Anticoagulation Therapy for Splanchnic Vein Thrombosis Associated With Acute Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Splanchnic vein thrombosis (SVT) is not rare in patients with acute pancreatitis. It remains unclear about whether anticoagulation should be given for acute pancreatitis-associated SVT. The PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched. Rates of SVT recanalization, any bleeding, death, intestinal ischemia, portal cavernoma, and gastroesophageal varices were pooled and compared between patients with acute pancreatitis-associated SVT who received and did not receive therapeutic anticoagulation. Pooled rates and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Heterogeneity among studies was evaluated. Overall, 16 studies including 698 patients with acute pancreatitis-associated SVT were eligible. After therapeutic anticoagulation, the pooled rates of SVT recanalization, any bleeding, death, intestinal ischemia, portal cavernoma, and gastroesophageal varices were 44.3% (95%CI = 32.3%-56.6%), 10.7% (95%CI = 4.9%-18.5%), 13.3% (95%CI = 6.9%-21.4%), 16.8% (95%CI = 6.9%-29.9%), 21.2% (95%CI = 7.5%-39.5%), and 29.1% (95%CI = 16.1%-44.1%), respectively. Anticoagulation therapy significantly increased the rate of SVT recanalization (RR = 1.69; 95%CI = 1.29-2.19; P < .01), and marginally increased the risk of bleeding (RR = 1.98; 95%CI = 0.93-4.22; P = .07). The rates of death (RR = 1.42; 95%CI = 0.62-3.25; P = .40), intestinal ischemia (RR = 2.55; 95%CI = 0.23-28.16; P = .45), portal cavernoma (RR = 0.51; 95%CI = 0.21-1.22; P = .13), and gastroesophageal varices (RR = 0.71; 95%CI = 0.38-1.32; P = .28) were not significantly different between patients who received and did not receive anticoagulation therapy. Heterogeneity was statistically significant in the meta-analysis of intestinal ischemia, but not in those of SVT recanalization, any bleeding, death, portal cavernoma, or gastroesophageal varices. Anticoagulation may be effective for recanalization of acute pancreatitis-associated SVT, but cannot improve the survival. Randomized controlled trials are warranted to further investigate the clinical significance of anticoagulation therapy in such patients.

Treatment and outcomes of immune checkpoint inhibitors-associated colitis/diarrhea: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have improved the outcomes of cancer patients. However, ICIs often lead to colitis/diarrhea. This study aimed to assess the treatment of ICIs-associated colitis/diarrhea and outcomes. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for eligible studies which investigated the treatment and outcomes of colitis/diarrhea developing in patients who received ICIs. The pooled incidences of any-grade colitis/diarrhea, low-grade colitis, high-grade colitis, low-grade diarrhea, and high-grade diarrhea as well as the pooled rates of response to treatment, mortality, and ICIs permanent discontinuation and restarts in patients with ICIs-associated colitis/diarrhea were estimated using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Among the 11,492 papers initially identified, 27 studies were included. The pooled incidences of any-grade colitis/diarrhea, low-grade colitis, high-grade colitis, low-grade diarrhea, and high-grade diarrhea were 17%, 3%, 17%, 13%, and 15%, respectively. The pooled rates of overall response, response to corticosteroid therapy, and response to biological agents were 88%, 50%, and 96%, respectively. The pooled short-term mortality in patients with ICIs-associated colitis/diarrhea was 2%. The pooled incidences of ICIs permanent discontinuation and restarts were 43% and 33%, respectively. CONCLUSION: ICIs-associated colitis/diarrhea is common, but rarely lethal. Half of them are responsive to corticosteroid therapy. There is a fairly high rate of response to biological agents in steroid-refractory colitis/diarrhea patients.

Efficacy and Safety of PD-1/PD-L1 Inhibitors in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) and programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors have been increasingly employed for the treatment of various cancers in clinical practice. This study aimed to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, Web of Science, and Abstracts of American Society of Clinical Oncology proceedings databases were searched. Objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), median progression-free survival (PFS), median overall survival (OS), and incidence of adverse events (AEs) and drug withdrawal were pooled. Odds ratio (OR) and hazard ratio (HR) were calculated to analyze the difference in the ORR, DCR, PFS, and OS between groups. RESULTS: Among the 14,902 initially identified papers, 98 studies regarding use of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in advanced HCC were included. Based on different criteria of response in solid tumors, the pooled ORR, DCR, and median PFS was 16-36%, 54-74%, and 4.5-6.8 months, respectively. The pooled median OS was 11.9 months. Compared to multitarget tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors monotherapy significantly increased ORR (OR 2.73, P < 0.00001) and OS (HR 0.97, P = 0.05), and PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors combined with TKIs significantly increased ORR (OR 3.17, P < 0.00001), DCR (OR 2.44, P < 0.00001), PFS (HR 0.58, P < 0.00001), and OS (HR 0.58, P < 0.00001). The pooled incidence of all-grade AEs, grade ≥ 3 AEs, and drug withdrawal was 71%, 25%, and 7%, respectively. CONCLUSION: On the basis of the present systematic review and meta-analysis, PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors should be the preferred treatment choice for advanced HCC owing to their higher antitumor effect and improved outcomes.

Successful treatment of acute symptomatic extensive portal venous system thrombosis by 7-day systemic thrombolysis.

Acute portal venous system thrombosis (PVST) can cause acute mesenteric ischemia and even intestinal infarction, which are potentially fatal, and requires recanalization in a timely fashion. Herein, we report a 56-year-old man with acute non-cirrhotic symptomatic extensive PVST who achieved portal vein recanalization after systemic thrombolysis combined with anticoagulation. Initially, anticoagulation with enoxaparin sodium for 4 d was ineffective, and then systemic thrombolysis for 7 d was added. After that, his abdominal pain completely disappeared, and portal vein system vessels became gradually patent. Long-term anticoagulation therapy was maintained. In conclusion, 7-d systemic thrombolysis may be an effective and safe choice of treatment for acute symptomatic extensive PVST which does not respond to anticoagulation therapy.

Epidemiology of portal vein thrombosis in liver cirrhosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) may be associated with negative outcomes in patients with liver cirrhosis. However, the prevalence and incidence of PVT in liver cirrhosis are heterogeneous among studies and have not been sufficiently determined yet. METHODS: The PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched. Eligible studies would explore the prevalence and/or incidence of PVT in liver cirrhosis without hepatocellular carcinoma or abdominal surgery. Pooled proportion with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using a random-effect model. Factors associated with the presence/occurrence of PVT were also extracted. RESULTS: Among the 8549 papers initially identified, 74 were included. Fifty-four studies explored the prevalence of PVT in liver cirrhosis with a pooled prevalence of 13.92% (95%CI=11.18-16.91%). Based on cross-sectional data, Child-Pugh class B/C, higher D-dimer, ascites, and use of non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) were associated with the presence of PVT in liver cirrhosis. Twenty-three studies explored the incidence of PVT in liver cirrhosis with a pooled incidence of 10.42% (95%CI=8.16-12.92%). Based on cohort data, Child-Pugh class B/C, higher model of end-stage liver disease score, higher D-dimer, lower platelets count, decreased portal flow velocity, ascites, use of NSBBs, and moderate or high-risk esophageal varices could predict the occurrence of PVT in liver cirrhosis. CONCLUSION: Approximately one seventh of cirrhotic patients have PVT, and one tenth will develop PVT. Progression of liver cirrhosis and portal hypertension seems to be in parallel with the risk of PVT. Prospective studies with detailed information about classification and extension of PVT in liver cirrhosis are needed.