Methods: A cross-sectional study of government officers and their family members attending a health screening at a public healthcare facility was conducted. All subjects underwent clinical evaluation, biochemical testing, anthropometry, ultrasound carotid Doppler, and Fibroscan examination.
Results: Data for 251 subjects were analyzed (mean age 47.1 ± 12.4 years, 74.1% male). Prevalence of NAFLD and advanced fibrosis were 57.4 and 17.5%, respectively. Independent factors associated with NAFLD were waist circumference (odds ratio [OR] = 1.077, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.038-1.118, P < 0.001) and serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT) (OR = 1.039, 95% CI 1.005-1.074, P = 0.024). Independent factors associated with advanced fibrosis were male gender (OR = 4.847, 95% CI 1.369-17.155, P = 0.014) and serum aspartate aminotransferase (AST) (OR = 1.057, 95% CI 1.003-1.113, P = 0.036). Prevalence of increased CIMT was 29.0%. Independent factor associated with increased CIMT was older age (OR = 1.146, 95% CI 1.067-1.231, P < 0.001). Of the subjects, 34.5% with NAFLD had increased CIMT compared to 19.1% of the subjects without NAFLD (P = 0.063). Advanced fibrosis was not associated with increased CIMT.
Conclusions: Prevalence of NAFLD, advanced liver fibrosis, and increased CIMT were high. NAFLD and advanced liver fibrosis appeared not to be associated with increased CIMT. However, a larger sample size is needed to demonstrate whether there is any association.
DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. The following databases were searched using the keywords ("rebamipide" OR "gastroprotective agent*" OR "mucosta") AND ("dyspepsia" OR "indigestion" OR "gastrointestinal symptoms"): PubMed, Wed of Science, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Clinical Trials Register. The primary outcome was dyspepsia or upper GI symptom score improvement. Pooled analysis of the main outcome data were presented as risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data and standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous data.
RESULTS: From an initial 248 records, 17 randomised controlled trial (RCT) publications involving 2170 subjects (1224 rebamipide, 946 placebo/control) were included in the final analysis. Twelve RCTs were conducted in subjects with organic dyspepsia (peptic ulcer disease, reflux esophagitis or NSAID-induced gastropathy) and five RCTs were conducted in patients with functional dyspepsia (FD). Overall, dyspepsia symptom improvement was significantly better with rebamipide compared to placebo/control drug (RR 0.77, 95% CI = 0.64-0.93; SMD -0.46, 95% CI = -0.83 to -0.09). Significant symptom improvement was observed both in pooled RR and SMD in subjects with organic dyspepsia (RR 0.72, 95% CI = 0.61-0.86; SMD -0.23, 95% CI = -0.4 to -0.07), while symptom improvement in FD was observed in pooled SMD but not RR (SMD -0.62, 95% CI = -1.16 to -0.08; RR 1.01, 95% CI = 0.71-1.45).
CONCLUSION: Rebamipide is effective in organic dyspepsia and may improve symptoms in functional dyspepsia.
METHODS: We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of consecutive adults with biopsy-proven NASH and a NAFLD activity score (NAS) of 4 or more at a tertiary care hospital in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, from November 2012 through August 2014. Patients were randomly assigned to groups given silymarin (700 mg; n = 49 patients) or placebo (n = 50 patients) 3 times daily for 48 weeks. After this 48-week period, liver biopsies were repeated. The primary efficacy outcome was a decrease of 30% or more in NAS; findings from 48-week liver biopsies were compared with those from the baseline biopsy. Secondary outcomes included changes in steatosis, lobular inflammation, hepatocyte ballooning, NAS and fibrosis score, and anthropometric measurements, as well as glycemic, lipid, and liver profiles and liver stiffness measurements.
RESULTS: The percentage of patients achieving the primary efficacy outcome did not differ significantly between the groups (32.7% in the silymarin group vs 26.0% in the placebo group; P = .467). A significantly higher proportion of patients in the silymarin group had reductions in fibrosis based on histology (reductions of 1 point or more; 22.4%) than did the placebo group (6.0%; P = .023), and based on liver stiffness measurements (decrease of 30% or more; 24.2%) than did the placebo group (2.3%; P = .002). The silymarin group also had significant reductions in mean aspartate aminotransferase to platelet ratio index (reduction of 0.14, P = .011 compared with baseline), fibrosis-4 score (reduction of 0.20, P = .041 compared with baseline), and NAFLD fibrosis score (reduction of 0.30, P < .001 compared with baseline); these changes were not observed in the placebo group (reduction of 0.07, P = .154; increase of 0.18, P = .389; and reduction of 0.05, P = .845, respectively). There was no significant difference between groups in number of adverse events; adverse events that occurred were not attributed to silymarin.
CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized trial of 99 patients, we found that silymarin (700 mg, given 3 times daily for 48 weeks) did not reduce NAS scores by 30% or more in a significantly larger proportion of patients with NASH than placebo. Silymarin may reduce liver fibrosis but this remains to be confirmed in a larger trial. It appears to be safe and well tolerated. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02006498.
METHODS: A retrospective study of consecutive adults with luminal gastrointestinal (GI) diseases in a secondary healthcare gastroenterology clinic was conducted. The frequency of FGIDs and differences in healthcare utilization among different types of FGIDs were explored.
RESULTS: Among 1206 patients with luminal GI disease, 442 (36.7%) had FGIDs. FGIDs patients were older (67 y vs 62 y, P
METHODS: A longitudinal study of biopsy-proven NAFLD patients was conducted at the Asian tertiary hospital from November 2012 to January 2017. Patients with paired liver biopsies and LSM were followed prospectively for liver-related and non-liver related complications, and survival.
RESULTS: The data for 113 biopsy-proven NAFLD patients (mean age 51.3 ± 10.6 years, male 50%) were analyzed. At baseline, advanced fibrosis based on histology and LSM was observed in 22 and 46%, respectively. Paired liver biopsy and LSM at 1-year interval was available in 71 and 80% of patients, respectively. High-risk cases (defined as patients with advanced fibrosis at baseline who had no fibrosis improvement, and patients who developed advanced fibrosis on repeat assessment) were seen in 23 and 53% of patients, based on paired liver biopsy and LSM, respectively. Type 2 diabetes mellitus was independently associated with high-risk cases. The median follow-up was 37 months with a total follow-up of 328 person-years. High-risk cases based on paired liver biopsy had significantly higher rates of liver-related complications (p = 0.002) but no difference in other outcomes. High-risk patients based on paired LSM had a significantly higher rate of liver-related complications (p = 0.046), cardiovascular events (p = 0.025) and composite outcomes (p = 0.006).
CONCLUSION: Repeat LSM can predict liver-related complications, similar to paired liver biopsy, and may be useful in identifying patients who may be at an increased risk of cardiovascular events. Further studies in a larger cohort and with a longer follow-up should be carried out to confirm these observations.
METHODS: A 24-item ASK-Q with four domains: self-understanding (5 items), aetiology (5 items), complications (5 items) and management (9 items) of liver cirrhosis was developed based on literature review and expert panel input. It was then piloted in five English-speaking patients with liver cirrhosis. These patients commented that the font size was too small. Hence, the font was enlarged and the final version of the ASK-Q was administered to English-speaking patients with liver cirrhosis, aged ≥18 years, with or without decompensation, at a tertiary hospital, from September 2020 to November 2021, at baseline and fortnight later. Patients with encephalopathy were excluded.
RESULTS: 120/135 patients agreed to participate (response rate = 88.9%). The overall median score was 59.1 (45.6-68.2). A total of 7/22 (31.8%) items were "easy", 14/22 (63.6%) items were "moderately easy" and 1/22 (4.5%) items were "difficult". Exploratory factor analysis extracted nine factors, and two items were omitted. The ASK-Q was able to discriminate the knowledge level of patients with and without tertiary education [59.1 (50.0-72.7) vs. 54.5 (36.4-63.6); P
METHODS: A cross-sectional study of consecutive Asian adults attending a primary healthcare setting was conducted. This study was conducted in 2 phases: The association between BMI and common FGIDs (functional diarrhea/FD, irritable bowel syndrome/IBS, functional diarrhea and functional constipation/FC) was studied initially. The influence of anxiety and depression on BMI and FGIDs was additionally explored in phase 2.
RESULTS: A total of 1002 subjects (median age 32 years, 65.4% females, 90.7% Malay ethnicity, 73.2% higher than secondary level education) were recruited between August 2019 to January 2020. The majority of subjects were obese (39.2%), and had central obesity (51.7%), while 6.1% had metabolic syndrome. The prevalence of FD, IBS, functional diarrhea and FC were 7.5% (n = 75), 4.0% (n = 40), 1.2% (n = 12) and 10.5% (n = 105) respectively, based on the Rome III criteria. Among individual FGIDs, FD subjects had more underweight adults (BMI<18.5kg/m2) compared to controls (13.3% vs 3.5%, P = 0.002) and being underweight remained as an independent association with FD [OR = 3.648 (95%CI 1.494-8.905), P = 0.004] at multi-variate analysis. There were no independent associations between BMI and other FGIDs. When psychological morbidity was additionally explored, anxiety (OR 2.032; 95%CI = 1.034-3.991, p = 0.040), but not depression, and a BMI<18.5kg/m2 (OR 3.231; 95%CI = 1.066-9.796, p = 0.038) were found to be independently associated with FD.
CONCLUSIONS: FD, but not other FGIDs, is associated with being underweight. This association is independent of the presence of anxiety.
METHODS: Economic evaluation was performed based on the cost-of-illness method. Resource utilization and quality of life data over a specific time frame, were collected to determine direct, indirect and intangible costs related to dyspepsia.
RESULTS: The prevalences of dyspepsia in the rural (n = 2,000) and urban (n = 2,039) populations were 14.6% and 24.3% respectively. Differences in socioeconomic status and healthcare utilisation between both populations were considerable. The cost of dyspepsia per 1,000 population per year was estimated at USD14,816.10 and USD59,282.20 in the rural and urban populations respectively. The cost per quality adjusted life year for dyspepsia in rural and urban adults was USD16.30 and USD69.75, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The economic impact of dyspepsia is greater in an urban compared to a rural setting. Differences in socioeconomic status and healthcare utilisation between populations are thought to contribute to this difference.