1,721,243 research outputs found

    Management of arthropathy in inflammatory bowel diseases

    No full text
    The most common extra-intestinal manifestation in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is articular involvement, with a prevalence ranging between 17% and 39%. It is frequently characterized by an involvement of the axial joints but may also be associated with peripheral arthritis. The target of therapy in the management of arthritis associated with IBD is to reduce the inflammation and prevent any disability and/or deformity. This requires active cooperation between gastroenterologist and rheumatologist. The treatment of axial involvement has focused on the combination of exercise with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Immunomodulators have been efficacious in patients with peripheral arthritis and other extra-intestinal manifestations, but they are not effective for the treatment of axial symptoms of spondylitis. Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) α inhibitors have been proven to be highly effective in the treatment of IBD patients which are steroid-dependent or refractory to conventional therapy and in patients with associated articular manifestations. The treatment of peripheral involvement and/or enthesitis and/or dactylitis is based on local steroid injections, while sulfasalazine and/or low doses of systemic steroids may be useful in case of inadequate response to intra-articular steroids. Sulfasalazine induces only a little improvement in peripheral arthritis. Immunomodulators such as methotrexate, azathioprine, cyclosporine and leflunomide show their efficacy in some patients with peripheral arthritis and other extra-intestinal components. TNF-α inhibitors should be considered the first-line therapeutic approach when moderate-to-severe luminal Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis is associated with polyarthritis. The aim of this review is to provide a fair summary of current treatment options for the arthritis associated with IBD

    Safety of warfarin in “high-risk” populations: A meta-analysis of randomized and controlled trials

    No full text
    Introduction Few data are available about safety of vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients with clinical/demographic characteristics predisposing to an increased risk of bleeding. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the safety of VKAs in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) or venous thromboembolism (VTE) in the following subgroups of “high-risk” patients: elderly patients, patients with low body weight and patients with impaired renal function. Materials and methods Major electronic databases were systematically searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) addressing this issue. Pooled Risk Ratios (RR) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were calculated for each outcome using a random effects model. Results Eleven RCTs for a total of 41,015 patients treated with VKAs (25,901 with AF and 15,114 with VTE) were included. We found a significant association between age > 75 years and bleeding in patients receiving VKAs (RR: 1.62, 95%CI: 1.28–2.05; P < 0.0001). Moreover, the prevalence of bleeding events under VKAs was significantly higher in patients with low body weight (RR: 1.20, 95%CI: 1.03–1.40; P = 0.02) and in those with impaired renal function (RR: 1.59, 95%CI: 1.30–1.94; P < 0.00001). Results were confirmed when separately analyzing data on AF and VTE. Regression models showed that treatment duration did not impact on the differences found in the safety profile of VKAs in different settings analyzed. Conclusions Results of our meta-analysis suggest an increased risk of bleeding complications in “high-risk” patients. Although all results are significant, other studies focused on this issue are warranted to further validate these results

    Efficacy and safety of extended thromboprophylaxis for medically ill patients. A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

    No full text
    Compelling evidence suggests that the risk of pulmonary embolism (PE) and deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) persists after hospital discharge in acutely-ill medical patients. However, no studies consistently supported the routine use of extended-duration thromboprophylaxis (ET) in this setting. We performed a meta-analysis to assess efficacy and safety of ET in acutely-ill medical patients. Efficacy outcome was defined by the prevention of symptomatic DVT, PE, venous thromboembolism (VTE) and VTE-related mortality. Safety outcome was the occurrence of major bleeding (MB) and fatal bleeding (FB). Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95 % confidence intervals (95 %CI) were calculated for each outcome using a random effects model. Four RCTs for a total of 28,105 acutely-ill medical patients were included. ET was associated with a significantly lower risk of DVT (0.3 % vs 0.6 %, OR 0.504, 95 %CI: 0.287-0.885) and VTE (0.5 % vs 1.0 %, OR: 0.544, 95 %CI: 0.297-0.997); a non-significantly lower risk of PE (0.3 % vs 0.4 %, OR 0.633, 95 %CI: 0.388-1.034) and of VTE-related mortality (0.2 % vs 0.3 %, OR 0.687, 95 %CI: 0.445-1.059) and with a significantly higher risk of MB (0.8 % vs 0.4 %, OR 2.095, 95 %CI: 1.333-3.295). No difference in FB was found (0.06 % vs 0.03 %, OR 1.79, 95 %CI: 0.384-8.325). The risk benefit analysis showed that the NNT for DVT was 339, for VTE was 239, and the NNH for MB was 247. Results of our meta-analyses focused on clinical important outcomes did not support a general use of antithrombotic prophylaxis beyond the period of hospitalization in acutely-ill medical patients
    corecore