Objective: Gabapentin (GBP) is an anticonvulsant medication that is also used to treat restless legs syndrome (RLS) and posttherapeutic neuralgia. GBP is commonly prescribed off-label for psychiatric disorders despite the lack of strong evidence. However, there is growing evidence that GBP may be effective and clinically beneficial in both psychiatric disorders and substance use disorders. This review aimed to perform a systematic analysis of peer-reviewed published literature on the efficacy of GBP in the treatment of psychiatric disorders and substance use disorders. Methods: This review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE literature databases were screened and filtered by using specific search terms and inclusion/exclusion criteria. The full texts of selected studies were subsequently retrieved and reviewed. The search terms generated 2,604 results from the databases. After excluding all duplicates, 1,088 citations were left. Thereafter, we applied inclusion and exclusion criteria; a total of 54 papers were retained for detailed review. Results: This literature review concludes that GBP appears to be effective in the treatment of various forms of anxiety disorders. It shows some effectiveness in bipolar disorder as an adjunctive therapeutic agent, while the evidence for monotherapy is inconclusive. In substance use disorders, GBP is effective for acute alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) with mild to moderate severity; it reduces cravings, improves the rate of abstinence, and delays return to heavy drinking. GBP may have some therapeutic potential in the treatment of opioid addiction and cannabis dependence, but there is limited evidence to support its use. No significant benefit of GBP has been conclusively observed in the treatment of OCD, PTSD, depression, or cocaine and amphetamine abuse. Conclusion: GBP appears to be effective in some forms of anxiety disorders such as preoperative anxiety, anxiety in breast cancer survivors, and social phobia. GBP has shown to be safe and effective in the treatment of alcohol dependence. However, the literature suggests that GBP is effective as an adjunctive medication rather than a monotherapy. More clinical trials with larger patient populations are needed to support gabapentin’s off-label use in psychiatric disorders and substance use disorders. It is worth noting that numerous clinical studies that are discussed in this review are open-label trials, which are inherently less rigorously analyzed. Therefore, more extensive investigations are required to examine not only the efficacy of GBP, but also its safety and tolerance.

Background: Several studies have examined the efficacy of gastric peroral endoscopic myotomy (G-POEM) for gastroparesis.Aim: To evaluate the mid-term efficacy of G-POEM by meta-analysis of studies with a minimum 1 year of follow-up. Methods:We reviewed several databases from inception to 10 June 2021 to identify studies that evaluated the efficacy of G-POEM in refractory gastroparesis, and had at least 1 year of follow-up. Our outcomes of interest were clinical success at 1 year, adverse events, difference in mean pre-and 1 year post-procedure Gastroparesis Cardinal Symptom Index (GCSI) score, and difference in mean pre-and post-procedure EndoFLIP measurements. We analysed data using a random-effects model and assessed heterogeneity by I 2 statistic. Results:We included 10 studies comprising 482 patients. Pooled rates (95% CI) of clinical success at 1 year and adverse events were 61% (49%, 71%) and 8% (6%, 11%), respectively. Mean GCSI at 1 year post-procedure was significantly lower than preprocedure; mean difference (MD) (95% CI) −1.4 (−1.9, −0.9). Mean post-procedure distensibility index was significantly higher than pre-procedure in the clinical success group at 40 and 50 mL volume distension; standardised mean difference (95% CI) 0.82 (0.07, 1.64) and 0.91 (0.32, 1.49), respectively. In the clinical failure group, there was no significant difference between mean pre-and post-procedure EndoFLIP measurements.Conclusions: G-POEM is associated with modest clinical success at 1 year. Additional studies with longer follow-up are required to evaluate its longer-term efficacy.

Hidden obligatory fluids constitute a major source of the fluid intake among patients in a critical care unit. Up to 1.5 L should be taken into account during daily decision making to effectively regulate their volumes.

No abstract

No abstract

Celiac disease (CD) is an autoimmune disorder that affects genetically predisposed individuals who are sensitive to gluten and related proteins. It affects children and adults with increasing prevalence in the older age groups. Both adaptive and innate immune responses play role in CD pathogenesis which results in damage of lamina propria and deposition of intraepithelial lymphocytes. There are other proposed mechanisms of CD pathogenesis like gastrointestinal infections, intestinal microbiota, and early introduction of gluten. The diagnosis of CD is based on clinical symptoms and serological testing, though a majority of cases are asymptomatic, and small intestinal biopsies are required to confirm the diagnosis. Celiac disease is generally associated with other autoimmune diseases, and it is advisable to test these patients for diseases like type 1 diabetes mellitus, Addison’s disease, thyroid diseases, inflammatory bowel disease, and autoimmune hepatitis. The patient with a new diagnosis of CD requires close follow-up after starting treatment to see symptom improvement and check dietary compliance. A newly diagnosed patient is advised to follow with a dietitian to better understand the dietary restrictions as about 20% of patients stay symptomatic even after starting treatment due to noncompliance or poor understanding of diet restrictions. The most effective treatment for CD is a gluten-free diet, but work on non-dietary therapy is in process and few medications are in the clinical trial phase.

ERCP is the first line of treatment for malignant biliary obstruction and EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is usually used for patients who have failed ERCP. EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) has been suggested as a rescue treatment for patients who fail EUS-BD and ERCP. In this meta-analysis, we have evaluated the efficacy and safety of EUS-GBD as a rescue treatment of malignant biliary obstruction after failed ERCP and EUS-BD. We reviewed several databases from inception to August 27, 2021, to identify studies that evaluated the efficacy and/or safety of EUS-GBD as a rescue treatment in the management of malignant biliary obstruction after failed ERCP and EUS-BD. Our outcomes of interest were clinical success, adverse events, technical success, stent dysfunction requiring intervention, and difference in mean pre- and postprocedure bilirubin. We calculated pooled rates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for categorical variables and standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI for continuous variables. We analyzed data using a random-effects model. We included five studies with 104 patients. Pooled rates (95% CI) of clinical success and adverse events were 85% (76%, 91%) and 13% (7%, 21%). Pooled rate (95% CI) for stent dysfunction requiring intervention was 9% (4%, 21%). The postprocedure mean bilirubin was significantly lower compared to preprocedure bilirubin, SMD (95% CI): −1.12 (−1.62–−0.61). EUS-GBD is a safe and effective option to achieve biliary drainage after unsuccessful ERCP and EUS-BD in patients with malignant biliary obstruction.

No abstract