The Global Burden of Early-Onset Biliary Tract Cancer: Insight From the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019.

Backgrounds/objectives: The escalating incidence of early-onset gastrointestinal cancers is becoming a primary global health concern. Biliary tract cancer (BTC) has been relatively understudied in this regard. We conducted an epidemiological study regarding the burden of this condition. Methods: We utilized data from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019 to investigate the temporal trends in early-onset BTC (EOBTC), encompassing the estimation of frequencies and age-standardized rates (ASRs) of EOBTC incidence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), from 2010 to 2019. Results: EOBTC constituted nearly 7%of all BTC cases worldwide. The incidence rates of EOBTC decreased significantly in most regions, except in the Eastern Mediterranean (annual percentage change +1.04 %), where the incidence is rising. Stratified by the sociodemographic index (SDI), countries with low middle SDI (annual percentage change +0.5 %) show increasing incidence of EOBTC. The ASR of death and DALYs decreased in most regions. The ASR of EOBTC-related death and disability attributable to high body mass index increased in most regions, with the highest increase in Southeast Asia and low, middle SDI strata. Conclusions: There was a reduction in the burden of EOBTC globally, except for Eastern Mediterranean countries and low-middle SDI countries.

NAFLD and NAFLD-related HCC in Asia: Burden and Surveillance.

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is rapidly emerging as a leading etiology of chronic liver disease (CLD) in Asia. The increasing incidence of NAFLD is projected to drive a surge in NAFLD-related hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). A notable characteristic of NAFLD-HCC is its capacity for development in individuals without cirrhosis in more than a third of patients. Most practice guidelines recommend biannual ultrasound screening for patients with cirrhosis. In cases of severe limitations to ultrasound visualisation, cross-sectional abdominal imaging may be warranted. Improved strategies for HCC risk stratification are required for people with NAFLD but without cirrhosis. In this Review, we discuss the evolving trends of NAFLD and HCC in Asia, and implications for surveillance.

A two-decade population-based study on the effect of hypertension in the general population with obesity in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: With rising prevalence of hypertension and obesity, the effect of hypertension in obesity remains an important global issue. The prognosis of the US general population with obesity based on hypertension control was examined. METHODS: This study examined participants from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey between 1999 and 2018. Individuals with obesity were stratified into no hypertension, controlled hypertension, and uncontrolled hypertension. The study outcome was all-cause mortality. Cox regression of all-cause mortality was adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, diabetes, and previous myocardial infarction. RESULTS: Of 16,386 individuals with obesity, 53.1% had no hypertension, 24.7% had controlled hypertension, and 22.2% had uncontrolled hypertension. All-cause mortality was significantly higher in uncontrolled hypertension (17.1%), followed by controlled hypertension (14.8%) and no hypertension (4.0%). Uncontrolled hypertension had the highest mortality risk (hazard ratio [HR] 1.34, 95% CI: 1.13-1.59, p = 0.001), followed by controlled hypertension (HR 1.21, 95% CI: 1.10-1.34, p < 0.001), compared with no hypertension after adjustment. The excess mortality trend was more pronounced in females, those with diabetes, and those older than age 65 years. CONCLUSIONS: The incremental mortality risk in controlled and uncontrolled hypertension, compared with the normotensive counterparts, irrespective of sex, age, and diabetes status, urges health care providers to optimize hypertension control and advocate weight loss to achieve better outcomes in obesity.

Meta-analysis of the Placebo and Nocebo effects associated with Placebo treatment in randomized trials of lipid-lowering therapies.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) in which the control groups received placebo without background LLT offer unique insights into the placebo and nocebo effects of lipid-lowering RCTs. METHODS AND RESULTS: Embase and Medline were searched for hyperlipidaemia RCTs with placebo-controlled arms. Placebo arms with background LLT were excluded. A single arm meta-analysis of proportions was used to estimate major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and adverse events (AE). A meta-analysis of means was used to estimate the pooled mean differences of total cholesterol (TC), low-density lipoprotein (LDL), high-density lipoproteins (HDL) and triglycerides (TG).A total of 40 RCTs and 37 668 placebo-treated participants were included. The pooled mean changes for TC, LDL, HDL, and TG were -0.019 mmol/L, -0.028 mmol/L, 0.013 mmol/L, and 0.062 mmol/L respectively among placebo-treated participants, indicating a modest placebo effect. The pooled average nocebo effect among placebo-treated participants was 42.62% for all AEs and 3.38% for musculoskeletal-related AEs, 11.36% for gastrointestinal-related AEs, and 6.62% for headaches. Placebo-treated participants in secondary prevention RCTs had a far higher incidence of these nocebo effects than primary prevention RCTs: any AEs (OR 6.76, 95% CI: 5.56-8.24, P < 0.001), and gastrointestinal-related AE (OR 1.23, 95% CI: 1.00-1.51, P = 0.049). No differences in nocebo effects were found between the placebo arms of statin and non-statin trials. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis of placebo-treated participants in RCTs with no background LLT indicate a modest placebo effect but prominent nocebo effect of musculoskeletal, headache, and gastrointestinal symptoms that was greatest among secondary prevention RCTs. These findings may inform the design of future LLT RCTs.

Moving beyond the initial colonoscopy: a call for action.

INTRODUCTION: The evolution of colorectal screening has made headway with continual efforts globally to increase screening rates for colonoscopy-naïve patients. However, little has been done to encourage repeat colonoscopies after the initial scope despite recommendations to repeat colonoscopy every 10 years, with the uptake rates of repeat colonoscopy remaining abysmal at 22%. METHODS: Previously, a qualitative systematic review evaluated the barriers and facilitators patients faced in their decisions to undergo colonoscopy, analyzing articles from Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science. Key findings from articles which highlighted factors influencing patients' decisions to return for repeat colonoscopies were summarized. RESULTS: Three articles were identified in the search. Facilitators for repeat colonoscopy included patients' assurance garnered from fostered trust in the patient-provider relationship, their intrinsic motivations from fear of cancer and an innate appreciation for the significance of obtaining repeated colonoscopies. Procedural factors such as the option for procedural visualization, its comprehensiveness and the utilization of anesthesia were also crucial motivators. Barriers that patients highlighted comprised of cumbersome bowel preparation and potential complications. DISCUSSION: Recently, minimal research has been conducted on the sentiments of healthcare providers and patients regarding repeat colonoscopy. The lack of emphasis from healthcare institutions on encouraging patients to repeat colonoscopy after 10 years prevents effective colorectal cancer screening. To proficiently alleviate the burden of colorectal cancer, patient counseling has to shift beyond explaining colonoscopy risks and complications to promoting regular follow-up scopes. This article thus calls for more studies to focus on evaluating the uptake of repeat colonoscopies.

Afterthoughts on colonoscopy. Was it that bad?

OBJECTIVES: Colorectal cancer is among the top three most common cancers globally. In order to reduce the health burden, it is important to improve the uptake of colorectal cancer screening by understanding the barriers and facilitators encountered. There are numerous reports in the literature on the views of the general public on cancer screening. However, the experiences of colonoscopy patients are not as well studied. This paper maps their perceptions. METHODS: Keyword searches for terms such as 'colorectal', 'colonoscopy' and 'qualitative' were conducted on 3 December 2019 in five databases: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science Core Collection. Qualitative articles that quoted colonoscopy-experienced patients with no prior history of colorectal cancer were included for the thematic analysis. The systematic review was then synthesized according to PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: The major themes were distilled into three categories: pre-procedure, during and post-procedure. The factors identified in the pre-procedure phase include the troublesome bowel preparation, poor quality of information provided and the dynamics within a support network. Perceptions of pain, emotional discomfort and the role of providers mark the experience during the procedure. The receipt of results, opportunities given for discussion and finances relating to colonoscopy are important post-procedure events. CONCLUSION: Understanding colorectal cancer screening behaviour is fundamental for healthcare providers and authorities to develop system and personal level changes for the improvement of colorectal cancer screening services. The key areas include patient comfort, the use of clearer instructional aids and graphics, establishing good patient rapport, and the availability of individualized options for sedation and the procedure.