Observational studies support the use of NSAIDs for prevention of AD, but RCT do not. Well-designed studies and innovative approaches are required to illuminate the exact relationship between NSAID use and AD risk. The appropriate dosage and duration of use to benefit and the safety are also needed to determine.

BackgroundMore than 1 million tuberculosis (TB) patients are receiving directly observed treatment strategy (DOTS) therapy in China every year. As to the profile of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) due to DOTS therapy, no consensus has been reached. There is no report regarding ADRs due to DOTS therapy with a large Chinese TB population. This study aimed to determine the incidence and prognosis of ADRs due to DOTS therapy, and to evaluate their impact on anti-TB treatment in China.MethodsA prospective population-based cohort study was performed during 2007–2008. Sputum smear positive pulmonary TB patients who received DOTS therapy were included and followed up for six to nine months in 52 counties of four regions in China. The suspected ADRs were recorded and reviewed by Chinese State Food and Drug Administration.ResultsA total of 4304 TB patients were included in this study. 649 patients (15.08%) showed at least one ADR and 766 cases in total were detected. The incidence (count) of ADR based on affected organ was: liver dysfunction 6.34% (273), gastrointestinal disorders 3.74% (161), arthralgia 2.51% (108), allergic reactions 2.35% (101), neurological system disorders 2.04% (88), renal impairment 0.07% (3) and others 0.05% (2). Most cases of ADRs (95%) had a good clinical outcome, while two with hepatotoxicity and one with renal impairment died. Compared with patients without ADRs, patients with ADRs were more likely to have positive smear test results at the end of the intensive phase (adjusted OR, 2.00; 95%CI, 1.44–2.78) and unsuccessful anti-TB outcomes (adjusted OR, 2.58; 95%CI, 1.43–4.68).ConclusionsThe incidence of ADRs due to DOTS therapy was 15.08%. Those ADRs had a substantial impact on TB control in China. This highlighted the importance of developing strategies to ameliorate ADRs both to improve the quality of patient care and to control TB safely.

No abstract

BackgroundRed and processed meat was concluded as a limited-suggestive risk factor of gastric cancer by the World Cancer Research Fund. However, recent epidemiological studies have yielded inconclusive results.MethodsWe searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from their inception to April 2013 for both cohort and case-control studies which assessed the association between red and/or processed meat intake and gastric cancer risk. Study-specific relative risk estimates were polled by random-effect or fixed-effect models.ResultsTwelve cohort and thirty case-control studies were included in the meta-analysis. Significant associations were found between both red (RR: 1.45, 95% CI: 1.22–1.73) and processed (RR: 1.45, 95% CI: 1.26–1.65) meat intake and gastric cancer risk generally. Positive findings were also existed in the items of beef (RR: 1.28, 95% CI: 1.04–1.57), bacon (RR: 1.37, 95% CI: 1.17–1.61), ham (RR: 1.44, 95% CI: 1.00–2.06), and sausage (RR: 1.33, 95% CI: 1.16–1.52). When conducted by study design, the association was significant in case-control studies (RR: 1.63, 95% CI: 1.33–1.99) but not in cohort studies (RR: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.90–1.17) for red meat. Increased relative risks were seen in high-quality, adenocarcinoma, cardia and European-population studies for red meat. And most subgroup analysis confirmed the significant association between processed meat intake and gastric cancer risk.ConclusionsOur findings indicate that consumption of red and/or processed meat contributes to increased gastric cancer risk. However, further investigation is needed to confirm the association, especially for red meat.