ABSTRACT
Background: Ultrasound-based transient elastography (TE) is a non-invasive alternative to liver biopsy for the staging of hepatic fibrosis due to various chronic liver diseases. This meta-analysis aims to assess the diagnostic accuracy of TE for detecting liver cirrhosis (F4) and severe fibrosis (F3) in patients with chronic liver diseases, in comparison to the gold standard liver biopsy. Methods: A systematic search was performed using PubMed search engine following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines from inception to May 2021. The meta-analysis studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of TE for severe fibrosis and cirrhosis were identified. We conducted a meta-meta-analysis to generate pooled estimates of the sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratios (ORs) for F3 and F4 fibrosis stage. Results: We included five studies with a total of 124 sub-studies and 20,341 patients in our analysis. Three studies have reported the diagnostic accuracy of TE in detecting F3/severe fibrosis stage and found 81.9% pooled sensitivity (95% confidence interval (CI): 79.9-83.7%; P < 0.001) (I2 = 0%), 84.7% pooled specificity (95% CI: 81.3-87.6%) (I2 = 81%; P = 0.02). All five studies reported the diagnostic accuracy of TE in detecting F4/liver cirrhosis stage. We found 84.8% pooled sensitivity (95% CI: 81.4-87.7%) (I2 = 86.4%; P < 0.001), 87.5% pooled specificity (95% CI: 85.4-89.3%) (I2 = 90%; P < 0.001) and pooled diagnostic OR (41.8; 95% CI: 3.9 - 56.5) (I2 = 87%; P < 0.001). Conclusions: Ultrasound-based TE has excellent diagnostic accuracy for identifying cirrhosis and liver fibrosis stages 3. Future studies should focus on estimating the diagnostic accuracy of other fibrosis stages in chronic liver disease patients. This will eventually decrease the risk associated with invasive liver biopsy.
ABSTRACT
The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic is claiming millions of lives and creating an additional burden on health care, which is already affected by the rise of non-communicable diseases (NCDs). The scientific community, on the other side, is enormously engaged with studies to best identify the characteristics of the virus and minimize its effect while supporting the fight to contain NCDs, mainly cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), which are contributing hugely to the global death toll. Hence, the roles of vitamin D in COVID-19 immunity and cardiovascular health are gaining traction recently. This literature review will mainly focus on summarizing pertinent studies and scientific publications which highlight the association of vitamin D levels with the various outcomes of COVID-19 and CVDs. It will also address how low vitamin D correlates with the epidemiology of CVDs and the inflammatory mechanisms attributed to COVID-19 severity. We believe that our review may open up hindsight perspectives and further discussions among the physicians in tapping the potential of vitamin D supplementation to tackle the morbidity, mortality, and health care cost of the two deadly diseases, COVID-19 and CVDs.
ABSTRACT
Background: It is well known that traditional smoking causes various types of cancer, leading to the current decline in traditional smoking among US adults from 20.9% in 2005 to 14.0% in 2019. Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are commonly marketed as a safe alternative and gaining popularity especially among never-smokers and adolescents. However, there is limited evidence of effects of e-cigarette on cancer. Hence, we aim to find the prevalence and association of e-cigarette and traditional smoking among cancer respondents. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study using the NHANES database from 2015 to 2018. We assessed history of cancer (MCQ220), type of cancers (MCQ230a), and smoking status (e-cigarette: SMQ900 or SMQ905 and traditional smoking: SMQ020) using questionnaires. We performed multivariable logistic regression models to find the association of e-cigarette use, traditional smoking, and no smoking with cancer after adjusting for confounding variables. Results: A total of 154,856 participants were included, of whom 5% were e-cigarette users, 31.4% were traditional smokers, and 63.6% were nonsmokers. There is a higher prevalence of e-cigarette use among younger participants, females (49 vs. 38) in comparison to traditional smokers (P < 0.0001). The e-cigarette users have lower prevalence of cancer compared to traditional smoking (2.3% vs. 16.8%; P < 0.0001), but they were diagnosed with cancer at a younger age. Among cancer subtypes, cervical cancer (22 vs. 2.6), leukemia (8.5 vs. 1.1), skin cancer (non-melanoma) (15.6 vs. 12.3), skin (other) (28 vs. 10) and thyroid (10.6 vs. 2.4) had higher prevalence of e-cigarette use compared to traditional smokers (P < 0.0001). Our regression analysis showed that e-cigarette users have 2.2 times higher risk of having cancer compared to non-smokers (odds ratio (OR): 2.2; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.2 - 2.3; P < 0.0001). Similarly, traditional smokers have 1.96 higher odds of having cancer compared to nonsmokers (OR: 1.96; 95% CI: 1.96 - 1.97; P < 0.0001). Conclusion: In our study, e-cigarette users had an early age of cancer onset and higher risk of cancer. Hence, this is stepping stone for future research to evaluate the safety and effects of e-cigarettes in patients with cancer.
