Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “GASTROINTESTINAL DISEASE”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 559 records · Page 31Linked to original sources
PubMed2002

A hospital-based study on the use of alternative medicine in patients with chronic liver and gastrointestinal diseases.

To determine the extent to which Taiwanese patients use alternative medicine, we interviewed 500 consecutive patients with chronic liver and gastrointestinal disorders at an outpatient-service. Forty-two patients were excluded due to incomplete data. The percentages of patients with chronic liver (102/269, 37.9%) and gastrointestinal (74/189, 39.2%) diseases using alternative medicine were not significantly different (p = 0.70). The patients who used alternative medicine were not statistically different in gender (p = 0.37), age (p = 0.59), education level (p = 0.83), family income (p = 0.90), or occupation (p = 0.72). Only 36% (64/176) of patients informed their doctors of their use of alternative medicine. The kinds of alternative medicine used by the 176 patients included: Chinese/herbal medicine, 169 (96%); acupuncture, 31 (18%); nutritional supplements, 22 (13%); chiropractic, 17 (10%); scratching, 14 (8%); Qigong, 13 (7%); cupping, 13 (7%); and incense ash, 3 (2%). Sixty-six percent (111/169) of patients used Chinese/herbal medicine in addition to Western allopathic medicine. Only 11% (19/169) of them believed that Chinese/herbal medicine had side effects. Our study indicates the use of alternative medicine occurs across all demographic groups in one-third of patients with chronic liver and gastrointestinal diseases at a major general hospital in Taipei. We suggest that the doctors question all patients for history of alternative therapy use.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Role of the brain-gut axis in alcohol-related gastrointestinal diseases--what can we learn from new animal models?

Ethanol exerts multiple actions on nearly all organs of the body, especially on the central nervous system and the gastrointestinal tract. However, little is known about the effects ethanol has on the brain-gut axis, the linkage between the central neural system and the autonomous innervation of the gastrointestinal tract. It is indisputable that ethanol consumption does affect e.g. exocrine pancreatic secretion or intestinal motility, but it is poorly understood, how alcohol consumption may disturb the brain-gut axis and how this may cause damage to gastrointestinal organs. Due to difficulties in directly assessing ethanol effects on the brain-gut axis in humans, animal models represent a versatile tool to study this topic. However, conventional animal models widely utilized in alcohol research, e.g. the Tsukamoto-French model or the Lieber-DeCarli model, do not mimic the human conditions of ethanol consumption and are therefore not suitable for studies of the brain-gut axis. Established models from other alcohol research disciplines, e.g. addiction research, are by far more applicable. Due to this reason, we have established an animal model of alcohol-dependent rats for the use in gastrointestinal alcohol research. In this model, rats are given free access to different of alcohol solutions (5% and 20% v/v) and tap water. Over time, the rats develop signs of alcohol dependence as seen in humans (e.g. deprivation effect). Organs isolated from rats exposed to this model are currently investigated in our laboratory for alcohol-related gene-regulation compared to non-alcoholic littermates. In addition, non-alcoholic components of alcoholic beverages might affect the brain-gut axis or possibly potentiate the toxicity of ethanol. In our model, commonly ingested alcoholic beverages such as beer, wine, cognac, vodka, and whisky and their non-alcoholic constituents will be tested in future animal studies.

Alcohol Drinking↗
PubMed1990

Dopamine in gastrointestinal disease.

Dopamine is an important enteric neuromodulator. Herein we review the data that support a role for dopaminergic involvement in experimental duodenal and gastric ulceration; gastric, pancreatic, and duodenal secretion; gastrointestinal motility; and gastric and intestinal submucosal blood flow regulation. There also is support for a role for dopamine and dopamimetic agents in the treatment of certain experimental gastrointestinal diseases because some highly selective dopamine agonists are gastroprotective when given either parenterally or centrally. Based upon these observations, we suggest that dopamine is a key element of the "brain-gut axis" and represents a potentially important target for pharmacotherapeutic exploitation.

Animals↗
PubMed1984

[Immunoreactive trypsin in the serum of normal children and children with gastrointestinal diseases].

Serum immunoreactive trypsin (IRT) was measured in cord blood and blood specimens of 156 healthy children of different age. These results were compared with the IRT of children with gastrointestinal disease. While IRT from newborn is significantly elevated, mean trypsin levels form older children do not differ from those found in adults. In acute pancreatitis too, as in renal failure, trypsin is elevated. Low trypsin values were estimated in acute hepatitis and Crohn's disease. In cystic fibrosis (CF) serum trypsin levels depend on the exocrine function of the pancreas. The IRT assay on dried blood-spots, seems to become a reliable and convenient neonatal screening test for CF in newborns.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed1987

9-(1,3-Dihydroxy-2-propoxymethyl)guanine (ganciclovir) in the treatment of cytomegalovirus gastrointestinal disease with the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.

9-(1,3-dihydroxy-2-propoxymethyl) guanine (ganciclovir) was used to treat 41 patients (median age, 37 years) with the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome and cytomegalovirus gastrointestinal infection. Sites of infection were the colon in 31, the esophagus in 5, the rectum in 4, and the small bowel in 1. Patients received ganciclovir, 5 mg/kg body weight, intravenously every 12 hours for 14 days. Clinical improvement was seen in 30 patients and virologic response in 32. Mainly hematologic toxicity occurred: moderate leukopenia (1000 to 1900/mm3) was seen in 7 patients and severe (less than 1000/mm3) in 1, and moderate neutropenia (500 to 1000/mm3) in 5 and severe (less than 500/mm3) in 1. A cutaneous rash developed in 2 patients. Median overall survival was 16 weeks (range, 2 to 56). Cytomegalovirus recurred in 13 patients; median time to recurrence was 9 weeks from the start of treatment. Ganciclovir may be effective in treating cytomegalovirus gastrointestinal disease in patients with the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.

Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome↗
PubMed1997

Adjuvant therapy for stage III colon cancer after complete resection. Provincial Gastrointestinal Disease Site Group.

GUIDELINE QUESTIONS: Should patients with resected stage III colon cancer receive adjuvant therapy? If so, which therapy should be recommended? OBJECTIVE: To make recommendations regarding the use of adjuvant therapy in the treatment of resected stage III colon cancer. OUTCOMES: Overall survival is the primary outcome of interest. Secondary outcomes are disease-free survival and adverse effects of the treatment regimens. PERSPECTIVE (VALUES): Evidence was selected and reviewed by 4 members of the Gastrointestinal Disease Site Group (GI DSG) of the Ontario Cancer Treatment Practice Guidelines Initiative. Earlier drafts of the guideline were reviewed, discussed and approved by the GI DSG, which comprises medical and radiation oncologists, surgeons and epidemiologists. Community representatives did not participate in the development of this guideline but will participate in future guidelines development. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: There are 3 meta-analyses, 33 published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 1 consensus statement. The GI DSG pooled data from 10 of the 33 RCTs that allowed for such an analysis. BENEFITS: Two of 3 RCTs reported improved survival rates with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) plus semustine or mitomycin C (MMC) compared with no treatment (observation) after surgical resection. Three trials reported a benefit in both overall and disease-free survival with 5-FU plus levamisole compared with observation after surgery. In 2 trials, levamisole alone did not produce a survival benefit compared with observation. One trial reported improved disease-free, but not overall, survival rates with oral HCFU (1-hexylcarbamoyl-5-fluorouracil) compared with observation. In 3 trials of 5-FU plus leucovorin, disease-free and overall survival rates were improved compared with observation. Nine trials compared portal vein infusion (PVI) of 5-FU with observation after surgery. In 2 of the trials, for which data were available for stage III patients only, improved overall survival was reported. There was a trend in all studies favouring PVI. One trial reported a survival benefit for stage III and IV patients who received oral HCFU maintenance therapy for 1 year compared with no maintenance therapy. In a trial comparing MMC plus oral HCFU with MMC alone, a survival benefit was reported in the combined treatment group; however, the stages of cancer were unevenly distributed among the treatment groups. Only 1 study tested monoclonal antibody; a benefit was reported for both overall and disease-free survival. A meta-analysis of 10 trials comparing adjuvant therapy with observation in patients with stage III disease detected a significant reduction in the odds ratio (OR) for death (OR 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57 to 0.85), with an absolute improvement in survival of 4% to 13%. When trials were separated according to the type of treatment given, the significant ORs were for 5-FU plus either levamisole (OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.46 to 0.80) or leucovorin (OR 0.51; 95% CI 0.36 to 0.73). Three recently reported trials comparing various combinations of 5-FU plus leucovorin, with or without levamisole, showed similar improvements in disease-free and overall survival.

Chemotherapy, Adjuvant↗