MyMedR

Displaying all 2 publications

Abstract:

Sort:

Fulltext Serum Procalcitonin (PCT) - Is there a Role as an Early Biomarker in Infected Diabetic Foot Ulcer (IDFU) Patients?

Omar J, Ahmad NS, Che-Soh N, Wan-Azman WN, Yaacob NM, Abdul-Ghani NS, et al.

Malays Orthop J, 2023 Jul;17(2):62-69.
PMID: 37583519 DOI: 10.5704/MOJ.2307.010

INTRODUCTION: Infected diabetic foot ulcers may lead to serious complications if not recognised in the early stage. Diagnosis of infection is particularly challenging at that stage; thus, a sensitive inflammatory biomarker may be helpful. We aimed to evaluate the role of procalcitonin (PCT) as an early biomarker for infected diabetic foot ulcers (IDFU).
MATERIALS AND METHOD: This cross-sectional study was conducted at Klinik Rawatan Keluarga (KRK), Orthopedic clinic and wards in Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) from May 2020 to December 2020. A total of 264 participants were recruited and divided into three groups: 50 diabetic patients with no ulcers (control), 107 patients with non-infected diabetic foot ulcers (NIDFU), and 107 patients with infected diabetic foot ulcers (IDFU). The level of PCT was taken for all patients. Total white count (TWC) and C-reactive protein (CRP) were taken only for IDFU patients. Diagnosis of infection was based on the Infectious Disease Society of America-International Working Group of Diabetic Foot (IDSA-IMWGDF), and the severity of infection was graded according to the Wagner Classification.
RESULTS: The level of PCT was higher in IDFU than in NIDFU and diabetic patient, with a median (IQR) of 0.355 (0.63) ng/mL, 0.077 (0.15) ng/mL and 0.028 (0.02) ng/mL, respectively. PCT and CRP showed moderate positive correlations in IDFU patients (p<0.001). The sensitivity and specificity were 63.6% and 83.2%, respectively, at the best cut-off at 0.25 ng/mL.
CONCLUSION: PCT is a valuable biomarker for the diagnosis of infection; however, it adds little value in the early diagnosis of IDFU in view of its low sensitivity.
Fulltext Global Prevalence of Macroprolactinemia among Patients with Hyperprolactinemia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Che Soh NAA, Yaacob NM, Omar J, Mohammed Jelani A, Shafii N, Tuan Ismail TS, et al.

Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2020 11 06;17(21).
PMID: 33171973 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17218199

Hyperprolactinemia (hPRL) often poses a diagnostic dilemma due to the presence of macroprolactin. Understanding the prevalence of macroprolactinemia (mPRL) has an important implication in managing patients with hPRL. The primary aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of mPRL globally and to explore selected factors influencing the prevalence estimate. Studies with original data related to the prevalence of mPRL among patients with hPRL from inception to March 2020 were identified, and a random effects meta-analysis was performed. Of the 3770 records identified, 67 eligible studies from 27 countries were included. The overall global prevalence estimate was 18.9% (95% CI: 15.8%, 22.1%) with a substantial statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 95.7%). The highest random effects pooled prevalence was observed in the African region (30.3%), followed by Region of the Americas (29.1%), European (17.5%), Eastern Mediterranean (13.9%), South-East Asian (12.7%), and Western Pacific Region (12.6%). Lower prevalence was observed in studies involving both sexes as compared to studies involving only female participants (17.1% vs. 25.4%) and in more recent studies (16.4%, 20.4%, and 26.5% in studies conducted after 2009, between 2000 and 2009, and before 2000, respectively). The prevalence estimate does not vary according to the age group of study participants, sample size, and types of polyethylene glycol (PEG) used for detection of macroprolactin (PEG 6000 or PEG 8000). With macroprolactin causing nearly one-fifth of hPRL cases, screening for mPRL should be made a routine before an investigation of other causes of hPRL.

Filters

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links