4.4 Review

African-Americans and Indigenous Peoples Have Increased Burden of Diseases of the Exocrine Pancreas: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Journal

DIGESTIVE DISEASES AND SCIENCES
Volume 64, Issue 1, Pages 249-261

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10620-018-5291-1

Keywords

Health disparity; Pancreatic cancer; Pancreatitis; Post-pancreatitis diabetes mellitus

Funding

  1. Auckland Medical Research Foundation [1116021]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Ethnic health disparity is a well-acknowledged issue in many disease settings, but not diseases of the exocrine pancreas. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to explore the race- and ethnicity-specific burden of diseases of the exocrine pancreas. Studies that compared health-related endpoints between two or more ethnicities were eligible for inclusion. Proportion meta-analyses were conducted to compare burden between groups. A total of 42 studies (24 on pancreatic cancer, 17 on pancreatitis, and one on pancreatic cyst) were included in the systematic review, of which 19 studies were suitable for meta-analyses. The incidence of pancreatic cancer was 1.4-fold higheramong African-Americans, while the incidence of acute pancreatitis was 4.8-fold higher among an indigenous population (New Zealand Maori) compared with Caucasians. The prevalence of post-pancreatitis diabetes mellitus was up to 3.0-fold higher among certain ethnicities, including Asians, Pacific Islanders, and indigenous populations compared with Caucasians. The burden of diseases of the exocrine pancreas differs between ethnicities, with African-Americans and certain indigenous populations being at the greatest risk of developing these diseases. Development of race- and ethnicity-specific screening as well as protocols for lifestyle modifications may need to be considered with a view to reducing the disparities in burden of diseases of the exocrine pancreas.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available