MAFLD criteria are better than MASLD criteria at predicting the risk of chronic kidney disease.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Fatty liver disease is a multisystem disease. Metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) is a more accurate indicator of chronic kidney disease (CKD) than nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). However, the relationship between recently defined metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) and CKD is currently unclear. The objective of this cross-sectional study was to investigate the prevalence of CKD and albuminuria among individuals diagnosed with either MAFLD or MASLD. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study involved 5,492 participants who provided biochemical marker and liver ultrasound data from the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2017-2020). Multiple logistic regression analyses were conducted to assess the independent associations of nonoverlapping MAFLD and MASLD with the presence of CKD or albuminuria (urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio ≥ 3 mg/mmol). RESULTS: MAFLD and MASLD were identified in 47% and 44.5% of the participants, respectively. Individuals with MAFLD-only had a greater prevalence of CKD (24.7% vs. 8.3 %, P < 0.006) and albuminuria (18.6% vs. 5%, P < 0.01) than did those with MASLD-only. Importantly, after adjusting for factors such as sex, age, ethnicity, and alcohol use, it was demonstrated that individuals in the MAFLD-only group had a 4.73-fold greater likelihood of having prevalent CKD than those in the MASLD-only group (P < 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: The MAFLD criteria better identify patients with CKD than do the MASLD criteria. Therefore, it is suggested that the MASLD criteria be reconsidered, as currently, the justification for changing from MAFLD to MASLD criteria may not be appropriate.

Medical research during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The current pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) which was first detected in Wuhan, China in December 2019 is caused by the novel coronavirus named severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). The virus has quickly spread to a large number of countries leading to a great number of deaths. Unfortunately, till today there is no specific treatment or vaccination for SARS-CoV-2. Most of the suggested treatment medications are based on in vitro laboratory investigations, experimental animal models, or previous clinical experience in treating similar viruses such as SARS-CoV-1 or other retroviral infections. The running of any clinical trial during a pandemic is affected at multiple levels. Reasons for this include patient hesitancy or inability to continue investigative treatments due to self-isolation/quarantine, or limited access to public places (including hospitals). Additional barriers relate to health care professionals being committed to other critical tasks or quarantining themselves due to contact with COVID-19 positive patients. The best research approaches are those that adapt to such external unplanned obstacles. Ongoing clinical trials before COVID-19 pandemic have the potential for identifying important therapies in the long-term if they can be completed as planned. However, these clinical trials may require modifications due a pandemic such as this one to ensure the rights, safety, and wellbeing of participants as well as medical staff involved in the conduction of clinical trials. Clinical trials initiated during the pandemic must be time-efficient and flexible due to high contagiousness of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, the significant number of reported deaths, and time constraints needed to perform high quality clinical trials, enrolling adequate sample sizes. Collaboration between different countries as well as implementation of innovative clinical trial designs are essential to successfully complete such initiatives during the current pandemic. Studies looking at the long term sequalae of COVID-19 are also of importance as recent publications describe multi-organ involvement. Long term follow-up of COVID-19 survivors is thus also important to identify possible physical and mental health sequellae.

Partially covered self-expandable metal stents versus polyethylene stents for malignant biliary obstruction: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

UNLABELLED: BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVE: Partially covered self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) and polyethylene stents (PES) are both commonly used in the palliation of malignant biliary obstruction. Although SEMS are significantly more expensive, they are more efficacious than PES. Accordingly, a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis compared the approach of initial placement of PES versus SEMS for the study population. Patients with malignant biliary obstruction underwent an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography to insert the initial stent. If the insertion failed, a percutaneous transhepatic cholangiogram was performed. If stent occlusion occurred, a PES was inserted at repeat endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, either in an outpatient setting or after admission to hospital if cholangitis was present. A third-party payer perspective was adopted. Effectiveness was expressed as the likelihood of no occlusion over the one-year adopted time horizon. Probabilities were based on a contemporary randomized clinical trial, and costs were issued from national references. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: A PES-first strategy was both more expensive and less efficacious than an SEMS-first approach. The mean per-patient costs were US$6,701 for initial SEMS and US$20,671 for initial PES, which were associated with effectiveness probabilities of 65.6% and 13.9%, respectively. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these results. CONCLUSION: At the time of initial endoscopic drainage for patients with malignant biliary obstruction undergoing palliative stenting, an initial SEMS insertion approach was both more effective and less costly than a PES-first strategy.

A novel endoscopic treatment of major bile duct leak.

INTRODUCTION: Bile leak is a serious complication of hepatobiliary surgery. The incidence has remained the same over the last decade despite significant improvement in the results of liver surgery. PRESENTATION OF CASE: A 21-year-old man was a passenger in a motor vehicle and sustained a blunt abdominal trauma in a high-speed collision leading to major liver laceration. He had right lobe hepatectomy complicated by major bile leak. He was not fit for further surgery and he, therefore, had ERCP and obliteration of the leaking bile duct using a combination of metallic coil and N-butyl cyanoacrylate. DISCUSSION: Endoscopic therapy has become the modality of choice in the treatment of biliary tract injuries. Different modalities of management of persistent bile leak such as sphincterotomy, plastic biliary stents, and nasobiliary drainage have been described. Obliteration of bile duct leak using N-butyl cyanoacrylate and coil embolization has been described but most of these reports used the percutaneous transhepatic approach. CONCLUSION: In this paper, we describe the second reported case in English literature of a novel endoscopic technique using a combination of metallic coil embolization and N-butyl cyanoacrylate in a patient with major bile leak who was not a candidate for surgery as well as a third report of the late complication of coil migration to the common bile duct.

Randomized trial in malignant biliary obstruction: plastic vs partially covered metal stents.

AIM: To compare efficacy and complications of partially covered self-expandable metal stent (pcSEMS) to plastic stent (PS) in patients treated for malignant, infrahilar biliary obstruction. METHODS: Multicenter prospective randomized clinical trial with treatment allocation to a pcWallstent(®) (SEMS) or a 10 French PS. Palliative patients aged ≥ 18, for infrahilar malignant biliary obstruction and a Karnofsky performance scale index > 60% from 6 participating North American university centers. Primary endpoint was time to stent failure, with secondary outcomes of death, adverse events, Karnofsky performance score and short-form-36 scale administered on a three-monthly basis for up to 2 years. Survival analyses were performed for stent failure and death, with Cox proportional hazards regression models to determine significant predictive characteristics. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients were accrued over 37 mo, 42 were randomized to the SEMS group and 83 patients were available for analyses. Time to stent failure was 385.3 ± 52.5 d in the SEMS and 153.3 ± 19.8 d in the PS group, P = 0.006. Time to death did not differ between groups (192.3 ± 23.4 d for SEMS vs 211.5 ± 28.0 d for PS, P = 0.70). The only significant predictor was treatment allocation, relating to the time to stent failure (P = 0.01). Amongst other measured outcomes, only cholangitis differed, being more common in the PS group (4.9% vs 24.5%, P = 0.029). The small number of patients in follow-up limits longitudinal assessments of performance and quality of life. From an initially planned 120 patients, only 85 patients were recruited. CONCLUSION: Partially covered SEMS result in a longer duration till stent failure without increased complication rates, yet without accompanying measurable benefits in survival, performance, or quality of life.