Dietary linoleic acid intake in relation to breast cancer: A case-control study

Background: The present study aimed to investigate the association between dietary linoleic acid (LA) intake and breast cancer in women. Methods: In this population-based case-control study, we enrolled 350 pathologically confirmed breast cancer cases and 700 controls which were matched with cases in terms of age and socioeconomic status. Dietary intakes were assessed using a 106-item Willett-format semi-quantitative dish-based food frequency questionnaire (DS-FFQ). Odds ratios (ORs) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated. Results: A significant inverse association was found between LA intake and odds of breast cancer (OR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.30-0.56). After adjusting for potential confounders, women in the highest tertile of dietary LA intake were 48% less likely to have breast cancer compared with those in the lowest tertile (OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.28-0.95). Such a significant inverse association was also seen among normal-weight women (OR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.14-0.63), and premenopausal women (OR: 0.15, 95% CI: 0.02-0.95). Conclusion: The findings of current study provide evidence for a protective role of LA against breast cancer particularly among normal-weight and premenopausal women. Prospective studies are needed to confirm this association

Effect of Intermediate-Dose vs Standard-Dose Prophylactic Anticoagulation on Thrombotic Events, Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Treatment, or Mortality among Patients with COVID-19 Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit: The INSPIRATION Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance: Thrombotic events are commonly reported in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Limited data exist to guide the intensity of antithrombotic prophylaxis. Objective: To evaluate the effects of intermediate-dose vs standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation among patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter randomized trial with a 2 � 2 factorial design performed in 10 academic centers in Iran comparing intermediate-dose vs standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (first hypothesis) and statin therapy vs matching placebo (second hypothesis; not reported in this article) among adult patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19. Patients were recruited between July 29, 2020, and November 19, 2020. The final follow-up date for the 30-day primary outcome was December 19, 2020. Interventions: Intermediate-dose (enoxaparin, 1 mg/kg daily) (n = 276) vs standard prophylactic anticoagulation (enoxaparin, 40 mg daily) (n = 286), with modification according to body weight and creatinine clearance. The assigned treatments were planned to be continued until completion of 30-day follow-up. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of venous or arterial thrombosis, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or mortality within 30 days, assessed in randomized patients who met the eligibility criteria and received at least 1 dose of the assigned treatment. Prespecified safety outcomes included major bleeding according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (type 3 or 5 definition), powered for noninferiority (a noninferiority margin of 1.8 based on odds ratio), and severe thrombocytopenia (platelet count <20 �103/µL). All outcomes were blindly adjudicated. Results: Among 600 randomized patients, 562 (93.7) were included in the primary analysis (median interquartile range age, 62 50-71 years; 237 42.2% women). The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 126 patients (45.7%) in the intermediate-dose group and 126 patients (44.1%) in the standard-dose prophylaxis group (absolute risk difference, 1.5% 95% CI,-6.6% to 9.8%; odds ratio, 1.06 95% CI, 0.76-1.48; P =.70). Major bleeding occurred in 7 patients (2.5%) in the intermediate-dose group and 4 patients (1.4%) in the standard-dose prophylaxis group (risk difference, 1.1% 1-sided 97.5% CI,-� to 3.4%; odds ratio, 1.83 1-sided 97.5% CI, 0.00-5.93), not meeting the noninferiority criteria (P for noninferiority >.99). Severe thrombocytopenia occurred only in patients assigned to the intermediate-dose group (6 vs 0 patients; risk difference, 2.2% 95% CI, 0.4%-3.8%; P =.01). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19, intermediate-dose prophylactic anticoagulation, compared with standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation, did not result in a significant difference in the primary outcome of a composite of adjudicated venous or arterial thrombosis, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or mortality within 30 days. These results do not support the routine empirical use of intermediate-dose prophylactic anticoagulation in unselected patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04486508. © 2021 American Medical Association. All rights reserved

An Update on Surgical versus Expectant Management of Ovarian Endometriomas in Infertile Women.

Ovarian endometriomas are a common manifestation of endometriosis that can represent a more severe stage of the disease. There is much debate over the treatment of these cysts in infertile women, particularly before use of assisted reproductive technologies. Evidence exists that supports surgical excision of ovarian endometriomas, as well as evidence that cautions against surgical intervention. Certain factors need to be examined closely before proceeding with surgery or continuing with expectant management. These include the patient's symptoms, age, ovarian reserve, size and laterality of the cyst, prior surgical treatment, and level of suspicion for malignancy. The most recent evidence appears to suggest that certain patient profiles may benefit from proceeding directly to in vitro fertilization (IVF). These include symptomatic infertile patients, especially those that are older, those that have diminished ovarian reserve, those that have bilateral endometriomas, or those that have had prior surgical treatment. Although endometriomas can be detrimental to the ovarian reserve, surgical therapy may further lower a woman's ovarian reserve. Nevertheless, the presence of an endometrioma does not appear to adversely affect IVF outcomes, and surgical excision of endometriomas does not appear to improve IVF outcomes. Regardless of treatment plan, infertile patients with endometriomas must be counseled appropriately before choosing either treatment path

Autologous Fat Injection for Augmentation Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review

Abstract Background Autologous fat has become more frequently used for nasal volume augmentation and nasal correction. Nasal lipofilling refers to the use of injectable autologous fat grafts for nonsurgical aesthetic corrections. Objectives This systematic review aims to assess the satisfaction, complication, and retention rates of fat injection in nasal shape corrections. Methods The authors searched PubMed/Medline and Google Scholar up to and including October 2020 with no time and language restrictions for pertinent materials. Two authors conducted a duplicate searching process independently to determine proper materials based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. One author retrieved the following data from the finally included studies based on a predefined checklist worksheet. Results The included studies report data from a total of 564 patients undergoing nasal fat injection in 12 studies. The mean score in our included materials was 6.08 with a range of 4 to 7 scores. In most of our included materials, no complication was reported for the peri/postsurgical period. Although some papers reported manageable complications such as an insufficient volume or decreased volume by resorption, tip excess and supratip fillness, and mild displacement, more than half of our included materials reported on patient satisfaction with aesthetic results of fat injection. The satisfaction rates were mostly high and ranged from 63% to 100%. Conclusions Autologous fat injection is an effective and minimally invasive treatment for nasal aesthetic and contour correction with a high satisfaction rate and low complication rate. Clinical expertise is essential to have a safe injection and to minimize the potential complications. Level of Evidence: 4 </jats:sec