BackgroundStudies have suggested that complete revascularization is superior to culprit‐only revascularization for the treatment of enzyme‐positive acute coronary syndrome. However, the optimal timing of complete revascularization remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing single‐stage complete revascularization with multistage percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction or non–ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction with multivessel disease.Methods and ResultsWe systematically searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, PubMed, and MEDLINE for randomized controlled trials comparing single‐stage complete revascularization with multistage revascularization in patients with enzyme‐positive acute coronary syndrome. The primary outcome was the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events at longest follow‐up. Data were pooled using DerSimonian and Laird random‐effects models. Four randomized controlled trials (n=838) were included in our meta‐analysis. The risk of unplanned repeat revascularization at longest follow‐up was significantly lower in patients randomized to single‐stage complete revascularization (risk ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47–0.99). Results also suggest a trend towards lower risks of major adverse cardiovascular events for patients randomized to single‐stage revascularization at 6 months (risk ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.40–1.11) and at longest follow‐up (risk ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.52–1.20). Risks of mortality and recurrent myocardial infarction at longest follow‐up were also lower with single‐stage revascularization, but 95% CIs were wide and included unity.ConclusionsOur results suggest that single‐stage complete revascularization is safe. There also appears to be a trend towards lower long‐term risks of mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events; however, additional randomized controlled trials are required to confirm the potential benefits of single‐stage multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention.

The identification of the barriers to care for patients with head and neck cancer in low-income and lower-middle-income countries is a crucial first step toward the identification of targets for developing and implementing cost-effective programs to increase awareness, prevention, and treatment of head and neck cancer in this setting.OBJECTIVE To identify the barriers to care for patients presenting with head and neck cancer in low-income and lower-middle-income countries.EVIDENCE REVIEW Nine databases were searched from their inception to December 21, 2017: Africa-Wide Information, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Global Health, LILACS, MEDLINE, BIOSIS Previews, and Web of Science. Search terms referred to head and neck cancer, barriers to care, and low-and lower-middle-income countries, and no temporal and linguistic restrictions were imposed. Articles were reviewed by 2 independent investigators, and differences in inclusion were resolved by discussion. Bibliographies of all included articles were screened, and all relevant articles were reviewed using the same procedure. Quantitative articles were assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies tool, and articles with qualitative data used the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme qualitative checklist. This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (registration No. CRD42018092448) and followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols.FINDINGS Of the 44 articles selected for review, 18 (41%) met the selection criteria. All articles reported quantitative results, and 3 (17%) added some qualitative material to the study design. Most (11 [61%]) of the studies originated from India. A total of 41 different barriers to care were identified, with low level of education (cited in 8 articles [44%]), low socioeconomic status (in 4 articles [22%]), and lack of knowledge about head and neck cancer (in 3 articles [17%]) being statistically associated with a delayed presentation. Misunderstanding of signs and symptoms, use of alternative medicine, and inability to access health care were other barriers discussed in the qualitative articles.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This systematic review highlighted the lack of both qualitative and quantitative information for patients with head and neck cancer in low-income and lower-middle-income countries. The findings suggest that integrating the barriers to care with information from patient lives may identify the clinical and social relevance of these barriers and guide future research.

Objective. To determine whether offspring from mothers with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), exposed in utero to antimalarials, have an increased risk of ocular anomalies during childhood versus unexposed SLE offspring.Methods. We systematically performed searches of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases for original human data on fetal and/or child ocular outcomes following exposure to antimalarials during pregnancy and/or lactation, from their inception until March 2017.Results. A total of 10 cohort studies and 2 randomized controlled trials, ranging in size from 6 to 444 exposed infants studied, and 3 case reports met the inclusion criteria for our systematic review. Collectively, 1,477 infants were studied, 789 of which were exposed to hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine. In all, 563 exposed infants had follow-up visits after delivery (ranging from <3 months to 19 years), and 331 of these exposed infants underwent ophthalmologic examinations during the follow-up period. Our review of the literature suggests a low-to-nonexistent risk of visual abnormalities in offspring exposed to antimalarials.Conclusion. In children exposed to appropriate doses of antimalarials antenatally, the risk of ocular toxicity appears low to nonexistent. The potential benefits and risks of antimalarials should be discussed in all SLE pregnancies, and high dosages should continue to be avoided.

No abstract