Turmeric Induced Liver Injury: A Report of Two Cases.

Turmeric is a commonly used oral herbal supplement with purported anti-inflammatory and antineoplastic properties. It is promoted as safe, with limited reports of severe adverse effects directly related to oral turmeric thus far in the literature. Herein we report two cases of turmeric supplement induced severe hepatitis. These cases highlight the need for physicians to be aware of patients taking this common supplement and the potential risks that exist.

Risk stratification in acute upper GI bleeding: comparison of the AIMS65 score with the Glasgow-Blatchford and Rockall scoring systems.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The American College of Gastroenterology recommends early risk stratification in patients presenting with upper GI bleeding (UGIB). The AIMS65 score is a risk stratification score previously validated to predict inpatient mortality. The aim of this study was to validate the AIMS65 score as a predictor of inpatient mortality in patients with acute UGIB and to compare it with established pre- and postendoscopy risk scores. METHODS: ICD-10 (International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision) codes identified patients presenting with UGIB requiring endoscopy. All patients were risk stratified by using the AIMS65, Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), pre-endoscopy Rockall, and full Rockall scores. The primary outcome was inpatient mortality. Secondary outcomes were a composite endpoint of inpatient mortality, rebleeding, and endoscopic, radiologic, or surgical intervention; blood transfusion requirement; intensive care unit (ICU) admission; rebleeding; and hospital length of stay. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was calculated for each score. RESULTS: Of the 424 study patients, 18 (4.2%) died and 69 (16%) achieved the composite endpoint. The AIMS65 score was superior to both the GBS (AUROC, 0.80 vs 0.76, P < .027) and the pre-endoscopy Rockall score (0.74, P = .001) and equivalent to the full Rockall score (0.78, P = .18) in predicting inpatient mortality. The AIMS65 score was superior to all other scores in predicting the need for ICU admission and length of hospital stay. AIMS65, GBS, and full Rockall scores were equivalent (AUROCs, 0.63 vs 0.62 vs 0.63, respectively) and superior to pre-endoscopy Rockall (AUROC, 0.55) in predicting the composite endpoint. GBS was superior to all other scores for predicting blood transfusion. CONCLUSION: The AIMS65 score is a simple risk stratification score for UGIB with accuracy superior to that of GBS and pre-endoscopy Rockall scores in predicting in-hospital mortality and the need for ICU admission.

The Value of Audio Devices in the Endoscopy Room (VADER) study: a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of Star Wars music (SWM) compared with endoscopist-selected popular music (PM) on quality outcomes in colonoscopy. DESIGN AND SETTING: A single-centre, prospective, randomised controlled trial conducted in an endoscopy suite within a quaternary-centre gastroenterology unit, Melbourne, Australia. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measures were procedure time, polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR). The secondary outcome measure was adenomas per colonoscopy (APC). RESULTS: 103 colonoscopies were analysed: 58 in the SWM group and 45 in the PM group. Bowel preparation was assessed as good or excellent in 57% of the SWM group compared with 69% of the PM group (P < 0.01). The PDR was significantly higher in the SWM group than in the PM group (60% v 35%; P = 0.006). Similarly, the ADR was significantly higher in the SWM group than in the PM group (48% v 27%; P = 0.01). The APC in the SWM group was 84% compared with 35% in the PM group (P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: SWM compared with PM improves key quality outcomes in colonoscopy, despite poorer bowel preparation.

A randomized controlled study of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole versus norfloxacin for the prevention of infection in cirrhotic patients.

OBJECTIVE: To prospectively compare norfloxacin (N) with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (T-S) in preventing infection in cirrhotic patients. METHODS: Cirrhotic patients at high risk of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) were recruited and assigned N (400 mg daily) or T-S (160/800 mg daily). Patients were followed up for 12 months. The primary end-point was the incidence of infection. Secondary end-points included the incidence of SBP, bacteremia, extraperitoneal infection requiring antibiotic treatment, liver transplantation, death, side effects and rate of resistance to N or T-S. RESULTS: A total of 80 patients with a mean age of 53.0 ± 9.3 years were prescribed N (n = 40) or T-S (n = 40). Child-Pugh status, model for end-stage liver disease and risk factors for SBP were similar between the groups. There were 10 episodes of infections in the N group and 9 in the T-S group (P = 0.79). Two patients each in the N and T-S group developed SBP (P = 0.60). There was a difference in the rate of transplantation favoring N (P = 0.03) but not death. The number of adverse events for N (n = 7) and T-S (n = 10) were similar (P = 0.59), with T-S being associated with an increased risk of developing a definite or probable adverse event compared to N (22.5% vs 0%, P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This study failed to demonstrate a difference between N and T-S groups in their effects on preventing infection in patients with liver cirrhosis. T-S can be considered an alternative first-line therapy for infection prophylaxis.

Norfloxacin and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole therapy have similar efficacy in prevention of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Although norfloxacin (N) is widely accepted as the drug of choice for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) prophylaxis, there is data to suggest that trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TS) may be similarly effective. However, no studies have compared the efficacy and safety of N and TS in SBP prophylaxis. The aim of this retrospective analysis was to compare outcomes in patients who received either N or TS for the prevention of SBP. METHODS: Records of all cirrhotic patients prescribed either N or TS for SBP prevention between April 2001 and May 2004 were reviewed. Data collected included age, sex, Child-Pugh score, ascitic protein concentration, etiology of liver disease, infections (SBP, bacteremia, and extraperitoneal infections), side-effects, and survival. RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients (18 female, 51 male), mean age 53.9 +/- 10.6 years, were prescribed N (n = 37) or TS (n = 32). The Child-Pugh score, model for end-stage liver disease score, and the prevalence of a low ascitic protein (<15 g/L) were similar between the groups (12.0 vs 12.4, 19.7 vs 18.2, and 78% vs 84%, respectively, P > 0.05). Fourteen (38%) infections occurred in the N group and 16 (50%) in the TS group (P > 0.05). Eight patients (21.6%) in the N group and nine (28%) in the TS group developed SBP (P > 0.05). The rates of liver transplantation (10 vs 13), adverse events (two in each group) and death (13 vs 14) were similar in the two treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest N and TS have similar efficacy in preventing SBP. This has significant implications for both the cost of SBP prophylaxis and the prevalence of fluoroquinolone resistance in patients with cirrhosis.