whether the Homeostatic Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR) is higher in Caucasian, adult, treatment-naive patients with acromegaly (ACRO) than in the reference population independently of diabetes presence and to evaluate the impact of treatment [surgery and somatostatin analogues (SSAs)] on its assessment. Methods We systematically reviewed in PubMed and Web of Science from July 1985 to December 2019, registered with the code number CRD42020148737. The inclusion criteria comprised studies conducted in Caucasian adult treatment-naive patients with active ACRO in whom HOMA-IR or basal insulin and glucose were reported. Three reviewers screened eligible publications, extracted the outcomes, and assessed the risk of biases. Results Of 118 originally selected studies, 15 met the inclusion criteria. HOMA-IR was higher in ACRO than the reference population, with mean difference and (95% confidence intervals) of 2.04 (0.65-3.44), even in ACRO patients without diabetes, 1.89 (1.06-2.73). HOMA-IR significantly decreased after treatment with either surgery or SSAs - 2.53 (- 3.24- - 1.81) and - 2.30 (- 3.05- - 1.56); respectively. However, the reduction of HOMA-IR due to SSAs did not improve basal glucose. Conclusion HOMA-IR in treatment-naive ACRO patients is higher than in the reference population, even in patients without diabetes. This finding, confirms that insulin resistance is an early event in ACRO. Our results also suggest that HOMA-IR is not an adequate tool for assessing insulin resistance in those patients treated with SSAs.

With improved understanding of the biology of differentiated thyroid carcinoma its management is evolving. The approach to surgery for the primary tumour and elective nodal surgery is moving from a "one-size-fits -all" recommendation to a more personalised approach based on risk group stratification. With this selective approach to initial surgery, the indications for adjuvant radioactive iodine (RAI) therapy are also changing. This selective approach to adjuvant therapy requires understanding by the entire treatment team of the rationale for RAI, the potential for benefit, the limitations of the evidence, and the potential for side-effects. This review considers the evidence base for the benefits of using RAI in the primary and recurrent setting as well as the side-effects and risks from RAI treatment. By considering the pros and cons of adjuvant therapy we present an oncologic surgical perspective on selection of treatment for patients, both following pre-operative diagnostic biopsy and in the setting of a post-operative diagnosis of malignancy. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd, BASO similar to The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.

The file attached to this record is the author's final peer reviewed version. This is the introduction to the Manchester Journal of International Economic Law Symposium Issue based on selected papers presented at the Fourth Biennial Conference of the African International Economic Law Network at Strathmore Law School, Nairobi, Kenya in July 2019. The introduction also reflects on four important spaces for the consolidation of the scholarship, teaching and research, practice and policy relating to international economic law in Africa.

With improved understanding of the biology of differentiated thyroid carcinomaits management is evolving. The approach to surgery for the primary tumour and elective nodal surgery is moving from a “one size -fits-all” recommendation to a more personalised approach based on risk group stratification. With this selective approach to initial surgery, the indications for adjuvant radioactive iodine (RAI) therapy are also changing. This selective approach to adjuvant therapy requires understanding by the entire treatment team of the rationale for RAI, the potential for benefit, the limitations of the evidence, and the potential for side-effects.. This review considers the evidence base for the benefits of using RAI in the primary and recurrent setting as well as the side-effects and risks from RAI treatment. By considering the pros and cons of adjuvant therapy we present an oncologic surgical perspective on selection of treatment for patients, both following pre-operative diagnostic biopsy and in the setting of a post-operative diagnosis of malignancy.