Effect of nitrite delivered in saliva on postprandial gastro-esophageal function.

OBJECTIVE: Acid reflux produces troublesome symptoms (heartburn) and complications including esophagitis, Barrett's esophagus, and adenocarcinoma. Reflux occurs due to excessive and inappropriate relaxation of the lower esophageal sphincter. An important mediator of this is nitric oxide, high concentrations of which are generated within the lumen when swallowed saliva meets gastric acid. Saliva contains nitrite, derived from the enterosalivary recirculation of dietary nitrate, which is reduced to nitric oxide by gastric acid. The aim of this study was to investigate whether salivary nitrite contributes to dysfunction of the lower esophageal sphincter. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 20 volunteers, studies of gastro-esophageal function were performed on four separate days, following consumption of a standardized meal, with saliva nitrite concentrations modified differently each day by intra-oral nitrite infusion. RESULTS: The infusions produced an appropriate range in saliva nitrite concentrations, from below to well above the physiological range. The standardized meal induced expected physiological changes in gastro-esophageal function confirming the recordings were sensitive and robust. Esophageal acid exposure (primary outcome) was similar on each study day. Secondary outcomes, including number and duration of reflux events, rate of transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxations, lower esophageal sphincter pressure and rate of gastric emptying were also unaffected by variations in saliva nitrite concentration. CONCLUSIONS: Nitrite in swallowed saliva does not modify gastro-esophageal junction function or predispose to gastro-esophageal reflux. The wide range in saliva nitrite concentrations, the sensitivity of the physiological recordings and the number of subjects studied make it very unlikely that an effect has been missed.

High Dose Atorvastatin Associated with Increased Risk of Significant Hepatotoxicity in Comparison to Simvastatin in UK GPRD Cohort.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Occasional risk of serious liver dysfunction and autoimmune hepatitis during atorvastatin therapy has been reported. We compared the risk of hepatotoxicity in atorvastatin relative to simvastatin treatment. METHODS: The UK GPRD identified patients with a first prescription for simvastatin [164,407] or atorvastatin [76,411] between 1997 and 2006, but with no prior record of liver disease, alcohol-related diagnosis, or liver dysfunction. Incident liver dysfunction in the following six months was identified by biochemical value and compared between statin groups by Cox regression model adjusting for age, sex, year treatment started, dose, alcohol consumption, smoking, body mass index and comorbid conditions. RESULTS: Moderate to severe hepatotoxicity [bilirubin >60µmol/L, AST or ALT >200U/L or alkaline phosphatase >1200U/L] developed in 71 patients on atorvastatin versus 101 on simvastatin. Adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] for all atorvastatin relative to simvastatin was 1.9 [95% confidence interval 1.4-2.6]. High dose was classified as 40-80mg daily and low dose 10-20mg daily. Hepatotoxicity occurred in 0.44% of 4075 patients on high dose atorvastatin [HDA], 0.07% of 72,336 on low dose atorvastatin [LDA], 0.09% of 44,675 on high dose simvastatin [HDS] and 0.05% of 119,732 on low dose simvastatin [LDS]. AHRs compared to LDS were 7.3 [4.2-12.7] for HDA, 1.4 [0.9-2.0] for LDA and 1.5 [1.0-2.2] for HDS. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of hepatotoxicity was increased in the first six months of atorvastatin compared to simvastatin treatment, with the greatest difference between high dose atorvastatin and low dose simvastatin. The numbers of events in the analyses were small.