RESUMO
Alcohol-related hepatitis (ARH) is an inflammatory liver disease caused by excessive alcohol intake over time. This represents a major health burden with a high mortality and poor prognosis. Reducing alcohol consumption is key to improving health outcomes and long-term mortality. Therefore, various measures have been implemented to aid in the reduction of alcohol consumption. On a population level, this includes minimum unit pricing to reduce alcohol purchases. On a patient level, evidence-based psychosocial and pharmacological therapies aid in achieving and maintaining alcohol abstinence, which will be explored through this case report. A 39-year-old male with a four-year history of alcohol excess was admitted to a regional hospital. He presented with acute onset jaundice and examination findings were consistent with signs of chronic liver disease including abdominal distension and confusion. Investigations supported a diagnosis of severe ARH in this alcohol-dependent patient. Upon discharge, the patient received regular online cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) sessions to aid in his abstinence. Psychosocial therapy for alcohol abstinence can be categorized into brief and extended interventions. Brief interventions are short counseling sessions, which may be most effective in non-alcohol-dependent patients, whereas extended therapies including CBT, motivational enhancement therapy, and 12-step facilitation are longer regular therapies that may be more effective for alcohol-dependent patients. Some pharmacotherapies are contraindicated in ARH patients due to their hepatotoxicity and liver metabolism. However, acamprosate and baclofen are appropriate and effective treatments. Combining psychosocial and pharmacological therapy may be more beneficial than individual treatments to achieve and maintain abstinence.
RESUMO
Biologics have been emerging as promising therapies in ulcerative colitis (UC) patients who are refractory to conventional medical treatment. This literature review aims to appraise the existing evidence on the efficacy and safety of NICE approved biological therapies, of which there are currently five licensed drugs, available for the treatment of UC in adults. An initial search was performed using National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines. A further literature search of EMBASE, MEDLINE, Science Direct and Cochrane Library databases was done, resulting in a total of 62 studies being included in this review. Recent and seminal papers were included. Inclusion criteria for this review were adult participants and English papers only. In most studies, anti-tumour necrosis factor É (TNFÉ) naïve patients were found to have improved clinical outcomes. Infliximab was found to be highly effective in inducing short-term clinical response, clinical remission as well as mucosal healing. However, loss of response was common and dose escalation was often required for achievement of long-term efficacy. Adalimumab was found to have both short-term and long-term efficacy which was also supported by real-world data. Golimumab was shown to have comparable efficacy and safety profiles to other biologics, although lack of therapeutic dose monitoring and loss of response is a barrier to optimising golimumab treatment efficacy. Vedolizumab was shown to have higher clinical remission rates when compared to adalimumab in a head-to-head trial, and the most cost-effective biologic when calculating quality-adjusted life years. Ustekinumab was found to significantly improve clinical remission rates in UC patients who were previously unresponsive to other biological treatments. However, as this is a newly licensed drug, there is limited literature currently available. Further, head-to-head studies are required to help determine the optimal treatment for patients with UC. With patents expiring, the development of biosimilars will help to reduce costs and increase the availability of these drugs to patients.
RESUMO
The Specialised Foundation Programme (SFP), formerly the Academic Foundation Programme, is a highly competitive pathway into academic medicine. There is minimal information available on the demographics of those who apply to the programme, how it scores its applicants and who is successful, making it difficult to assess whether the application process is accessible to all students and promotes a diverse workforce. There are varying levels of support available with coaching, either geographically ring-fenced by universities or available through paid courses. As a result, there is a risk of differential attainment between students who have financial constraints or attend universities where the SFP is less promoted. The aim of the study was to assess student opinion on barriers to the SFP and academic medicine and the demand for the creation of a national, free-to-access SFP mentorship programme to reduce differential attainment amongst student cohorts. Students in the programme received mentorship, peer learning and scheduled teaching events over a six-month period. Surveys were distributed pre- and post-course, and qualitative and quantitative analysis was conducted. Of the respondents, 76% felt that medical schools provided insufficient information on SFP, 31% did not feel financially stable at university and 53% stated that they would not enrol if a cost was present. Applicants were tested on pre- and post-course confidence, all of which showed an increase in mean Likert (1-5) scoring post-mentorship. Financial, institutional and geographical barriers to students applying to the programme were identified. Whilst further research is required to better understand the barriers to academic medicine, national, free-to-access mentorship may effectively reduce differential attainment and improve accessibility amongst students.