Background: Gallstones and alcohol are currently the most frequent aetiologies of acute pancreatitis (AP). The aim of this study is to quantify these aetiologies worldwide, by geographic region and by diagnostic method.Methods: A systematic review of observational studies published from January 2006 to October 2017 was performed. The studies provided objective criteria for establishing the diagnosis and aetiology of AP for at least biliary and alcoholic causes. A random-effects meta-analysis was used to assess the frequency of biliary (ABP), alcoholic (AAP) and idiopathic AP (IAP) worldwide and to perform 6 subgroup analyses: 2 compared diagnostic methods for AP aetiology and the other 4 compared geographic regions. Results: Forty-six studies representing 2,341,007 patients of AP in 36 countries were included. The global estimate of proportion (95% CI) of aetiologies was 42 (39-44)% for ABP, 21 (17-25)% for AAP and 18 (15-22)% for IAP. In studies that used discharge code diagnoses and in those from the US, IAP was the most frequent aetiology. ABP was more frequent in Latin America than in other regions. Conclusion:Gallstones represent the main aetiology of AP globally, and this aetiology is twice as frequent as the second most common aetiology.

This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the second-line imunossupressant therapy for AIH. The most studied second-line immunosuppressive is the MM, with a reasonable histological remission. The use of combined tacrolimus/prednisone was the most effective for the normalization of aminotransferases.

These results highlight the need for the revision of algorithm for VL diagnostic in Brazil. Replacements of IFAT with DAT-LPC, Kalazar Detect with IT LEISH and bone marrow aspirate performed in a hospital setting with PCR are cost-effective public health measures.

The accuracy of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) equations in diabetes mellitus (DM) patients has been extensively questioned. We evaluated the performance of cystatin C-based equations alone or in combination with creatinine to estimate GFR in DM patients. A PRISMA-compliant systematic review was performed in the MEDLINE and Embase databases, with “diabetes mellitus” and “cystatin C” as search terms. Studies comparing cystatin C-based eGFR equations with measured GFR (mGFR) in DM patients were eligible. Accuracies P10, P15, P20, and P30 indicated the proportion of eGFR results within 10, 15, 20, and 30% of mGFR. Single-arm meta-analyses were conducted, and the Quality of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-II tool (QUADAS-2) was applied. Twenty-three studies comprising 7065 participants were included, and 24 equations were analyzed in a broad range of GFRs. Meta-analyses were completed for 10 equations. The mean P30 accuracies of the equations ranged from 41% to 87%, with the highest values found with both CKD-EPI equations. Mean P10-P15 achieved 35% in the best scenario. A sensitivity analysis to evaluate different mGFR methods did not change results. In conclusion, cystatin C-based eGFR equations represent measured GFR fairly at best in DM patients, with high variability among the several proposed equations.