M. Edwyn Harrison

Ursodeoxycholic acid for treatment of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: results of a randomized trial.

No effective medical therapy is available for all patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) has been suggested to be of benefit based on open label clinical studies. We randomized 166 patients with liver biopsy–proven NASH to receive between 13 and 15 mg/kg/d of UDCA or placebo for 2 years. End points included changes in liver test results and liver histology at 2 years of therapy. The treatment groups were comparable at entry with regard to age, gender, risk factors for NASH, serum liver biochemistries, and baseline liver histology. A total of 126 patients completed 2 years of therapy. Pre‐ and posttreatment liver biopsies were available in 107 patients for review at the end of the study. UDCA was well tolerated and body weight was stable during the study duration. Serum liver biochemistries were stable or improved in both the UDCA and placebo‐treated groups. Changes in the degree of steatosis, necroinflammation, or fibrosis that occurred with therapy were not significantly different between the UDCA and placebo groups. In conclusion, 2 years of therapy with UDCA at a dose of 13 to 15 mg/kg/d, although safe and well tolerated, is not better than placebo for patients with NASH. (HEPATOLOGY 2004;39:770–778.)

High‐dose ursodeoxycholic acid for the treatment of primary sclerosing cholangitis

Previous controlled trials are inconclusive regarding the efficacy of ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) for treating primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC). One hundred fifty adult patients with PSC were enrolled in a long‐term, randomized, double‐blind controlled trial of high‐dose UDCA (28‐30 mg/kg/day) versus placebo. Liver biopsy and cholangiography were performed before randomization and after 5 years. The primary outcome measures were development of cirrhosis, varices, cholangiocarcinoma, liver transplantation, or death. The study was terminated after 6 years due to futility. At enrollment, the UDCA (n = 76) and placebo (n = 74) groups were similar with respect to sex, age, duration of disease, serum aspartate aminotransferase and alkaline phosphatase levels, liver histology, and Mayo risk score. During therapy, aspartate aminotransferase and alkaline phosphatase levels decreased more in the UDCA group than the placebo group (P < 0.01), but improvements in liver tests were not associated with decreased endpoints. By the end of the study, 30 patients in the UDCA group (39%) versus 19 patients in the placebo group (26%) had reached one of the pre‐established clinical endpoints. After adjustment for baseline stratification characteristics, the risk of a primary endpoint was 2.3 times greater for patients on UDCA than for those on placebo (P < 0.01) and 2.1 times greater for death, transplantation, or minimal listing criteria (P = 0.038). Serious adverse events were more common in the UDCA group than the placebo group (63% versus 37% [P < 0.01]). Conclusion: Long‐term, high‐dose UDCA therapy is associated with improvement in serum liver tests in PSC but does not improve survival and was associated with higher rates of serious adverse events. (HEPATOLOGY 2009.)

Management of antithrombotic agents for endoscopic procedures

This is one of a series of statements discussing the use of GI endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) prepared this text. This guideline combines and updates 2 previously issued guidelines, ‘‘Guideline on the management of antithrombotic and antiplatelet therapy for endoscopic procedures’’ and ‘‘ASGE guideline: the management of lowmolecular-weight heparin and nonaspirin antiplatelet agents for endoscopic procedures.’’ To prepare this guideline, a search of the medical literature was performed using PubMed. Studies or reports that described fewer than 10 patients were excluded from analysis if multiple series with more than 10 patients addressing the same issue were available. Additional references were obtained from the bibliographies of the identified articles and from recommendations of expert consultants. Guidelines for appropriate use of endoscopy are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus at the time the guidelines are drafted. Further controlled clinical studies may be needed to clarify aspects of this guideline. This guideline may be revised as necessary to account for changes in technology, new data, or other aspects of clinical practice. The recommendations are based on reviewed studies and were graded on the strength of the supporting evidence (Table 1). The strength of individual recommendations is based on both the aggregate evidence quality and an assessment of the anticipated benefits and harms. Weaker recommendations are indicated by phrases such as ‘‘we suggest,’’ whereas stronger recommendations are typically stated as ‘‘we recommend.’’ This guideline is intended to be an educational device to provide information that may assist endoscopists in providing care to patients. This guideline is not a rule and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment. Clinical decisions in any particular case involve a complex analysis of the patient’s condition and available courses of action. Therefore, clinical considerations may lead an endoscopist to take a course of action that varies from this guideline.

Double-Balloon Enteroscopy and Capsule Endoscopy Have Comparable Diagnostic Yield in Small-Bowel Disease: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic yield of capsule endoscopy (CE) with double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) in small-bowel (SB) disease using meta-analysis. METHODS We performed a search of studies comparing CE with DBE in SB disease. Data on diagnostic yield of CE and DBE were extracted, pooled, and analyzed. The weighted incremental yield (IY(W)) (yield of CE--yield of DBE) of CE over DBE and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for pooled data were calculated using a fixed-effect model (FEM) for analyses without, and a random-effect model (REM) for analyses with, significant heterogeneity. RESULTS Eleven studies compared CE and DBE; the pooled overall yield for CE and DBE was 60% (n = 397) and 57% (n = 360), respectively (IY(W), 3%; 95% CI, -4% to 10%; P = .42; FEM). Ten studies reported vascular findings; the pooled yield for CE and DBE was 24% (n = 371) and 24% (n = 364), respectively (IY(W), 0%; 95% CI, -5% to 6%; P = .88; REM). Nine studies reported inflammatory findings; the pooled yield for CE and DBE was 18% (n = 343) and 16% (n = 336), respectively (IY(W), 0%; 95% CI, -5% to 6%; P = .89; FEM). Nine studies reported polyps/tumors; the pooled yield for CE and DBE was 11% (n = 343) and 11% (n = 336), respectively (IY(W), -1%; 95% CI, -5% to 4%; P = .76; FEM). CONCLUSIONS CE and DBE have comparable diagnostic yield in SB disease, including obscure gastrointestinal bleeding. CE should be the initial diagnostic test because of its noninvasive quality, tolerance, ability to view the entire SB, and for determining the initial route of DBE. Because of its therapeutic capabilities, DBE may be indicated in patients with a positive finding on CE requiring a biopsy or therapeutic intervention, if suspicion for a SB lesion is high despite a negative CE, and in patients with active bleeding.

The role of endoscopy in the evaluation of suspected choledocholithiasis

This is one of a series of statements discussing the use of GI endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy prepared this text. In preparing this guideline, a search of the medical literature was performed by using PubMed. Additional references were obtained from the bibliographies of the identified articles and from recommendations of expert consultants. When few or no data exist from well-designed prospective trials, emphasis is given to results of large series and reports from recognized experts. Guidelines for appropriate use of endoscopy are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus at the time that the guidelines are drafted. Further controlled clinical studies may be needed to clarify aspects of this guideline. This guideline may be revised as necessary to account for changes in technology, new data, or other aspects of clinical practice. The recommendations were based on reviewed studies and were graded on the strength of the supporting evidence (Table 1). This guideline is intended to be an educational device to provide information that may assist endoscopists in providing care to patients. This guideline is not a rule and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment. Clinical decisions in any particular case involve a complex analysis of the patient’s condition and available courses of action. Therefore, clinical considerations may lead an endoscopist to take a course of action that varies from these guidelines. Gallstone disease affects more than 20 million American adults at an annual cost of

Management of ingested foreign bodies and food impactions

6.2 billion. A subset of these patients will also have choledocholithiasis, including 5% to 10% of those undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy for symptomatic cholelithiasis and 18% to 33% of patients with acute biliary pancreatitis. The approach to patients with suspected choledocholithiasis requires careful consideration because missed common bile duct (CBD) stones pose a risk of recurrent symptoms, pancreatitis, and cholangitis. However, the morbidity and cost

Complications and use of intracranial pressure monitoring in patients with acute liver failure and severe encephalopathy

i d t i i t i t f o This is one of a series of statements discussing the use of GI endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) prepared this text. In preparing this guideline, a search of the medical literature was performed by using PubMed. Studies or reports that described fewer than 10 patients were excluded from analysis if multiple series with more than 10 patients addressing the same issue were available. Additional references were obtained from the bibliographies of the identified articles and from recommendations of expert consultants. Guidelines for appropriate use of endoscopy are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus at the time that the guidelines are drafted. Further controlled clinical studies may be needed to clarify aspects of this guideline. This guideline may be revised as necessary to account for changes in technology, new data, or other aspects of clinical practice. The original guideline was published in 1995 and last updated in 2002. The recommendations are based on reviewed studies and are graded on the strength of the supporting evidence (Table 1).1 The strength of individual recommendations is based both on the aggregate evidence quality and an assessment of the anticipated benefits and harms. Weaker recommendations are indicated by phrases such as “we suggest,” whereas stronger recommendations are typically stated as “we recommend.” This guideline is intended to be an educational device to provide information that may assist endoscopists in providing care to patients. This guideline is not a rule and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment. Clinical decisions in any particular case involve a complex analysis of the patient’s condition and available courses of action. Therefore, clinical considerations may lead an endoscopist to take a course of action that varies from these guidelines.

High-Dose Ursodeoxycholic Acid Is Associated With the Development of Colorectal Neoplasia in Patients With Ulcerative Colitis and Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis

Monitoring of intracranial pressure (ICP) in acute liver failure (ALF) is controversial as a result of the reported complication risk (∼20%) and limited therapeutic options for intracranial hypertension. Using prospectively collected information from 332 patients with ALF and severe encephalopathy, we evaluated a recent experience with ICP monitoring in the 24 centers constituting the U.S. ALF Study Group. Special attention was given to the rate of complications, changes in management, and outcome after liver transplantation (LT). ICP monitoring was used in 92 patients (28% of the cohort), but the frequency of monitoring differed between centers (P < 0.001). ICP monitoring was strongly associated with the indication of LT (P < 0.001). A survey performed in a subset of 58 patients with ICP monitoring revealed intracranial hemorrhage in 10.3% of the cohort, half of the complications being incidental radiological findings. However, intracranial bleeding could have contributed to the demise of 2 patients. In subjects listed for LT, ICP monitoring was associated with a higher proportion of subjects receiving vasopressors and ICP‐related medications. The 30‐day survival post‐LT was similar in both monitored and nonmonitored groups (85% vs. 85%). In conclusion, the risk of intracranial hemorrhage following ICP monitoring may have decreased in the last decade, but major complications are still present. In the absence of ICP monitoring, however, patients listed for LT appear to be treated less aggressively for intracranial hypertension. In view of the high 30‐day survival rate after LT, future studies of the impact of intracranial hypertension should also focus on long‐term neurological recovery from ALF. (Liver Transpl 2005;11:1581–1589.)

Endoscopic treatment of anastomotic biliary strictures after living donor liver transplantation: outcomes after maximal stent therapy

OBJECTIVES:Some studies have suggested that ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) may have a chemopreventive effect on the development of colorectal neoplasia in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) and primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC). We examined the effects of high-dose (28–30 mg/kg/day) UDCA on the development of colorectal neoplasia in patients with UC and PSC.METHODS:Patients with UC and PSC enrolled in a prior, multicenter randomized placebo-controlled trial of high-dose UDCA were evaluated for the development of colorectal neoplasia. Patients with UC and PSC who received UDCA were compared with those who received placebo. We reviewed the pathology and colonoscopy reports for the development of low-grade or high-grade dysplasia or colorectal cancer.RESULTS:Fifty-six subjects were followed for a total of 235 patient years. Baseline characteristics (including duration of PSC and UC, medications, patient age, family history of colorectal cancer, and smoking status) were similar for both the groups. Patients who received high-dose UDCA had a significantly higher risk of developing colorectal neoplasia (dysplasia and cancer) during the study compared with those who received placebo (hazard ratio: 4.44, 95% confidence interval: 1.30–20.10, P=0.02).CONCLUSIONS:Long-term use of high-dose UDCA is associated with an increased risk of colorectal neoplasia in patients with UC and PSC.

Screening for Wilson Disease in Acute Liver Failure: A Comparison of Currently Available Diagnostic Tests

BACKGROUND The optimal endoscopic treatment for anastomotic biliary strictures after deceased donor liver transplantation is undefined. Endoscopic therapy with conventional methods of biliary dilation and stent placement has been successful but often requires prolonged therapy. OBJECTIVE To determine the outcomes of an aggressive endoscopic approach that uses endoscopic dilation followed by maximal stent placement. SETTING Tertiary-care academic medical center. PATIENTS Of 176 patients who underwent deceased donor liver transplantation between June 1999 and July 2004, 25 were diagnosed with anastomotic biliary strictures. INTERVENTIONS Patients were treated endoscopically with a combined technique of balloon dilation and maximal stent placement. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS Treatment outcomes, including bile-duct patency, a need for surgical intervention, morbidity, and mortality, were evaluated retrospectively. RESULTS Endoscopic dilation followed by maximal stent placement was performed until resolution of strictures in 22 of 25 patients (88% immediate success on intent-to-treat analysis). Persistent resolution of strictures was achieved in 18 of these 22 patients. Re-treatment was successful in 2 of 4 patients with recurrent strictures. Overall, 20 of 22 patients who completed endoscopic therapy (91%) avoided surgical intervention. Median duration of endoscopic treatment was 4.6 months. Patients with early onset strictures required a significantly shorter duration of endoscopic therapy (3 vs 9 months; P<.01). Multiple stent placement was not technically difficult, and no major complications were encountered. CONCLUSIONS Aggressive endoscopic therapy with combined biliary dilation and maximal stent placement allows resolution of anastomotic biliary strictures after deceased donor liver transplantation in a relatively short period, with sustained success and minimal complications.