Role of Environmental Risk Factors in the Etiology of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: A Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: The increasing global incidence and prevalence of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) necessitates an investigation into the potential influence of environmental risk factors on its origin. AIM: This multicenter case-control study aimed to investigate potential environmental risk factors contributing to IBD development in Turkey. METHODS: The study included 156 Crohn's disease (CD), 277 ulcerative colitis (UC) patients, and 468 controls (matched for age and gender) from six hospitals' gastroenterology departments. Data collection relied on the International Organization of IBD's questionnaire on environmental factors. Each environmental factor was initially analyzed using univariate and subsequently multivariate logistic regression models. RESULTS: In the multivariate model, regular coffee consumption was associated with decreased odds for both CD (OR 0.28; 95% CI 0.14-0.55) and UC (OR 0.25; 95% CI 0.15-0.42). Stress was associated with UC (OR 3.27; 95% CI 1.76-6.10) and CD (OR 4.40; 95% CI 2.12-9.10) development. A history of childhood infectious diseases (gastroenteritis, upper respiratory tract infections, etc.) raised the odds for both CD (OR 9.45; 95% CI 2.51-35.6) and UC (OR 7.56; 95% CI 1.57-36.4). Conversely, consuming well/spring water (OR 0.22; 95% CI 0.10-0.50) and childhood antibiotic use (OR 0.41; 95% CI 0.18-0.93) showed a positive association against UC. Increased consumption of refined sugar and industrial food products emerged as risk factors for IBD. Smoking increased the risk for CD (OR 2.38; 95% CI 1.16-4.91), while ex-smoking increased the risk for UC (OR 3.16; 95% CI 1.19-8.37). CONCLUSIONS: This study represents the first multicenter case-control study in Turkey examining the effects of environmental factors on IBD. It revealed that coffee consumption is positively associated, while stress and childhood infection-related diseases are risk factors. These findings, which are not supported by other studies, provide insight into the relationships between these factors and IBD.

Can a 1-day clear liquid diet with a split -dose polyethylene glycol overcome conventional practice patterns during the preparation for screening colonoscopy?

BACKGROUND/AIMS: A successful screening colonoscopy is closely linked to the quality of a bowel preparation. In this study, we aimed to determine the impact of a 1-day clear liquid diet (CLD) compared to a 3-day combined diet (CMD) accompanied by a split-dose regimen of polyethylene glycol and electrolyte lavage solution (PEG-ELS) for screening colonoscopy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, endoscopist-blinded study. Patients referred for screening colonoscopy were randomized to four groups as a 1-day CLD+PEG-ELS vs. a 1-day CLD+sulfate free (SF)-PEG-ELS and a 3-day CMD+PEG-ELS vs. a 3-day CMD+SF-PEG-ELS. An assessment of the quality of colon cleaning, tolerability to the preparation, and symptoms related to the preparation were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 506 patients were enrolled in this study. The quality of bowel preparation was significantly inferior in the CMD+PEG-ELS group than CLD+PEG-ELS (p=0.004) and CMD+SF-PEG-ELS groups (p=0.007). There were no statistical differences among the groups in terms of the polyp detection rate. With respect to an easy rating of diet following and the consumption of laxative, there were no significant differences among the four groups. Gastric fullness and nausea/vomiting were pointed out much more, especially in the SF-PEG-ELS users (p=0.008 and p=0.004, respectively). CONCLUSION: A 1-day CLD was not inferior to a 3-day CMD for colonoscopy preparation in terms of bowel cleaning, the polyp detection rate, and patient tolerance.

Successful Treatment With Direct-Acting Antiviral Agents of Hepatitis C in Patients With End-Stage Renal Disease and Kidney Transplant Recipients.

OBJECTIVES: The introduction of direct-acting antiviral agents has allowed significant chances for treatment for difficult-to-treat populations. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of these therapies in both patients with end-stage renal disease and kidney transplant recipients with chronic hepatitis C virus infection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was a retrospective analysis with prospective follow-up of patients. The antiviral combination of ombitasvir 25 mg, paritaprevir 75 mg, ritonavir 50 mg, and dasabuvir 50 mg was prescribed to patients with end-stage renal disease or kidney transplant recipients with noncirrhotic or compensated cirrhotic liver disease. The other antiviral combination consisted of sofosbuvir 400 mg and ledipasvir 90 mg, which was recommended to patients with decompensated cirrhosis or those who could not tolerate the first combination regimen. Ribavirin was given to all patients with genotype 1a hepatitis C virus infection. All clinical and laboratory data were recorded at week 4, at end of the treatment, and at 12 weeks after completion of treatment. RESULTS: In terms of efficacy, sustained virologic response at 12 weeks was achieved in 94% of patients in the end-stage renal disease group and 92% of patients in the kidney transplant group. In terms of tolerability, antiviral treatment was well tolerated in both groups. Cardiac arrest and cerebrovascular accident were seen in the end-stage renal disease group; severe mucositis and glossitis were seen in the kidney transplant group. Hospitalization was needed in 2 patients for treatment of drug interactions with tacrolimus and sirolimus. Renal allograft function worsened in 2 patients, with 1 patient having biopsyproven antibody-mediated rejection. CONCLUSIONS: We observed great efficacy and safety in both kidney transplant recipients and patients with end-stage renal disease with these agents in treatment of chronic hepatitis C. However, clinicians should remain aware of drug interactions and adverse events in this fragile patient population.

Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Prevention, Surveillance, Diagnosis, and Staging.

More than 600 000 people die from hepatocellular carcinoma each year. Worldwide, research on the disease needs to be intensified in both the medical and pharmaceutical fields, with a focus on providing help to geographic areas where resources are limited. Treatment approaches depend on the stage of the disease at diagnosis and on access to complex treatment regimens. However, advanced disease is not curable, and treating these patients is expensive and only marginally effective for increasing quality-adjusted life-years. Although the Milan criteria are often used to determine which patients will benefit from liver transplantation, many centers have their own criteria for patient selection. According to criteria developed by Baskent University in Ankara, Turkey, patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and a cirrhotic liver but without extrahepatic disease should be candidates for liver transplant when possible, and living-donor liver transplant should be considered as an alternative rescue therapy for many of these patients. Tumor size and number should not be the sole criteria for excluding liver transplant. Although significant vascular invasion and extrahepatic dissemination definitely indicate major tumor dissemination, until sensitive tests for measuring circulating tumor cells are developed, we continue to recommend liver transplant regardless of tumor size and number. Various locoregional therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma are used before transplant to prevent tumor progression and to decrease the risk of recurrence after transplant. In turn, response to locoregional therapy to decrease tumor stage in hepatocellular carcinoma may be an indicator of tumor behavior and may determine a patient's selection for liver transplant. The delivery of healthcare services for hepatocellular carcinoma could be improved by developing centers of excellence. Concentrating medical care in this way can lead to an increased level of expertise so that resections are performed by surgeons who understand liver disease and the limitations of these and other procedures.

Hepatitis C infection in hemodialysis patients: A review.

Hepatitis C virus (HCV)-related liver disease is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) who is treated with dialysis or kidney transplantation (KT). The survival rate for HCV-infected renal transplant recipients is better than that for HCV-infected hemodialysis patients on transplant waiting lists. Early diagnosis and treatment HCV infection prior to KT prevents complications post-transplantation and reduces mortality. In addition to screening for anti-HCV antibodies and detecting HCV RNA, percutaneous liver biopsy is particularly valuable for assessing the stage of liver damage in HCV-infected patients, because the stage of fibrosis is important determining optimal treatment for HCV. Studies have been demonstrated that with conventional interferon (IFN) monotherapy or pegylated IFN monotherapy are similar efficacy and safety in HCV-infected hemodialysis patients. Sustained viral responses (SVRs) with these monotherapies have ranged approximately 30% to 40%. Limited reports support the use of IFN and ribavirin combination therapy as antiviral treatment for ESRD patients or patients on hemodialysis. Ribavirin can be started at low dose and careful monitoring for side effects. Patients that show SVR after treatment are strong candidates for KT. It is also generally accepted that ESRD patients with decompensated cirrhosis and portal hypertension should be referred to the liver transplant team for consideration of combined liver-KT.