No abstract

Introduction Using therapeutic drug monitoring [TDM] in adult patients with inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] remains controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to answer four clinical PICO [Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome] questions. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central from inception to June 30, 2019. Remission was defined by the manuscripts’ definitions of clinical remission. Data were analysed using RevMan 5.3. Quality of evidence was assessed with GRADE methodology. Results We identified and screened 3365 abstracts and 11 articles. PICO 1 Reactive vs No TDM: six studies pooled showed 57.1% [257/450] failed to achieve remission following reactive TDM vs 44.7% [268/600] in the no TDM group (risk ratio [RR]: 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88–1.47). PICO 2 Proactive vs no TDM: five studies pooled showed 19.5% [75/384] failed to maintain remission in the proactive TDM group vs 33.4% [248/742] in the no TDM group [RR: 0.60; 95% CI 0.35–1.04]. PICO 3 Proactive vs Reactive TDM: two retrospective studies pooled showed 14.2% [26/183] failure to maintain remission in the proactive TDM group and 64.7% [119/184] in the reactive TDM group [RR: 0.22; 95% CI 0.15–0.32]. PICO 4 TDM [proactive/reactive] vs No TDM: we pooled 10 studies showing 39.7% [332/837] failed to achieve remission in the TDM [proactive/reactive] cohort vs 40.3% [428/1063] in the no TDM cohort [RR: 0.94; 95% CI 0.77–1.14]. Overall, the quality of evidence in each PICO was very low when using GRADE. Conclusions This meta-analysis shows that data supporting use of TDM in adults are limited and of very low quality. Further well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the place of TDM in clinical practice.

INTRODUCTION: Patients hospitalized with myocardial infarction (MI) are at risk of gastrointestinal bleeding because of the need for antiplatelet agents and/or anticoagulation. The data regarding the safety of endoscopy after MI are limited. This study sought to assess mortality rates of patients hospitalized with acute MI who require esophagogastroduodenoscopy or colonoscopy using the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis of all adult inpatients in the NIS from 2016 admitted for ST-elevation infarction myocardial infarction (STEMI), non-STEMI, or type II non-STEMI was conducted. Data were collected including patient demographics and indication for endoscopy per ICD-10 coding. HCUPnet was used to query NIS to obtain all inpatient mortality. The primary methods included adjusted χ2 for categorical outcomes, adjusted linear regression for continuous outcomes, and adjusted logistic regression for multivariable analysis. RESULTS: A total of 1,281,749 patients were admitted for acute coronary syndrome in 2016, and 55,035 of these patients underwent endoscopy In the multivariable regression analysis, those who underwent a GI procedure (odds ratio [OR] 0.80, P value < 0.002) and angiogram (OR 0.48, P value < 0.001) had lower in-hospital mortality, after adjusting for age, Elixhauser index, need for angiogram, sex, race, and hospital type. Endoscopy postcatheterization was not associated with a difference in mortality compared with preangiogram (OR = 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.60–1.19). DISCUSSION: Patients who underwent endoscopy are sicker and have higher mortality rates than those who do not undergo endoscopy, but after adjusting for comorbidities, mortality is actually lower. This suggests that endoscopy is safe and should be performed when clinically indicated despite recent cardiac ischemia.

No abstract

No abstract