Malandris, Konstantinos

Abstract We aim to compare the benefits, harms, and costs of multiple plastic stents (MPS) versus covered self-expandable metallic stents (CSEMS) in the treatment of benign biliary strictures (BBS). A comprehensive database search through June 6, 2024 identified randomized controlled trials (RCT) involving adult patients with BBS comparing MPS to CSEMS in terms of stricture resolution, recurrence, technical success, number of required procedures and stents, treatment duration, all-cause mortality, adverse events, and stent migration. We utilized the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) tool2 for study quality assessment. Meta-analysis following the random effects model was performed. After screening 365 references, we included 7 RCTs (high RoB) involving 594 patients. Most reported stricture etiology is chronic pancreatitis (52.4%), followed by orthotopic liver transplant (40.5%). Compared with MPS, CSEMS achieved similar efficacy and safety. However, CSEMS required fewer procedures (mean difference [MD]: −1.84 [−2.56 to −1.11]; I2 = 76%) and stents (MD: −6.04 [−9.55 to −2.52]; I2 = 93%), amounting for shorter duration of treatment (MD: −119.02 days [−137.41 to −100.62]; I2 = 96%) and savings in costs between 41 and 57% with absolute savings of 4,019$ to 9,192$ favoring CSEMS. All outcomes had a low to very low certainty of evidence (CoE), except for technical success and stricture resolution (moderate CoE). Our analysis suggests that CSEMSs are comparable to MPSs in terms of efficacy and safety. However, it shows that CSEMSs are more cost-effective. Sample size calculations from our analyses can guide the design of future studies to validate the safety profiles and determine the feasibility of the two modalities.

Abstract Background and Aim Following the approval of the first agent for the management of metabolic dysfunction‐associated steatohepatitis (MASH), identification of patients with fibrotic MASH (MASH with NAS ≥ 4 and fibrosis stage ≥ 2) is crucial. We assessed the performance of FibroScan‐aspartate aminotransferase (AST) score (FAST) for ruling in/out fibrotic MASH. Methods We searched Medline, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, and gray literature sources up to January 11, 2024. Studies were eligible if they assessed the accuracy of FAST score for the detection of fibrotic MASH using biopsy as the reference standard at previously reported thresholds (FAST ≥ 0.67 for ruling‐in and ≤ 0.35 for ruling‐out fibrotic MASH). We calculated pooled sensitivity and specificity estimates for FAST thresholds alongside 95% confidence intervals following bivariate random‐ effects models. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. Results We included 16 studies with 8838 participants. A FAST score ≥ 0.67 yielded a pooled specificity of 0.87 (0.82–0.90) while a FAST score ≤ 0.35 yielded a summary sensitivity of 0.88 (0.83–0.91). At a prevalence of 30%, the positive predictive value for ruling‐in fibrotic MASH was 60% while the negative predictive value for ruling‐out the target condition was 91%. AST levels, cirrhosis prevalence, and number of pathologists reviewing biopsies were sources of heterogeneity among studies. The certainty of evidence was low to very low. Conclusions FAST score can be used as a triage test for ruling out fibrotic MASH. Nevertheless, its low positive predictive value necessitates sequential testing for ruling‐in fibrotic MASH.

Background and Aims: Portal hypertension is a serious complication of cirrhosis, which leads to life-threatening complications. HVPG, a surrogate of portal pressure, is the reference standard test to assess the severity of portal hypertension. However, since HVPG is limited by its invasiveness and availability, noninvasive liver disease assessments to assess portal pressure, especially clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH), are needed. Approach and Results: We conducted a systematic review of Ovid MEDLINE(R) Ovid EMBASE, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus from each database’s inception to April 22, 2022. We included only studies in English that examined ≥50 patients in single liver disease etiologies, which compared noninvasive tests (blood and/or imaging) to HVPG for predicting clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH; defined as HVPG ≥ 10 mm Hg) in patients with chronic liver disease. Outcomes included measures of diagnostic test accuracy. Additionally, a narrative review of studies not eligible for the systematic review is also provided. Nine studies with 2492 patients met the inclusion criteria. There was substantial heterogeneity with regard to liver disease studied and cutoff values used to detect CSPH. Blood-based tests, including aspartate-to-platelet ratio index (APRI) (56% sensitivity and 68% specificity) and FIB-4 (54% sensitivity and 73% specificity) had low accuracy measures. Imaging-based tests (transient elastography and shear wave elastography detection of liver stiffness measurement [LSM]) had better accuracy but also had substantial variation; at 15 kPa, TE sensitivity was 90%–96% and specificity was 48%–50%, while at 25 kPa, its sensitivity and specificity were 57%–85% and 82%–93%, respectively. The narrative review suggested that imaging-based tests are the best available noninvasive liver disease assessment to detect CSPH; CSPH is highly unlikely to be present at an LSM ≤15 kPa and likely to be present at an LSM ≥25 kPa. Conclusions: While imaging-based noninvasive liver disease assessment appeared to have higher accuracy than blood-based tests to detect CSPH, only 9 studies fit the a priori established inclusion criteria for the systematic review. In addition, there was substantial study heterogeneity and variation in cutoffs for LSM to detect CSPH, limiting the ability to establish definitive cutoffs to detect CSPH.

BACKGROUND As the use of injectable skin fillers increase in popularity, an increase in the reported adverse events is expected. OBJECTIVE This systematic review supports the development of American Society for Dermatologic Surgery practice guideline on the management of adverse events of skin fillers. METHODS AND MATERIALS Several databases for studies on risk factors or treatments of injection-related visual compromise (IRVC), skin necrosis, inflammatory events, and nodules were searched. Meta-analysis was conducted when feasible. RESULTS The review included 182 studies. However, IRVC was very rare (1–2/1,000,000 patients) but had poor prognosis with improvement in 19% of cases. Skin necrosis was more common (approximately 5/1,000) with better prognosis (up to 77% of cases showing improvement). Treatments of IRVC and skin necrosis primarily depend on hyaluronidase injections. Risk of skin necrosis, inflammatory events, and nodules may be lower with certain fillers, brands, injection techniques, and volume. Treatment of inflammatory events and nodules with antibiotics, corticosteroids, 5-FU, and hyaluronidase was associated with high response rate (75%–80%). Most of the studies were small and noncomparative, making the evidence certainty very low. CONCLUSION Practitioners must have adequate knowledge of anatomy, elicit history of skin filler use, and establish preemptive protocols that prepare the clinical practice to manage complications.