Ascitic calprotectin and lactoferrin for detection of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) is a common bacterial infection in cirrhotic patients associated with a high mortality rate. Prompt diagnosis and early antibiotic administration are crucial in minimizing adverse outcomes. Although detection of ≥250 polymorphonuclear leukocytes (PMN) in ascitic fluid is the current gold standard to diagnose SBP, consideration for rapid detection with biomarkers is warranted. Methods: A literature search for studies evaluating ascitic calprotectin and lactoferrin for detection of SBP was performed using PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, Cochrane library, and Clinical Trial Registries. Summary sensitivity, specificity, log diagnostic odds ratio (LDOR), and area under the summary receiver operating curve (AUC) were calculated. Results: In total, 12 and 13 studies evaluated ascitic calprotectin and lactoferrin, respectively, for detection of SBP. Summary sensitivity, specificity, and LDOR for calprotectin were 0.942 (95% CI, 0.916, 0.967), 0.860 (95% CI, 0.799, 0.935), and 4.250 (95% CI, 3.504, 4.990), respectively. AUC for calprotectin was 0.91. Summary sensitivity, specificity, and LDOR for lactoferrin were 0.954 (95% CI, 0.930, 0.979), 0.890 (95% CI, 0.836, 0.945), and 4.630 (95% CI, 3.800, 5.452), respectively. AUC for lactoferrin was 0.958. Conclusions: The overall performance of ascitic calprotectin and lactoferrin was substantial, potentially serving as a screening tool or an alternative to manual cell count. However, a variety of manufacturers, cut-off values, and significant heterogeneity between studies should be noted. Point-of-care testing for calprotectin and lactoferrin may resolve disadvantages associated with the current methods. Future studies on this topic are, therefore, needed.

Performance of Leukocyte Esterase Reagent Strips in the Detection of Spontaneous Bacterial Peritonitis in Cirrhotic Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Background: Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) is a bacterial infection associated with a high mortality rate in cirrhotic patients. The gold standard for the detection of SBP is a manual cell count from ascitic fluid; however, alternative screening methods are under investigation. In particular, leukocyte esterase reagent strips (LERS) has been studied as an alternative method to detect SBP with a low cost and instant turnaround time. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the performance of LERS in the detection of SBP. Methods: A literature search was performed for studies evaluating LERS for the detection of SBP on PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, and clinical trial registries. Summary sensitivity, specificity, log diagnostic odds ratio (LDOR), and the area under the summary receiver operating curve (AUC) were calculated according to the respective manufacturer. Results: In total, 31 studies were evaluated. The summary sensitivity of Aution Sticks, Combur, Multistix, Periscreen reagent strips was 0.962 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.926, 0.998), 0.892 (95% CI 0.846, 0.938), 0.806 (95% CI 0.738, 0.874), and 0.939 (95% CI 0.900, 0.979), respectively. The summary specificity of Aution Sticks, Combur, Multistix, and Periscreen reagent strips was 0.940 (95% CI 0.904, 0.976), 0.922 (95% CI 0.874, 0.970), 0.974 (95% CI 0.962, 0.985), and 0.672 (95% CI 0.381, 0.963), respectively. Conclusion: LERS appears to have a notable overall performance for the detection of SBP. LERS appeared to be an acceptable alternative to diagnose SBP in facilities without ability to perform cell count. However, there were significant differences in performance between each manufacturer.

Transmission of SARS-CoV-2: an update of current literature.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the etiologic agent for the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, has caused a public health emergency. The need for additional research in viral pathogenesis is essential as the number of cases and deaths rise. Understanding the virus and its ability to cause disease has been the main focus of current literature; however, there is much unknown. Studies have revealed new findings related to the full transmission potential of SARS-CoV-2 and its subsequent ability to cause infection by different means. The virus is hypothesized to be of increased virulence compared with previous coronavirus that caused epidemics, in part due to its overall structural integrity and resilience to inactivation. To date, many studies have discussed that the rationale behind its transmission potential is that viral RNA has unexpectedly been detected in multiple bodily fluids, with some samples having remained positive for extended periods of time. Additionally, the receptor by which the virus gains cellular entry, ACE2, has been found to be expressed in different human body systems, thereby potentiating its infection in those locations. In this evidence-based comprehensive review, we discuss various potential routes of transmission of SARS-CoV-2-respiratory/droplet, indirect, fecal-oral, vertical, sexual, and ocular. Understanding these different routes is important as they pertain to clinical practice, especially in taking preventative measures to mitigate the spread of SARS-CoV-2.

Performance of echocardiography for detection of portopulmonary hypertension among liver transplant candidates: Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of pulmonary arterial pressure is crucial among cirrhotic patients, considering that moderate portopulmonary hypertension (POPH) is a contraindication for liver transplantation. Although right heart catheterization (RHC) is the most accurate method to diagnose POPH, it is invasive. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to evaluate the performance of echocardiography in detecting POPH in liver transplant candidates. METHODS: A Literature search was performed, and pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LR), negative LR, and area under the summary receiver operating curve (AUC) were calculated. Subgroup analyses were performed based on different cutoff values for echocardiography and diagnostic criteria of RHC. RESULTS: Sensitivity, specificity, positive LR, negative LR, and AUC of echocardiography for detection of POPH were 0.86 (0.74, 0.94), 0.87 (0.84, 0.90), 7.17 (3.59, 14.31), 0.22 (0.13, 0.38), and 0.807 while they were 0.82 (0.74, 0.89), 0.81 (0.78, 0.84), 117.75 (16.03, 865.08), 0.28 (0.16, 0.50), and 0.876for detection of moderate POPH, respectively. Performance of echocardiography was not significantly different in the subgroup analyses of stringency of POPH criteria and pulmonary arterial systolic pressure (ePASP) cutoffs. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis supports utilization of echocardiography for screening of POPH. However, RHC remains essential in highly suspicious cases. Echocardiographic data other than ePASP should be evaluated in future studies.