Clinical Pilot Study of Rectal Suppository Containing Combined Extract of Cissus quadrangularis Linn. and Acmella paniculata (Wall ex. DC.) R. K. Jansen in Acute Hemorrhoids.

BACKGROUND: Cissus quadrangularis Linn. (CQ) is a medicinal plant with good evidence for the treatment of hemorrhoids, listed in the Thai National List of Herbal Products in the oral dosage form. Acmella paniculata (Wall ex. DC.) R. K. Jansen. (AP) is a medicinal plant with a local anesthetic effect. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the potential of rectal suppositories containing CQ and AP extracts to alleviate symptoms of hemorrhoids compared with the commercialized rectal suppository containing hydrocortisone and cinchocaine. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Hemorrhoid outpatients (n = 105) with different severity grades (I, II, or III) from eight hospitals in northern Thailand were included in this study. Hemorrhoid severity was graded by proctoscopy associated with either anal pain or bleeding related to hemorrhoids or both. The patients were randomly allocated to two groups: CQ-AP group (n = 52) or the commercialized rectal suppository group (n = 53). One suppository was rectally administered twice daily in the morning and at bedtime for seven days. Evaluations were performed by physicians on days 1, 4, and 8 of the study. The primary endpoints were bleeding and prolapse size, while the secondary endpoint was anal pain. RESULTS: Baseline demographics, lifestyle, constipation, number of prolapses, grade of hemorrhoid severity, and duration of experiencing hemorrhoids were comparable in both groups of patients. The effects of CQ-AP and the commercialized rectal suppository on bleeding, prolapse size, and anal pain were comparable. The patients in both groups were satisfied with both products at comparable levels and stated a preference for further use in the case of hemorrhoids recurrence. In terms of safety, the patients in the commercialized rectal suppository group experienced a higher incidence of adverse events, including anal pain and bleeding. CONCLUSION: Rectal suppositories containing a combined extract of CQ and AP show potential in alleviating hemorrhoidal symptoms with a good safety profile.

A Clinical Risk Prediction Tool for Peritonitis-Associated Treatment Failure in Peritoneal Dialysis Patients.

A tool to predict peritonitis-associated treatment failure among peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients has not yet been established. We conducted a multicentre, retrospective cohort study among 1,025 PD patients between 2006 and 2016 in Thailand to develop and internally validate such a tool. Treatment failure was defined as either a requirement for catheter removal, a switch to haemodialysis, or peritonitis-associated mortality. Prediction model performances were analysed using discrimination (C-statistics) and calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow test) tests. Predictors were weighted to calculate a risk score. In total, 435 patients with 855 episodes of peritonitis were identified; 215 (25.2%) episodes resulted in treatment failure. A total risk score of 11.5 was developed including, diabetes, systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg, and dialysate leukocyte count >1,000/mm3 and >100/mm3 on days 3-4 and day 5, respectively. The discrimination (C-statistic = 0.92; 95%CI, 0.89-0.94) and calibration (P > 0.05) indicated an excellent performance. No significant difference was observed in the internal validation cohort. The rate of treatment failure in the different groups was 3.0% (low-risk, <1.5 points), 54.4% (moderate-risk, 1.5-9 points), and 89.5% (high-risk, >9 points). A simplified risk-scoring scheme to predict treatment failure may be useful for clinical decision making regarding PD patients with peritonitis. External validation studies are needed.

The association between proton pump inhibitor use and the risk of adverse kidney outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Existing epidemiological studies illustrate that proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) may be related to adverse kidney outcomes. To date, no comprehensive meta-analysis has been conducted to evaluate and quantify this association. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies to assess the association between PPI use and the risk of adverse kidney outcomes. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, SCOPUS, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and grey literature with no language restrictions (through 31 October 2016). Adverse kidney outcomes were acute interstitial nephritis (AIN), acute kidney injury (AKI), chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage renal disease (ESRD). The risk ratios (RRs) and confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using a random effects model. The strength of evidence (SOE) for each outcome was assessed using the Grading of Recommended Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Results: Of 2037 identified studies, four cohort and five case-control studies with ∼2.6 million patients were included. Of these, 534 003 (20.2%) were PPI users. Compared with non-PPI users, PPI users experienced a significantly higher risk of AKI [RR 1.44 (95% CI 1.08-1.91); P = 0.013; SOE, low] and CKD [RR 1.36 (95% CI 1.07-1.72); P = 0.012; SOE, low]. Moreover, PPIs increased the risk of AIN [RR 3.61 (95% CI 2.37-5.51); P < 0.001; SOE, insufficient] and ESRD [RR 1.42 (95% CI 1.28-1.58); P < 0.001; SOE, insufficient]. Conclusion: PPI usage was associated with adverse kidney outcomes; however, these findings were based on observational studies and low-quality evidence. Additional rigorous studies are needed for further clarification.