Congenital heart disease and the Liver

A useful review on this topic: Hepatology 2012; 56: 1160-69.

As a result of the successes of surgery for congenital heart disease (CHD), the majority of patients (~85%) with complex CHD survive into adulthood.  Hepatic complications are common in these patients either from the primary cardiac defect, from the surgical procedure, from transfusion or from medications.

Several liver diseases also have congenital heart disease manifestations include the following:

  • Alagille syndrome: 25% with CHD including peripheral pulmonic stenosis and tetralogy of Fallot
  • Abernethy malformation: ASD, VSD, and PDA
  • Biliary atresia splenic malformation syndrome: numerous forms of CHD
  • Mitochondrial fatty acid oxidation disorders: cardiomyopathy

CHD defects associated with hepatic dysfunction:

  • Right-sided failure: single ventricle physiology after Fontan, d-Transposition, Eisenmenger syndrome, Ebstein’s anomaly, tetralogy of Fallot with pulmonary regurgitation.  These disorders lead to passive venous congestion of liver with hepatic zone 3 sinusoidal dilation and sometimes zone 3 necrosis due to ischemia.  Biochemically, a cholestasis pattern predominates.
  • Left-sided failure: left ventricular outflow obstruction/coarctation of aorta, VSD, repaired complete atrioventricular septal defect.  This is associated with hypoperfusion and can lead to ischemia with increased transaminases as well as fibrosis.

Specific issues reviewed include the following:

  • Acute cardiac dysfunction
  • Cardiac dysfunction after Fontan
  • Complications of portal hypertension
  • Imaging (there have been reports of HCC following Fontan)
  • Transplantation: isolated cardiac, isolated liver transplantation, combined heart-liver transplantation

Related blog entry:

Fontan and PLE | gutsandgrowth

Skipping breakfast –boomerang effect for obesity

A recent article shows unfavorable biochemical variables associated with skipping breakfast in obese children and adolescents (J Pediatr 2012; 161: 871-4).

After recruiting 174 Brazilian subjects (6-16 years) through advertising, the investigators assessed their body composition with dual-energy-dray adsorptiometry and assessed fasting blood glucose and lipid profiles.  Face-to-face interviews with parents determined the frequency of skipped meals.  The median BMI in the cohort was 27.

Results:

  • Skipping breakfast was commonplace.  Only 46% of subjects consumed breakfast daily.  Skipping lunch or dinner was infrequent, approximately 10% and 22% at times skipped lunch and dinner respectively.
  • Consumption of breakfast was inversely correlated with the odds of obesity (OR 0.73).
  • Skipping breakfast was correlated with increased glucose, triglycerides, and very low density lipoprotein cholesterol.

The authors speculate that a prolonged period of fasting in the morning could affect ghrelin secretion which promotes increased food intake.  In addition, ghrelin could affect pancreatic insulin secretion.

Related blog entries:

Dietary supplements — safe and effective?

Most people consider dietary supplements as likely to be beneficial but at the very least ‘there not going to make you worse.’  That sentiment is wrong.  A review recently published has shown that some dietary supplements may increase the risk of cancer (Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2012; 104: 732-39).

Nearly half of the US adult population uses one or more dietary supplements but there is very little evidence that these supplements reduce cancer risk; in fact, the contrary is true.  Based on numerous studies, the authors make extensive comments regarding the studies of antioxidants, folic acid, and vitamin D/calcium which are summarized below.

Antioxidants

While observational data has suggested benefits from fruit and vegetable consumption, data on antioxidant supplement consumption has not shown a beneficial effect.  The review highlights a number of studies with regard to β-carotene, vitamin A, vitamin C, and vitamin E/α-tocopherol.  Specifically, vitamin C and E do not protect against total cancer incidence. α-tocopherol and β-carotene do not protect against cancer or cancer mortality.

  • The Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT) followed 35,533 men at average risk for prostate cancer for approximately 5.5 years.  This study was halted due to lack of benefit.  In addition, the extended followup reported that α-tocopherol significantly increased the risk of prostate cancer by 17%.
  • The β-carotene and Retinol Efficacy Trial (CARET) had a 39% increase in lung cancer incidence compared to the placebo arm.
  • In two of three large studies of β-carotene, the intervention increased the risk of all-cause mortality.
  • The Nutritional Prevention of Cancer (NPC) extended followup found that selenium supplementation statistically increased the risk of squamous cell skin cancer by 25% and non-melanoma skin cancer by 17%.

Folic Acid

Folic acid which is a synthetic oxidized form of folate is commonly used in fortification and supplements.  Recent meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has found no effect of folic acid supplementation on the risk of colorectal adenomas over a 3-year treatment period.  In addition, one study demonstrated an increased risk of advanced colorectal adenomas (relative risk = 1.67).  Also, in observational studies, higher intake of folic acid has been linked with increased prostate cancer risk.

Vitamin D and Calcium

The Institute of Medicine published recommendations with regard to Vitamin D and calcium intake in 2011 and found that “there is not enough evidence to state that there is a causal association between low vitamin D intake and increased cancer risk.”  The authors summarize several conflicting results with regard to breast, colorectal, and prostate cancers. In addition, a recent meta-analysis of RCTs indicated that calcium supplementation was associated with a statistically-increased myocardial infarction risk.

Why are supplements so widespread if they are not beneficial and potentially dangerous?

  • The authors also summarize regulatory efforts.  In 1990, due to unsubstantiated health claims by food manufacturers, Congress passed the Nutrition Labeling Education Act (NLEA).
  • To limit FDA authority over supplements, at the behest of nutritional supplement manufacturers, in 1994 Congress passed the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act.  This classified supplements as food and limited the role for the FDA.
  • In 2006, in reaction to deaths from ephedra, Congress passed the Dietary Supplement and Non-prescription Drug Consumer Protection Act.  This allows the FDA to collect adverse reports on supplements but did not give additional regulatory powers.

Conclusions from this review

  1. In populations with a high background of normal nutrient status, risk is accentuated if there can be harm at higher doses.  For selenium (in the NPC study), apparent benefits have been confined to individuals with the lowest baseline blood selenium levels.
  2. It is not reasonable to assume that consumption of a single nutrient would exert a chemopreventive effect equally in all tissues.  In addition, there are substantial variations in formulations and doses of supplements available.
  3. Efficacy and harm are typically tested over several years.  Given the natural history of cancer, it may take decades to assess supplement impact.
  4. Multiple consensus recommendations have indicated that supplements do not prevent cancer and do not prevent chronic disease (Table 1 in reference).  The most recent was from the American Cancer Society in 2012. “Present knowledge indicates that dietary supplements do not lower cancer risk.”
  5. Despite the evidence, the authors note that believers in supplements are unlikely to accept ‘mainstream’ science.  Some may think that unconventional treatments are ignored by science for monetary reasons. Some may think that these products are regulated and would not be offered if they were not beneficial.

Related post:

common to be “d-ficient” | gutsandgrowth

Risk of pancreatitis with celiac disease

More data on the risk of pancreatitis in the setting of celiac disease has been published (Clinical Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012; 10: 1136-1142).

In this medical records review study, 28,908 patients in Sweden with biopsy-proven celiac disease (1969-2008) were compared with a control population of 143,746 to determine the risk of pancreatitis due to celiac disease. The median age at study entry was 30 years and included patients as young as 10 years.

Among these cohorts, 406 pancreatitis patients with celiac disease were identified.  The expected number would have been 143, yielding a hazard ratio of 2.85.  The risk for any type of pancreatitis within 5 years of diagnosis was 2.76.  All types of pancreatitis were increased including acute pancreatitis with gallstones, non-gallstone acute pancreatitis, and chronic pancreatitis.

What are potential reasons for this association between pancreatitis and celiac disease?

  1. Malnutrition may impair pancreas function
  2. Associated papillary inflammation could increase risk of acute pancreatitis
  3. The two diseases may share immunologic characteristics that increase the risk of both disorders
  4. Elevated levels of asymptomatic pancreatic enzymes could lead to some false-positive cases

Related blog entries:

Working on biomarkers for Biliary Atresia

Two studies have tried to identify biomarkers to facilitate the diagnosis of biliary atresia (BA).

  • JPGN 2012; 55: 366-69
  • JPGN 2012; 55: 370-75

The first study looks at the serum of 24 patients with BA & 24 cholestatic controls.  Several circulating microRNAs (miRNAs) were associated with BA.  The miR-200b/429 cluster could correctly classify up to 85% of patients.

The second study took serum samples from 42 infants with BA, 38 infants with non-BA cholestasis, and 36 healthy controls.  Using mass spectrometry and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays, they identified a candidate biomarker, Apo C-II, which was down-regulated in BA samples compared to healthy controls, but relatively upregulated compared with cholestatic non-BA samples.  The sensitivity of this model was 94% and the specificity was 92%.

Given the consequence of a missed diagnosis of BA, further work to identify biomarkers with even better sensitivity/specificity will be necessary to change current diagnostic algorithms.

Previous related blog entries:

Looking ‘Sily’ taking this herb?

Taking milk thistle (silymarin) does not seem to improve disease status or symptoms with chronic hepatitis C (JAMA 2012; 308: 274-82).

This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study examined 154 patients with chronic hepatitis C (HCV).  Mean age was 54 years (71% male).  The study required participants to have an ALT ≥ 65 U/L and all patients had been previously unsuccessfully treated with interferon-based therapy.

Silymarin (Silybum marianum) is an extract of milk thistle.  In the HALT-C trial, 33% of patients with chronic HCV and cirrhosis reported current or past use of silymarin.  It has been shown to have anti-inflammatory and immunomodulator properties via inhibition of NG-κB; in addition, it may have direct effects on HCV replication.

Of the 154 patients, 52 received placebo, 50 received 420-mg silymarin dose, and 52 received 700-mg dose. The trial name was ‘Silymarin in NASH and C Hepatitis’ or SyNCH.  All patients were instructed to take medication three times a day. Only 2 patients in each group (~4%) met the primary outcome of an ALT ≤ 45 U/L.  In addition, HCV RNA levels remained unchanged and were similar between placebo-treated patients and silymarin-treated patients.

In addition, there were no significant changes in physical or mental health components of quality-of-life scores: CES-D (Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression), CLDQ (Chronic Liver Disease Questionnaire), and SF-36 (Short-Form 36).

Adverse effects were similar, though silymarin-treated patients had increased GI adverse effects,12% vs 5% among placebo-treated patients.   Though, the study was not powered to detect significant differences with respect to adverse effects.

The major limitation of the study was the patient selection; that is, patients not responsive to interferon may not be representative of all patients with chronic HCV.  While newer HCV therapies have become much more effective, due to their expense, effective less-costly therapies would be helpful.

Unfortunately, milk thistle/silymarin is not likely therapeutic for HCV and thus not cost-effective either.

Related blog entries:

Facts or persuasion in health care decisions?

A thought-provoking perspective article in the NEJM 2012; 367: 1677-79 makes the argument that public health organizations/health professionals should be providing facts to inform people and not try to persuade or dissuade  them from screening for health conditions.

Examples of persuasion:

  • “The early warning signs of colon cancer: You feel great. You have a healthy appetite. You’re only 50.” (ad from New York Times Magazine from Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center)
  • “If you haven’t had a mammogram, you need more than your breasts examined.” (from American Cancer Society, 1970s)

The problem with persuasion messages is that they are ‘stripped of useful facts’ that indicate that screening can have harms as well as benefits.

For colon cancer, most 50-year-olds who feel great will not develop colon cancer.  The National Cancer Institute estimates that a 50-year-old has a 6 in 1000 chance of developing colon cancer in the next 10 years; the chance of death from colon cancer in that period 2 in 1000.  The advantages of colon screening would be to reduce that risk further: 67% with colonoscopy and 26% with sigmoidoscopy.  Screening, however, could result in bleeding, anesthetic complications, or perforation.

The tactics of persuasion rely on making people feel vulnerable and offering them hope.  Informed decisions allow appropriate expectations about the true benefits relative to harm.

Don’t forget the liver for APC patients

A recent case report serves a useful reminder that patients with APC gene mutation are at risk for hepatoblastoma (JPGN 2012; 55: 334-36).  A comprehensive review on this subject and APC gene disorders in general (along with related disorders) can be found at the following link: (APC-Associated Polyposis Conditions – GeneReviews™ – NCBI …)

One of the authors of the online link is a well-established expert in the field (Randall W Burt, MD) and updated the link in October 2011.

With regard to hepatoblastoma:

“The risk for hepatoblastoma in FAP is 750 to 7500 times higher than in the general population, although the absolute risk is estimated at less than 2%. The majority of hepatoblastomas occur prior to age three years.”

Screening for hepatoblastoma in FAP?

“Efficacy in individuals with FAP is unclear. Screening protocols in Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome, in which the risk for hepatoblastoma is also increased, often include frequent (every 2-3 months) abdominal ultrasound examinations and measurement of serum alpha-fetoprotein concentrations and have resulted in early detection of hepatoblastomas. Screening for hepatoblastoma in FAP using the same protocol may be considered from infancy to age five years. However, the optimal interval for hepatoblastoma screening in FAP is not known, although it has been recommended that screening should occur at least every three months.”

Additional references:

  • -Liver Tx 2008; 14: 1545.  Reviews predisposing conditions to hepatoblastoma & HCC, screening & Rx.  Disorders include Beckwith-Wiedeman, FAP, tyrosinemia, GSD type II, PFIC type 2, Alagille, EHBA, HBV, TPN-cholestasis/extreme prematurity.
  • -J Pediatr 2005; 146: 204.  Review of Cincy experience and algorithm for hepatoblastoma management.
  • -H F A Vasen, G M G Möslein, A Alonso, et al. Guidelines for the clinical management of Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) Gut 2008 57: 704-713
  • -Polymnia Galiatsatos, ,William D. Foulkes. Familial Adenomatous Polyposis Am J Gastroenterol 2006;101:385–398
  • -Gastroenterol 2001; 121: 195-197 &198-213. Guidelines & technical review of genetic testing for FAP & HNPCC.

How new therapies impact colectomy in UC patients

Has the need for colectomy changed with the increasing use of more potent medical therapies for ulcerative colitis (UC)?  One article gives some insight into this question (Inflamm Bowel Dis 2012; 18: 1641-46).

This French study followed 151 patients with newly diagnosed UC from 2000-2008; median followup was 58 months. During this time, 21 patients (14%) underwent colectomy.  1.3% required colectomy in the first year following diagnosis.

Looking closer at their study, 55% of patients had pancolitis.  Cyclosporin usage, typically given in refractory cases, was the only medication determined to be a predictive factor for surgery.

Medication usage during study period:

  • 68% oral mesalamine products
  • 72% systemic corticosteroids
  • 7% methotrexate
  • 49% azathioprine
  • 9% cyclosporin
  • 30% had received at least one anti-TNF agent

The authors concede several limitations, including the evolving nature of UC treatment.  Yet, they conclude that colectomy still is frequently needed and the use of IBD medications, including anti-TNF, “does not appear to reduce the long-term need for surgery in UC.”

I take issue with the last sentence.  Whether anti-TNF agents prove to be a disease-modifying treatment over the long-term is not known.  In this particular cohort, only 30% were even exposed to these agents.  My conclusion: we need a study designed to answer the question.  This would require larger numbers of patients followed prospectively for many years.

Related blog entries:

Itchy and Scratchy

On TV’s “The Simpsons,” “Itchy” is a sadistic blue mouse and “Scratchy” is a hapless black cat (The Itchy & Scratchy Show – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, The Simpsons – Itchy and Scratchy – YouTube).  In real life being real itchy is not a joke; it is a common problem with cholestatic liver disease.  Beneficial treatments for pruritus may be partly due to their effects on serum autotaxin (Hepatology 2012; 56: 1391-1400, editorial 1194).

In this study, blood was drawn from different treatment groups:

  • 17 patients receiving colsevelam (a bile acid sequestrant)
  • 10 patients receiving MARS (molecular absorbance recirculating system)
  • 6 patients receiving rifampicin
  • 5 patients receiving nasobiliary drainage
  • Also, autotaxin levels were drawn from healthy controls, atopic dermatitis, Hodgkin’s disease (with and without pruritus), uremic patients, and cholestatic patients without pruritus

The most common diagnosis in all of the cholestatic groups was primary biliary cirrhosis; though some patients had primary sclerosing cholangitis, progressive familial intrahepatic cholestasis, benign recurrent intrahepatic cholestasis or other liver disorders.

Key findings:

  • Serum autotaxin is increased in pruritic cholestatic liver patients but not in other forms of pruritus.  In addition, autotaxin is normal in cholestatic patients without pruritus.
  • The level of autotaxin correlates closely with the effectiveness of the treatment as gauged by itch intensity

The reasons for pruritus in cholestasis have not been clear.  Several theories have been advanced regarding pathogenesis.  Specifically, retained bile acids and increased opiate activity have been thought to play a role.  More recently, lysophosphatidic acid (LPA) levels have been noted to be elevated in the serum of patients with cholestatic itch.  Injection of LPA into mice results in scratching activity.  LPA activity is a consequence of autotaxin.

Other important points:

  1. Rifampicin has been shown to reduce autotaxin levels in vivo.
  2. MARS and nasobiliary drainage do not directly drain autotaxin; their effects on autotaxin must result by eliminating another factor which stimulates autotaxin production.
  3. Autotaxin is likely to be a useful objective biological marker for pruritus and to evaluate potential novel treatments.
  4. Autotaxin elevation can occur in other noncholestatic inflammatory disease in which pruritus is not a feature; thus, the reasons for pruritus are likely multifactorial and not due to a simple causal role for autotaxin.

Related blog entries:

Challenges with primary sclerosing cholangitis | gutsandgrowth

BRIC, PFIC, and nasobiliary drainage | gutsandgrowth

Additional references:

  • -J Hepatol 2009; 51: 237-67.  EASL practice guidelines on mgt of cholestatic liver disease
  • -JPGN 2010; 51: 787.  Use of naltrexone in severe pruritus due to cholestasis: 1-2/kg/day. n=4.
  • -JPGN 2008; 46: 241.  Excellent review.  BRIC caused by FIC1 mutations (same as PFIC1).  Nasobiliary drainage of bile may be helpful.
  • -Hepatology 2007; 45: 666.  Use of sertraline (75-100mg; start with 25mg –in adults)
  •  -Clin Gastro & Hep 2007; 5:776 Use of zoloft for pruritus in cholestasis.
  • -Hepatology 2005; 42: 222. summary of cholestasis workshop
  • -JPGN 1999; 29: 442.  Rifampin treatment for cholestasis. 90% response, 40% complete response.  Extrahepatic cases c much better response.  No toxicity observed.
  • -Clin Liver Dis 2006; 10: 27-53.

Gene:                       Disorder (protein)

  1. ABCB11                     PFIC 2, BRIC 2 (BSEP)
  2. ABCB4                       PFIC 3, ICP (MDR3)
  3. CFTR                         CF (CFTR)
  4. ATP8B1                      PFIC1 -Byler’s (FIC1), BRIC, GFC -Greenland Familial
  5. CLDN1                       NISCH (Claudin 1) -neonatal sclerosing cholangitis/icthyosis VPS33B                     ARC syndrome (Vascular protein sorting 33) -arthrogryposis-   renal dysfn-cholestasis, low GGT
  6. AKR1D1                    BAS: Bile acid synthetic defect: neonatal cholestasis with giant cell hepatitis   (5Beta-reductase)
  7. HSD3B7                    BAS (C27-3Beta-HSD)
  8. CYP7BI                     BAS (CYP7BI)
  9. TJP2 (ZO-2)              FHC: Familial hypercholanemia (tight junction protein)
  10. BAAT                        FHC (BAAT)
  11. EPHX1                     FHC (epoxide hydrolase)
  12. JAG1                        Alagille (JAG1) JAG1 is transmembrance cell-surface protein important in   regulating cell fate during embryogenesis
  13. PKHD1                     ARPKD (fibrocystin -important in ciliary function and tubulogenesis)
  14. PRKCSH                  ADPLD (hepatocystin)
  15. ABCC2                     Dubin-Johnson syndrome (MRP2)
  16. CIRH1A                    NAIC -N Amer Indian childhood cirrhosis (Cirhin)