Lifestyle intervention is an efficacious, safe, and cost-effective measure to reduce the risk of progression to type 2 diabetes in people diagnosed with prediabetes. More research is necessary to compare the efficacy of various modes, frequencies, and intensities of lifestyle intervention across studies.

No abstract

Aims/hypothesis In people with prediabetes, lifestyle interventions and glucose-lowering medications are effective in preventing the progression to type 2 diabetes. It is unclear whether differences in treatment effects between men and women need to be taken into consideration when choosing a preventive strategy for an individual person. Methods We systematically searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and reference lists of pertinent review articles from 1980 to June 2013. We conducted random effects meta-analyses of published and unpublished data to determine differences of treatment effects between men and women. Conclusions/interpretation Our study emphasises the importance of preventive interventions in people with prediabetes and indicates no differences of beneficial preventive effects on the incidence of type 2 diabetes and weight gain between men and women.

Despite the increased availability of strong analgesics and evidence-based recommendations for pain management, under-treatment of cancerrelated pain is still common. Extended-release (ER) opioids, in contrast to immediate-release opioids, provide prolonged analgesia. In this review, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ER opioid analgesics in managing moderate-to-severe pain in patients with cancer. We identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled observational studies that compared ER opioids in cancer pain by searching several databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. Two independent reviewers screened and evaluated retrieved records to select relevant studies. We dually assessed the risk of bias for included studies and evaluated the overall strength of evidence for six critical outcomes using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation level of evidence. A total of three double-blind RCTs (comparative efficacy and adverse events), two non-blinded RCTs and four observational studies (comparative adverse events) were included in this review. All randomized trials and one observational study were of high risk of bias, and three observational studies of unclear risk of bias. The level of evidence for the selected efficacy and safety outcomes was low and very low. We synthesized the findings qualitatively because of the paucity of relevant studies as well as variable study design and quality. This systematic review indicates no substantial differences in efficacy and frequent adverse events among ER opioids for cancer pain. The body of evidence, however, is limited to few comparisons and fraught with methodological shortcomings.

Paracoccidioidomycosis is a systemic mycosis that is endemic in geographical regions of Central and South America. Cases that occur in nonendemic regions of the world are imported through migration and travel. Due to the limited number of cases in Europe, most physicians are not familiar with paracoccidioidomycosis and its close clinical and histopathological resemblance to other infectious and noninfectious disease. To increase awareness of this insidious mycosis, we conducted a systematic review to summarize the evidence on cases diagnosed and reported in Europe. We searched PubMed and Embase to identify cases of paracoccidioidomycosis diagnosed in European countries. In addition, we used Scopus for citation tracking and manually screened bibliographies of relevant articles. We conducted dual abstract and full-text screening of references yielded by our searches. To identify publications published prior to 1985, we used the previously published review by Ajello et al. Overall, we identified 83 cases of paracoccidioidomycosis diagnosed in 11 European countries, published in 68 articles. Age of patients ranged from 24 to 77 years; the majority were male. Time from leaving the endemic region and first occurrence of symptoms considerably varied. Our review illustrates the challenges of considering systemic mycosis in the differential diagnosis of people returning or immigrating to Europe from endemic areas. Travel history is important for diagnostic-workup, though it might be difficult to obtain due to possible long latency period of the disease.

ObjectiveTo systematically compare the risk of adverse events (AEs) for 13 targeted immunomodulators (TIMs) indicated for ankylosing spondylitis (AS), inflammatory bowel diseases, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis (PsA), or rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodsWe searched electronic databases through July 2015 to retrieve randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing AEs between 2 or more TIMs head‐to‐head. We reported on the following outcomes: number of AEs, discontinuation due to AEs, serious AEs, mortality, serious infections, tuberculosis, herpes zoster, and malignancies. We qualitatively synthesized the literature and conducted random‐effects meta‐analyses if 3 or more studies provided data for an outcome.ResultsTen head‐to‐head RCTs and 51 observational studies were included in this systematic review. A majority of the studies (70%) were conducted in RA patients. Risk of treatment discontinuation due to AEs was higher with infliximab than with adalimumab or etanercept in RA, PsA, and AS. A higher risk for serious infections was noted with infliximab than with abatacept, adalimumab, or etanercept in RA. Risk for treatment discontinuation due to AEs, serious infections, and tuberculosis was lower with etanercept than with adalimumab in RA. Limited evidence suggested no comparative differences in risk for mortality, malignancies, and herpes zoster for adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab in RA.ConclusionImportant differences were noted in the safety profile of TIMs in RA, generally favoring abatacept, adalimumab, and etanercept over infliximab. Head‐to‐head comparative evidence for other TIMs and non‐RA populations was insufficient to draw conclusions for most of the safety outcomes.

No abstract

SUMMARYIntroduction: To date, most clinical comparisons of ezetimibe-statin combination therapy versus statin monotherapy have relied entirely on surrogate variables. In this systematic review, we study the efficacy and safety of ezetimibe-statin combination therapy in comparison to statin monotherapy in terms of the prevention of cardiovascular events in hyperlipidemic patients with atherosclerosis and/or diabetes mellitus.