Background: Gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) refers to mechanical obstruction at the level of the gastric outlet and is associated with significantly impacted quality of life and mortality. Duodenal stenting (DS) offers a minimally invasive approach to managing GOO but is associated with a high risk of stent obstruction. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is a novel intervention that uses lumen-apposing metal stents to open the restricted lumen. The current evidence comparing EUS-GE to DS is limited and inconsistent. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus, and clinicaltrials.gov to retrieve studies comparing EUS-GE to DS for GOO. Odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled using the DerSimonian-Laird inverse variance random-effects model. Statistical significance was set at P < .05. Results: Ten studies with a total of 1275 GOO patients (585: EUS-GE and 690: DS) were included. EUS-GE was associated with statistically significant higher clinical success [OR: 2.52; 95% CI: 1.64, 3.86; P < .001], lower re-intervention rate [OR: 0.12; 95% CI: 0.06, 0.22; P < .00001], longer procedural time [MD: 20.91; 95% CI: 15.48, 26.35; P < .00001], and lower risk of adverse events [OR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.29, 0.82; P = .007] than DS. Technical success [OR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.31, 1.25] and the length of hospital stay [MD: −2.12; 95% CI: −5.23, 0.98] were comparable between the 2 groups. Conclusion: EUS-GE is associated with higher clinical success, longer total procedural time, lower re-intervention rate, and lower risk of adverse events than DS. Technical success and the length of hospital stay were comparable between the 2 groups. EUS-GE appears to be a safe and effective procedure for managing GOO. Further large, multicentric randomized controlled trials are warranted to investigate the safety and outcomes of EUS-GE in patients with malignant GOO.

Background: Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is estimated to affect approximately 25% of the global population. Both, coronary artery disease and NAFLD are linked to underlying insulin resistance and inflammation as drivers of the disease. Coronary flow reserve parameters, including coronary flow reserve velocity (CFRV), baseline diastolic peak flow velocity (DPFV), and hyperemic DPFV, are noninvasive markers of coronary microvascular circulation. The existing literature contains conflicting findings regarding these parameters in NAFLD patients. Methods: A comprehensive systematic search was conducted on major electronic databases from inception until May 8, 2024, to identify relevant studies. We pooled the standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the inverse-variance random-effects model. Statistical significance was set at P < .05. Results: Four studies with 1139 participants (226 with NAFLD and 913 as controls) were included. NAFLD was associated with a significantly lower CFRV (SMD: −0.77; 95% CI: −1.19, −0.36; P < .0002) and hyperemic DPFV (SMD: −0.73; 95% CI: −1.03, −0.44; P < .00001) than the controls. NAFLD demonstrated a statistically insignificant trend toward a reduction in baseline DPFV (SMD: −0.09; 95% CI: −0.38, 0.19; P = .52) compared to healthy controls. Conclusion: Patients with NAFLD are at a higher risk of coronary microvascular dysfunction, as demonstrated by reduced CFRV and hyperemic DPFV. The presence of abnormal coronary flow reserve in patients with NAFLD provides insights into the higher rates of cardiovascular disease in these patients. Early aggressive targeted interventions for impaired coronary flow reserve in subjects with NAFLD may lead to improvement in clinical outcomes.

The potential of biomaterials in medical sciences has attracted much interest, especially in promoting tissue regeneration and controlling immune responses. As the COVID-19 pandemic broke out, there was an increased interest in understanding more about how biomaterials could be employed to fight this dreaded disease, especially in the context of regenerative medicine. Out of the numerous regenerative medicine possibilities, stem cells and scaffolding (grafting) technology are two major areas in modern medicine and surgery. Mesenchymal stem cells are useful in tissue repair, tailored therapy and the treatment of COVID-19. Using biomaterials in COVID-19 treatment is intricate and needs multidisciplinary and cross-disciplinary research. Cell-based therapy and organ transplants pose immunological rejection challenges. Immunomodulation enhanced, tumorigenicity decreased, inflammation addressed and tissue damage restricted; bioengineered stem cells need clinical insights and validation. Advanced stem cell-based therapies should ideally be effective, safe and scalable. Cost and scalability shall dictate the dawn of techno-economically feasible regenerative medicine. A globally standard and uniform approval process could accelerate translational regenerative medicine. Researchers, patient advocacy organisations, regulators and biopharmaceutical stakeholders need to join hands for easy navigation of regulatory measures and expeditious market entry of regenerative medicine. This article summarises advances in biomaterials for regenerative medicine and their possible therapeutic benefits in managing infectious diseases like COVID-19. It highlights the significant recent developments in biomaterial design, scaffold construction, and stem cell-based therapies to treat tissue damage and COVID-19-linked immunological dysregulation. It also highlights the potential contribution of biomaterials towards creating novel treatment strategies to manage COVID-19.

Introduction: Psoriasis is a systemic inflammatory disease associated with elevated cardiovascular risk due to inflammatory and oxidative stress. Two‐dimensional speckle‐tracking echocardiography (2D‐STE) can detect both regional and global myocardial strain. Impairment of ventricular strain can assist in the early detection of myocardial dysfunction. Subclinical myocardial dysfunction in psoriasis has not yet been elucidated with inconsistent results.Methods: A systematic literature search of various databases was conducted to identify studies comparing global longitudinal strain (GLS) and global circumferential strain (GCS) between patients with psoriasis and healthy controls. Standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled using the inverse‐variance random‐effects model in Review Manager Software Version 5.4.1.Results: Eleven studies with 879 participants (501 patients with psoriasis and 378 healthy controls) were included. Psoriasis was associated with a statistically significant reduction in GLS [SMD: –1.04; 95% CI: –1.45, –0.62; p < 0.00001] and GCS [SMD: –0.66; 95% CI: –1.27, –0.05; p = 0.03] compared to healthy controls.Conclusion: This study demonstrated that patients with psoriasis are at an elevated risk of subclinical myocardial dysfunction, as shown by the reduced GLS and GCS. Early assessment of subclinical impairment in psoriasis will allow targeted intervention and may mitigate future adverse cardiovascular events. Prospective studies with larger sample sizes are warranted to validate these results.

Psychotropic medications, commonly prescribed for psychiatric disorders, can have underappreciated dermatological side effects. This in-depth review explores the intricate relationship between psychotropic drugs and the skin, emphasizing the significance of recognizing and managing these side effects in clinical practice. It categorizes the dermatological side effects associated with different classes of psychotropic medications. These include antidepressants, antipsychotics, mood stabilizers, and anxiolytics. We delve into the spectrum of dermatological conditions, from mild issues like dry skin and acne to severe complications such as Stevens–Johnson syndrome and drug-induced lupus erythematosus. In conclusion, a comprehensive understanding of the dermatological side effects of psychotropic medications is essential for healthcare providers, enabling a holistic approach to patient care. This review is a valuable resource for clinicians, researchers, and educators, facilitating better-informed decision-making in the treatment of mental health disorders while prioritizing skin health and overall well-being.