Endoscopic assessment and management of early esophageal adenocarcinoma

Esophageal carcinoma affects more than 450000 people worldwide and the incidence is rapidly increasing. In the United States and Europe, esophageal adenocarcinoma has superseded esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in its incidence. Esophageal cancer has a high mortality rates secondary to the late presentation of most patients at advanced stages. Endoscopic screening is recommended for patients with multiple risk factors for cancer in Barrett’s esophagus. These risk factors include chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease, hiatal hernia, advanced age, male sex, white race, cigarette smoking, and obesity. The annual risk of esophageal cancer is approximately 0.25% for patients without dysplasia and 6% for patients with high-grade dysplasia. Twenty percent of all esophageal adenocarcinoma in the United States is early stage with disease confined to the mucosa or submucosa. The significant morbidity and mortality of esophagectomy make endoscopic treatment an attractive option. The American Gastroenterological Association recommends endoscopic eradication therapy for patients with high-grade dysplasia. Endoscopic modalities for treatment of early esophageal adenocarcinoma include endoscopic resection techniques and endoscopic ablative techniques such as radiofrequency ablation, photodynamic therapy and cryoablation. Endoscopic therapy should be precluded to patients with no evidence of lymphovascular invasion. Local tumor recurrence is low after endoscopic therapy and is predicted by poor differentiation of tumor, positive lymph node and submucosal invasion. Surgical resection should be offered to patients with deep submucosal invasion.     

Comparison of cigarette and water-pipe smoking by Arab and non-Arab-American youth

BACKGROUND: Water-pipe smoking is a rapidly growing form of tobacco use worldwide. Building on an earlier report of experimentation with cigarette and water-pipe smoking in a U.S. community sample of Arab-American youth aged 14-18 years, this article examines water-pipe smoking in more detail (e.g., smoking history, belief in harmfulness compared to cigarettes, family members in home who smoke water pipes) and compares the water-pipe-smoking behaviors of Arab-American youth with non-Arab-American youth in the same community. METHODS: A convenience sample of 1872 Arab-American and non-Arab-American high school students from the Midwest completed a 24-item tobacco survey. Data were collected in 2004-2005 and analyzed in 2007-2008. RESULTS: Arab-American youth reported lower percentages of ever cigarette smoking (20% vs 39%); current cigarette smoking (7% vs 22%); and regular cigarette smoking (3% vs 15%) than non-Arab-American youth. In contrast, Arab-American youth reported significantly higher percentages of ever water-pipe smoking (38% vs 21%) and current water-pipe smoking (17% vs 11%) than non-Arab-American youth. Seventy-seven percent perceived water-pipe smoking to be as harmful as or more harmful than cigarette smoking. Logistic regression showed that youth were 11.0 times more likely to be currently smoking cigarettes if they currently smoked water pipes. Youth were also 11.0 times more likely to be current water-pipe smokers if they currently smoked cigarettes. If one or more family members smoked water pipes in the home, youth were 6.3 times more likely to be current water-pipe smokers. The effects of ethnicity were reduced as a result of the explanatory value of family smoking. CONCLUSIONS: Further research is needed to determine the percentages, patterns, and health risks of water-pipe smoking and its relationship to cigarette smoking among all youth. Additionally, youth tobacco prevention/cessation programs need to focus attention on water-pipe smoking in order to further dispel the myth that water-pipe smoking is a safe alternative to cigarette smoking.     

Simeprevir plus sofosbuvir for eight or 12 weeks in treatment‐naïve and treatment‐experienced hepatitis C virus genotype 4 patients with or without cirrhosis

The OSIRIS study investigated efficacy and safety of simeprevir plus sofosbuvir for eight or 12 weeks in hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 4‐infected patients with METAVIR F0‐F4 fibrosis. Sixty‐three patients (33 treatment‐naïve and 30 peg‐interferon/ribavirin (Peg‐IFN/RBV)‐experienced) enrolled in a partly randomized, open‐label, multicentre, phase IIa study. Patients with F0‐F3 fibrosis were randomized (1:1) into two groups (A1 and A2), stratified according to treatment experience and METAVIR score, to receive either eight weeks (Group A1, n=20) or 12 weeks (Group A2, n=20) of treatment. Patients with compensated cirrhosis (METAVIR F4) received 12 weeks of treatment (Group B, n=23). Treatment comprised simeprevir 150 mg and sofosbuvir 400 mg daily. The primary efficacy endpoint was sustained virologic response 12 weeks after planned end of treatment (SVR12). Safety and tolerability were assessed throughout. Overall, 92% (95% CI: 82‐97) of patients achieved SVR12; 75% (15/20) in Group A1 and 100% in groups A2 and B. Patients who did not achieve SVR12 (n=5) experienced viral relapse during the first 32 days following treatment and were all prior Peg‐IFN/RBV null responders. The most commonly reported treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were asymptomatic lipase increase (14%), pruritus (14%), headache (13%) and hyperbilirubinaemia (11%). No patients discontinued due to TEAEs. In conclusion, simeprevir plus sofosbuvir for 12 weeks achieved a 100% SVR rate in HCV genotype 4‐infected patients with or without compensated cirrhosis (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02278419). The AE and laboratory profile were favourable and consistent with previous data for simeprevir plus sofosbuvir in eight‐ and 12‐week regimens.     

Hair restoration approaches for early onset male androgenetic alopecia

Society places great emphasis on the presence of hair. Some degree of hair loss is accepted as a normal part of the aging process, in line with the observation that more than 50% of men will develop androgenetic alopecia by the age of 50 years. However, it is possible to understand the psychosocial isolation and distress felt by men with a strong familial predisposition to androgenetic alopecia, who tend to display hair loss in their late teens or twenties. There are currently two drugs which have been licensed for the treatment of male androgenetic alopecia: oral finasteride and topical minoxidil solution which are effective to some extent. Furthermore, upon discontinuing treatment, any gain that has been achieved is quickly lost. Added to which there is an entire market of unproven over the counter products: advertised in the electronic media, local hair salons, and various departmental stores. In this review, we highlight the important advances in the management of male androgenetic alopecia with emphasis on approaches that can lead to more successful and long‐term hair restoration for young adults. In particular, we discuss the evidence supporting the use of the follicular unit grafting technique in conjunction with medical treatment before and after the procedure. Moreover, some other alterations of this most popular state of the art hair restoration technique have been mentioned briefly. As a result, patients and physicians seem equally satisfied from this procedure for its naturally looking results which are cosmetically more acceptable and esthetically pleasing for longer period of time.     

Choosing Wisely—Barriers and Solutions to Implementation in Low and Middle-Income Countries

Globally, there is increasing emphasis on value-based cancer care. Rising healthcare costs and reduced health care spending and budgets, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), call for patients, providers, and healthcare systems to apply the Choose Wisely (CW) approach. This approach seeks to advance a dialogue on avoiding unnecessary medical tests, treatments, and procedures. Several factors have been described as barriers and facilitators to the implementation of the Choosing Wisely recommendations in high-income countries but none for LMICs. In this review, we attempt to classify potential barriers to the Choose Wisely implementation relative to the sources of behavior and potential intervention functions that can be implemented in order to reduce these barriers.