METHODS: The rats were divided into seven groups according to their pretreatment: an untreated control group, an ulcer control group, a reference control group (20 mg/kg omeprazole), and four experimental groups (50, 100, 200, or 400 mg/kg of extract). Carboxymethyl cellulose was the vehicle for the agents. Prior to the induction of gastric ulcers with absolute ethanol, the rats in each group were pretreated orally. An hour later, the rats were sacrificed, and gastric tissues were collected to evaluate the ulcers and to measure enzymatic activity. The tissues were subjected to histological and immunohistochemical evaluations.
RESULTS: Compared with the extensive mucosal damage in the ulcer control group, gross evaluation revealed a marked protection of the gastric mucosa in the experimental groups, with significantly preserved gastric wall mucus. In these groups, superoxide dismutase and malondialdehyde levels were significantly increased (P < 0.05) and reduced (P < 0.05), respectively. In addition to the histologic analyses (HE and periodic acid-Schiff staining), immunohistochemistry confirmed the protection through the upregulation of Hsp70 and the downregulation of Bax proteins. The gastroprotection of the experimental groups was comparable to that of the reference control medicine omeprazole.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study reports the gastroprotective property of an ethanolic extract of C. olitorius against ethanol-induced gastric mucosal hemorrhagic lesions in rats.
METHODS: We reviewed all children with gastroesophageal varices seen in our unit from 2000 to 2019. Primary prophylaxis was defined as endoscopic procedure without a preceding spontaneous bleeding and secondary prophylaxis as preceded by spontaneous bleeding. High-risk varices were defined as presence of grade III esophageal varices, cardia gastric varices or cherry red spots on the varices. Outcome measures (spontaneous rebleeding within 3 months after endoscopic procedure, number of additional procedures to eradicate varices, liver transplant [LT], death) were ascertained.
RESULTS: Sixteen of 62 (26%) patients (median [± S.D.] age at diagnosis = 5.0 ± 4.3 years) with varices had primary prophylaxis, 38 (61%) had secondary prophylaxis while 8 (13%) had no prophylaxis. No difference in the proportion of patients with high-risk varices was observed between primary (88%) and secondary (92%; P = 0.62) prophylaxis. As compared to secondary prophylaxis, children who had primary prophylaxis were significantly less likely to have spontaneous rebleeding (6% vs. 38%; P = 0.022) and needed significantly fewer repeated endoscopic procedures (0.9 ± 1.0 vs. 3.1 ± 2.5; P = 0.021). After 8.9 ± 5.5 years of follow-up, overall survival was 85%; survival with native liver was 73%. No statistical difference was observed in the eventual outcome (alive with native liver) between primary and secondary (71% vs. 78%, P = 0.78).
CONCLUSION: Children with PHT who had primary prophylaxis had less subsequent spontaneous rebleeding and needed fewer additional endoscopic procedures as compared to secondary prophylaxis but did not have an improved eventual outcome. Screening endoscopy in all children who have signs of PHT and primary prophylaxis in high-risk esophageal varices should be considered before eventual LT.
Methods: In this cross-sectional study with retrospective record review, 403 established gouty arthritis patients were recruited to determine the incidence of UGIB and associated factors among gout patients who were on regular nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).
Results: The mean age of the 403 gouty arthritis patients was 55.7 years old and the majority (n = 359/403; 89.1%) were male. The incidence of UGIB among gouty arthritis patients who were on NSAIDs was 7.2% (n = 29/403). Older age (p < 0.001), diclofenac medication (p = 0.003), pantoprazole medication (p = 0.003), end-stage renal failure (ESRF) (p = 0.007), smoking (p = 0.035), hypertension (p = 0.042) and creatinine (p = 0.045) were significant risk factors for UGIB among the gouty arthritis patients in univariable analysis. Older age (p = 0.001) and diclofenac medication (p < 0.001) remained significant risk factors for UGIB among the gouty arthritis patients in multivariable analysis.
Conclusions: Age and diclofenac were significantly associated with UGIB among patients with gouty arthritis on regular NSAIDs, indicating that these factors increased the risks of developing UGIB in gout patients. Hence, these high-risk groups of gouty arthritis patients should be routinely monitored to avoid the potential onset of UGIB. Our data also suggest that diclofenac should be prescribed for the shortest duration possible to minimize the risk of developing UGIB in gout patients.
Methods: Cirrhotic patients with suspected EVB were screened (n = 352). Eligible patients were assigned based on the physician's preference to either somatostatin (group S) or terlipressin (group T) followed by EVL. In group S, intravenous bolus (250 µg) of somatostatin followed by 250 µg/hour was continued for three days. In group T, 2 mg bolus injection of terlipressin was followed by 1 mg infusion every 6 h for three days.
Results: A total of 150 patients were enrolled; 41 in group S and 109 in group T. Reasons for physician preference was convenience in administration (77.1%) for group T and good safety profile (73.2%) for group S. Very early rebleeding within 49-120 h occurred in one patient in groups S and T (p = 0.469). Four patients in group S and 14 patients in group T have variceal rebleeding episodes within 6-42 d (p = 0.781). Overall treatment-related adverse effects were compatible in groups S and T (p = 0.878), but the total cost of terlipressin and somatostatin differed i.e., USD 621.32 and USD 496.43 respectively.
Conclusions: Terlipressin is the preferred vasoactive agent by physicians in our institution for acute EVB. Convenience in administration and safety profile are main considerations of physicians. Safety and hemostatic effects did not differ significantly between short-course somatostatin or terlipressin, although terlipressin is more expensive.
OBJECTIVES: To review and assess the efficacy of currently available treatment options for preventing and managing advanced liver disease in children and adults with cystic fibrosis.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. Date of last search: 19 November 2019. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews and online trials registries. Date of last search: 01 January 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Any published and unpublished randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised controlled trials of advanced liver disease in cystic fibrosis with cirrhosis or liver failure, portal hypertension or variceal bleeding (or both).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Authors independently examined titles and abstracts to identify potentially relevant trials, but none were eligible for inclusion in this review.
MAIN RESULTS: A comprehensive search of the literature did not identify any published eligible randomised controlled trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In order to develop the best source of evidence, there is a need to undertake randomised controlled trials of interventions for preventing and managing advanced liver disease in adults and children with cystic fibrosis.