AIMTo perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on clinical outcomes of photodynamic therapy (PDT) in non-resectable cholangiocarcinoma.METHODSIncluded studies compared outcomes with photodynamic therapy and biliary stenting (PDT group) vs biliary stenting only (BS group) in palliation of non-resectable cholangiocarcinoma. Articles were searched in MEDLINE, PubMed, and EMBASE. Pooled proportions were calculated using fixed and random effects model. Heterogeneity among studies was assessed using the I2 statistic.RESULTSTen studies (n = 402) that met inclusion criteria were included in this analysis. The P for χ2 heterogeneity for all the pooled accuracy estimates was > 0.10. Pooled odds ratio for successful biliary drainage (decrease in bilirubin level > 50% within 7days after stenting) in PDT vs BS group was 4.39 (95%CI: 2.35-8.19). Survival period in PDT and BS groups were 413.04 d (95%CI: 349.54-476.54) and 183.41 (95%CI: 136.81-230.02) respectively. The change in Karnofsky performance scores after intervention in PDT and BS groups were +6.99 (95%CI: 4.15-9.82) and -3.93 (95%CI: -8.63-0.77) respectively. Odds ratio for post-intervention cholangitis in PDT vs BS group was 0.57 (95%CI: 0.35-0.94). In PDT group, 10.51% (95%CI: 6.94-14.72) had photosensitivity reactions that were self-limiting. Subgroup analysis of prospective studies showed similar results, except the incidence of cholangitis was comparable in both groups.CONCLUSIONIn palliation of unresectable cholangiocarcinoma, PDT seems to be significantly superior to BS alone. PDT should be used as an adjunct to biliary stenting in these patients.

Background. Palliation in advanced unresectable hilar malignancies can be achieved by endoscopic (EBD) or percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD). It is unclear if one approach is superior to the other in this group of patients. Aims. Compare clinical outcomes of EBD versus PTBD. Methods. (i) Study Selection Criterion. Studies using PTBD and EBD for palliation of advanced unresectable hilar malignancies. (ii) Data Collection and Extraction. Articles were searched in Medline, PubMed, and Ovid journals. (iii) Statistical Method. Fixed and random effects models were used to calculate the pooled proportions. Results. Initial search identified 786 reference articles, in which 62 articles were selected and reviewed. Data was extracted from nine studies (N = 546) that met the inclusion criterion. The pooled odds ratio for successful biliary drainage in PTBD versus EBD was 2.53 (95% CI = 1.57 to 4.08). Odds ratio for overall adverse effects in PTBD versus EBD groups was 0.81 (95% CI = 0.52 to 1.26). Odds ratio for 30-day mortality rate in PTBD group versus EBD group was 0.84 (95% CI = 0.37 to 1.91). Conclusions. In patients with advanced unresectable hilar malignancies, palliation with PTBD seems to be superior to EBD. PTBD is comparable to EBD in regard to overall adverse effects and 30-day mortality.

Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) is an autoimmune condition that results in low plasma insulin levels by destruction of beta cells of the pancreas. As part of the natural progression of this disease, some patients regain beta cell activity transiently. This period is often referred to as the ‘honeymoon period’ or remission of T1DM. During this period, patients manifest improved glycemic control with reduced or no use of insulin or anti-diabetic medications. The incidence rates of remission and duration of remission is extremely variable. Various factors seem to influence the remission rates and duration. These include but are not limited to C-peptide level, serum bicarbonate level at the time of diagnosis, duration of T1DM symptoms, haemoglobin A1C (HbA1C) levels at the time of diagnosis, sex, and age of the patient. Mechanism of remission is not clearly understood. Extensive research is ongoing in regard to the possible prevention and reversal of T1DM. However, most of the studies that showed positive results were small and uncontrolled. We present a 32-year-old newly diagnosed T1DM patient who presented with diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and HbA1C of 12.7%. She was on basal bolus insulin regimen for the first 4 months after diagnosis. Later, she stopped taking insulin and other anti-diabetic medications due to compliance and logistical issues. Eleven months after diagnosis, her HbA1C spontaneously improved to 5.6%. Currently (14 months after T1DM diagnosis), she is still in complete remission, not requiring insulin therapy.

Background:Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic, immune-mediated disorder of the esophagus characterized by mucosal eosinophilic infiltration. Topical glucocorticoids are considered standard line of treatment, whereas endoscopic dilations are performed for patients presenting with treatment-resistant disease or manifestations of dysphagia and/or food impactions. Efficacy and safety of esophageal dilation in these patients are currently unclear.Aims:Primary outcomes were to evaluate the efficacy, adverse events, and mortality rates of endoscopic esophageal dilation in patients with EoE.Methods: Study Selection Criteria:Studies that reported the use of esophageal dilation in EoE patients were included in this meta-analysis.Data collection and extraction:Articles were searched in Medline, Pubmed, and Ovid journals. Two authors independently searched and extracted data. The study design was written in accordance to PRISMA statement. Clinical improvement was defined as patient-reported symptom relief noted by the authors of individual studies. The symptoms were assessed on various nonstandardized, however, relevant questionnaires that were deemed appropriate by the senior authors of individual studies.Statistical Method:Pooled proportions were calculated using fixed- and random-effects model. I2 statistic was used to assess heterogeneity among studies.Results:Initial search identified 491 reference articles, in which 39 articles were selected and reviewed. Data were extracted from 14 studies (N = 1607) using esophageal dilation for EoE management, which met the inclusion criterion. Mean age of patients was 41years. Pooled patients included 75% males. The pooled proportion of patients that showed clinical improvement with esophageal dilations, after the median follow-up period of 12 months, was 84.95%. No procedure-related deaths were noted. The pooled proportion of patients with post procedural esophageal perforation, chest pain, hospitalization, deep mucosal tear (involving muscularis propria), small mucosal tear, and hemorrhage were 0.61%, 0.06%, 0.74%, 4.04%, 22.32%, and 0.38% respectively. I2 (inconsistency) was 0% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0–49.8) and Egger: bias was 0.06 (95% CI = −0.30 to 0.42).Conclusions:In patients with conformed diagnosis of EoE, endoscopic esophageal dilation seems to be an effective and safe treatment option. Majority patients with chest pain and deep mucosal tears did not require hospitalization and symptoms were self-limiting