Abdominal accommodation induced by meal ingestion: differential responses to gastric and colonic volume loads

Background Using an experimental model of colonic gas infusion, we previously showed that the abdominal walls adapt to its content by an active phenomenon of abdominal accommodation. We now hypothesized that abdominal accommodation is a physiological phenomenon, and aimed to confirm that it can be induced by ingestion of a meal; a secondary aim was to determine whether the response to gut filling is region‐specific. Methods In healthy subjects (n = 24) a nutrient test meal was administered until tolerated at a rate of 50 mL min^?1. Electromyographic (EMG) activity of the anterior wall (upper and lower rectus, external and internal oblique) was measured via four pairs of surface electrodes, and EMG activity of the diaphragm via intraluminal electrodes on an esophageal tube. To address the secondary aim, the response to gastric filling was compared with that induced by colonic filling (1440 mL 30 min^?1 anal gas infusion; n = 8). Key Results Participants tolerated 927 ± 66 mL of meal (450–1500 mL). Meal ingestion induced progressive diaphragmatic relaxation (EMG reduction by 16 ± 2%; P < 0.01) and selective contraction of the upper abdominal wall (24 ± 2% increase in activity of the upper rectus and external oblique; P < 0.01 for both), with no significant changes in the lower rectus (4 ± 2%) or internal oblique (5 ± 3%). Colonic gas infusion induced a similar response, but with an overall contraction of the anterior wall. Conclusions & Inferences Meal ingestion induces a metered and region‐specific response of the abdominal walls to accommodate the volume load. Abnormal abdominal accommodation could be involved in postprandial bloating.     

Concomitant dysregulation of androgen secretion and dysfunction of adipose tissue induced insulin resistance

Hyperandrogenism and hyperinsulinemia have resulted from dysfunction of the theca cell of the ovary and adipose tissue and each one potentiates the other in patients with androgen excess disorders e.g., polycystic ovary disease and idiopathic hirsutism. Possible external and/or internal triggers can produce such cellular dysfunction. There is evidence that sodium valproate acts as a trigger of cellular dysfunction and produces both hyperinsulinemia and hyperandrogenism. Therefore, the elimination of these triggers can help the patients to recover from hyperinsulinemia, insulin resistance and hyperandrogenism.     

Hematopoietic growth factors for graft failure after bone marrow transplantation: a randomized trial of granulocyte-macrophage colony- stimulating factor (GM-CSF) versus sequential GM-CSF plus granulocyte- CSF

Delay in hematologic recovery after bone marrow transplantation (BMT) can extend and amplify the risks of infection and hemorrhage, compromise patients' survival, and increase the duration and cost of hospitalization. Because current studies suggest that granulocyte- macrophage (GM) colony-stimulating factor (CSF) may potentiate the sensitivity of hematopoietic progenitor cells to G-CSF, we performed a prospective, randomized trial comparing GM-CSF (250 micrograms/m2/d x 14 days) versus sequential GM-CSF x 7 days followed by G-CSF (5 micrograms/kg/d x 7 days) as treatment for primary or secondary graft failure after BMT. Eligibility criteria included failure to achieve a white blood cell (WBC) count > or = 100/microL by day +21 or > or = 300/microL by day +28, no absolute neutrophil count (ANC) > or = 200/microL by day +28, or secondary sustained neutropenia after initial engraftment. Forty-seven patients were enrolled: 23 received GM-CSF (10 unrelated, 8 related allogeneic, and 5 autologous), and 24 received GM- CSF followed by G-CSF (12 unrelated, 7 related allogeneic, and 5 autologous). For patients receiving GM-CSF alone, neutrophil recovery (ANC > or = 500/microL) occurred between 2 and 61 days (median, 8 days) after therapy, while those receiving GM-CSF+G-CSF recovered at a similar rate of 1 to 36 days (median, 6 days; P = .39). Recovery to red blood cell (RBC) transfusion independence was slow, occurring 6 to 250 days (median, 35 days) after enrollment with no significant difference between the two treatment groups (GM-CSF: median, 30 days; GM-CSF+G- CSF; median, 42 days; P = .24). Similarly, platelet transfusion independence was delayed until 4 to 249 days (median, 32 days) after enrollment, with no difference between the two treatment groups (GM- CSF: median, 28 days; GM-CSF+G-CSF: median, 42 days; P = .38). Recovery times were not different between patients with unrelated donors and those with related donors or autologous transplant recipients. Survival at 100 days after enrollment was superior after treatment with GM-CSF alone. Only 1 of 23 patients treated with GM-CSF died versus 7 of 24 treated with GM-CSF+G-CSF who died 16 to 84 days (median, 38 days) after enrollment, yielding Kaplan-Meier 100-day survival estimates of 96% +/- 8% for GM-CSF versus 71% +/- 18% for GM-CSF+G-CSF (P = .026). These data suggest that sequential growth factor therapy with GM-CSF followed by G-CSF offers no advantage over GM-CSF alone in accelerating trilineage hematopoiesis or preventing lethal complications in patients with poor graft function after BMT.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)