RESUMO
Background: This report presents the influence of immunosuppression by new rheumatological therapies on hepatitis E virus infection in a 54-year-old male patient with an anti-synthetase syndrome and treatment with methotrexate and rituximab. Case description: The patient arrived at the Emergency Department with epigastric pain, vomiting and dark urine. Initial examination revealed signs of inflammation and hepatic dysfunction. Subsequent laboratory tests and imaging confirmed acute hepatitis E infection in the context of recent initiation of rituximab therapy. Despite initial suspicion of pancreatitis, subsequent investigations ruled out pancreatic involvement. Treatment with ribavirin, along with supportive measures, led to significant clinical improvement with resolution of jaundice, ascites, and oedema. Conclusions: This case underscores the importance of considering hepatitis E in patients with autoimmune conditions, especially when initiating immunosuppressive therapies, a situation that is not well described in scientific literature and is increasingly common, necessitating proper recognition. LEARNING POINTS: Suspect hepatitis E virus infection in the presence of persistent liver failure of unknown cause.Recognise immunosuppression as a cause of increased risk of hepatitis E infection.Take into account the repercussions of immunosuppressive therapy such as rituximab regarding hepatitis E infections in immunocompromised patients.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: propofol and midazolam are two of the most commonly used sedatives in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE). The objective of this study was to evaluate these two sedation regimens administered to patients who underwent an UGE with regard to security, efficiency, quality of exploration and patient response. PATIENTS AND METHODS: a prospective, randomized and double-blind study was performed which included 83 patients between 18 and 80 years of age of a low anesthetic risk (ASA - American Society of Anesthesiologists- I-II) who underwent a diagnostic UGE. Patients were randomized to receive sedation with either placebo plus propofol (group A) or midazolam plus propofol (group B). RESULTS: in group A, 42 patients received a placebo bolus (saline solution) and on average up to 115 mg of propofol in boluses of 20 mg. In group B, 41 patients received 3 mg of midazolam and an average of up to 83 mg of propofol in boluses of 20 mg. There were no significant differences in the adverse effects observed in either group and all adverse events were treated conservatively. The patients in group B (midazolam plus propofol) entered the desired sedated state more quickly with no variation in the overall time of the exploration. The quality of the endoscopic evaluation was similar in both groups and the patients were equally satisfied regardless of the sedatives they received. CONCLUSIONS: the use of midazolam plus propofol as a sedative does not affect the overall exploration time, a lower dose of propofol can be used and it is as safe as administering propofol as a monotherapy while providing the same level of both exploration quality and patient approval.