Factor Xa inhibitors vs. warfarin in patients with Hughes syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Background: The optimal treatment regimen for patients with Hughes syndrome remains unclear. Therefore, the authors sought to compare the outcomes of warfarin vs. factor Xa inhibitors in patients with Hughes syndrome. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing 8 efficacy and safety of warfarin and factor Xa inhibitors in patients with Hughes syndrome. Recurrent thrombosis, all-cause mortality, stroke, adverse reactions, and bleeding were among 10 outcomes of interest. Mantel-Haenszel weighted random-effects model was used to calculate 11 relative risks (RRs) with 95% CIs. Results: The analysis included 625 patients from four RCTs and one post-hoc analysis. Meta-analysis showed a statistically non-significant difference between factor Xa inhibitors and warfarin in the recurrent thrombosis risk (arterial or venous) [RR 2.77 (95%, CI 0.79, 9.65); P=0.11, I2=50%]. Consistent results were revealed among patients with a previous history of arterial thrombosis [RR 2.76 (95% CI 0.93, 8.16); P=0.75, I2=0%], venous thrombosis [RR 1.71 (95% CI 0.60, 4.84); P=0.31, I2=15%] and patients who were triple antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) positive [RR 4.12 (95% CI 0.46, 37.10); 21 P=0.21, I2=58%]. Factor Xa inhibitors were significantly associated with an increased risk of stroke [RR 8.51 (95% CI 2.35, 13.82); P=0.47, I2=0%]. Conclusion: Factor Xa inhibitors exhibited an increased risk of stroke among patients with Hughes syndrome. In addition, although not significant, the higher RRs among patients on factor Xa inhibitors may indicate a higher risk of thrombotic events associated with factor Xa inhibitors.

Effectiveness of rivaroxaban in preventing cerebral venous thromboembolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Cerebral venous thromboembolism (CVT) poses a significant risk of venous infarction and haemorrhage, which can lead to neurological deficits and, in severe cases, even death. The optimal treatment regimen for patients with CVT remains unclear. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, Google Scholar, Web of Science (WoS), and Cochrane Central databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies assessing the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban in patients with CVT. All-site venous thromboembolism (VTE), risk of clinically relevant non-major bleeding, incidence of partial recanalization, complete recanalization and major haemorrhage were among outcomes of interest. Mantel-Haenszel weighted random-effects model was used to calculate relative risks (RRs) with 95% CIs. Results: The analysis included 1 RCT and 3 observational studies containing 211 patients. Compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), rivaroxaban did not significantly decrease the all-site VTE [RR 0.31 (95% CI 0.01, 8.43); P=0.49, I2=0%]. Compared with VKAs, patients on rivaroxaban did not show a significantly reduced risk of recurrent cerebral venous thrombosis. In terms of incidence of partial recanalization, there was no discernible difference between rivaroxaban and VKAs [RR 0.90 (95% CI 0.66, 1.22); P=0.49, I2=0%]. There was no discernible difference in incidence of complete recanalization [RR 0.98 (95% CI 0.32, 3.03); P=0.97, I2=28%] and incidence of major haemorrhage [RR 0.19 (95% CI 0.01, 4.54); P=0.30]. Conclusion: Rivaroxaban was found to have similar efficacy to VKAs. Due to its lower risk of severe bleeding and no need for INR monitoring, rivaroxaban may be a preferable treatment option for CVT.

The Role of Diet in the Management of Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Comprehensive Review.

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a highly prevalent gastrointestinal disorder that has a significant impact on the general population. The suboptimal medical treatments available for IBS contribute to its large economic burden. The pathophysiology of IBS is complex, and treatments often focus on managing specific symptoms. Many individuals with IBS associate their symptoms with specific food intake, leading to increased scientific research on the role of diet in managing IBS. Dietary management has become a crucial aspect of IBS treatment, with initial recommendations focusing on adopting a healthy eating pattern and lifestyle. This comprehensive review aims to synthesise the current literature on the impact of diet on IBS, exploring various dietary approaches to managing IBS, including the low fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and polyols (FODMAP) diet, gluten-free diet, Mediterranean diet, and tritordeum-based diet. It presents evidence from both experimental and observational studies and summarises the underlying dietary triggers in IBS, including gut microbiota dysbiosis, visceral hypersensitivity, and immune activation. In addition, it explores the efficacy and limitations of the key diet and lifestyle recommendations provided by dietary guidelines and scientific literature, highlighting the importance of individualised dietary strategies tailored to the unique needs of different types of IBS patients. By elucidating the complex interplay between diet and IBS pathophysiology, this review provides valuable insights into optimising dietary management approaches for improving symptom control and enhancing the quality of life for individuals with IBS.

Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Treating the Gut and Brain/Mind at the Same Time.

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is one of the most common functional gastrointestinal (GI) disorders in the world. Although IBS does not affect a person's life span, it can significantly influence their quality of life. The treatment of IBS should be tailored to each patient's specific symptomatology because it can often be difficult to manage. Given that the pathogenesis of IBS is not well understood, it places a tremendous load on healthcare resources. Over the years, IBS has been described as either a simple GI disorder or a more complex multi-symptomatic gut-brain axis disorder. Many persons with IBS have psychological issues in addition to gastrointestinal symptoms, offering the door to non-pharmacological therapies such as cognitive behavioral therapy, gut-directed hypnosis, or psychodynamic interpersonal therapy. Non-pharmacological therapies with no side effects should be used as first-line therapy. Diet, exercise, microbiota-targeted therapies, and psychological treatments are among the most significant interventions. This review goes into the details of all the non-pharmacological interventions that can be used to treat IBS.

Uso profiláctico de apósitos de silicona para minimizar las lesiones por presión: revisión sistemática y metaanálisis / Prophylactic use of silicone dressing to minimize pressure injuries: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Objetivo: La prevención de las lesiones por presión (LPP) adquiridas en el hospital en pacientes críticos sigue siendo un reto clínico importante debido a su alto riesgo de comorbilidad asociada. Se evaluó la eficacia preventiva de los apósitos de silicona en los pacientes ingresados en las unidades de cuidados intensivos y en entornos no relacionados con dichas unidades. Métodos: Se realizó una búsqueda bibliográfica en 3bases de datos electrónicas (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central) desde el inicio hasta diciembre de 2021. Se incluyeron los estudios que evaluaban la eficacia de los apósitos de silicona en la incidencia de LPP en la zona sacra. Las evaluaciones se informaron como ratios de riesgo relativo (RR) con intervalos de confianza al 95% y el análisis se hizo mediante un modelo de efectos aleatorios. Resultados: De los 1.056 artículos recuperados en la búsqueda inicial, se incluyeron 11estudios en el análisis final. Los apósitos de silicona redujeron significativamente la incidencia de LPP en comparación con la atención habitual (RR: 0,30; IC 95%: 0,19-0,45; p<0,01). No se encontraron diferencias significativas entre los resultados de los estudios en contextos de cuidados intensivos (RR=0,25; IC 95%: 0,15-0,43; p<0,01) y en contextos de cuidados no intensivos (RR=0,38; IC 95%: 0,17-0,83; p=0,01) (interacción de p: 0,39). Los apósitos de silicona redujeron el riesgo de desarrollar LPP entre los pacientes que utilizaron el apósito de espuma de 5capas Border (Mepilex® Sacrum) (RR: 0,31; IC 95%: 0,20-0,48; p<0,01) y el apósito Allevyn Gentle Border® (RR: 0,10; IC 95%: 0,01-0,73; p=0,02) sin diferencias significativas tras el análisis de subgrupos (interacción de p: 0,27). Conclusión: El presente metaanálisis señala que los apósitos de silicona reducen de forma consistente la incidencia de las LPP en entornos de cuidados intensivos y no intensivos, independientemente del tipo de apósito utilizado.(AU)

Objective: Preventing hospital-acquired pressure injuries (PI) in critically ill patients remains a significant clinical challenge because of its associated high risk for comorbid conditions. We assessed the preventive effectiveness of silicone dressings among patients admitted in intensive care units and non-intensive care units settings. Methods:A literature search was conducted across 3electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central) from inception through December 2021. Studies assessing the effectiveness of silicone dressing on the incidence of PI on the sacral area were included. evaluations were reported as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence interval, and analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Results: Of the 1,056 articles retrieved from the initial search, 11studies were included in the final analysis. Silicone dressings significantly reduced the incidence of PI compared to usual care (RR: 0.30, 95%CI: 0.19-0.45, P<0.01). We found no significant difference between results of studies conducted in intensive care settings (RR=0.25, 95%CI: 0.15-0.43, P<0.01) and non-intensive care settings (RR=0.38, 95%CI: 0.17-0.83, P=0.01) (P-interaction: 0.39). Silicone dressings reduced the risk of developing PI among patients using five-layer foam Border dressing (Mepilex® Sacrum) (RR: 0.31, 95%CI: 0.20-0.48, P<0.01), and dressing Allevyn Gentle Border® (RR: 0.10, 95%CI: 0.01-0.73, P=0.02) with no significant difference upon subgroup analysis (P-interaction: 0.27). Conclusion: The present meta-analysis suggests that silicone dressings consistently reduce the incidence of PI in intensive as well as in non-intensive care settings, regardless of the type of dressing used.(AU)

Prophylactic use of silicone dressing to minimize pressure injuries: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Preventing hospital-acquired pressure injuries (PI) in critically ill patients remains a significant clinical challenge because of its associated high risk for comorbid conditions. We assessed the preventive effectiveness of silicone dressings among patients admitted in intensive care units and non-intensive care units settings. METHODS: A literature search was conducted across 3 electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central) from inception through December 2021. Studies assessing the effectiveness of silicone dressing on the incidence of PI on the sacral area were included. Evaluations were reported as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence interval, and analysis was performed using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Of the 1056 articles retrieved from the initial search, 11 studies were included in the final analysis. Silicone dressings significantly reduced the incidence of PI compared to usual care (RR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.19-0.45, P<0.01). We found no significant difference between results of studies conducted in intensive care settings (RR=0.25, 95% CI: 0.15-0.43, P<0.01) and non-intensive care settings (RR=0.38, 95% CI: 0.17-0.83, P=0.01) (P-interaction: 0.39). Silicone dressings reduced the risk of developing PI among patients using five-layer foam Border dressing (Mepilex® Sacrum) (RR: 0.31, 95% CI: 0.20-0.48, P<0.01), and dressing Allevyn Gentle Border® (RR: 0.10, 95% CI: 0.01-0.73, P=0.02) with no significant difference upon subgroup analysis (P-interaction: 0.27). CONCLUSION: The present meta-analysis suggests that silicone dressings consistently reduce the incidence of PI in intensive as well as in non-intensive care settings, regardless of the type of dressing used.