Wang, Zhen

BACKGROUND: There has been a surge in clinical trials studying the safety and efficacy of mesenchymal stem cells for the treatment of perianal Crohn’s disease. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this work was to systematically review the literature to determine safety and efficacy of mesenchymal stem cells for the treatment of refractory perianal Crohn’s disease. DATA SOURCES: Sources included PubMed, Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase. STUDY SELECTION: Studies that reported safety and/or efficacy of mesenchymal stem cells for the treatment of perianal Crohn’s disease were included. Two independent assessors reviewed eligible articles. INTERVENTION: The study intervention was delivery of mesenchymal stem cells to treat perianal Crohn’s disease. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Safety and efficacy of mesenchymal stem cells used to treat perianal Crohn’s disease were measured. RESULTS: Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review. Three trials with a comparison arm were included in the meta-analysis. There were no significant increases in adverse events (OR = 1.07 (95% CI, 0.61–1.89); p = 0.81) or serious adverse events (OR = 0.53 (95% CI, 0.28–0.98); p = 0.04) in patients treated with mesenchymal stem cells. Mesenchymal stem cells were associated with improved healing as compared with control subjects at primary end points of 6 to 24 weeks (OR = 3.06 (95% CI, 1.05–8.90); p = 0.04) and 24 to 52 weeks (OR = 2.37 (95% CI, 0.90–6.25); p = 0.08). LIMITATIONS: The study was limited by its multiple centers and heterogeneity in the study inclusion criteria, mesenchymal stem cell origin, dose and frequency of delivery, use of scaffolding, and definition and time point of fistula healing. CONCLUSIONS: Although there have been only 3 trials conducted with control arms, existing data demonstrate improved efficacy and no increase in adverse or serious adverse events with mesenchymal stem cells as compared with control subjects for the treatment of perianal Crohn’s disease.

689 Background: The role of antiangiogenic agents in advanced RCC is well established. However, it is still not clear whether this benefit can be extrapolated to the adjuvant setting. In this meta-analysis of 3 randomized control trials (RCTs), we sought to determine the efficacy of these agents in RCC patients who underwent nephrectomy with high risk of relapse. Methods: We searched three databases, including Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify RCTs comparing antiangiogenic agents to placebo in post-nephrectomy RCC patients. We evaluated: 1) the effect of antiangiogenics in highest risk groups as defined by individual studies; 2) the role of each agent separately; and 3) the effect in clear-cell RCC population. Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). The overall effect was pooled using the DerSimonian and Laird random effects models Results: Three RCTs (N = 3693 patients) were identified. All studies were comparing placebo to antiangiogenics: sunitinib, sorafenib, and pazopanib. Overall, antiangiogenics did not improve DFS (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.07) or OS (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.25). These results persisted when restricting the analysis to patients with clear cell carcinoma and patients with highest risk of relapse. Similarly, sunitinib did not show any improvement in the entire studied group for either DFS (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.19) or OS (HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.37). In addition, when restricting the analysis to the high risk group, sunitinib did not show any advantage in terms of DFS (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.07) and OS (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.31). Conclusions: Based on the available evidence, antiangiogenics do not seem to add an advantage over placebo in terms of OS and DFS in high risk RCC patients after nephrectomy. Further studies are needed to identify the patient population which might derive a benefit from antiangiogenics in the adjuvant setting.

Background: A shorter sleep duration has been identified as a risk factor for cardiovascular diseases and increased mortality. It has been hypothesized that a short sleep duration may be linked to changes in ghrelin and leptin production, leading to an alteration of stress hormone production. Here, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the potential relationship between a sleep duration and cardiovascular disease mortality. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of Ovid Medline In-Process and other non-indexed citations, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus from database inception to March 2017. Observational studies were included if the studies reported hazard ratios or odds ratios of the associations between sleep durations (short and long) and cardiovascular disease mortality. Data were extracted by a reviewer and then reviewed by two separate reviewers. Conflicts were resolved through consensus. Using the DerSimonian and Laird random effects models, we calculated pooled hazard ratios and pooled odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Subgroup analyses were performed to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. The quality of the included studies and publication bias were assessed. Results: In total, our meta-analysis included 19 studies (31 cohorts) with a total of 816,995 individuals with 42,870 cardiovascular disease mortality cases. In pooled analyses, both short (risk ratio 1.19; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.26, P<0.001, I2=30.7, Pheterogeneity=0.034), and long (risk ratio 1.37; 95% CI 1.23 to 1.52, P<0.001, I2=79.75, Pheterogeneity<0.001) sleep durations were associated with a greater risk of cardiovascular disease mortality. Conclusions: Both short (<7 hours) and long sleep durations (>9 hours) can increase the risk of overall cardiovascular disease mortality, particularly in Asian populations and elderly individuals. Future epidemiological studies would ideally include objective sleep measurements, rather than self-report measures, and all potential confounders, such as genetic variants.

AbstractObjectiveThe aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta‐analyses of observational studies of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for bicuspid aortic valve stenosis (BcAV).BackgroundTAVR for BcAV stenosis has been associated with an increased incidence of paravalvular leaks, valve malposition, pacemaker placement and all‐cause mortality. The conclusions drawn have been limited by small sample sizes. The use of TAVR for BcAV stenosis remains controversial.MethodsWe searched multiple databases from the inception of the databases through September 30, 2016 for studies of TAVR for BcAV stenosis. We included all observational studies with more than one patient and at least 1 month of outcomes.ResultsWe analyzed 13 observational studies with 758 patients. Meta analyses showed device success rate of 95% [95% confidence interval (CI) 90.2% to 98.5%] and an early safety event in 16.9% [95% CI 12.2% to 22%]. At 30 days, moderate to severe paravalvular leak was seen in 12.2% [95% CI 3.1% to 24.8%] and new pacemaker implantation in 17.9% [95% CI 14.2% to 22%]. All‐cause mortality was 3.7% [95% CI 2.1% to 5.6%], which should be viewed in the context of an STS PROM of 5.0%.ConclusionsThis analysis suggests that TAVR for BcAV is not associated with excess mortality. The incidence of paravalvular leaks and pacemaker implant is increased compared to tricuspid aortic valve cohorts undergoing TAVR, and operators should weigh these potential complications against the clinical benefit provided by TAVR for BcAV patients at high risk for surgical valve replacement.

Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who are listed for liver transplantation (LT) are often treated while on the waiting list with locoregional therapy (LRT), which is aimed at either preventing progression of HCC or reducing the measurable disease burden of HCC in order to receive increased allocation priority. We aimed to synthesize evidence regarding the effectiveness of LRT in the management of patients with HCC who were on the LT waitlist. We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple databases from 1996 to April 25, 2016, for studies that enrolled adults with cirrhosis awaiting LT and treated with bridging or down‐staging therapies before LT. Therapies included transcatheter arterial chemoembolization, transarterial radioembolization, ablation, and radiotherapy. We included both comparative and noncomparative studies. There were no randomized controlled trials identified. For adults with T1 HCC and waiting for LT, there were only two nonrandomized comparative studies, both with a high risk of bias, which reported the outcome of interest. In one series, the rate of dropout from all causes at 6 months in T1 HCC patients who underwent LRT was 5.3%, while in the other series of T1 HCC patients who did not receive LRT, the dropout rate at median follow‐up of 2.4 years and the progression rate to T2 HCC were 30% and 88%, respectively. For adults with T2 HCC awaiting LT, transplant with any bridging therapy showed a nonsignificant reduction in the risk of waitlist dropout due to progression (relative risk [RR], 0.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.06‐1.85; I 2 = 0%) and of waitlist dropout from all causes (RR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.060‐2.370; I 2 = 85.7%) compared to no therapy based on three comparative studies. The quality of evidence is very low due to high risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency. There were five comparative studies which reported on posttransplant survival rates and 10 comparative studies which reported on posttransplant recurrence, and there was no significant difference seen in either of these endpoints. For adults initially with stage T3 HCC who received LRT, there were three studies reporting on transplant with any down‐staging therapy versus no downstaging, and this showed a significant increase in 1‐year (two studies, RR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.01‐1.23) and 5‐year (1 study, RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.03‐1.32) post‐LT survival rates for patients who received LRT. The quality of evidence is very low due to serious risk of bias and imprecision. Conclusion: In patients with HCC listed for LT, the use of LRT is associated with a nonsignificant trend toward improved waitlist and posttransplant outcomes, though there is a high risk of selection bias in the available evidence. (H epatology 2018;67:381‐400).

AbstractBackgroundColonic pseudo‐obstruction (CPO) is characterized by colonic distention in the absence of mechanical obstruction or toxic megacolon. Concomitant secretory diarrhea (SD) with hypokalemia (SD‐CPO) due to gastrointestinal (GI) loss requires further characterization.AimTo perform a systematic review of SD‐CPO, report a case study, and compare SD‐CPO with classical CPO (C‐CPO).MethodsWe performed a search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Scopus for reports based on a priori criteria for CPO, SD and GI loss of potassium. An additional case at Mayo Clinic was included.ResultsNine publications met inclusion criteria, with a total of 14 cases. Six studies had high, three moderate, and our case high methodological quality. Median age was 74 years (66‐97), with 2:1 male/female ratio. Kidney disease was present in 6/14 patients. Diarrhea was described as profuse, watery, or viscous in 10 patients. Median serum, stool, and urine potassium concentrations (mmol/L) were 2.4 (range: 1.9‐3.1), 137 (100‐180), and 17 (8‐40), respectively. Maximal diameter of colon and cecum (median) were 10.2 cm and 10.5 cm, respectively. Conservative therapy alone was effective in five out of 14 patients. Median potassium supplementation was 124 mEq/d (40‐300). Colonic decompression was effective in three out of six patients; one had a total colectomy; three out of 14 had died. The main differences between SD‐CPO and C‐CPO were lower responses to treatments: conservative measures (35.7% vs 73.6%, P=.01), neostigmine (17% vs 89.2%, P<.001), and colonic decompression (50% vs 82.4%, P=.02).ConclusionSD‐CPO is a rare phenotype associated with increased fecal potassium and is more difficult to treat than C‐CPO.