No abstract

Background: Depression is common in the primary care setting and tobacco use is more prevalent among individuals with depression. Recent research has linked smoking to poorer outcomes of depression treatment. We hypothesized that in adult primary care patients with the diagnosis of depression, current smoking would have a negative impact on clinical outcomes, regardless of treatment type (usual primary care [UC] vs collaborative care management [CCM]). Methods: A retrospective chart review study of 5155 adult primary care patients with depression in a primary care practice in southeast Minnesota was completed. Variables obtained included age, gender, marital status, race, smoking status, initial Patient Health Questionnaire–9 (PHQ-9), and 6-month PHQ-9. Clinical remission (CR) was defined as 6-month PHQ-9 <5. Persistent depressive symptoms (PDS) were defined as PHQ-9 ≥10 at 6 months. Treatment in both CCM and UC were compared. Results: Using intention to treat analysis, depressed smokers treated with CCM were 4.60 times as likely (95% CI 3.24-6.52, P < .001) to reach CR and were significantly less likely to have PDS at 6 months (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0.19, 95% CI 0.14-0.25, P < .001) compared with smokers in UC. After a 6-month follow-up, depressed smokers treated with CCM were 1.75 times as likely (95% CI 1.18-2.59, P = .006) to reach CR and were significantly less likely to have PDS (AOR 0.45, 95% CI 0.31-0.64, P < .001) compared with smokers in UC. Conclusions: CCM significantly improved depression outcomes for smokers at 6 months compared with UC. However, in the UC group, smoking outcomes were not statistically different at 6 months for either remission or PDS. Also, nonsmokers in CCM had the best clinical outcomes at 6 months in both achieving clinical remission and reduction of PDS when compared with smokers in UC as the reference group.

SummaryBackgroundThe burden of non‐alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in South America is among the highest in the world. However, the epidemiology and risk factors for NAFLD are insufficiently described in the region.AimTo explore the associations between clinical characteristics and histopathological features of NAFLDMethodsThis was a descriptive study of 2722 patients with NAFLD from 8 medical centres across 5 South American countries. We collected clinical, biochemical and histopathological data using a templated chart. Fibrosis was assessed by elastography or fibrosis scores and confirmed with biopsy when available. We examined associations between histopathological features and clinical characteristics with logistic regression models. Models were adjusted for country, age and sex.ResultsThe median age was 53 years (IQR: 41–62), and 63% were women. Subjects from Brazil had the highest body mass index at 42 kg/m2. Sixty‐seven percent had dyslipidemia, 46% had obesity, 30% had hypertension, 17% had type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and 34% had metabolic syndrome. Biopsy reports were available for 948 (35%), of which 58% showed fibrosis, 91% steatosis and 65% inflammation; 25% showed significant fibrosis and 27% severe steatosis. Metabolic syndrome, T2DM and hypertension were significantly associated with significant fibrosis (OR = 1.94, p < 0.001; OR = 2.93, p < 0.001 and OR = 1.60, p = 0.003, respectively), severe steatosis (OR = 2.05, p < 0.001; OR = 1.91, p = 0.001 and OR = 2.17, p < 0.001, respectively) and liver inflammation (OR = 1.66, p = 0.007; OR = 2.00, p = 0.002; OR = 1.62, p = 0.001, respectively).ConclusionsIn the largest NAFLD cohort study to date from South America, metabolic syndrome, hypertension and T2DM were independently associated with significant fibrosis, severe steatosis, and inflammation. The prevalence of T2DM was lower than the reported global prevalence.

Summary Topical steroids are commonly used in treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), but currently there is lack of data to clarify most effective regimen. We aimed to study the achievement of histologic remission using the same dose of budesonide in two different delivery formulations. Patients with established EoE treated with pharmacy compounded budesonide capsule or budesonide Rincinol gel (both 3 mg twice daily) were studied retrospectively. Those with pre-treatment and post-treatment histologic assessment were included with main endpoint being histologic remission. 103 patients (62 gel, 41 capsule) were included, with higher rate of histologic remission with gel (84 vs. 59%, P=0.004). A subset of patients in both groups had lack of steroid response (&lt;50% drop in eosinophils) (15% for gel, 32% for capsule). Formulation/delivery vehicle of steroid treatments to esophageal mucosa in EoE appears important for treatment efficacy, with budesonide gel having higher likelihood of histologic remission compared to budesonide capsules in our population. A truly steroid refractory group appears likely in our population. Larger, prospective studies may help clarify best regimen of topical steroids in EoE and may work to identify patients likely to benefit from alternative therapies.