Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials: Efficacy and Safety of UDCA-Based Therapies in Primary Biliary Cirrhosis

Major ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA)-based therapies for primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) include UDCA only, or combined with either methotrexate (MTX), corticosteroids (COT), colchicine (COC), or bezafibrate (BEF). As the optimum treatment regimen is unclear and warrants exploration, we aimed to compare these therapies in terms of patient mortality or liver transplantation (MOLT) and adverse events (AE).PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Scopus were searched for randomized controlled trials up to August 31, 2014. We estimated the hazard ratios (HRs) for MOLT and odds ratios (ORs) for AE. A sensitivity analysis based on the dose of UDCA was also executed.Thirty-one eligible articles were included. Compared with COT plus UDCA, UDCA (HR 0.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.09–1.39), BEF plus UDCA (HR 0.29, 95% CI 0.02–4.83), COC plus UDCA (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.07–2.25), MTX plus UDCA (HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.05–1.63), or OBS (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.11–2.01) all provided an increased risk of MOLT. With respect to drug AE profile, although not differing appreciably, BEF plus UDCA was associated with more AEs compared with UDCA (OR 3.16, 95% CI 0.59–20.67), COT plus UDCA (OR 2.27, 95% CI 0.15–33.36), COC plus UDCA (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.09–12.16), MTX plus UDCA (OR 2.03, 95% CI 0.23–17.82), or OBS (OR 3.00, 95% CI 0.53–20.75). The results of sensitivity analyses were highly consistent with previous analyses.COT plus UDCA was the optimal UDCA-based regimen for both MOLT and AEs. BEF plus UDCA was most likely to cause AEs, whereas monotherapy with UDCA and coadministriation of COT plus UDCA appeared to be associated with the fewest AEs for PBC treatment.     

Clinical analysis of high-intensity focussed ultrasound ablation for abdominal wall endometriosis: a 4-year experience at a specialty gynecological institution

Objective: To evaluate the long-term clinical effect of high-intensity focussed ultrasound (HIFU) as a non-invasive modality for ablation of abdominal wall endometriosis (AWE) foci.

Methods: All women who were diagnosed with cutaneous endometriosis and underwent HIFU ablation and 4-year follow-up were included. Patient symptoms, imaging performed, HIFU ablation, recurrence, lesion location, size and number were collected and analyzed.

Results: A total of 51 women with 57 painful abdominal wall masses with a median volume of 4.00?cm³ and a mean age of 30.5±2.12 years were treated with HIFU. The main symptoms were a palpable painful abdominal mass (93%), protrusion of the skin (28.1%, 16) or lack of protrusion of the skin (71.9%, 41). Ultrasound was initially performed in 100% (51) of women, whereas 6% (3) required MRI examinations to distinguish the features and range of the masses. Ablation was performed with a median 300?s of sonication time, 40?min treatment time, 150?W of power and 41800?J of total energy to treat lesions that were a median volume of 3.83?cm³. No severe complications occurred, except in one patient with a first-degree skin burn, during the 48-month follow-up period. The pooled recurrence of cutaneous endometriosis occurred in 3.9% (2) of women.

Conclusion: The diagnosis of AWE should be confirmed with imaging of the lesion number, location, size and features before HIFU ablation. HIFU should be the first choice for the treatment of AWE as it is a non-invasive method, with high efficiency and safety and rapid postoperative recovery.