Association Between Gut Microbial Abundance and Sight-Threatening Diabetic Retinopathy

PurposeTo study the association between gut microbial abundance and sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy among patients with a history of type 2 diabetes mellitus.MethodsAn observational case-control study was performed using a sample population of diabetics referred to a tertiary eye institute. Sample subjects were identified as cases if they were diagnosed with sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy and controls if they were not but had at least a 10-year history of diabetes. Fecal swabs for all patients were collected for enumeration and identification of sequenced gut microbes. Statistical analyses were performed to associate the clinically relevant Bacteroidetes to Firmicutes relative abundance ratio (B/F ratio) with sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy and an optimal cutoff value for the ratio was identified using Youden''s J statistics.ResultsA sample size of 58 diabetic patients was selected (37 cases, 21 controls). No statistically significant difference in the relative abundance among the predominant phyla between the groups were found. In our univariate analysis, the B/F ratio was elevated in cases compared to controls (cases, 1.45; controls, 0.94; P = 0.049). However, this statistically significant difference was not seen in our multivariate regression model. Optimal cutoff value of 1.05 for the B/F ratio was identified, and significant clustering of cases above this value was noted in beta diversity plotting.ConclusionsNo difference in gut microbial abundance for any particular phylum was noted between the control and diseased population. Increased gut microbial B/F ratio can be a potential biomarker for the development of sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy among type 2 diabetic patients.     

Recurrent pelvic organ prolapse: International Urogynecological Association Research and Development Committee opinion

Introduction and hypothesis

This committee opinion paper summarizes available evidence about recurrent pelvic organ prolapse (POP) to provide guidance on management.

Method

A working subcommittee from the International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) Research and Development Committee was formed. The literature regarding recurrent POP was reviewed and summarized by individual members of the subcommittee. Recommendations were graded according to the 2009 Oxford Levels of Evidence. The summary was reviewed by the Committee.

Results

There is no agreed definition for recurrent POP and evidence in relation to its evaluation and management is limited.

Conclusion

The assessment of recurrent POP should entail looking for possible reason(s) for failure, including persistent and/or new risk factors, detection of all pelvic floor defects and checking for complications of previous surgery. The management requires individual evaluation of the risks and benefits of different options and appropriate patient counseling. There is an urgent need for an agreed definition and further research into all aspects of recurrent POP.

     

Immunophenotypic characterization of anal gland carcinoma: loss of p63 and cytokeratin 5/6

Anal gland carcinoma (AGC) is a rare perianal invasive cancer composed of tubular glands lined by cuboidal epithelium. The clinical features and histogenesis of AGC are not well understood and its origin from anal glands is often difficult to prove. Little is known about immunophenotypic features of AGC that could be useful in establishing the diagnosis. This study evaluated the immunohistochemical profile of 2 cases of AGC in comparison to anal glands from 11 hemorrhoidectomy specimens. Sections from the specimens were routinely processed and immunostained using commercial antibodies to cytokeratin (CK) 7, CK20, CK5/ 6, p63, CDX2, smooth muscle actin, calponin, heavy chain smooth muscle myosin, p53, and p16. In case 1 of AGC, radiation and chemotherapy preceded an abdominoperineal resection. In biopsies from this case, the neoplastic anal glands had a tubular pattern, whereas most glands in the resection specimen exhibited mucinous features. The histologic pattern in case 2 was tubular. Normal anal glands showed immunoreactivity for myoepithelial and basal cell markers CK5/6 and p63 in basal and parabasal cell layers and for CK7 in superficial cell layers. In contrast, both cases of AGC were negative for CK5/6 and p63 and were diffusely positive for CK7. Normal glands and both cases of AGC were negative for the intestinal differentiation marker CDX2, CK20, smooth muscle actin, calponin, smooth muscle myosin heavy chain, p16, and p53. Our data suggest that loss of p63 and CK5/6 expression is a feature of AGC. Anal gland carcinoma shares negativity for CDX2 and CK7+/CK20- profile with normal anal glands. No evidence of myoepithelial cells was found in normal or malignant anal glands. These data may be useful in establishing the diagnosis of AGC.     

Patient- and Provider-Reported Information about Transplantation and Subsequent Waitlisting

Because informed consent requires discussion of alternative treatments, proper consent for dialysis should incorporate discussion about other renal replacement options including kidney transplantation (KT). Accordingly, dialysis providers are required to indicate KT provision of information (KTPI) on CMS Form-2728; however, provider-reported KTPI does not necessarily imply adequate provision of information. Furthermore, the effect of KTPI on pursuit of KT remains unclear. We compared provider-reported KTPI (Form-2728) with patient-reported KTPI (in-person survey of whether a nephrologist or dialysis staff had discussed KT) in a prospective ancillary study of 388 hemodialysis initiates. KTPI was reported by both patient and provider for 56.2% of participants, by provider only for 27.8%, by patient only for 8.3%, and by neither for 7.7%. Among participants with provider-reported KTPI, older age was associated with lack of patient-reported KTPI. Linkage with the Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients showed that 20.9% of participants were subsequently listed for KT. Patient-reported KTPI was independently associated with a 2.95-fold (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.54 to 5.66; P=0.001) higher likelihood of KT listing, whereas provider-reported KTPI was not associated with listing (hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.60 to 2.32; P=0.62). Our findings suggest that patient perception of KTPI is more important for KT listing than provider-reported KTPI. Patient-reported and provider-reported KTPI should be collected for quality assessment in dialysis centers because factors associated with discordance between these metrics might inform interventions to improve this process.