Protective effects of the succinate/SUCNR1 axis on damaged hepatocytes in NAFLD.

OBJECTIVE: Succinate and succinate receptor 1 (SUCNR1) are linked to fibrotic remodeling in models of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), but whether they have roles beyond the activation of hepatic stellate cells remains unexplored. We investigated the succinate/SUCNR1 axis in the context of NAFLD specifically in hepatocytes. METHODS: We studied the phenotype of wild-type and Sucnr1-/- mice fed a choline-deficient high-fat diet to induce non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), and explored the function of SUCNR1 in murine primary hepatocytes and human HepG2 cells treated with palmitic acid. Lastly, plasma succinate and hepatic SUCNR1 expression were analyzed in four independent cohorts of patients in different NAFLD stages. RESULTS: Sucnr1 was upregulated in murine liver and primary hepatocytes in response to diet-induced NASH. Sucnr1 deficiency provoked both beneficial (reduced fibrosis and endoplasmic reticulum stress) and detrimental (exacerbated steatosis and inflammation and reduced glycogen content) effects in the liver, and disrupted glucose homeostasis. Studies in vitro revealed that hepatocyte injury increased Sucnr1 expression, which when activated improved lipid and glycogen homeostasis in damaged hepatocytes. In humans, SUCNR1 expression was a good determinant of NAFLD progression to advanced stages. In a population at risk of NAFLD, circulating succinate was elevated in patients with a fatty liver index (FLI) ≥60. Indeed, succinate had good predictive value for steatosis diagnosed by FLI, and improved the prediction of moderate/severe steatosis through biopsy when added to an FLI algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: We identify hepatocytes as target cells of extracellular succinate during NAFLD progression and uncover a hitherto unknown function for SUCNR1 as a regulator of hepatocyte glucose and lipid metabolism. Our clinical data highlight the potential of succinate and hepatic SUCNR1 expression as markers to diagnose fatty liver and NASH, respectively.

Management of small subepithelial tumors by endoscopic banding without resection and single-incision needle-knife-assisted biopsy sampling: a prospective multicenter study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic band ligation (EBL) without resection combined with single-incision needle-knife (SINK) biopsy sampling may have a positive impact on small GI subepithelial tumor (SET) management, but the method needs to be tested. The aim was to evaluate the feasibility of this strategy in small-sized SETs. METHODS: This prospective multicenter observational cohort study in 7 centers included patients with SETs ≤15 mm (confirmed by EUS) between March 2017 and March 2020. The primary outcome was clinical success at 4 weeks, defined as complete SET disappearance on EUS. Secondary outcomes were long-term (1-year) clinical success, technical difficulty level, clinical impact, yield pathology, and safety. RESULTS: Of 273 patients screened, 122 (62.3% women; mean age, 60.9 ± 13.2 years) were included with SETs (mean size, 9 ± 2.8 mm; gastric location, 77%; superficial layer dependence, 63%). The primary endpoint was achieved in 73.6% of patients (95% confidence interval [CI], 64.8-81.2). At the 1-year follow-up, the success rate was 68.4% (95% CI, 59.1-76.8). A favorable clinical impact was observed in 97 cases (79.5%; 95% CI, 71.3-86.3). Pathology diagnosis was known in 70%. Potentially malignant lesions were present in 24.7%. The related adverse events rate was 4.1% (95% CI, 1.3-9.3; all mild: 2 bleeding, 2 abdominal pain). On multivariable analysis, the ≤10-mm SET group was associated with a greater success rate (1 year, 87%; relative risk, 5.07; 95% CI, 2.63-9.8) and clinical impact rate (92.7%; relative risk, 6.15; 95% CI, 2.72-13.93). CONCLUSIONS: EBL plus SINK biopsy sampling seems to be feasible and safe, and it may offer a favorable clinical impact in small-sized SETs. In particular, SETs ≤10 mm are the best candidates. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03247231.).

High frequency of acute decompensation and cancer in patients with compensated cirrhosis due to nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: A retrospective cohort study.

The natural history of compensated cirrhosis due to nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) has not been completely characterized. The aim of the present study was to assess the incidence and risk factors of acute decompensation of cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, and extrahepatic cancers. This was a multicenter, retrospective, cohort study including 449 patients with compensated cirrhosis due to NAFLD. We calculated cumulative incidences and used competitive risk analysis to determine the risk factors associated with decompensation and cancer development. Over a median of 39 months of follow-up, 124 patients (28%) presented acute decompensation. The most frequent decompensation was ascites (21%) followed by hepatic encephalopathy (15%), variceal bleeding (9%), and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (3%). Acute-on-chronic liver failure was diagnosed in 6% of patients during follow-up. Liver function parameters and specifically an albumin level below 40 g/L were independently associated with an increased risk of decompensation. The presence of ischemic heart disease was independently associated with acute decompensation. Seventy-eight patients (18%) developed hepatocellular carcinoma or extrahepatic cancers during follow-up (51 and 27, respectively). Conclusion: Patients with compensated cirrhosis due to NAFLD are at high risk of severe liver complications, such as the development of acute decompensation, in a relative short follow-up time. This population is at high risk of hepatic and extrahepatic cancers.

One Versus 3-Week Immobilization Period for Nonoperatively Treated Proximal Humeral Fractures: A Prospective Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus on the duration of immobilization for nonoperatively treated proximal humeral fractures (PHFs). The main objective of the study was to determine the differences in pain between PHFs that were treated nonoperatively with 3-week immobilization and those treated with 1-week immobilization. METHODS: A prospective randomized trial was designed to evaluate whether the immobilization time frame (1-week immobilization [group I] versus 3-week immobilization [group II]) for nonoperatively treated PHFs had any influence on pain and functional outcomes. Pain was assessed using a 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS) that was administrated 1 week after the fracture, at 3 weeks, and then at the 3, 6, 12, and 24-month follow-up. The functional outcome was evaluated using the Constant score. To assess the functional disability of the shoulder, a self-reported shoulder-specific questionnaire, the Simple Shoulder Test (SST), was used. The Constant score and the SST were recorded at the 3, 6, 12, and 24-month follow-up. Complications and secondary displacement were also recorded. RESULTS: One hundred and forty-three patients were randomized, and 111 (88 females and 23 males) who had been allocated to group I (55 patients) or group II (56 patients) were included in the final analysis. The mean age of the patients was 70.4 years (range, 42 to 94 years). No significant differences were found between the 2 groups in terms of pain as measured with the VAS at any time point (1 week [5.9 versus 5.6; p = 0.648], 3 weeks [4.8 versus 4.1; p = 0.059], 3 months [1.9 versus 2.4; p = 0.372], 6 months [1.0 versus 1.2; p = 0.605], 1 year [0.65 versus 0.66; p = 0.718], and 2 years [0.63 versus 0.31; p = 0.381]). No significant differences were found in the Constant score or SST score at any time point. No significant differences were noted in the complication rate. CONCLUSIONS: Short and long periods of immobilization yield similar results for nonoperatively treated PHFs, independent of the fracture pattern. These fractures can be successfully managed with a short immobilization period of 1 week in order to not compromise patients' independence for an overly extended period. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Randomized controlled trial Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis Is Not Required for Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration of Pancreatic Cystic Lesions, Based on a Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Guidelines recommend routine antibiotic prophylaxis for patients undergoing endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of pancreatic cysts, but there is conflicting evidence for its necessity. We investigated whether performing the procedure without antimicrobial prophylaxis increases the incidence of infection. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial to compare prophylaxis with ciprofloxacin vs placebo in patients with a pancreatic cyst requiring EUS-FNA at multiple centers in Spain. From September 2014 to June 2018, patients were randomly assigned to groups that received the prophylaxis with ciprofloxacin (n = 112) or saline solution (n = 114, placebo). We recorded patients' demographic data, lesion characteristics, and procedure data and followed patients for 21 days. A total of 205 patients completed the trial (90.7%), receiving ciprofloxacin or the control, with no statistically significant differences in demographics, baseline data, or procedure characteristics between groups. The primary outcome was FNA-related infection. Secondary outcomes were incidence of fever, procedure complications, and medication-related adverse events. RESULTS: The only case of FNA-related infection (0.44%) occurred in a patient in the placebo group (0.87%); this patient developed acute pancreatitis and bacteremia after the procedure. Prevention of infection was not inferior in the control group; the difference between proportions was 0.87% (95% confidence interval, -0.84% to 2.59%). There were no differences between groups in fever (2 patients in each group: 1.78% vs 1.76%; P = 1.00) or other adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized trial of patients undergoing EUS-FNA for pancreatic cyst evaluation, we found the risk of infection to be low. The incidence of infections did not differ significantly with vs without ciprofloxacin prophylaxis. (ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT02261896).