Methods
This was a secondary analysis of EpiLUTS-a population-representative, cross-sectional, Internet-based survey conducted to assess the prevalence and HRQL impact of urinary symptoms. UI was evaluated by the LUTS Tool and categorized by subgroups: no UI, urgency urinary incontinence (UUI), stress urinary incontinence (SUI),
mixed urinary incontinence (MUI) (UUI + SUI), UUI + other UI (OI), SUI + OI, and OI. Descriptive statistics were used. Logistic regressions examined the relationship of BMI to UI controlling for demographics and comorbid conditions.
Results
Response rate was 59%; 10,070 men and 13,178 women were included. Significant differences in BMI were found across UI subgroups. Obesity rates were highest among those with MUI (men and women), SUI + OI (women), UUI and UUI + OI (men). EGFR inhibitor Logistic regressions of each UI subgroup showed that BMI >= 30 (obese) was associated with UI in general and MUI (women) SBC-115076 and UUI + OI (men). Among women, being obese increased the odds of having SUI and SUI + OI. Women with BMI 25-29.9 (overweight)
were more likely to have UI in general and SUI with and without other incontinence (SUI, MUI, and SUI + OI). Being overweight was unrelated to any form of UI in men.
Conclusions
Results were consistent with prior research showing BMI is associated with higher risk of UI. These findings indicate substantial differences in obesity by gender and click here UI subtype, suggesting different mechanisms for UI other than purely mechanical stress on the bladder. Neurourol. Urodynam. 33:392-399, 2014. (c) 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.”
“Purpose of review
There is increasing evidence to suggest that antibody-mediated mechanisms
play a role in the pathogenesis of liver allograft rejection. This article will review the pathology of antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) focusing on recent studies which have improved our understanding of the clinicopathological features and diagnostic approaches.
Recent findings
Recent studies have investigated the patterns of immunohistochemical staining for C4d as a tissue marker of AMR in posttransplant biopsies, and have correlated these findings with other histopathological changes and with the presence of donor-specific antibodies (DSAs). These studies have highlighted the diagnostic applications and limitations of C4d immunostaining. They have also emphasized the importance of using strict criteria for defining ‘pure’ AMR in the liver allograft – that is, graft dysfunction associated with compatible histological findings (typically resembling biliary obstruction), the presence of DSAs and diffusely positive staining for C4d.
Summary
Pure AMR is relatively uncommon in ABO-compatible grafts – it should be diagnosed on the basis of strict criteria and requires treatment with antibody-depleting immunosuppression. C4d immunostaining in isolation has limited diagnostic value.