Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of the Procedure-specific Risks of Thrombosis and Bleeding in General Abdominal, Colorectal, Upper Gastrointestinal, and Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery

\ua9 2024 Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. All rights reserved.Objective: To provide procedure-specific estimates of symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) and major bleeding after abdominal surgery. Background: The use of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis represents a trade-off that depends on VTE and bleeding risks that vary between procedures; their magnitude remains uncertain. Methods: We identified observational studies reporting procedure-specific risks of symptomatic VTE or major bleeding after abdominal surgery, adjusted the reported estimates for thromboprophylaxis and length of follow-up, and estimated cumulative incidence at 4 weeks postsurgery, stratified by VTE risk groups, and rated evidence certainty. Results: After eligibility screening, 285 studies (8,048,635 patients) reporting on 40 general abdominal, 36 colorectal, 15 upper gastrointestinal, and 24 hepatopancreatobiliary surgery procedures proved eligible. Evidence certainty proved generally moderate or low for VTE and low or very low for bleeding requiring reintervention. The risk of VTE varied substantially among procedures: in general abdominal surgery from a median of <0.1% in laparoscopic cholecystectomy to a median of 3.7% in open small bowel resection, in colorectal from 0.3% in minimally invasive sigmoid colectomy to 10.0% in emergency open total proctocolectomy, and in upper gastrointestinal/hepatopancreatobiliary from 0.2% in laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy to 6.8% in open distal pancreatectomy for cancer. Conclusions: VTE thromboprophylaxis provides net benefit through VTE reduction with a small increase in bleeding in some procedures (eg, open colectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy), whereas the opposite is true in others (eg, laparoscopic cholecystectomy and elective groin hernia repairs). In many procedures, thromboembolism and bleeding risks are similar, and decisions depend on individual risk prediction and values and preferences regarding VTE and bleeding

Management of Lymph Node-positive Penile Cancer: A Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: Lymph node (LN) involvement in penile cancer is associated with poor survival. Early diagnosis and management significantly impact survival, with multimodal treatment approaches often considered in advanced disease. OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical effectiveness of treatment options available for the management of inguinal and pelvic lymphadenopathy in men with penile cancer. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: EMBASE, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and other databases were searched from 1990 to July 2022. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), nonrandomised comparative studies (NRCSs), and case series (CSs) were included. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We identified 107 studies, involving 9582 patients from two RCTs, 28 NRCSs, and 77 CSs. The quality of evidence is considered poor. Surgery is the mainstay of LN disease management, with early inguinal LN dissection (ILND) associated with better outcomes. Videoendoscopic ILND may offer comparable survival outcomes to open ILND with lower wound-related morbidity. Ipsilateral pelvic LN dissection (PLND) in N2-3 cases improves overall survival in comparison to no pelvic surgery. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in N2-3 disease showed a pathological complete response rate of 13% and an objective response rate of 51%. Adjuvant radiotherapy may benefit pN2-3 but not pN1 disease. Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy may provide a small survival benefit in N3 disease. Adjuvant radiotherapy and chemotherapy improve outcomes after PLND for pelvic LN metastases. CONCLUSIONS: Early LND improves survival in nodal disease in penile cancer. Multimodal treatments may provide additional benefit in pN2-3 cases; however, data are limited. Therefore, individualised management of patients with nodal disease should be discussed in a multidisciplinary team setting. PATIENT SUMMARY: Spread of penile cancer to the lymph nodes is best managed with surgery, which improves survival and has curative potential. Supplementary treatment, including the use of chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy, may further improve survival in advanced disease. Patients with penile cancer with lymph node involvement should be treated by a multidisciplinary team

Effectiveness of the Use of Three-Dose Intravitreal Ziv-Aflibercept in the Management of Diabetic Macular Edema in a Real-Life Setting

Fernando Munayco-Guillén,1,2 Miguel Angel Vazquez-Membrillo,1,2 Marlon Rafael Garcia-Roa,1,2 Jhony Alberto De La Cruz-Vargas,3 Herney Andrés García-Perdomo,4 Rafael Pichardo-Rodriguez3 1Department of Retina and Vitreous Surgery, Instituto Mexicano de Oftalmología (IMO), Querétaro, México; 2Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), México City, México; 3Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias Biomédicas (INICIB), Universidad Ricardo Palma, Lima, Perú; 4Division of Urology/Urooncology, Deparment of Surgery, School of Medicine, Universidad del Valle, Cali, ColombiaCorrespondence: Fernando Munayco-Guillén, Fray Servando Teresa de Mier 202, Quintas del Marqués, Querétaro, México, Tel +51 985-558886, Email [email protected]: It has been reported that intravitreal Ziv-aflibercept is a safe and effective drug for the treatment of diabetes macular edema (DME). The objective of this study was to evaluate in a real-life setting, the efficacy of intravitreal Ziv-aflibercept in the treatment of DME after the administration of three consecutive monthly doses.Methods: A single arm, prospective cohort study. We included patients with DME who received three doses of intravitreal Ziv-aflibercept. Data such as best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and tomographic biomarkers before treatment and a month after the third dose were collected. DME was staged using the Panozzo classification.Results: Thirty-eight patients participated for a total of 53 eyes. The mean age was 59 ± 8.1 years. We observed significant changes after the third dose in the parameters studied (BCVA in LogMAR pre-treatment (0.6 ± 0.33) and post-treatment (0.4 ± 0.29) [p< 0.001], macular thickness pre-treatment (501 ± 167 μm) and post-treatment (324 ± 114 μm) [p< 0.001], macular volume pre-treatment 10.8 (7.5– 17.8) mm3 and post-treatment 9.3 (0– 13.6) mm3 [p< 0.005]). And 73.6% of the patients presented an advanced severe stage during their pre-treatment evaluation and after post-treatment, 64.2% of the patients no longer presented edema. No systemic or ocular adverse events occurred.Conclusion: The use of three consecutive monthly doses of intravitreal Ziv-aflibercept in a real-life setting is effective and safe in the management of diabetic macular edema.Keywords: antiangiogenic, diabetes mellitus, intravitreal injection, macular edema, optical coherence tomography, Ziv-aflibercep

Efficacy and safety of a fixed-ratio combination of insulin degludec and liraglutide (IDegLira) compared with its components given alone: Results of a phase 3, open-label, randomised, 26-week, treat-to-target trial in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND: A fixed-ratio combination of the basal insulin analogue insulin degludec and the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue liraglutide has been developed as a once-daily injection for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. We aimed to compare combined insulin degludec-liraglutide (IDegLira) with its components given alone in insulin-naive patients. METHODS: In this phase 3, 26-week, open-label, randomised trial, adults with type 2 diabetes, HbA1c of 7-10% (inclusive), a BMI of 40 kg/m(2) or less, and treated with metformin with or without pioglitazone were randomly assigned (2:1:1) to daily injections of IDegLira, insulin degludec, or liraglutide (1\ub78 mg per day). IDegLira and insulin degludec were titrated to achieve a self-measured prebreakfast plasma glucose concentration of 4-5 mmol/L. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c after 26 weeks of treatment, and the main objective was to assess the non-inferiority of IDegLira to insulin degludec (with an upper 95% CI margin of 0\ub73%), and the superiority of IDegLira to liraglutide (with a lower 95% CI margin of 0%). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01336023. FINDINGS: 1663 adults (mean age 55 years [SD 10], HbA1c 8\ub73% [0\ub79], and BMI 31\ub72 kg/m(2) [4\ub78]) were randomly assigned, 834 to IDegLira, 414 to insulin degludec, and 415 to liraglutide. After 26 weeks, mean HbA1c had decreased by 1\ub79% (SD 1\ub71) to 6\ub74% (1\ub70) with IDegLira, by 1\ub74% (1\ub70) to 6\ub79% (1\ub71) with insulin degludec, and by 1\ub73% (1\ub71) to 7\ub70% (1\ub72) with liraglutide. IDegLira was non-inferior to insulin degludec (estimated treatment difference -0\ub747%, 95% CI -0\ub758 to -0\ub736, p<0\ub70001) and superior to liraglutide (-0\ub764%, -0\ub775 to -0\ub753, p<0\ub70001). IDegLira was generally well tolerated; fewer participants in the IDegLira group than in the liraglutide group reported gastrointestinal adverse events (nausea 8\ub78 vs 19\ub77%), although the insulin degludec group had the fewest participants with gastrointestinal adverse events (nausea 3\ub76%). We noted no clinically relevant differences between treatments with respect to standard safety assessments, and the safety profile of IDegLira reflected those of its component parts. The number of confirmed hypoglycaemic events per patient year was 1\ub78 for IDegLira, 0\ub72 for liraglutide, and 2\ub76 for insulin degludec. Serious adverse events occurred in 19 (2%) of 825 patients in the IDegLira group, eight (2%) of 412 in the insulin degludec group, and 14 (3%) of 412 in the liraglutide group. INTERPRETATION: IDegLira combines the clinical advantages of basal insulin and GLP-1 receptor agonist treatment, resulting in improved glycaemic control compared with its components given alone