No abstract

Currently, there is no effective therapy for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), although intensive calorie restriction is typically recommended but dietary adherence is an issue. The current study aimed to determine the effectiveness and adherence of eight weeks of modified alternate-day calorie restriction (MACR) in the control of NAFLD activity. This was a randomized controlled trial with MACR as the intervention and normal habitual diet as control. The outcome measures were body mass index (BMI), blood lipids, fasting blood sugar (FBS), liver enzymes (ALT and AST), and ultrasonographic measurements of liver steatosis and shear wave elastography (SWE). Per-protocol (PP) and intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis were performed within and between-groups with P < 0.05 as significant. 43 individuals with NAFLD satisfied study entry criteria, 33 were randomized to MACR and 10 to control group, and, 30 from MACR and 9 from control group completed PP. In between-group analysis of MACR vs. control, BMI were reduced in PP (P = 0.02) and ITT (P = 0.04). Only ALT was reduced in between-group analysis of MACR vs. control, both PP and ITT (P = 0.02 and 0.04 respectively). No reductions in all lipid parameters and FBS were found in between-group analyses (PP and ITT, all P > 0.22). Both liver steatosis grades and fibrosis (SWE) scores were reduced in between-group analyses of MACR vs. controls (PP and ITT, all P < 0.01). Adherence level remained between 75–83% throughout the study. As conclusion, 8 weeks of MACR protocol appears more effective than usual habitual diet in the control of NAFLD activity and with good adherence rate.

Background: Late-night supper increases the risk of postprandial reflux from the acid pocket especially in obesity. An alginate-based, raft-forming medication may be useful for obese patients with GERD. Aims: To compare the efficacy of Gaviscon Advance (Reckitt Benckiser, UK) and a non-alginate antacid in post-supper suppression of the acid pocket and post-prandial reflux among obese participants. Methods: Participants underwent 48 h wireless and probe-based pH-metry recording of the acid pocket and lower oesophagus, respectively, and were randomised to single post-supper (10 pm) dose of either Gaviscon Advance or a non-alginate antacid on the second night. Primary outcomes were suppression of median pH of acid pocket and lower oesophagus, measured every 10-minutes post-supper for 1 h. Secondary outcomes were suppression of % time pH < 4 at lower oesophagus and improvement in frequency and visual analogue score (VAS) of regurgitation.Results: Of the 81 screened participants, 55 were excluded and 26 (mean age 33.5 years, males 77.8% and BMI 32.8 kg/m 2 ) were randomised to Gaviscon Advance (n = 13) or antacid (n = 13). Median pH of the acid pocket but not the lower oesophagus was suppressed with Gaviscon Advance vs antacid (all P < 0.04) Gaviscon Advance but not antacid significantly reduced in % time pH < 4, symptom frequency and VAS on day 2 vs day 1 (all P < 0.05). Conclusions: Among obese individuals, Gaviscon Advance was superior to a nonalginate antacid in post-supper suppression of the acid pocket. (Clinical trial registration unique identifier: NCT03516188). | 1015 DERAMAN Et Al.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

Background: Non-cardiac chest pain is common with two-thirds due to gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of guided vs. empirical therapy in non-cardiac chest pain.Methods: Adults with normal angiogram or stress test were randomized into either a guided or empirical group. In the guided group, after the ambulatory pH-impedance test, if GERD then dexlansoprazole 30 mg/day for 8 weeks, but if functional or hypersensitive chest pain, then theophylline SR 250 mg/day for 4 weeks. In the empirical group, dexlansoprazole 60 mg/day was given for 2 weeks. The primary outcome was global chest pain visual analog score (VAS) and secondary outcomes were Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia (QOLRAD), GERD questionnaire (GERDQ), and pH parameters, all determined at baseline, 2nd and 8th weeks.Results: Of 200 screened patients, 132 were excluded, and of 68 randomized per-protocol, 33 were in the guided group and 35 in the empirical group. For between-group analysis, mean global pain scores were better with guided vs. empirical group at 8th week (P = 0.005) but not GERDQ or QOLRAD or any of pH measures (all P &gt; 0.05). For within-group analysis, mean QOLRAD improved earliest at 8th week vs. baseline (P = 0.006) in the guided group and 2nd week vs. baseline (P = 0.011) in the empirical group but no differences were seen in other secondary outcomes (P &gt; 0.05). No serious adverse events were reported.Conclusions: Guided approach may be preferred over short-term empirical therapy in symptom response, however QOLRAD, acid-related symptoms, or pH measures are not significantly different (trial registration ID no. NCT03319121).