No abstract

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), including Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), is a chronic inflammatory disorder characterized by alternating phases of clinical relapse and remission. The etiology of IBD remains largely unknown, although a combination of patient's immune response, genetics, microbiome, and environment plays an important role in disturbing intestinal homeostasis, leading to development and perpetuation of the inflammatory cascade in IBD. As chronic intestinal inflammation is associated with the formation of reactive oxygen and reactive nitrogen species (ROS and RNS), oxidative and nitrosative stress has been proposed as one of the major contributing factor in the IBD development. Substantial evidence suggests that IBD is associated with an imbalance between increased ROS and decreased antioxidant activity, which may explain, at least in part, many of the clinical pathophysiological features of both CD and UC patients. Hereby, we review the presently known oxidant and antioxidant mechanisms involved in IBD-specific events, the animal models used to determine these specific features, and also the antioxidant therapies proposed in IBD patients.

AIMTo perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) therapy and the risk of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI).METHODSWe conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE/PubMed and seven other databases through January 1990 to March 2017 for published studies that evaluated the association between PPIs and CDI. Adult case-control and cohort studies providing information on the association between PPI therapy and the development of CDI were included. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the random effect. Heterogeneity was assessed by I2 test and Cochran’s Q statistic. Potential publication bias was evaluated via funnel plot, and quality of studies by the Newcastle-Otawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS).RESULTSFifty-six studies (40 case-control and 16 cohort) involving 356683 patients met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Both the overall pooled estimates and subgroup analyses showed increased risk for CDI despite substantial statistical heterogeneity among studies. Meta-analysis of all studies combined showed a significant association between PPI users and the risk of CDI (pooled OR = 1.99, CI: 1.73-2.30, P < 0.001) as compared with non-users. The association remained significant in subgroup analyses: by design-case-control (OR = 2.00, CI: 1.68-2.38, P < 0.0001), and cohort (OR = 1.98, CI: 1.51-2.59, P < 0.0001); adjusted (OR = 1.95, CI: 1.67-2.27, P < 0.0001) and unadjusted (OR = 2.02, CI: 1.41-2.91, P < 0.0001); unicenter (OR = 2.18, CI: 1.72-2.75, P < 0.0001) and multicenter (OR = 1.82, CI: 1.51-2.19, P < 0.0001); age ≥ 65 years (OR = 1.93, CI: 1.40-2.68, P < 0.0001) and < 65 years (OR = 2.06, CI: 1.11-3.81, P < 0.01). No significant differences were found in subgroup analyses (test for heterogeneity): P = 0.93 for case-control vs cohort, P = 0.85 for adjusted vs unadjusted, P = 0.24 for unicenter vs multicenter, P = 0.86 for age ≥ 65 years and < 65 years. There was significant heterogeneity across studies (I2 = 85.4%, P < 0.001) as well as evidence of publication bias (funnel plot asymmetry test, P = 0.002).CONCLUSIONThis meta-analysis provides further evidence that PPI use is associated with an increased risk for development of CDI. Further high-quality, prospective studies are needed to assess whether this association is causal.

No abstract

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 is a novel strain of human beta-coronavirus that has produced over two million deaths and affected one hundred million individuals worldwide. As all the proposed drugs proved to be unstable, inducing side effects, the need to develop a vaccine crystallized in a short time. As a result, we searched the databases for articles in which the authors reported the efficacy and safety of the use of several vaccines vaccines by sex, age group, and frequency of adverse reactions. We identified a total of 19 relevant articles that were discussed throughout this manuscript. We concluded that from all eleven vaccines, three had an efficacy >90% (Pfizer–BioNTech (~95%), Moderna (~94%), and Sputnik V (~92%)) except for Oxford–AstraZeneca (~81%). However, Moderna, Sputnik V, and Oxford–AstraZeneca also alleviate severe adverse reactions, whereas in Pfizer–BioNTech this was not revealed. The remaining five (Convidicea (AD5-nCOV); Johnson & Johnson (Ad26.COV2.S); Sinopharm (BBIBP-CorV); Covaxin (BBV152), and Sinovac (CoronaVac)) were discussed based on their immunogenicity, and safety reported by the recipients since only phases 1 and 2 were conducted without clear evidence published regarding their efficacy. CoviVac and EpiVacCorona have just been approved, which is why no published article could be found. All adverse events reported following the administration of one of the four vaccines ranged from mild to moderate; limited exceptions in which the patients either developed severe forms or died, because most effects were dose-dependent. It can be concluded that aforementioned vaccines are efficient and safe, regardless of age and sex, being well-tolerated by the recipients.

No abstract

No abstract

Our study confirmed the presence of high oxidative stress in active IBD. More importantly, we have demonstrated a lower antioxidant capacity of patients in remission versus control group. This may represent a risk factor for the disease and can be an additional argument for the direct implication of oxidative stress in the pathogenesis of IBD.