A systematic review and meta-analysis of lithium augmentation of tricyclic and second generation antidepressants in major depression.

BACKGROUND: Lithium augmentation of antidepressants for treatment of unipolar major depression was one of the first adjunctive strategies based on a neuropharmacologic rationale. Randomized controlled trials supported its efficacy but most trials added lithium to tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs). Despite its efficacy, use of lithium augmentation remains infrequent. The current systematic review and meta-analysis examines the efficacy of lithium augmentation as an adjunct to second generation antidepressants as well as to TCAs and considers reasons for its infrequent use. METHOD: A systematic search of Medline and the Cochrane Clinical Trials database was performed. Randomized, placebo-controlled trials of lithium augmentation were selected. A fixed-effects meta-analysis was performed. Odds ratios for response were calculated for each treatment-control contrast, for the trials grouped by type of initial antidepressant (TCA or second generation antidepressant), and as a meta-analytic summary for all treatments combined. RESULTS: Nine trials that included 237 patients were selected. The odds ratio for response to lithium vs. placebo in all contrasts combined was 2.89 (95% CI 1.65, 5.05, z=3.72, p=0.0002). Heterogeneity was very low, I(2)=0%. Adjunctive lithium was effective with TCAs (7 contrasts) and with second generation agents (3 contrasts). Discontinuation due to adverse events was infrequent and did not differ between lithium and placebo. LIMITATIONS: The meta-analysis is limited by the small size and number of trials and limited data for treatment resistant patients. CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive lithium appears to be as effective for second generation antidepressants as it was for the tricyclics.

Management of severe blunt hepatic injury in the era of computed tomography and transarterial embolization: A systematic review and critical appraisal of the literature.

BACKGROUND: During the last decade, the management of blunt hepatic injury has considerably changed. Three options are available as follows: nonoperative management (NOM), transarterial embolization (TAE), and surgery. We aimed to evaluate in a systematic review the current practice and outcomes in the management of Grade III to V blunt hepatic injury. METHOD: The MEDLINE database was searched using PubMed to identify English-language citations published after 2000 using the key words blunt, hepatic injury, severe, and grade III to V in different combinations. Liver injury was graded according to the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma classification on computed tomography (CT). Primary outcome analyzed was success rate in intention to treat. Critical appraisal of the literature was performed using the validated National Institute for Health and Care Excellence "Quality Assessment for Case Series" system. RESULTS: Twelve articles were selected for critical appraisal (n = 4,946 patients). The median quality score of articles was 4 of 8 (range, 2-6). Overall, the median Injury Severity Score (ISS) at admission was 26 (range, 0.6-75). A median of 66% (range, 0-100%) of patients was managed with NOM, with a success rate of 94% (range, 86-100%). TAE was used in only 3% of cases (range, 0-72%) owing to contrast extravasation on CT with a success rate of 93% (range, 81-100%); however, 9% to 30% of patients required a laparotomy. Thirty-one percent (range, 17-100%) of patients were managed with surgery owing to hemodynamic instability in most cases, with 12% to 28% requiring secondary TAE to control recurrent hepatic bleeding. Mortality was 5% (range, 0-8%) after NOM and 51% (range, 30-68%) after surgery. CONCLUSION: NOM of Grade III to V blunt hepatic injury is the first treatment option to manage hemodynamically stable patients. TAE and surgery are considered in a highly selective group of patients with contrast extravasation on CT or shock at admission, respectively. Additional standardization of the reports is necessary to allow accurate comparisons of the various management strategies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review, level IV.

E-Cigarettes: A Review of New Trends in Cannabis Use.

The emergence of electronic cigarettes (e-cigs) has given cannabis smokers a new method of inhaling cannabinoids. E-cigs differ from traditional marijuana cigarettes in several respects. First, it is assumed that vaporizing cannabinoids at lower temperatures is safer because it produces smaller amounts of toxic substances than the hot combustion of a marijuana cigarette. Recreational cannabis users can discretely "vape" deodorized cannabis extracts with minimal annoyance to the people around them and less chance of detection. There are nevertheless several drawbacks worth mentioning: although manufacturing commercial (or homemade) cannabinoid-enriched electronic liquids (e-liquids) requires lengthy, complex processing, some are readily on the Internet despite their lack of quality control, expiry date, and conditions of preservation and, above all, any toxicological and clinical assessment. Besides these safety problems, the regulatory situation surrounding e-liquids is often unclear. More simply ground cannabis flowering heads or concentrated, oily THC extracts (such as butane honey oil or BHO) can be vaped in specially designed, pen-sized marijuana vaporizers. Analysis of a commercial e-liquid rich in cannabidiol showed that it contained a smaller dose of active ingredient than advertised; testing our laboratory-made, purified BHO, however, confirmed that it could be vaped in an e-cig to deliver a psychoactive dose of THC. The health consequences specific to vaping these cannabis preparations remain largely unknown and speculative due to the absence of comprehensive, robust scientific studies. The most significant health concerns involve the vaping of cannabinoids by children and teenagers. E-cigs could provide an alternative gateway to cannabis use for young people. Furthermore, vaping cannabinoids could lead to environmental and passive contamination.

Aesthetic Breast Augmentation Mastopexy Followed by Post-surgical Pyoderma Gangrenosum (PSPG): Clinic, Treatment, and Review of the Literature.

INTRODUCTION: Pyoderma gangrenosum (PG) is a rare autoinflammatory neutrophilic ulcerative skin disease, often developing after a trauma or surgical wounds. In the literature there are several reports of post-surgical PG (PSPG) of the breast. The authors of this article experienced an impressive case of PSPG after an aesthetic breast augmentation mastopexy. PSPG is a rare but severe complication in this elective aesthetic surgical procedure. METHOD: A systematic review of the literature was performed, focusing on PSPG after aesthetic breast surgery (augmentation mammoplasty/mastopexy). The online databases Pubmed, Medline, and Cochrane were used and additionally a Google© search was conducted. We compared the data obtained from a systematic literature review to an index case of PSPG after esthetic augmentation mammoplasty. RESULTS: The literature search identified seven articles describing eight cases of PSPG after aesthetic breast surgery. In four of these cases augmentation mammoplasty had been carried out, in two cases mastopexy and in two cases augmentation mammoplasty and mastopexy (augmentation mastopexy). The patient we treated and describe in this paper underwent an augmentation mastopexy outside our clinic. Eight patients suffered from local disease, at the site of surgical wounds, one patient had disseminated disease. Leukocytosis was present in five cases (out of nine). Eight patients had received corticosteroid treatment, one patient refused such treatment. The duration of corticosteroid treatment was on average for 41 days (range 21-60 days). In all cases, the areola had been spared. Complete healing of PSPG was observed on average after 5 months (range 1.5 months-1 year). DISCUSSION: PSPG of the breast after aesthetic breast surgery is rare, but every plastic surgeon should consider this possibility, especially if skin disease develops post-surgery, mimicking wound infection that does not respond to broad-spectrum antibiotic treatment. CONCLUSION: Although the literature does not recommend this step, implant removal is recommended by the authors because bacterial wound infection normally cannot be ruled out definitely in the early stages of disease. Additional surgical intervention should be limited to the absolute necessary and performed only under adequate systemic immunosuppressive therapy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .