Ungprasert, Patompong

AbstractBackgroundThe reported risk of depression in patients with hypomagnesaemia is controversial.AimThe objective of this meta‐analysis was to assess the association between depression and hypomagnesaemia.MethodsA literature search was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database and clinicaltrials.gov from inception through October 2014. Studies that reported odds ratios, relative risks or hazard ratios comparing the risk of depression in patients with hypomagnesaemia were included. Pooled risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a random‐effect, generic inverse variance method.ResultsSix observational studies (three cohort studies, two cross‐sectional studies and a case–control study) with a total of 19 137 patients were identified and included in the data analysis. The pooled RR of depression in patients with hypomagnesaemia was 1.34 (95% CI, 1.01–1.79, I2 = 33%). The association between depression and hypomagnesaemia was marginally insignificant after the sensitivity analysis including only cohort and case–control studies, with a pooled RR of 1.38 (95% CI, 0.92–2.07, I2 = 24%).ConclusionOur study demonstrates a potential association between hypomagnesaemia and depression. Further studies assessing the benefits of treatment of hypomagnesaemia in patients with depression are needed.

AimTo investigate the association between primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) and risk of coronary artery disease (CAD).MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis of published observational studies that reported relative risks, odd ratios, hazard ratios or standardized incidence ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI) comparing CAD risk in patients with PBC versus non‐PBC controls. Pooled risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals were combined using a random‐effect model and generic inverse variance of DerSimonian and Laird methods.ResultFour studies with 3362 patients with PBC were identified and included in our data analysis. The pooled risk ratio of CAD in patients with PBC was 1.57 (95% CI, 1.21–2.06). The statistical heterogeneity was low with an I2 of 38%.ConclusionOur study demonstrated a statistically significant increased risk of CAD among patients with PBC.

AbstractA possible causal relationship between sarcoidosis and malignancy has been the subject of debates for decades. To better understand this association, we conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis of cohort studies that reported relative risk, hazard ratio or standardized incidence ratio with 95% confidence interval (CI) comparing the incidence of malignancy in patients with sarcoidosis versus non‐sarcoidosis participants. Pooled risk ratios (RR) and 95% CI were calculated using a random‐effect, generic inverse variance methodology. Five studies were identified and included in our data analyses. The pooled RR of malignancy in patients with sarcoidosis was 1.21 (95% CI: 1.04–1.40). However, when we performed a sensitivity analysis that included only studies that compared the incidence of malignancy after the first year of the diagnosis of sarcoidosis with the incidence of malignancy after the first year of index date for non‐sarcoidosis controls, the pooled risk ratio decreased and did not reach statistical significance (RR 1.13, 95% CI: 0.97–1.32). Furthermore, analysis for publication bias has suggested that publication bias in favour of positive studies may be present. In conclusion, after accounting for possible detection bias and publication bias, there does not appear be a significant association between sarcoidosis and malignancy.