METHODS: All English-language medical literature published from inception till October 2014 which met the inclusion criteria were reviewed and analyzed.
RESULTS: A total of nine papers were included, reviewed and analyzed. The total sample size was 4276 patients. All studies used either of the two DPP4 inhibitors - Vildagliptin or Sitagliptin, vs sulphonylurea or meglitinides. Patients receiving DPP4 inhibitors were less likely to develop symptomatic hypoglycemia (risk ratio 0.46; 95% CI, 0.30-0.70), confirmed hypoglycemia (risk ratio 0.36; 95% CI, 0.21-0.64) and severe hypoglycemia (risk ratio 0.22; 95% CI, 0.10-0.53) compared with patients on sulphonylureas. There was no statistically significant difference in HbA1C changes comparing Vildagliptin and sulphonylurea.
CONCLUSION: DPP4 inhibitor is a safer alternative to sulphonylurea in Muslim patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who fast during the month of Ramadan as it is associated with lower risk of symptomatic, confirmed and severe hypoglycemia, with efficacy comparable to sulphonylurea.
METHODS AND FINDINGS: The association of metabolically defined body size phenotypes with colorectal cancer was investigated in a case-control study nested within the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study. Metabolic health/body size phenotypes were defined according to hyperinsulinaemia status using serum concentrations of C-peptide, a marker of insulin secretion. A total of 737 incident colorectal cancer cases and 737 matched controls were divided into tertiles based on the distribution of C-peptide concentration amongst the control population, and participants were classified as metabolically healthy if below the first tertile of C-peptide and metabolically unhealthy if above the first tertile. These metabolic health definitions were then combined with body mass index (BMI) measurements to create four metabolic health/body size phenotype categories: (1) metabolically healthy/normal weight (BMI < 25 kg/m2), (2) metabolically healthy/overweight (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2), (3) metabolically unhealthy/normal weight (BMI < 25 kg/m2), and (4) metabolically unhealthy/overweight (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2). Additionally, in separate models, waist circumference measurements (using the International Diabetes Federation cut-points [≥80 cm for women and ≥94 cm for men]) were used (instead of BMI) to create the four metabolic health/body size phenotype categories. Statistical tests used in the analysis were all two-sided, and a p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. In multivariable-adjusted conditional logistic regression models with BMI used to define adiposity, compared with metabolically healthy/normal weight individuals, we observed a higher colorectal cancer risk among metabolically unhealthy/normal weight (odds ratio [OR] = 1.59, 95% CI 1.10-2.28) and metabolically unhealthy/overweight (OR = 1.40, 95% CI 1.01-1.94) participants, but not among metabolically healthy/overweight individuals (OR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.65-1.42). Among the overweight individuals, lower colorectal cancer risk was observed for metabolically healthy/overweight individuals compared with metabolically unhealthy/overweight individuals (OR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.49-0.96). These associations were generally consistent when waist circumference was used as the measure of adiposity. To our knowledge, there is no universally accepted clinical definition for using C-peptide level as an indication of hyperinsulinaemia. Therefore, a possible limitation of our analysis was that the classification of individuals as being hyperinsulinaemic-based on their C-peptide level-was arbitrary. However, when we used quartiles or the median of C-peptide, instead of tertiles, as the cut-point of hyperinsulinaemia, a similar pattern of associations was observed.
CONCLUSIONS: These results support the idea that individuals with the metabolically healthy/overweight phenotype (with normal insulin levels) are at lower colorectal cancer risk than those with hyperinsulinaemia. The combination of anthropometric measures with metabolic parameters, such as C-peptide, may be useful for defining strata of the population at greater risk of colorectal cancer.
METHODS: This is a prospective observational study on patients with SIRS. Plasma creatinine (pCr) and NGAL were measured on ICU admission. Patients were classified according to the occurrence of AKI and sepsis.
RESULTS: Of 225 patients recruited, 129 (57%) had sepsis of whom 67 (52%) also had AKI. 96 patients (43%) had non-infectious SIRS, of whom 20 (21%) also had AKI. NGAL concentrations were higher in AKI patients within both the sepsis and non-infectious SIRS cohorts (both P
METHODS: A nested-case control study was conducted within the prospective EPIC cohort (>520,000 participants, 10 European countries). After a mean 7.5 mean years of follow-up, 121 hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), 34 intrahepatic bile duct (IHBC) and 131 gallbladder and biliary tract (GBTC) cases were identified and matched to 2 controls each. Circulating biomarkers were measured in serum taken at recruitment into the cohort, prior to cancer diagnosis. Multivariable adjusted conditional logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (OR; 95%CI).
RESULTS: In multivariable models, 1SD increase of each log-transformed biomarker was positively associated with HCC risk (OR(GGT)=4.23, 95%CI:2.72-6.59; OR(ALP)=3.43, 95%CI:2.31-5.10;OR(AST)=3.00, 95%CI:2.04-4.42; OR(ALT)=2.69, 95%CI:1.89-3.84; OR(Bilirubin)=2.25, 95%CI:1.58-3.20). Each liver enzyme (OR(GGT)=4.98; 95%CI:1.75-14.17; OR(AST)=3.10, 95%CI:1.04-9.30; OR(ALT)=2.86, 95%CI:1.26-6.48, OR(ALP)=2.31, 95%CI:1.10-4.86) but not bilirubin (OR(Bilirubin)=1.46,95%CI:0.85-2.51) showed a significant association with IHBC. Only ALP was significantly associated with GBTC risk (OR(ALP)=1.59, 95%CI:1.20-2.09).
CONCLUSION: This study shows positive associations between circulating liver biomarkers in sera collected prior to cancer diagnoses and the risks of developing HCC or IHBC, but not GBTC.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 17 patients were selected fulfilling one of the Bethesda criteria: colorectal cancer diagnosed in a patient aged less than 50 years old, having synchronous and metachronous colorectal cancer or with a strong family history. Immunohistochemical staining was performed on paraffin embedded tumour tissue samples using four antibodies: MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 and PMS2.
RESULTS: Twelve out of 17 patients (70.6%) were noted to have a family history. A total of 41% (n=7) of the patients had abnormal immunohistochemical staining with one or more of the four antibodies. Loss of expression were noted in 13 tumour tissues with a negative staining score <4. Of 13 tumour tissues, four showed loss expression of MLH1. For PMS2, loss of expression were noted in five cases. Both MSH2 and MSH6 showed loss of expression in two tumour tissues respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Revised Bethesda criteria and immunohistochemical analysis constituted a convenient approach and is recommended to be a first-line screening for Lynch syndrome in Malay cohorts.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the expression of DDR1 and DVL1 and their association with histological type, grading and hormonal status of IDC and ILC.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross sectional study was conducted on IDC and ILC breast tumours. Tumours were immunohistochemically stained for (DDR1) and (DVL1) as well as estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR) and C-erbB2 receptor. Demographic data including age and ethnicity were obtained from patient records.
RESULTS: A total of 51 cases (30 IDCs and 21 ILCs) were assessed. DDR1 and DVL1 expression was not significantly associated with histological type (p=0.57 and p=0.66 respectively). There was no association between DDR1 and DVL1 expression and tumour grade (p=0.32 and p=1.00 respectively), ER (p=0.62 and 0.50 respectively), PR (p=0.38 and p=0.63 respectively) and C-erbB2 expression (p=0.19 and p=0.33 respectively) in IDC. There was no association between DDR1 and DVL1 expression and tumour grade (p=0.52 and p=0.33 respectively), ER (p=0.06 and p=0.76 respectively), PR (p=0.61 and p=0.43 respectively) and C-erbB2 expression (p=0.58 and p=0.76 respectively) in ILC.
CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed that DDR1 and DVL1 are present in both IDC and ILC regardless of the tumour differentiation. More studies are needed to assess the potential of these two proteins in distinguishing IDC from ILC in breast tumours.