The Optimal Primary Treatment for Pediatric Perianal Abscess and Anal Fistula: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis

BackgroundPerianal abscesses and anal fistulas are common. The principle of intention-to-treat has not been considered in previous systemic reviews. Thus, the comparison between primary and post-recurrence management was confused, and the recommendation of primary treatment is obscure. The current study aims to identify the optimal initial treatment for pediatric patients.MethodsUsing PRISMA guidelines, studies were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar without any language or study design restriction. The inclusion criteria include original articles or articles with original data, studies of management for a perianal abscess with or without anal fistula, and patient age of <18 years. Patients with local malignancy, Crohn's disease, or other underlying predisposing conditions were excluded. Studies without analyzing recurrence, case series of <5, and irrelevant articles were excluded in the screening stage. Of the 124 screened articles, 14 articles had no full texts or detailed information. Articles written in a language other than English or Mandarin were translated by Google Translation first and confirmed with native speakers. After the eligibility process, studies that compared identified primary managements were then included in the qualitative synthesis.ResultsThirty-one studies involving 2507 pediatric patients met the inclusion criteria. The study design consisted of two prospective case series of 47 patients and retrospective cohort studies. No randomized control trials were identified. Meta-analyses for recurrence after initial management were performed with a random-effects model. Conservative treatment and drainage revealed no difference (Odds ratio [OR], 1.222; 95% Confidential interval [CI]: 0.615–2.427, p = 0.567). Conservative management had a higher risk of recurrence than surgery without statistical significance (OR 0.278, 95% CI: 0.109–0.707, p = 0.007). Compared with incision/drainage, surgery can prevent recurrence remarkably (OR 4.360, 95% CI: 1.761–10.792, p = 0.001). Subgroup analysis of different approaches within conservative treatment and operation was not performed for lacking information.ConclusionStrong recommendations cannot be made due to the lack of prospective or randomized controlled studies. However, the current study based on real primary management supports initial surgical intervention for pediatric patients with perianal abscesses and anal fistula to prevent recurrence.Level of evidenceType of study: Systemic review; Evidence level: Level II.     

Out of the boxes,out of the silos: The need of interdisciplinary collaboration to reduce poor-quality medical products in the supply chain

In this paper, we argue that understanding and addressing the problem of poor-quality medical products requires a more interdisciplinary approach than has been evident to date. While prospective studies based on rigorous standardized methodologies are the gold standard for measuring the prevalence of poor-quality medical products and understanding their distribution nationally and internationally, they should be complemented by social science research to unpack the complex set of social, economic, and governance factors that underlie these patterns. In the following sections, we discuss specific examples of prospective quality surveys and of social science studies, highlighting the value of cross-sector partnerships in driving high-quality, policy-relevant research in this area.     

会所康复模式在女性精神分裂症恢复期病人中的应用

目的:探讨会所康复模式在女性精神分裂症恢复期病人中的应用效果。方法:选取2019年2月—2020年3月精神科收治的100例女性精神分裂恢复期病人作为研究对象,按随机数字表法分为对照组、观察组各50例,对照组采取常规康复治疗,观察组在常规康复治疗基础上应用会所多维度康复治疗模式。采用阳性和阴性症状量表(PANSS)、疾病家庭负担量表(FBS)、日常生活能力量表(ADL)、生活满意度指数B量表(LSIB)评价两组病人干预前、干预3个月、干预6个月精神症状、家庭负担、日常生活能力、生活自理能力。结果:两组病人干预3个月、干预6个月PANSS、FBS、ADL及LSIB评分比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);两组组内干预前后PANSS、FBS、ADL及LSIB评分比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:女性精神分裂症病人在恢复阶段应用会所康复模式进行干预可改善其精神症状,缓解其家庭负担,调节其日常生活能力和生活自理能力,提升其生活满意度。     

Hcy、LPA及TGF-β1在创伤性骨折下肢静脉栓塞中的预测价值

目的分析同型半胱氨酸(Hcy)、溶血磷脂酸(LPA)及转化生长因子-β1(TGF-β1)在创伤性骨折下肢静脉栓塞中的预测价值。方法选取2019年3月至2020年2月商丘市第一人民医院收治的104例创伤性骨折者(观察组),根据有无DVT:有DVT组33例,无DVT组71例;根据创伤严重程度:轻度组61例,重度组43例。另选取本院同期92例健康体检者设为对照组。比较不同人群、不同病情程度以及有无DVT者血浆Hcy、LPA及血清TGF-β1水平,分析Hcy、LPA及TGF-β1对DVT的预测价值。结果观察组Hcy、LPA及TGF-β1表达水平均明显高于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。重度组Hcy、LPA及TGF-β1表达水平明显高于轻度组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。有DVT组者Hcy、LPA及TGF-β1表达水平明显高于无DVT组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。依据ROC曲线分析可知,Hcy+LPA+TGF-β1三者联合预测创伤性骨折后发生DVT敏感度和特异度分别为88.90%、8130%,明显高于三者单独检测(P<0.05)。结论Hcy、LPA及TGF-β1在创伤性骨折发生下肢静脉栓塞时水平均明显升高,三者联合检测对下肢静脉栓塞早期诊断有重要的临床价值。     

Robust antibody response after a third BNT162b2 vaccine compared to the second among immunocompromised and healthy individuals,a prospective longitudinal cohort study

PurposeAs protection from COVID-19 following two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine showed a time dependent waning, a third (booster) dose was administrated. This study aims to compare the antibody response following the third dose versus the second and to evaluate post-booster seroconversion.MethodsA prospective observational study conducted in Maccabi Healthcare Services. Serial SARS-CoV-2 Spike IgG tests, 1,2,3 and 6 months following the second vaccine dose and one month following the third were obtained. Neutralizing antibody levels were measured in a subset of participants. Per individual SARS-CoV-2 Spike IgG titer ratios were calculated one month after the booster administration compared to titers one month following the second dose and prior to booster.ResultsAmong 110 participants, 56 (51%) were women. Mean age was 61.7 ± 1.9 years and 66 (60%) were immunocompromised. One month after third dose, IgG titers were induced 7.83 (95 %CI 5.25–11.67) folds and 2.40 (95 %CI 1.90–3.03) folds compared to one month after the second, in the immunocompromised and immunocompetent groups, respectively. Of the 17 immunocompromised participants who were seronegative after the second dose, 4 (24%) became seropositive following the third. Comparing the titers prior to the third dose, an increase of 50.7 (95 %CI 32.5–79.1) fold in the immunocompromised group and 25.7 (95 %CI 19.1–34.7) fold in and immunocompetent group, was observed.ConclusionA third BNT162b2 vaccine elicited robust humoral response, superior to the response observed following the second, among immunocompetent and immunocompromised individuals.     

Trends in using mesenchymal stromal/stem cells (MSCs) in treating corneal diseases

Since their inception in the 1960s–70s, mesenchymal stem/stromal cells (MSCs) have gained interest because of their differentiation potential, anti-inflammatory effects, and immune-modulating properties. Both cell-based and cell-free MSC treatments show healing capacity in injured tissues. Cell-based treatment comprises MSCs and all secreted products, whereas cell-free treatments include only the secreted products. MSCs are therapeutically administered to many damaged organs owing to their efficacy. Specifically, the eye is a unique organ system to study the effects of MSCs, as treatment is easily applied and measured owing to its external location. The eye holds an immune-privileged status, wherein inflammation and immune responses are innately down-regulated. As excessive inflammation in the cornea often leads to fibrosis and irreversible corneal hazing, many studies have investigated the anti-inflammatory and immune-modulating capacities of MSCs. Decades of research suggest that MSCs modulate the immune response by secreting cytokines, growth factors, and extracellular matrix proteins that inhibit the infiltration of inflammatory cells following injury and promote a healing phenotype via M2 macrophage polarization. MSCs have also shown trans-differentiation potential into cornea-specific cell types during the wound healing process, such as corneal epithelial, stromal, or endothelial cells. This review discusses recent investigations of MSC treatment in the cornea, focusing on therapeutic efficacy, mechanisms, and future directions.     

Immunotherapy: A new standard in the treatment of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma

Renal cell cancer (RCC) represents 2%-3% of all adulthood cancers and is the most common malignant neoplasm of the kidney (90%). In the mid-nineties of the last century, the standard of treatment for patients with metastatic RCC was cytokines. Sunititib and pazopanib were registered in 2007 and 2009, respectively, and have since been the standard first-line treatment for metastatic clear cell RCC (mccRCC). Renal cell cancer is a highly immunogenic tumor with tumor infiltrating cells, including CD8+ T lymphocytes, dendritic cells, natural killer cells (NK) and macrophages. This observation led to the design of new clinical trials in which patients were treated with immunotherapy. With the growing evidence that proangiogenic factors can have immunomodulatory effects on the host’s immune system, the idea of combining angiogenic drugs with immunotherapy has emerged, and new clinical trials have been designed. In the last few years, several therapeutic options have been approved [immunotherapy and immunotherapy/tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI)] for the first-line treatment of mccRCC. Nivolumab/ipilimumab is approved for the treatment of patients with intermediate and poor prognoses. Several checkpoint inhibitors (pembrolizumab, nivolumab, avelumab) in combination with TKI (axitinib, lenvatinib, cabozantinib) are approved for the treatment of patients regardless of their International mRCC Database Consortium prognostic group and PD-L1 expression. There is no specific and ideal biomarker that could help in selecting the ideal patient for the appropriate first-line treatment.