RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma (NHL) accounts for a substantial number of cancer cases in the United States, with a significant prevalence and mortality rate. The implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has the potential to impact cancer-specific survival among NHL patients by improving access to healthcare services and treatments. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the impact of the implementation of the ACA on cancer-specific survival among patients diagnosed with NHL. METHODOLOGY: In this retrospective analysis, we leveraged data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry to assess the impact of the ACA on cancer-specific survival among NHL patients. The study covered the years 2000-2020, divided into pre-ACA (2000-2013) and post-ACA (2017-2020) periods, with a three-year washout (2014-2016). Using a Difference-in-Differences approach, we compared Georgia (a non-expansion state) to New Jersey (an expansion state since 2014). We adjusted for patient demographics, income, metropolitan status, disease stage, and treatment modalities. RESULTS: Among 74,762 patients, 56.2% were in New Jersey (42,005), while 43.8% were in Georgia (32,757). The pre-ACA period included 32,851 patients (51.7% in Georgia and 56.7% in New Jersey), and 27,447 patients were in the post-ACA period (48.3% in Georgia and 43.4% in New Jersey). The post-ACA period exhibited a 34% survival improvement (OR=0.66, 95% CI 0.58-0.75). ACA implementation was associated with a 16% survival boost among NHL patients in New Jersey (OR=0.84, 95% CI 0.74-0.95). Other factors linked to improved survival included surgery (OR=0.86, 95% CI 0.81-0.91), radiotherapy (OR=0.77, 95% CI 0.72-0.82), and married status (OR=0.67, 95% CI 0.64-0.71). CONCLUSION: The study underscores the ACA's potential positive impact on cancer-specific survival among NHL patients, emphasizing the importance of healthcare policy interventions in improving patient outcomes.
RESUMO
Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is an autoimmune condition characterized by multi-organ involvement. The clinical presentation often varies from mild to moderate to severe. The cardiovascular system may also be affected, often portending a poor prognosis for patients. Although the relationship between SLE and cardiovascular disorders has been extensively explored through case reports and literature reviews, few systematic reviews explicitly focusing on this association have been conducted. In light of this, this systematic review aims to analyze the extent of the association between SLE and cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), by exploring the risk of developing CVDs, including myocardial infarction (MI), atherosclerosis, myocarditis, pericarditis and arrhythmias, in SLE patients vs. non-SLE patients. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to perform the systematic review. A detailed search was done covering the period from March 2003 to March 2023 using three databases: PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane. The PubMed search identified 597 articles, while Google Scholar and Cochrane searches yielded 559 and three articles, respectively. Of the 1159 articles retrieved, we chose eight for final consideration, after excluding papers that did not discuss the role of SLE in CVDs, papers published earlier than 2003, and papers with incomplete data. The eight studies chosen included two narrative reviews, two systematic reviews, and four observational studies. In this systematic review, SLE was proven to have a strong relationship with diverse CVDs, including rare ones scarcely discussed in the literature, such as vasculitis and aortic dissection. All eight of the final papers indicated a connection between SLE and CVDs, based on the systematic analysis of these articles, which revealed that most recent research supports a higher risk of peripheral arterial occlusive disease (PAOD), MI, pericarditis, myocarditis, and other cardiovascular disorders in individuals with SLE. These associations may have certain gray areas, as patient characteristics and comorbidities often affect the extent of illness and long-term prognosis. Larger-scale studies are required to probe this relationship further and research the etiopathogenesis involved in order to improve patient outcomes. The effects of SLE on the heart are, however, unequivocal.
RESUMO
Acromegaly is an endocrine disorder characterized by dysregulated hypersecretion of growth hormone (GH), leading to an overproduction of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1). The etiology is usually a GH-secreting pituitary adenoma with the resultant presentation of coarse facial features, frontal bossing, arthritis, prognathism (protrusion of the mandible), and impaired glucose tolerance, among others. Most pituitary adenomas arise due to sporadic mutations that lead to unregulated cellular division, subsequent tumor formation, and resultant GH hypersecretion. Major scientific organizations and authorities in endocrinology release regularly updated guidelines for diagnosing and managing acromegaly. We have holistically evaluated four data-driven and evidentiary approaches in the management of acromegaly to compare and contrast these guidelines and show their salient differences. These guidelines have been reviewed because they are major authorities in acromegaly management. In this comprehensive article, differences in the diagnosis and treatment recommendations of the discussed guidelines have been highlighted. Our findings showed that diagnosing modalities were similar among the four approaches; however, some guidelines were more specific about additional supporting investigations to confirm a diagnosis of acromegaly. For management options, each guideline had suggestions about ideal therapeutic outcomes. Treatment options were identical but salient differences were noticed, such as the addition of combination therapy and alternative therapy in the setting of failure to respond to first and second-line treatments. Reviewing clinical guidelines for various pathologies encourages sharing ideas among medical practitioners and ensures that global best practices are adopted. Therefore, a constant review of these clinical practice guidelines is necessary to keep clinicians up to date with the latest trends in patient management.
