Five anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents have received regulatory approval for use in rheumatology: adalimumab, golimumab, infliximab, certolizumab, and etanercept. Apart from their well-documented therapeutic value, it is still uncertain to what extent they are associated with an increased risk of infectious adverse events. Areas covered: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized studies to determine the effect of anti-TNF drugs on the occurrence of infectious adverse events (serious infections; tuberculosis; opportunistic infections; any infection). We searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to May 2014 to identify eligible studies in adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis that evaluated anti-TNF drugs compared with placebo or no treatment. Expert opinion: Our study encompassed data from 71 randomized controlled trials involving 22,760 participants (range of follow-up: 1-36 months) and seven open label extension studies with 2,236 participants (range of follow-up: 6-48 months). Quantitative synthesis of the available data found statistically significant increases in the occurrence of any infections (20%), serious infections (40%), and tuberculosis (250%) associated with anti-TNF drug use, while the data for opportunistic infections were scarce. The quality of synthesized evidence was judged as moderate. Further evidence from registries and long-term epidemiological studies are needed to better define the relationship between anti-TNF agents and infection complications.

This overview describes the principles of the 4th edition of the European Code against Cancer and provides an introduction to the 12 recommendations to reduce cancer risk. Among the 504.6 million inhabitants of the member states of the European Union (EU28), there are annually 2.64 million new cancer cases and 1.28 million deaths from cancer. It is estimated that this cancer burden could be reduced by up to one half if scientific knowledge on causes of cancer could be translated into successful prevention. The Code is a preventive tool aimed to reduce the cancer burden by informing people how to avoid or reduce carcinogenic exposures, adopt behaviours to reduce the cancer risk, or to participate in organised intervention programmes. The Code should also form a base to guide national health policies in cancer prevention. The 12 recommendations are: not smoking or using other tobacco products; avoiding second-hand smoke; being a healthy body weight; encouraging physical activity; having a healthy diet; limiting alcohol consumption, with not drinking alcohol being better for cancer prevention; avoiding too much exposure to ultraviolet radiation; avoiding cancer-causing agents at the workplace; reducing exposure to high levels of radon; encouraging breastfeeding; limiting the use of hormone replacement therapy; participating in organised vaccination programmes against hepatitis B for newborns and human papillomavirus for girls; and participating in organised screening programmes for bowel cancer, breast cancer, and cervical cancer.

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundStrongyloides stercoralis infection is a neglected tropical disease which can lead to severe symptoms and even death in immunosuppressed people. Unfortunately, its diagnosis is hampered by the lack of a gold standard, as the sensitivity of traditional parasitological tests (including microscopic examination of stool samples and coproculture) is low. Hence, alternative diagnostic methods, such as molecular biology techniques (mostly polymerase chain reaction, PCR) have been implemented. However, there are discrepancies in the reported accuracy of PCR.MethodologyA systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted in order to evaluate the accuracy of PCR for the diagnosis of S. stercoralis infection. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (record: CRD42016054298). Fourteen studies, 12 of which evaluating real-time PCR, were included in the analysis. The specificity of the techniques resulted high (ranging from 93 to 95%, according to the reference test(s) used). When all molecular techniques were compared to parasitological methods, the sensitivity of PCR was assessed at 71.8% (95% CI 52.2–85.5), that decreased to 61.8% (95% CI 42.0–78.4) when serology was added among the reference tests. Similarly, sensitivity of real-time PCR resulted 64.4% (95% CI 46.2–77.7) when compared to parasitological methods only, 56.5% (95% CI 39.2–72.4) including serology.ConclusionsPCR might not be suitable for screening purpose, whereas it might have a role as a confirmatory test.