The incidence of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma among white men in the United States was measured as 6.9/100,000 person-years in 1947-1950 and as 17.4 in 1984-1988. We have estimated how much the known and suspected diagnostic and risk factors might have contributed to this apparent increase of 152%. Firm conclusions cannot be drawn without more data on risk and changes in prevalence, but a reasonable range of impacts can be constructed. After accounting for the likely effects of misdiagnosis of Hodgkin's disease as non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, of the acceptance of new entities of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, of familial factors, of human immunodeficiency virus and other immunosuppressive conditions or drugs, and of occupation, we estimate that the percentage increase in incidence was still 80% among all males and 42% among those aged 0-64. An agent carrying a relative risk of 2.0 rising in prevalence from 0 to 42% would account for the latter rise. Diet, hair dyes, and general environmental exposures to pesticides may be contributing, but currently estimated risks and changes in exposure levels do not appear large enough to account for the residual rise. Among men aged 75-84, some of the residual rise of 109% probably is diagnostic, but only further research will clarify the issue.

Quantification of the impact of known risk factors on time trends in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma incidence.

Cancer Research

Patients with bacteremia caused by gram positive bacteria are at risk for infective endocarditis (IE). Since IE needs long antibiotic treatment and sometimes heart valve surgery, it is very important to identify patients with IE.

In this narrative review we present and discuss how to determine which investigations to detect IE that are needed in individual patients with gram positive bacteremia.

Published original studies and previous reviews in English, within the relevant field are used.

First, the different qualities of the bacteremia in relation to IE-risk are discussed. The risk for IE in bacteremia is related to the species of the bacterium but also to monomicrobial bacteremia and the number of positive cultures. Secondly, patient-related factors for IE risk in bacteremia are presented. Next, the risk stratification systems to determine the risk for IE in gram positive bacteremia caused by Staphylococcus aureus, viridans streptococci and Enterococcus faecalis are presented and their use is discussed. In the last part of the review, an account for the different modalities of IE-investigations is given. The main focus is on echocardiography which is the cornerstone of IE-investigations. Furthermore, 18 F-FDG PET/CT and cardiac CT are presented and their use is also discussed. A brief account for investigations used to identify embolic phenomena in IE is also given. Finally, we present a flow-chart suggesting which investigations to perform in relation to IE in patients with gram positive bacteremia.

For the individual patient as well as the healthcare system, it is important both to diagnose IE and to decide when to stop looking for IE. This review might be helpful in finding that balance.

Bacteremia with gram positive bacteria - when and how do I need to look for endocarditis?

Clinical Microbiology and Infection

Heart failure (HF) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) are two pathological conditions with a high prevalence in the general population. When they coexist in the same patient, a strict interplay between them is observed, such that patients affected require a clinical multidisciplinary and personalized management. The diagnosis of HF and CKD relies on signs and symptoms of the patient but several additional tools, such as blood-based biomarkers and imaging techniques, are needed to clarify and discriminate the main characteristics of these diseases. Improved survival due to new recommended drugs in HF has increasingly challenged physicians to manage patients with multiple diseases, especially in case of CKD. However, the safe administration of these drugs in patients with HF and CKD is often challenging. Knowing up to which values &#x200b;&#x200b;of creatinine or renal clearance each drug can be administered is fundamental. With this review we sought to give an insight on this sizable and complex topic, in order to get clearer ideas and a more precise reference about the diagnostic assessment and therapeutic management of HF and CKD.

Assessment and management of heart failure in patients with chronic kidney disease.

Heart Failure Reviews

Epilepsy is a group of neurological diseases characterized by susceptibility to recurrent seizures. Antiseizure medications (ASMs) are the mainstay of treatment, but many antiseizure medications with variable safety profiles have been approved for use. For women with epilepsy in their childbearing years, the safety profile is important for them and their unborn children, because treatment is often required to protect them from seizures during pregnancy and lactation. Since no large randomized controlled trials have investigated safety in this subgroup of people with epilepsy, pregnancy registries, cohort and case-control studies from population registries, and a few large prospective cohort studies have played an important role. Valproate, in monotherapy and polytherapy, has been associated with elevated risk of major congenital malformations and neurodevelopmental disorders in children born to mothers who took it. Topiramate and phenobarbital are also associated with elevated risks of congenital malformations and neurodevelopmental disorders, though the risks are lower than those of valproate. Lamotrigine and levetiracetam are relatively safe. Insufficient data exist to reach strong conclusions about the newest antiseizure medications such as eslicarbazepine, perampanel, brivaracetam, cannabidiol, and cenobamate. Besides antiseizure medications, other treatments such as vagal nerve stimulation, responsive neurostimulation, and deep brain stimulation are likely safe. In general, breastfeeding does not appear to add any additional long term risks to the child. Creative ways of optimizing registry enrollment and data collection are needed to enhance patient safety.

Management of epilepsy during pregnancy and lactation.

BMJ : British Medical Journal

Dilated cardiomyopathy is conventionally defined as the presence of left ventricular or biventricular dilatation or systolic dysfunction in the absence of abnormal loading conditions (eg, primary valve disease) or significant coronary artery disease sufficient to cause ventricular remodelling. This definition has been recognised as overly restrictive, as left ventricular hypokinesis without dilation could be the initial presentation of dilated cardiomyopathy. The causes of dilated cardiomyopathy comprise genetic (primary dilated cardiomyopathy) or acquired factors (secondary dilated cardiomyopathy). Acquired factors include infections, toxins, cancer treatment, endocrinopathies, pregnancy, tachyarrhythmias, and immune-mediated diseases. 5-15% of patients with acquired dilated cardiomyopathy harbour a likely pathogenic or pathogenic gene variant (ie, gene mutation). Therefore, the diagnostic tests and therapeutic approach should always consider both genetic and acquired factors. This Seminar will focus on the current multidimensional diagnostic and therapeutic approach and discuss the underlying pathophysiology that could drive future treatments aiming to repair or replace the existing gene mutation, or target the specific inflammatory, metabolic, or pro-fibrotic drivers of genetic or acquired dilated cardiomyopathy.

Dilated cardiomyopathy: causes, mechanisms, and current and future treatment approaches.

Lancet

Exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI) is a disorder caused by the failure of the pancreas to deliver a minimum/threshold level of specific pancreatic digestive enzymes to the intestine, leading to the maldigestion of nutrients and macronutrients, resulting in their variable deficiencies. EPI is frequently underdiagnosed and, as a result, patients are often not treated appropriately. There is an urgent need to increase awareness of and treatment for this condition. The aim of this American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Clinical Practice Update Expert Review was to provide Best Practice Advice on the epidemiology, evaluation, and management of EPI.

This Expert Review was commissioned and approved by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee (CPUC) and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the CPUC and external peer review through standard procedures of Gastroenterology. These Best Practice Advice statements were drawn from a review of the published literature and from expert opinion. Because systematic reviews were not performed, these Best Practice Advice statements do not carry formal ratings regarding the quality of evidence or strength of the presented considerations. Best Practice Advice Statements BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: EPI should be suspected in patients with high-risk clinical conditions, such as chronic pancreatitis, relapsing acute pancreatitis, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, cystic fibrosis, and previous pancreatic surgery. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: EPI should be considered in patients with moderate-risk clinical conditions, such as duodenal diseases, including celiac and Crohn's disease; previous intestinal surgery; longstanding diabetes mellitus; and hypersecretory states (eg, Zollinger-Ellison syndrome). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Clinical features of EPI include steatorrhea with or without diarrhea, weight loss, bloating, excessive flatulence, fat-soluble vitamin deficiencies, and protein-calorie malnutrition. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Fecal elastase test is the most appropriate initial test and must be performed on a semi-solid or solid stool specimen. A fecal elastase level &lt;100 &#x3bc;g/g of stool provides good evidence of EPI, and levels of 100-200 &#x3bc;g/g are indeterminate for EPI. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Fecal elastase testing can be performed while on pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Fecal fat testing is rarely needed and must be performed when on a high-fat diet. Quantitative testing is generally not practical for routine clinical use. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Response to a therapeutic trial of pancreatic enzymes is unreliable for EPI diagnosis. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Cross-sectional imaging methods (computed tomography scan, magnetic resonance imaging, and endoscopic ultrasound) cannot identify EPI, although they play an important role in the diagnosis of benign and malignant pancreatic disease. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Breath tests and direct pancreatic function tests hold promise, but are not widely available in the United States. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Once EPI is diagnosed, treatment with pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT) is required. If EPI is left untreated, it will result in complications related to fat malabsorption and malnutrition, having a negative impact on quality of life. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: PERT formulations are all derived from porcine sources and are equally effective at equivalent doses. There is a need for H2 or proton pump inhibitor therapy with non-enteric-coated preparations. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: PERT should be taken during the meal, with the initial treatment of at least 40,000 USP units of lipase during each meal in adults and one-half of that with snacks. The subsequent dosage can be adjusted based on the meal size and fat content. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 13: Routine supplementation and monitoring of fat-soluble vitamin levels are appropriate. Dietary modifications include a low-moderate fat diet with frequent smaller meals and avoiding very-low-fat diets. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 14: Measures of successful treatment with PERT include reduction in steatorrhea and associated gastrointestinal symptoms; a gain of weight, muscle mass, and muscle function; and improvement in fat-soluble vitamin levels. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 15: EPI should be monitored and baseline measurements of nutritional status should be obtained (body mass index, quality-of-life measure, and fat-soluble vitamin levels). A baseline dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scan should be obtained and repeated every 1-2 years.

Quantification of the impact of known risk factors on time trends in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma incidence.

Full text links

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Quantification of the impact of known risk factors on time trends in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma incidence.

Full text links

Trending Papers

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app