Helicobacter pylori infection diagnosis and management: current practices of Greek gastroenterologists.

Background: The diagnosis and management of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection vary significantly, depending on country, area, and specialty. The aim of this study was to record the current practices of Greek gastroenterologists in the screening and treatment of H. pylori infection. Method: An anonymous questionnaire consisting of 19 questions about the management of H. pylori infection was sent with the aid of the Hellenic Society of Gastroenterology to all members of the Society. Results: The questionnaire was completed by 180 gastroenterologists, with a response rate of 31.4%. Diagnostic tests to confirm H. pylori infection are ordered by >90% of the gastroenterologists for patients with current peptic ulcer disease, gastric lymphoma, family history of gastric cancer, and an endoscopic appearance suggestive of gastritis. Most gastroenterologists (55.8%) also tested for H. pylori in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Histopathology was the most preferred (60.6%) method when testing was decided during endoscopy, while urea breath test was the most preferred method (67.8%) regardless of endoscopy. Most gastroenterologists use quadruple eradication regimens supported by international guidelines (90%), while 65.6% of the physicians answered that they systematically recommend the addition of probiotics to standard therapy. Most physicians (82.8%) answered that they always confirm the eradication of the pathogen. Conclusions: The majority of Greek gastroenterologists conform to the recommendations of international guidelines regarding the diagnosis and management of H. pylori infection, except for the screening of patients with GERD. A considerable number of doctors use probiotics in addition to standard therapy.

COVID-19 and liver injury: An ongoing challenge.

The new coronavirus severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was identified in December 2019, in Wuhan, China. The virus was rapidly spread worldwide, causing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Although COVID-19 is presented, usually, with typical respiratory symptoms (i.e., dyspnea, cough) and fever, extrapulmonary manifestations are also encountered. Liver injury is a common feature in patients with COVID-19 and ranges from mild and temporary elevation of liver enzymes to severe liver injury and, even, acute liver failure. The pathogenesis of liver damage is not clearly defined; multiple mechanisms contribute to liver disorder, including direct cytopathic viral effect, cytokine storm and immune-mediated hepatitis, hypoxic injury, and drug-induced liver toxicity. Patients with underlying chronic liver disease (i.e., cirrhosis, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, alcohol-related liver disease, hepatocellular carcinoma, etc.) may have greater risk to develop both severe COVID-19 and further liver deterioration, and, as a consequence, certain issues should be considered during disease management. The aim of this review is to present the prevalence, clinical manifestation and pathophysiological mechanisms of liver injury in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Moreover, we overview the association between chronic liver disease and SARS-CoV-2 infection and we briefly discuss the management of liver injury during COVID-19.

Smoking-Induced Disturbed Sleep. A Distinct Sleep-Related Disorder Pattern?

The relationship between smoking and sleep disorders has not been investigated sufficiently yet. Many aspects, especially regarding non-obstructive sleep apnea−hypopnea (OSA)-related disorders, are still to be addressed. All adult patients who visited a tertiary sleep clinic and provided information about their smoking history were included in this cross-sectional study. In total, 4347 patients were divided into current, former and never smokers, while current and former smokers were also grouped, forming a group of ever smokers. Sleep-related characteristics, derived from questionnaires and sleep studies, were compared between those groups. Ever smokers presented with significantly greater body mass index (BMI), neck and waist circumference and with increased frequency of metabolic and cardiovascular co-morbidities compared to never smokers. They also presented significantly higher apnea−hypopnea index (AHI) compared to never smokers (34.4 ± 24.6 events/h vs. 31.7 ± 23.6 events/h, p < 0.001) and were diagnosed more frequently with severe and moderate OSA (50.3% vs. 46.9% and 26.2% vs. 24.8% respectively). Epworth sleepiness scale (ESS) (p = 0.13) did not differ between groups. Ever smokers, compared to never smokers, presented more frequent episodes of sleep talking (30.8% vs. 26.6%, p = 0.004), abnormal movements (31.1% vs. 27.7%, p = 0.021), restless sleep (59.1% vs. 51.6%, p < 0.001) and leg movements (p = 0.002) during sleep. Those were more evident in current smokers and correlated significantly with increasing AHI. These significant findings suggest the existence of a smoking-induced disturbed sleep pattern.

Sleep During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We reviewed current evidence on the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on sleep of different populations. RECENT FINDINGS: Several studies demonstrated that sleep deprivation may cause immune system dysregulation, which deteriorates the course of COVID-19. The increased prevalence of sleep disorders among COVID-19 patients has been associated with more severe disease and worse clinical outcomes. Healthcare workers who were subjected to atypical workload and more nightshifts developed sleep disorders which associated with work-related errors and COVID-19 infection susceptibility. In general population, circadian misalignment and excessive stressors impaired sleep quality. Sleep dysfunction has been recorded due to the pandemic. It is essential to implement interventions in order to alleviate pandemic-related sleep disorders. Telemedicine, cognitive behavioral therapy, and sleep hygiene practices appear to be helpful. Psychotropic medication should be cautiously administered, while other pharmacological agents, such as melatonin, have shown promising results.

Endothelial and microvascular function in liver cirrhosis: an old concept that needs re-evaluation?

Liver cirrhosis is characterized by significant circulatory dysregulation, related to an imbalance among several vasodilating agents, mainly nitric oxide. In contrast to portal vein and macrovascular hemodynamic alterations, which have been rather well described, the peripheral microcirculatory and endothelial structure and function in this population are less well studied. Endothelial dysfunction is characterized by an imbalance between endothelium-derived relaxing and contracting factors. A number of methods have been used to assess endothelial and microvascular function in human studies. Venous occlusion plethysmography was used for many years as the gold standard for evaluating endothelial function, but flow-mediated dilatation (FMD) of the forearm is currently the most frequently used method. In patients with cirrhosis, the few existing studies have mainly used FMD, but the relevant results are largely contradictory. In recent years, several noninvasive and easily applicable methods, such as near-infrared spectroscopy, laser speckle contrast imaging, peripheral arterial tonometry, optical coherence tomography and nailfold video-capillaroscopy, have been increasingly used to assess peripheral microvascular function and have demonstrated a number of advantages. In this review, we present functional methods to evaluate peripheral microvascular and endothelial function, and we discuss the existing evidence on circulatory dysfunction in patients with liver cirrhosis.

Peripheral endothelial and microvascular damage in liver cirrhosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis of studies using any available functional method to examine differences in peripheral endothelial function between cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic individuals. METHODS: Literature search involved PubMed, Web-of-Science, and Scopus databases, as well as gray literature sources. We included studies in adult subjects evaluating endothelial function with any semi-invasive or non-invasive functional method in patients with and without liver cirrhosis. RESULTS: From 3378 records initially retrieved, 15 studies with a total of 570 participants were included in the final quantitative meta-analysis. In six studies examining endothelial function with flow-mediated-dilatation, no differences between patients with cirrhosis and controls were evident (WMD: 1.33, 95%CI [-2.87, 5.53], I2  = 97%, p < .00001). Among studies assessing differences in endothelial-dependent or endothelial-independent vasodilation with venous-occlusion-plethysmography, there were no significant differences between the two groups. When pooling all studies together, regardless of the technique used, no significant difference in endothelial function between cirrhotic patients and controls was observed(SMD: 0.79, 95%CI[-0.04, 1.63], I2  = 94%, p < .00001). CONCLUSIONS: No differences in peripheral endothelial function assessed with semi-invasive or non-invasive functional methods exist between cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic subjects. The increasing co-existence of cardiovascular risk factors leading to impaired vascular reactivity in cirrhotic patients may partly explain these findings.

Estimation of glomerular filtration rate in patients with cirrhosis: evaluation of equations currently used in clinical practice and validation of Royal Free Hospital cirrhosis glomerular filtration rate.

OBJECTIVE: Conventional creatinine-based glomerular filtration rate (GFR) equations have been reported to overestimate renal function in patients with cirrhosis. The Royal Free Hospital (RFH) cirrhosis GFR equation was developed to accurately estimate GFR in this population. The aim of this study was to evaluate the ability of widely available equations [Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equation (CKD-EPI), Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equations (MDRD-4, MDRD-6)] and the RFH equation to correctly estimate the GFR of patients with cirrhosis. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from patients with cirrhosis who underwent measurement of GFR with the use of 51Cr-EDTA (GFR-M). The CKD-EPI, MDRD-4, MDRD-6 and RFH equations were calculated, while bias, precision and accuracy were estimated for each one of them and then compared with paired t-tests. Bias was defined as the mean difference between the GFR-M and the result of each equation; precision was defined as the SD of the differences and accuracy was defined as the square root of the mean squared error (mean of the squared differences). Higher values are associated with worse bias and better precision/accuracy. RESULTS: One-hundred and thirty-four cirrhotic patients were included. Bias was estimated for CKD-EPI, MDRD-4, MDRD-6 and RFH at -5.91, -3.13, 0.92 and 18.24, respectively. Significant differences were observed between all equations (P < 0.001). Regarding precision, only the comparison between MDRD-4 (20.81) and RFH (16.6) yielded a statistically significant result (P = 0.037). Finally, CKD-EPI (19.32) and MDRD-6 (18.81) exhibited better accuracy than GFR-RFH (24.61) (P = 0.006 and 0.001). CONCLUSION: RFH demonstrates inferior accuracy in predicting renal function in patients with cirrhosis, in comparison to conventional equations.

Comparative efficacy of long-term antibiotic treatments in the primary prophylaxis of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Several antibiotic treatments aiming to prevent spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) in cirrhotic patients with low-protein content in ascitic fluid have been tested; however, there are limited data on the comparative efficacy of these regimens. We assessed their comparative efficacy through a network meta-analysis and using GRADE criteria to appraise quality of evidence. METHODS: Through literature review through October 2018, we identified 10 randomized controlled trials comparing antibiotic treatments (norfloxacin, ciprofloxacin, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and rifaximin) with each other or placebo. Primary outcome was SBP occurrence, with mortality rate and rate of other infections as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: In comparison with placebo, moderate quality evidence supports the use of norfloxacin and ciprofloxacin in primary prophylaxis of SBP (risk ratio 0.23; 95% CI, 0.09-0.56; P = 0.001 and 0.23; 0.07-0.79; P = 0.02 respectively) while only low quality evidence suggests superiority of rifaximin (risk ratio 0.15; 0.05-0.42). When antimicrobial agents were compared to each other, no significant difference was found. With regard to mortality, moderate quality supports the superiority of norfloxacin over placebo (risk ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47-0.99; P = 0.04), while ciprofloxacin and rifaximin showed only a non-significant benefit and no significant difference was found in the other comparisons. None of the tested antibiotics proved to significantly decrease the rate of other infections. CONCLUSIONS: Norfloxacin appears to have significant benefit both in terms of SBP prevention and mortality; ciprofloxacin represents a valuable option although without a clear survival benefit. Rifaximin shows interesting results but needs to be tested in further trials.