Frequency of Hepatorenal Syndrome Among Patients With Cirrhosis and Outcome After Treatment.
作者: Samina Fida ; Syed Murtaza S Khurshid ; Hala Mansoor
Introduction Hepatorenal syndrome is the third most common cause of admissions among patients with liver cirrhosis and has a high mortality rate. It is a progressive deterioration of renal function in a patient with acute or chronic liver failure. The only definite curative treatment of choice for hepatorenal syndrome is liver transplantation. This study aimed to determine the frequency of hepatorenal syndrome among patients with liver cirrhosis and to determine its outcome after treatment. Patients and Methods This case series prospective study was conducted at the Department of Medicine, CMH Lahore Medical College and Institute of Dentistry, Pakistan, from January 2019 to December 2019. The study included 136 patients of cirrhosis who were identified and worked up for hepatorenal syndrome. The patients with liver cirrhosis diagnosed as having hepatorenal syndrome were given treatment comprising injection terlipressin 2 mg four times a day and injection Haemaccel twice a day for two weeks, and after that the outcome was measured with a follow-up of six weeks. Results A total of 136 patients of cirrhosis were included in the study. Of the patients, 14 (10.3%) were diagnosed as suffering from hepatorenal syndrome. These diagnosed cases were given treatment for two weeks. Three (21.4%) of the patients having hepatorenal syndrome did not show any response, two (14.3%) patients recovered partially, four (28.6%) patients recovered fully, and four (28.6%) expired within one month of the treatment. One (7.14%) patient was referred during the treatment for liver transplant. Conclusions Hepatorenal syndrome is a common complication of cirrhosis. The treatment of systemic vasoconstrictors for hepatorenal syndrome proved to be effective in our study and should be the first priority for treating hepatorenal syndrome especially in places like Pakistan where liver transplantation is not that easily available.
2019-06-28·The Cochrane database of systematic reviews2区 · 医学
Plasma expanders for people with cirrhosis and large ascites treated with abdominal paracentesis.
2区 · 医学
作者: Rosa G Simonetti ; Giovanni Perricone ; Dimitrinka Nikolova ; Goran Bjelakovic ; Christian Gluud
Plasma volume expanders are used in connection to paracentesis in people with cirrhosis to prevent reduction of effective plasma volume, which may trigger deleterious effect on haemodynamic balance, and increase morbidity and mortality. Albumin is considered the standard product against which no plasma expansion or other plasma expanders, e.g. other colloids (polygeline , dextrans, hydroxyethyl starch solutions, fresh frozen plasma), intravenous infusion of ascitic fluid, crystalloids, or mannitol have been compared. However, the benefits and harms of these plasma expanders are not fully clear.
To assess the benefits and harms of any plasma volume expanders such as albumin, other colloids (polygeline, dextrans, hydroxyethyl starch solutions, fresh frozen plasma), intravenous infusion of ascitic fluid, crystalloids, or mannitol versus no plasma volume expander or versus another plasma volume expander for paracentesis in people with cirrhosis and large ascites.
We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index until January 2019. Furthermore, we searched FDA, EMA, WHO (last search January 2019), www.clinicaltrials.gov/, and www.controlled-trials.com/ for ongoing trials.
Randomised clinical trials, no matter their design or year of publication, publication status, and language, assessing the use of any type of plasma expander versus placebo, no intervention, or a different plasma expander in connection with paracentesis for ascites in people with cirrhosis. We considered quasi-randomised, retrieved with the searches for randomised clinical trials only, for reports on harms.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) using the fixed-effect model and the random-effects model meta-analyses, based on the intention-to-treat principle, whenever possible. If the fixed-effect and random-effects models showed different results, then we made our conclusions based on the analysis with the highest P value (the more conservative result). We assessed risks of bias of the individual trials using predefined bias risk domains. We assessed the certainty of the evidence at an outcome level, using GRADE, and constructed 'Summary of Findings' tables for seven of our review outcomes.
We identified 27 randomised clinical trials for inclusion in this review (24 published as full-text articles and 3 as abstracts). Five of the trials, with 271 participants, assessed plasma expanders (albumin in four trials and ascitic fluid in one trial) versus no plasma expander. The remaining 22 trials, with 1321 participants, assessed one type of plasma expander, i.e. dextran, hydroxyethyl starch, polygeline, intravenous infusion of ascitic fluid, crystalloids, or mannitol versus another type of plasma expander, i.e. albumin in 20 of these trials and polygeline in one trial. Twenty-five trials provided data for quantitative meta-analysis. According to the Child-Pugh classification, most participants were at an intermediate to advanced stage of liver disease in the absence of hepatocellular carcinoma, recent gastrointestinal bleeding, infections, and hepatic encephalopathy. All trials were assessed as at overall high risk of bias. Ten trials seemed not to have been funded by industry; twelve trials were considered unclear about funding; and five trials were considered funded by industry or a for-profit institution.We found no evidence of a difference in effect between plasma expansion versus no plasma expansion on mortality (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.06 to 4.83; 248 participants; 4 trials; very low certainty); renal impairment (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.02 to 5.88; 181 participants; 4 trials; very low certainty); other liver-related complications (RR 1.61, 95% CI 0.79 to 3.27; 248 participants; 4 trials; very low certainty); and non-serious adverse events (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.32 to 3.40; 158 participants; 3 trials; very low certainty). Two of the trials stated that no serious adverse events occurred while the remaining trials did not report on this outcome. No trial reported data on health-related quality of life.We found no evidence of a difference in effect between experimental plasma expanders versus albumin on mortality (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.30; 1014 participants; 14 trials; very low certainty); serious adverse events (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.10 to 8.30; 118 participants; 2 trials; very low certainty); renal impairment (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.91; 1107 participants; 17 trials; very low certainty); other liver-related complications (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.48; 1083 participants; 16 trials; very low certainty); and non-serious adverse events (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.85; 977 participants; 14 trials; very low certainty). We found no data on heath-related quality of life and refractory ascites.
Our systematic review and meta-analysis did not find any benefits or harms of plasma expanders versus no plasma expander or of one plasma expander such as polygeline, dextrans, hydroxyethyl starch, intravenous infusion of ascitic fluid, crystalloids, or mannitol versus albumin on primary or secondary outcomes. The data originated from few, small, mostly short-term trials at high risks of systematic errors (bias) and high risks of random errors (play of chance). GRADE assessments concluded that the evidence was of very low certainty. Therefore, we can neither demonstrate or discard any benefit of plasma expansion versus no plasma expansion, and differences between one plasma expander versus another plasma expander.Larger trials at low risks of bias are needed to assess the role of plasma expanders in connection with paracentesis. Such trials should be conducted according to the SPIRIT guidelines and reported according to the CONSORT guidelines.
2019-06-01·Journal of pharmaceutical sciences3区 · 医学
Drug Carrier-Oriented Polygeline for Preparing Novel Polygeline-Bound Paclitaxel Nanoparticles.
3区 · 医学
作者: Kaibin Xiong ; Jianyang Wu ; Yang Liu ; Na Wu ; Jinlan Ruan
Polygeline is a highly promising drug carrier-oriented material for important applications in pharmacy field due to its low-cost and unique properties similar to albumin. In this study, polygeline-bound paclitaxel nanoparticles (Npb-PTXS) were fabricated through a combination of low-pressure emulsification and high-pressure homogenization. The effects of a series of production parameters on mean particle size, particle size distribution and drug loading of Npb-PTXS were systematically evaluated. The characteristics of Npb-PTXS, such as surface morphology, physical status of paclitaxel (PTX) in Npb-PTXS, redispersibility of Npb-PTXS in purified water and bioavailability in vivo were also investigated. It is revealed that the optimal preparation conditions included an aqueous phase pH value of about 6.5, protein mass concentration of 0.33%, with mass ratio of PTX to protein of 30%, high pressure of 1200 bar, high-pressure passes of 25 times and low-pressure emulsifying passes of 20 times. Obtained Npb-PTXS shows good resolubility compared to commercially available Abraxane®, containing round or oval shaped particles with mean particle size of around 188.3 nm, polydispersity index of 0.163 and zeta potential of -31.1 mV. PTX in Npb-PTX is amorphous, and its content is approximately 12.04%. Encapsulation efficiency of Npb-PTXS reaches 81.2%. Moreover, in vivo pharmacokinetic studies showed that the intravenous relative bioavailability of Npb-PTXS to Abraxane was 83.89%.