Most of the studies referenced AZD9291 mouse in this position paper involve retrospective data. In
the prospective study by Rex et al., ASA class III patients were excluded.7 The AASLD position paper discusses NAPS in low-risk patients. Endoscopy related to liver disease mainly centers around patients with cirrhosis and varices. Are these patients low risk? Should there be prospective trials with our patient population prior to the AASLD endorsing this position? The wording of the package insert warning approved by the FDA, the ASA’s position against NAPS, and roughly 25% of states with laws against NAPS pose a formidable legal hurdle if an adverse event were encountered. What if the ASA collects data on the safety of anesthesiologists supervising registered nurses performing endoscopy? Will check details our society be as quick to accept their perspective? David Frank Dies M.D.*, * GastroIntestinal Specialists, The Liver Center, Shreveport, LA. “
“The past two decades have witnessed a tremendous therapeutic advance in viral hepatitis, spearheaded by antiviral agents, which has resulted in a surge in the number of candidates for starting therapy. Accordingly, recent studies have striven to determine the optimal criteria for
selecting patients who can benefit from antiviral treatment, and to decide the optimal starting time of antiviral treatment. This rapid evolution of antiviral treatment in hepatology has inevitably prompted the clinical need for a simple non-invasive diagnosis of liver
fibrosis. Liver biopsy (LB) has been the “gold standard” for assessing the severity of necroinflammatory activity and liver fibrosis, but even in expert hands, it is invasive and sometimes associated with rare but serious complications, including bleeding, pneumothorax, and procedure-related death.1 In addition see more to sampling error, both intraobserver and interobserver variability can occur in histological interpretation.2 Despite these pitfalls, LB remains the gold standard due to the absence of better alternatives. Recently, however, many physicians have acknowledged that LB is an imperfect standard and have sought non-invasive serologic fibrosis markers and formulae using demographic and serologic biochemical variables to replace LB. Physicians’ reluctance to perform LB due to potential complications and increasing patient refusal to undergo LB are other reasons for establishing reliable non-invasive serologic fibrosis markers and formulae. Before 2000, serologic fibrosis markers and formulae were in their infancy.