Nakanishi, Hayato

AbstractPlatelet‐rich plasma (PRP) is an alternative to corticosteroid (CS) injections in managing rotator cuff disease. This meta‐analysis investigated differences between PRP and CS for function and pain scores in significance and minimal clinical important difference (MCID). A literature search of Ovid Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, Epub, and Scopus was conducted from inception to October 28, 2021. Eligible studies reported patients older than 18 years with a diagnosis of rotator cuff disease. This review was registered in PROSPERO (ID: CRD42021278740). Twelve studies met eligibility criteria (n = 639) of patients receiving either PRP or CS. At short‐term follow‐up, a difference favored CS compared to PRP in baseline change for disability of arm, shoulder, and hand (DASH) score (MD = −5.08, 95% CI: −8.00, −2.15; p = 0.0007; I2 = 0%) and simple shoulder test (SST) (MD = 1.25, 95% CI: 0.33, 2.18; p = 0.008; I2 = 0%). At intermediate follow‐up, a difference favored PRP to CS baseline change of the DASH score (MD = 3.41, 95% CI: 0.67, 6.15; p = 0.01; I2 = 0%). At medium‐term, a difference favored PRP to CS baseline change of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder (ASES) score (MD = −4.42, 95% CI: −8.16, −0.67; p = 0.02; I2 = 0%). Both treatments achieved individual MCID for each score. Despite favoring CS at short‐term follow‐up and PRP at intermediate‐ and medium‐term follow‐up, functional and pain scores did not demonstrate any clinical difference between the two treatment modalities in management of rotator cuff disease at all follow‐up periods.

Abstract Background Obesity is associated with an increased incidence of at least 13 types of cancer. Although bariatric surgery has been associated with a reduced risk of hormonal cancers, data for non-hormonal cancers are scarce. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of bariatric surgery on the incidence of non-hormonal cancers. Methods Cochrane, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for articles between 1984 and 2018, following the PRISMA system. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effect model with subgroup analysis by procedure and cancer type. Results From 2526 studies screened, 15 were included. There were a total of 18 583 477 patients, 947 787 in the bariatric group and 17 635 690 in the control group. In comparison to the non-surgical group, the bariatric group had a lower incidence of cancer (OR .65 (95 per cent c.i. 0.53 to 0.80); P < 0.002). In the subgroup analysis, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy were associated with decreased risk of developing cancer, while no difference was observed with adjustable gastric banding. When evaluated by cancer type, liver (OR 0.417 (95 per cent c.i. 0.323 to 0.538)), colorectal (OR 0.64 (95 per cent c.i. 0.49 to 0.84)), kidney and urinary tract cancer (OR 0.77 (95 per cent c.i. 0.72 to 0.83)), oesophageal (OR 0.60 (95 per cent c.i. 0.43 to 0.85)), and lung cancer (OR 0.796 (95 per cent c.i. 0.45 to 0.80)) also presented a lower cancer incidence in the bariatric group. Conclusion Bariatric surgery is related to an almost 50 per cent reduction in the risk of non-hormonal cancers.

Background: Biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (BPD-DS) is an effective yet technically challenging bariatric surgery with many complications. Alternatively, single anastomosis duodenal-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (SADI-S) was recently introduced as a simplified bariatric procedure. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of SADI-S compared with BPD-DS in the management of patients with obesity. Methods: Cochrane, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for articles from their inception to May 2022 by 2 independent reviewers using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis system. The review was registered prospectively with PROSPERO (CRD42022333521). Results: From 123 studies screened, 6 studies met the eligibility criteria, with a total of 1847 patients with obesity undergoing either SADI-S (n=818) or BPD-DS (n=1029). Preoperative body mass index was similar between the 2 groups, and the BPD-DS group had a greater % excess body mass index loss (EBMIL) (MD=−10.16%, 95% confidence interval: −11.80, −8.51, I2=0%) at 2 years compared with the SADI-S group. There was no difference observed in preoperative comorbidities and remission, including diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia between SADI-S and BPD-DS cohorts. Compared with BPD-DS, SADI-S had shorter hospital stays (MD=−1.36 d, 95% CI: −2.39, −0.33, I2=86%), and fewer long-term (>30 d) complications (OR=0.56, 95% CI: 0.42, 0.74, I2=20%). Conversely, among nutritional deficiency outcomes, the SADI-S group had few patients with abnormal vitamin D (OR=0.51, 95% CI: 0.36, 0.72, I2=0%) values than the BPD-DS group. Conclusions: SADI-S has shown to be a possible alternative treatment option to BPD-DS in managing patients with obesity. Despite the promising results, further randomized controlled studies with more extended follow-up periods are necessary to ascertain the safety and efficacy of the treatment.

COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations have recently been implicated in causing myocarditis. Therefore, the primary aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the clinical characteristics of patients with myocarditis following mRNA vaccination. The secondary aims were to report common imaging and laboratory findings, as well as treatment regimes, in these patients. A literature search was performed from December 2019 to June 2022. Eligible studies reported patients older than 18 years vaccinated with mRNA, a diagnosis of myocarditis, and subsequent outcomes. Pooled mean or proportion were analyzed using a random-effects model. Seventy-five unique studies (patient n = 188, 89.4% male, mean age 18–67 years) were included. Eighty-six patients had Moderna vaccines while one hundred and two patients had Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines. The most common presenting symptoms were chest pain (34.5%), fever (17.1%), myalgia (12.4%), and chills (12.1%). The most common radiologic findings were ST-related changes on an electrocardiogram (58.7%) and hypokinesia on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging or echocardiography (50.7%). Laboratory findings included elevated Troponin I levels (81.7%) and elevated C-reactive protein (71.5%). Seven patients were admitted to the intensive care unit. The most common treatment modality was non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs (36.6%) followed by colchicine (28.5%). This meta-analysis presents novel evidence to suggest possible myocarditis post mRNA vaccination in certain individuals, especially young male patients. Clinical practice must therefore take appropriate pre-cautionary measures when administrating COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations.

AstraZeneca coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccinations have recently been implicated in thromboembolism formations. Our aim was to investigate the outcomes of patients with thromboembolic events following the AstraZeneca vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, AZD1222). A literature search was performed from December 2019 to September 2021. Eligible studies must report participants older than 18 years vaccinated with AstraZeneca and outcomes of thromboembolic events. Pooled mean or proportion were analyzed using a random-effects model. A total of 45 unique studies (number of patients = 144, 64.6% women, mean age 21–68 years) were included. The most common presenting adverse events were headache (12.1%), intracerebral hemorrhage (7.5%), and hemiparesis (7%). The most common thromboembolic adverse events were cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (38.5%) and deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism (21.1%). The most common radiologic finding were intracerebral hemorrhage and cerebral venous thrombosis. Laboratory findings included thrombocytopenia (75%) and hypofibrinogenemia (41%). On admission, 64 patients tested positive for PF4-Heparin ELISA assay (80%). Seventy-four patients were hospitalized with 22 being admitted to the ICU. A total of 78 patients recovered while 39 patients died. This meta-analysis presents evidence to suggest vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) following AstraZeneca vaccine. Clinical practice must, therefore, account for the possibility of VITT and subsequent embolic events in certain individuals’ postvaccination with adenovirus-based COVID-19 vaccines. Serum anti-PF4 suggests diagnostic value for VITT and could subsequently inform treatment choices in such instances.