PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 12215743

[ALCOHOLIC HEPATITIS]

Abstract

At present, the relation between alcoholic consumption and the development of hepatic injury is clearly defined. However, the influence of genetic factors, the existence of associated pathologies, and the concomitant use of other hepatotoxic agents should also be considered.During chronic drunkenness, great quantities of oxygen free radicals are produced, redox balance is disturbed, and the defensive capacity of natural antioxidants is exceeded. All these factors originate an "oxidative stress," that totally distorts the hepatocellular function. Llkewise, an increase in the acetaldehyde intracellular concentration modifies several cellular proteins, deteriorating even more the hepatic activity. The importance of the "neo-antigens" between cellular components and acetaldehyde is still undefined, as well as their role in the formation of the Mallory Bodies.On the other hand, the complex network of intercellular and intracellular communications that includes cytokines, adherence molecules and membrane receptors are essential elements to be considered in the alcoholic liver disease genesis. The endotoxin, the TNF-a, the IL-8, as well as the ROIs production seem to be the most important factors.With reference to Alcoholic Hepatitis, the development of an exaggerated inflammatory response with the existence of neutrophiles may be the main mechanism of hepatocellular injury (82, 167, 168.)The final diagnosis of Alcoholic Hepatitis is histological. This also enables to measure the injury severity and to determine the presence of fibrosis and/or cirrhosis, in which case prognosis is more uncertain.Should a history of exaggerated alcoholic ingestion exist, diagnosis could be clinically determined. There is a great variability of clinical symptoms, and some patients present chronic liver disease complications frequently. Those who develop severe liver insufficiency will present leukocytosis, icterus and fever. In these cases, mortality can be as high as 80 per cent. There is no relationship between the alteration of liver function tests and the injury severity.The usefulness of antioxidants in cirrhosis has been demonstrated in animal modeis and in some studies made in human voluntarles. However, their role as therapy within the context of Alcoholic Hepatitis has not been yet defined.In conclusion, several therapeutic approaches have been investigated and from all of them, only steroids have proven to be effective on patients properly selected. The discriminative function (DF) benefit has been confirmed in certain studies. Should a patient have a DIF of more than 93, he/she may receive corticosterold treatment. Contral ndicati ons are a bsol ute when the patientpresents infection, renal insufficiency or gastrointestinal bleeding.Once the patient has been compensated, ABSTINENCE is essential. Likewise, an appropriate nutritional support is an important part of the treatment.Where the possibility of Liver Transplant exists, this should be planned if there is a deterioration of the patient's general condition or if he/she compiles with the necessary criteria, since the survival rate in these cases is similar to those who received a transpiant due to other causes.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Milagros Dávalos, Nancy Rolando. [ALCOHOLIC HEPATITIS]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12215743/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗