Colonoscopy screening for colorectal cancer in Egypt: a nationwide cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines advocate for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in adults who are at risk by using direct visualization methods such as colonoscopy. However, in Egypt, there is a paucity of data regarding the current practice of colonoscopy screening. Moreover, more information is needed about the knowledge and attitudes of potential participants regarding the procedure and possible barriers that can limit their participation. METHODS: We conducted a nationwide cross-sectional study using an interview-based survey of patients aged 45 years or above who presented to outpatient clinics of nine university hospitals throughout Egypt. Participants were surveyed to assess their compliance with CRC colonoscopy screening guidelines, their knowledge of and attitude towards colonoscopy screening, and their perspective on potential barriers to colonoscopy screening. RESULTS: A total of 1,453 participants responded to our survey in the nine study centers. Only a minority of participants (2.3%) were referred for CRC screening. Referral rates were higher among those who knew someone with a history of CRC (5.3% vs 1.5%, p < 0.001) or had a discussion with their physician about CRC (25.8% vs 0.7%, p < 0.001). Few responders (3.2%) had good knowledge regarding CRC screening. After introducing the concept of CRC screening to all participants, most patients (66.7%) showed a positive attitude towards having the procedure. Financial burden and fear of results were the two most frequently cited barriers to undergoing CRC screening (81.1%; and 60.1%, respecteively). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the positive attitude, there is insufficient knowledge about CRC screening among eligible participants in Egypt. This has probably contributed to low compliance with current CRC screening guidelines and needs to be addressed at the national level.

Network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of different treatments in reducing amniocentesis-associated pain and anxiety.

OBJECTIVE: This network meta-analysis compared different methods to determine which is most efficient at lowering pain and anxiety in women undergoing amniocentesis. METHOD: We looked through all published randomized controlled trials in the databases PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, and EM base. Anxiety and pain were the predominant results. We used the R software version 4.2.1 to analyze the data. RESULTS: We included a total of 20 studies, with sample sizes ranging from 60 to 570. Virtual reality was the most effective strategy for lowering pain during AC [MD = -1.30, 95% CI (-2.11, -0.49)]. In addition, paracetamol use was the most successful approach for lowering pain following AC [MD = -1.68, 95% CI (-1.99, -1.37)]. The use of H7 acupressure, however, was the strategy that significantly reduced anxiety following AC [SMD = -15.46, 95% CI (-17.77, -13.15)]. CONCLUSION: The most effective method for reducing pain is the combination of virtual reality with paracetamol. Whereas, the most effective way to reduce anxiety is to combine an ice gel pack with H7 acupressure before applying AC.

Efficacy and safety of baricitinib in treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: SLE is an autoimmune disease marked by broad immunological dysregulation and multi-system inflammation. Baricitinib is one of the novel treatments for SLE. We conducted this meta-analysis to evaluate its safety and effectiveness in treating SLE. METHOD: We looked for all published randomized controlled trials in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane and included all RCTs comparing baricitinib and placebo in the treatment of SLE. Review Manager 5.4 program was used for data analysis. RESULTS: Three trials with a total of 1849 individuals were included. Participants in the baricitinib group were significantly more likely to attain SRI-4 response than those in the placebo group [RR = 1.11, 95% CI (1.02, 1.21), P = 0.01]. Additionally, baricitinib performed better than the placebo in terms of reduction of ≥ 4 points from baseline in SLEDAI-2 K score [RR = 1.13, 95% CI (1.04, 1.22), P = 0.004]. In terms of SLEDAI-2 K remission of arthritis or rash, baricitinib was also superior to placebo [RR = 1.08, 95% CI (1.00, 1.17), P = 0.04]. Treatment-emergent adverse events did not differ significantly [RR = 1.01, 95% CI (0.97, 1.05), P = 0.61]. CONCLUSION: Baricitinib is potentially safe and effective in the treatment of SLE. It has successfully met the study's primary endpoint and some secondary endpoints highlighting its potential to improve the outcomes of SLE. Despite achieving an SRI-4 response, glucocorticoids sparing and some other secondary outcomes weren't reached by baricitinib.