Citations

AbstractObjectivesWe performed a systematic review and meta‐regression analysis of randomized control trials to investigate the association between response to initial treatment and survival outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM).MethodsResponse outcomes included complete response (CR) and the combined outcome of CR or very good partial response (VGPR), while survival outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression‐free survival (PFS). We used random‐effect meta‐regression models and conducted sensitivity analyses based on definition of CR and study quality.ResultsSeventy‐two trials were included in the systematic review, 63 of which contributed data in meta‐regression analyses. There was no association between OS and CR in patients without autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) (regression coefficient: .02, 95% confidence interval [CI] −0.06, 0.10), in patients undergoing ASCT (−.11, 95% CI −0.44, 0.22) and in trials comparing ASCT with non‐ASCT patients (.04, 95% CI −0.29, 0.38). Similarly, OS did not correlate with the combined metric of CR or VGPR, and no association was evident between response outcomes and PFS. Sensitivity analyses yielded similar results.ConclusionsThis meta‐regression analysis suggests that there is no association between conventional response outcomes and survival in patients with newly diagnosed MM.

ABSTRACTBackground:The association between celiac disease (CD) and eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) has been the focus of multiple studies with variable results. Both diseases are immune mediated, and dietary triggers play a role in their pathogenesis.Objectives:The aim of the study was to analyze the risk of EoE in children with CD, assess the magnitude of association between CD and EoE in children, and report the characteristics and outcomes of children with both conditions.Methods:We conducted a retrospective study of the Mayo Clinic Electronic medical records between January 1, 1998 and December 31, 2015. Systematic review and meta‐analysis of multiple databases was conducted to include studies reporting on the same association. Random‐effects model was used to report pooled odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).Results:In this cohort study, of 10,201 children who underwent at least 1 endoscopy, 595 had EoE, and 546 had CD. The risk of having EoE was not increased in children with CD compared to those without CD (OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.154–0.545). Nine of 10 children improved with gluten‐free diet, topical glucocorticosteroid, and/or elimination diet. One child lost to follow‐up.Meta‐analysis of 5 studies showed similar results (OR, 0.525; 95% CI, 0.364–0.797). A total of 45 cases in the literature had both CD and EoE (mean age, 10 years; 64% boys; majority presenting with abdominal pain, vomiting, and diarrhea).Conclusions:Based on our cohort and the observational data, the diagnosis of CD in children is not associated with increased risk of EoE.

CONTEXT: Although practice guidelines suggest that primary care providers working with children and adolescents incorporate BMI surveillance and counseling into routine practice, the evidence base for this practice is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of brief, primary care interventions for pediatric weight management on BMI. DATA SOURCES: Medline, CENTRAL, Embase, PsycInfo, and CINAHL were searched for relevant publications from January 1976 to March 2016 and cross-referenced with published studies. STUDY SELECTION: Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies that compared the effect of office-based primary care weight management interventions to any control intervention on percent BMI or BMI z scores in children aged 2 to 18 years. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently screened sources, extracted data on participant, intervention, and study characteristics, z-BMI/percent BMI, harms, and study quality using the Cochrane and Newcastle-Ottawa risk of bias tools. RESULTS: A random effects model was used to pool the effect size across eligible 10 randomized controlled trials and 2 quasi-experimental studies. Compared with usual care or control treatment, brief interventions feasible for primary care were associated with a significant but small reduction in BMI z score (–0.04, [95% confidence interval, –0.08 to –0.01]; P = .02) and a nonsignificant effect on body satisfaction (standardized mean difference 0.00, [95% confidence interval, –0.21 to 0.22]; P = .98). LIMITATIONS: Studies had methodological limitations, follow-up was brief, and adverse effects were not commonly measured. CONCLUSIONS: BMI surveillance and counseling has a marginal effect on BMI, highlighting the need for revised practice guidelines and the development of novel approaches for providers to address this problem.