Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis: Impact on Platelet Aggregation.

Background and Objectives: Ulcerative colitis is chronic and/or progressive inflammation of the colorectal mucosa and submucosa and represents one of two major inflammatory bowel diseases. Ulcerative colitis has been associated with increased risk of arteriosus and venous thrombosis. There are numerous factors responsible for this; one of them is platelet activation and aggregation. The objective of our study was to determine if different treatment options for ulcerative colitis have an impact on platelet aggregation. Materials and Methods: This research was a prospective, observational study and included 94 newly diagnosed patients with UC divided into four treatment groups. For all patients, we measured platelet aggregability by using an impedance aggregometry method with a multiplate analyzer before and after treatment with infliximab, adalimumab, vedolizumab and azathioprine. A Paired Samples t test was performed in order to determine the difference in platelet aggregability before and after a certain therapy, since the data followed a normal distribution. Taking into account the impact of some clinical characteristics, multiple linear regression was conducted for the purpose of estimating the effect of therapy on the level of reduction in platelet aggregability. Results: All four drugs significantly reduced platelet aggregability. After we excluded the influence of clinical and endoscopic scores and disease localization on the results, we found that infliximab had the greatest anti-platelet activity. Conclusions: In addition to the well-known traditional risk factors for atherosclerosis, activation and aggregation of platelets play a significant role in the development of arterial thrombosis, and our results suggested that therapy use for the treatment of UC, especially infliximab, can have a great impact on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality by decreasing platelet aggregability.

Multiple Sclerosis in Pediatrics: Current Concepts and Treatment Options.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic, autoimmune, inflammatory, demyelinating disease of the central nervous system. MS is increasingly recognized in the pediatric population, and it is usually diagnosed around 15 years of age. The exact etiology of MS is still not known, although autoimmune, genetic, and environmental factors play important roles in its development, making it a multifactorial disease. The disease in children almost always presents in the relapsing-remittent form. The therapy involves treatment of relapses, and immunomodulatory and symptomatic treatment. The treatment of children with MS has to be multidisciplinary and include pediatric neurologists, ophthalmologists, psychologists, physiotherapists, and if necessary, pediatric psychiatrists and pharmacologists. The basis of MS therapy should rely on drugs that are able to modify the course of the disease, i.e. immunomodulatory drugs. These drugs can be subdivided into two general categories: first-line immunomodulatory therapy (interferon beta-1a, interferon beta-1b, glatiramer acetate) and second-line immunomodulatory therapy (natalizumab, mitoxantrone, fingolimod, teriflunomide, azathioprine, rituximab, dimethyl fumarate, daclizumab). Treatment of relapses involves the use of high intravenous doses of corticosteroids, administration of intravenous immunoglobulins, and plasmapheresis. We summarize here the current available information related to the etiology and treatment options in MS. Early administration of immunomodulatory therapy is beneficial in adults, while more studies are needed to prove their effectiveness in pediatric populations. Therefore, pediatric MS still represents a great challenge for both, the early and correct diagnosis, as well as its treatment.

The impact of in-hospital nutritional status deterioration on treatment outcome of adult gastroenterological patients.

Background/Aim: In the current literature, data on impact of intrahospital changes in patients' nutritional status on the treatment outcome are limited. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between nutritional status deterioration and the treatment outcome among hospitalized gastroenterological patients. Methods: In 650 adult gastroenterological patients nutritional status on admission and at discharge was evaluated using the 6 nutritional status assessment parameters: body mass index, triceps skinfold thickness, mid-upper arm muscle circumference, serum albumin concentration, lymphocyte count and unintentional weight loss. The influence on treatment outcome was tested for the nutritional status on admission, nutritional status at discharge and intrahospital nutritional status deterioration. Results: The incidence of favorable outcome in the non-undernourished and undernourished patients on admission was in the range 93.4-97.3% and 81.2- 91.2%, respectively. The incidence of favorable outcome in the non-undernourished and undernourished patients at discharge was in the range 94-97.4% and 80.8-88.1%, respectively. Favorable outcomes were obtained in 95.6-98.9% of the patients without nutritional status deterioration and in 87.1-90.3% of the patients with nutritional status deterioration. Intrahospital nutritional status deterioration significantly influenced the outcome, no matter what assessment parameter had been used (p < 0.001 for all the applied parameters). Furthermore, only the deterioration of nutritional status was found to be an independent predictor of treatment outcome (multivariate analysis Forwald Wald, p £ 0.001; relative risk (RR) = 0.104-0.350; confidence intervals (CI) = 0.037-0.186/0.297-0.657). Conclusion: Deterioration of nutritional status is an independent predictor of adverse outcome.

[Risk factors for nutritional status determination and indications for preventive nutrition therapy in hospitalized gastroenterological patients].

BACKGROUND/AIM: Risk factors for the intrahospital nutritional status worsening (NSW) have not been precisely defined in the literature. The objective was defining thoese factors among gastroenterological patients and defining the risk patients requiring a preventive nutritional therapy. METHODS: In 650 gastroenterological patients, NSW was evaluated on the basis of reducing of the six parameters: body weight, body mass index (BMI), triceps skinfold thickness (TSF), mid-upper arm muscle circumference (MAMC), serum albumin level (ALB), and lymphocyte count (LYM). The influence on NSW was tested for 13 factors concerning characteristics of the patient, disease, and diagnostic procedures. Among the factors influencing significantly the NSW, primary and secondary risk factors were selected. After scoring of risk factors had been performed, the risk-score for NSW (RSNSW) was defined. The critical value of RSNSW which required preventive nutritional therapy was also calculated. RESULTS: The incidence of NSW was in the range 29.2%-57.9%. The presence of general complications and severe disease activity were considered as primary risk factors, whereas malignant disease, age above 71, hepato-billiary tract involvement, hospitalization longer than 14 days, and mobility worsening were considered as secondary risk factors. The best predictive value for the NSW was proved for the RSNSW > or = 6. Because of that, preventive nutritional therapy should be indicated in patients presenting with both primary risk factors or in patients presenting with one primary factor combined with three secondary risk factors at least. CONCLUSION: There are 7 risk factors for NSW in gastroenterological patients, but they are not of the same importance--two primary and five secondary risk factors can be differentiated. Preventive nutritional therapy is indicated only in patients having both primary risk factors or in those presenting with one primary risk factor combined with three secondary risk factors at least.

[Optimal nutritional status assessment parameters in gastroenterological patients on hospital admission].

BACKGROUND/AIM: There are no recommendations for the optimal nutritional status assessment parameters (NSAPs) in the current literature. The aim of this study was to define the optimal NSAPs for nutritional status assessing in gastroenterological patients on hospital admission. METHODS: Nutritional status of 612 gastroenterological patients was evaluated at the admission using 6 NSAPs: unintentional weight loss (WL), body mass index (BMI), triceps skinfold thickness (TSF), mid-upper arm muscle circumference (MAMC), serum albumin concentration (ALB), and lymphocyte counts (LYM). According to their nutritive status, the patients were classified as well nourished (normally nourished and obese), moderately undernourished and severely undernourished. Based on the similarities and differences in the assessment results, obtained according to each of 6 parameters, the optimal nutritional assessment parameters were defined, separately for the well-nourished/undernourished patients and for moderately/severely undernourished patients. RESULTS: The incidence of malnutrition was in the range 5.9-29.7%. The results based on MAMC, ALB, and LYM were similar (25.2-29.7%; p > 0.05), while the results based on WL, BMI, and TSF differed significantly (5.9-19.9%; p = 0.001-0.015). The assessment based on BMI was the most severe criterion, while the assessment according to MAMC was the mildest criterion in selection of malnourished patients. The assessment according to MAMC was the mildest criterion for the selection of severe malnourished patients (severely malnouorished patients accounted for 70.1%), while BMI and LYM were the most severe criteria (severely malnouorished patients accounted for 22.2% and 27.3%, respectively). The results based on BMI and LYM were similar (Wilcoxon test; p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Combining BMI with MAMC is sufficient for the assessment of the nutritional status of gastroenterological patients on admission, as well as for differentiation between severely malnourished and moderately malnourished patients.