Getting multiple tattoos can strengthen your immune system.


Looking for a solid reason to finally get that Schrodinger’s cat tattoo you’ve always wanted? Well, science has got you covered, because new research has found that getting multiple tattoos could boost your immunological response, which makes you better able to fight off infections. The catch? You need more than one tattoo to see any improvement.

According to researchers from the University of Alabama, getting a bunch of tattoos is a lot like working out. When you first start, your body is weakened by the new stress. At the gym, this means sore muscles. For tattooing, the process often leaves you feeling generally exhausted because your body is wondering why you injected a foreign contaminant deep into your skin.

But after a few days in the gym, your muscles start to strengthen and you no longer feel like death. Noticing how this works for muscles, the team wondered if the same could be said about tattooing. Could getting multiple pieces tattooed act as an immunological exercise routine?

As it turns out, yes. The researchers were able to verify this by heading out to a local tattoo shop and recruiting volunteers for a study that examined how many tattoos a person had and how long each tattooing session was. With this data, they then analysed blood samples to gauge the participants’ levels of immunoglobulin A, which is an antibody, and cortisol, a stress hormone.

The team found that people who were getting their very first tattoo had a large drop in immunoglobulin A thanks to rising cortisol levels. As for those who had been tattooed many times before, immunoglobulin A levels decreased only a tiny bit, which, according to the team, suggests that the body is strengthening its immunological response.

“After the stress response, your body returns to an equilibrium,” said Christopher Lynn, one of the study’s authors. “However, if you continue to stress your body over and over again, instead of returning to the same set point, it adjusts its internal set points and moves higher.”

Though the team’s findings make logical sense, it’s important to point out that the study was only conducted with 24 women and 5 men, a sample size that’s large enough to suggest that something is going on here, but small enough to warrant further study to confirm that.

What we’re saying is if you want to boost your immune system, getting multiple tattoos is probably not the best way of going about that, but if you need a reason to get one more, you can add this study to the list.

5 Strength-Training Moves Every Walker Should Be Doing


Instead of just turning on the tube when the weather’s crummy, you can boost your walking power. “Strength training on frigid or rainy days is a smart way to use your time. When better weather beckons you outside, your walks will feel effortless, because your legs will be stronger,” says Leslie Sansone, group exercise instructor and creator of in-home walkingvideos.

To get you started, Prevention‘s former fitness editor Michele Stanten created a simple, 10-minute strength-training routine that targets your legs, butt, and feet.
Do this routine 2 or 3 days a week. Warm up before you start by marching in place for a few minutes. Do the same to cool down, then stretch your leg muscles when you are finished. (Burn calories and build muscle—all while boosting your mood.
Strengthens calves

toe walk

Walk on the balls of your feet, heels off the floor, for 30 seconds. Repeat 3 more times.

 

Heel Walk
Helps prevent burning shins

heel walk

Walk for 30 seconds on your heels only, with your feet flexed and your toes pointing toward the ceiling. Repeat 3 more times. (Looking to get in shape but don’t have time for the gym?Double Toe Raise
Works feet and shins

double toe raise

Sit in a chair with your feet flat on the floor. Lift just your toes, then lift the rest of your foot, with your heels staying on the floor. Lower your foot, then your toes. Repeat 8 to 12 times.Walking Lunges
Strengthens all leg muscles

walking lunge

Take a big step forward with your right foot, then slowly lower your left knee toward the floor. Your right knee should be at a 90-degree angle. Press into your right foot and stand back up, bringing your left foot forward next to your right. Repeat, stepping with your left foot, and continue across the floor. Do 8 times with each leg. If this is too difficult, do lunges in place, 8 on one side, then switch, and repeat on the other side.

Lift Kick

Targets thighs and buttocks

lift kick

Lift your right leg, bending your knee 90 degrees. Your thigh should be parallel to the floor. In a smooth motion, sweep your leg back, pressing through your heel and squeezing your butt. Without touching the floor, lift your leg up in front again, and repeat. Hold onto a chair or wall for balance if needed. Do 8 to 12 times with each leg.

What Doctors Got Wrong About ‘Good’ Cholesterol


A new genetic study published in the journal Science suggests that contrary to the conventional wisdom, high levels of good cholesterol aren’t necessarily heart-protective for everyone.

“Twenty years ago, if you had high bad cholesterol and high good cholesterol, doctors said don’t worry about it — one offsets the other,” Dr. Scott Wright, a cardiologist at the Mayo Clinic, who wasn’t involved in the study, told The Huffington Post.”I never really bought that, and time has proven my skepticism to be correct. You can have a heart attack despite having a high level of good cholesterol.”

Doctors have long assumed that high levels of good cholesterol were intrinsically heart-protective, in recent years companies have focused on developing medications that boost these levels, with decidedly underwhelming results. Instead, according to this latest research, some people with naturally high good cholesterol due to a genetic mutation are at an increased risk of heart disease.

“It challenges our conventional wisdom about whether ‘good’ cholesterol is protecting people from heart disease or not,” study author Adam Butterworth, a researcher at the University of Cambridge, told BBC. Drugs “trying to raise HDL may not be that useful,” he said.

The difference between good and bad cholesterol

In general, high levels of bad (LDL) cholesterol leads to build up of the fatty, wax-like substance throughout the body, and good (HDL) cholesterol picks up those LDL deposits and clears them out of the body via the digestive tract. You would think that a stronger waste-management system (read: high levels of good cholesterol) would mean the body is running efficiently and you’re healthier, but the new Science study shows that in some cases, that’s not true.

The study analyzed 1,000 people with a SCARB1 gene mutation, which leads to naturally elevated good cholesterol levels, and found — surprisingly — that those individuals were at an 80 precent increased risk for heart disease.

Of course, this doesn’t mean that everyone with high levels of good cholesterol is at an increased risk. The SCARB1 gene mutation is rare, only affecting 1 out of every 1,700 people. For the rest of the naturally high, good cholesterol folks, who don’t have the SCARB1 gene mutation, good cholesterol could still offer them some degree of protection against heart disease.

Nearly all of the study participants with the SCARB1 gene mutation were of Ashkenazi Jewish descent (a group that’s already at risk for other genetically linked conditions, including Gaucher disease, Parkinson’s disease and breast and ovarian cancers). Still, it’s important to note that SCARB1 gene mutations aren’t limited to Ashkenzai Jews.

You can improve your health, even if you have ‘bad’ genes

“It’s never too early to start with a good family health history,” Dr. Charis Eng, a cancer geneticist at the Cleveland Clinic, previously told HuffPost. She advised sitting down with the family member who knows your extended family’s health the best, and using that information to draw up family health blueprint (which you should update periodically).

And if you have both high good cholesterol and a family history of heart disease, which kills more than 600,000 Americans every year, you should talk to your health care provider about lowering your risk, according to Wright.

“Never assume you’re completely protected just because your good cholesterol is high,” he said. “You always need to be paying attention to the other risks and living a healthy lifestyle to try to reduce your risk of heart disease.”

Perhaps most importantly, the study shouldn’t be interpreted as demonizing good cholesterol. The classic nutrition advice still holds: Quit smoking, try to maintain a healthy weight, exercise and focus on eating a healthful diet of lean proteins, lots of produce and healthy fats.

“Anything we do with diet and exercise to raise or improve our good cholesterol is healthy and not harmful,” Wright said, who tells his own patients to get their weight in a healthy range and practice interval training to boost their good cholesterol and protect against heart disease.

In general, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that adults get their cholesterol checked every five years, with an eye toward an ideal LDL cholesterol lower than 100 mg/dL and an HDL cholesterol higher than 60 mg/dL. The American Heart Association says people looking to lower their bad cholesterol should limit their sodium and sugar intake, and reduce the amount of fatty and red meats, fried foods and baked goods they consume.

Earth Hour India 2016. Join the revolution


Earth Hour India 2016 http://earthhour.wwfindia.org/sign_up.php
Join the revolution.

Pesticides found to cause trans-generational mental disorders and obesity … Harmful traits are inherited for THREE generations


From an early age, we are inundated with the helpless belief that our genes are set in stone – a fixed code – a destiny that we cannot control. The study of epigenetics debunks this mythical mindset, revealing how external factors change our gene expression throughout our lifetime.

Pesticides

The field of epigenetics examines more closely the relationship between our genes and our environment, and how man-made chemicals influence cellular processes, ultimately changing the expression of our genes. Some chemicals may inactivate genes that are normally active. Other chemicals may activate genes that would typically lay dormant. These chemically-induced changes in gene behavior can initiate health problems, especially in the womb, during childhood development and puberty.

Pesticides of the past alter gene expression from one generation to the next

Now the field of epigenetics is discovering a disturbing new trend. Man-made chemical pesticides (such as the persistent pollutant DDT), are altering gene expression through multiple generations, destroying the inherent health of entire bloodlines. This means pesticides are silently changing the expression of genes, generation after generation, and the damage is being carried on, restricting future generations’ ability to live harmoniously with their environment. The pesticides are interfering with people’s natural relationship with their bodies and the world around them. The damage of past pesticides (such as DDT) is being carried out and expressed in the genes of new generations of people who may not even consider the banned pollutant to be a threat.

When a parent’s gene expression has been manipulated by pesticides, those changes can be inherited by the next generation. The pesticide poisons of the past century are literally rewriting the gene expression of future generations, victimizing the next of kin from the start. The trans-generational damage has now been recognized across three generations. The damage can be observed in childhood cancer cases that are linked directly back to parental pesticide exposure. Lymphoma risk increases two-fold for children whose parents were pesticide applicators. Pesticide applicators who applied pesticides without proper protection give birth to children who are at greater risk of developing childhood cancers.

In 2012, biologists experimented with pesticides on mice. The genetic changes that occurred were passed down through three generations, eliciting mental disorders and obesity in the offspring. Through the same genetic mechanisms, these effects are observed in humans.

2,4-D herbicide initiating changes in cell cycle control, human stress response, and DNA repair

The commonly-used herbicide 2,4-D damages cellular DNA. Medical researchers discovered the herbicide’s genotoxic effects in 2004, showing how it causes chromosomes to break apart in human blood cells. In 2005, “environmentally realistic levels,” of 2,4-D were found to change gene expression for important functions of the body, including immunology, stress response, cell cycle control and DNA repair.

Egyptian geneticists found that the bone marrow cells of mice were being deconstructed in the presence of 2,4-D, as the chromosomes broke apart.

University of Minnesota researchers couldn’t deny the fact that 2,4-D was causing severe changes in men who worked with the herbicide and had high levels of the chemical metabolites in their urine. The researchers found that the men were silently enduring chromosome aberrations and hormonal fluctuations that would ultimately affect their mental state, metabolism, homeostasis and sex drive.

Glyphosate is a catalyst for disease processes

Glyphosate herbicide alters genetic expression of humans by destroying the microbiome of the exposed persons. MIT researchers documented the role of glyphosate in damaging the gastrointestinal tract of humans, and depleting good species of bacteria that the body needs to detoxify and stimulate immune response. Glyphosate is a catalyst for disease processes, and is behind the widespread epidemics of heart disease, diabetes, obesity, autism, infertility and cancer that are ravaging people stuck on the Western diet of glyphosate-infested food products.

The more we eliminate pesticides from our lives, the quicker we allow our cellular processes to normalize and self regulate, allowing our genes to express health and vitality.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/053340_pesticides_genetic_expression_transgenerational_effects.html#ixzz43nuYg3NQ

The Difference Between A Mature Relationship And An Immature Relationship


Mature couples don’t “fall in love,” they step into it. Love isn’t something you fall for; it’s something you rise for.

Falling denotes lowering oneself, dropping down and being stuck somewhere lower than where you started. You have to get up from falling.

Love isn’t like that — at least not with people who are doing it right. Immature couples fall; mature couples coast. Because love is either a passing game, or it’s forever. Love is either wrong, or it’s right. A couple is either mature or immature.

The Difference Between A Mature Relationship And An Immature Relationship

How do you know? How can you tell if your relationship is in it for the long haul or the two-month plummet everyone predicted behind your love-obsessed back?

First, it should be easy, from the beginning to end. There are no passionate fights with passionate make-up sex. There’s no obsessive calling, texting or worrying.

There’s no real drama. Because drama is for kids. Drama is for people who don’t know how to have a relationship — who live by idealistic, preconceived notions that love must be wild and obsessive.

Love is easy. It’s the easiest thing you’ve ever done. It’s the calmest place in your life, the safest blanket you’ve ever worn. It’s something that happens naturally; it doesn’t need to be fought for day in and day out.

When you love someone, and he or she loves you, and there’s no doubt to his or her feelings and no doubt to yours, that’s peace of mind. A peace of mind you’ve never had before.. the kind that humbles and revives you.

A mature relationship lives by this peace of mind; immature ones drown in it.

Immature relationships ask questions; mature relationships answer them

Immature relationships are all about doubts. Does he love me? Is she cheating on me? Will we be together in two months?

Mature couples don’t need to ask questions. They already know the answers, and they don’t need reassurance from their partners.

They are comfortable and secure and free of doubt because mature love isn’t about all those small questions, but a comfort in knowing the big one is answered.

Immature relationships leave you wanting something; mature relationships give you what you need

There’s a void in immature relationships, an apparent absence and incessant worry that something’s missing.

It eats away at you when you go to sleep or leave each other for just a few hours. It burns dimly when you’re together, but you wave it off with sex and constant chatter.

Mature relationships have no void. There are no empty spaces or tiny cracks. There is never a feeling that something has been taken away or is leaving with the other person.

The love between the two mature people fills every crack in the fiber of their being they didn’t know they had.

Immature relationships are striving to be one complete person; mature relationships are okay being two

Immature relationships are formed by two incomplete people. They are two halves trying to make one whole.

They are two people looking for something that can’t be found in another person. They dominate each other, force themselves together and make one flawed mesh of a human.

Mature couples never strive to be one. They are two individual people looking to make two better people. The love between the two of them isn’t about making both of them whole again, but more individual.

It’s about pushing each other to pursue their passions, interests and become the best person possible.

Immature relationships lose their drive; mature relationships make you more motivated

We all get wrapped up in love. It’s easy to spend days in bed and weekends in the hazy world of blankets and kisses.

But eventually, that smothering love is replaced with motivated love — a type of love that comes when you want to make a life with someone and work hard to get that life. Immature couples never get to this.

They never feel that motivation to leave each other only to come back more successful and more determined to make a life for the two of them.

Immature relationships fight over text messages; mature relationships are always face-to-face

Fighting is natural; texting is not. Mature couples do not spend their days bickering over a screen.

When they have something to work out, they do it face to face — where the meanings can’t be misconstrued by emojis and auto correct. Immature couples fuel their relationship with incessant bickering and lengthy messages.

Immature couples see long texts as evidence of their “relationship” and find comfort in spending hours hiding behind their phones. They argue just to argue; mature couples fight for their future.

Immature relationships are about trying to find yourself; mature relationships already know themselves

Relationships are only for two complete people looking for companionship, yet many incomplete people look for it to complete them. This is when mature relationships and immature ones split.

You can’t have a healthy relationship with two unhealthy people. When you’re trying to use someone to complete you, you’re creating an incomplete relationship.

Immature relationships are threatened by everyone else; mature relationships enjoy meeting other people

There are always going to be people in your life, pasts to each person and surprises behind closed doors.

Mature couples, however, do not feel threatened by strangers and past lovers. They are confident in their love and their partner’s love.

Immature couples find threats in everyone. They’re delusional and paranoid because their love is superficial. They do not have a strong enough foundation to effortlessly glide past all the distractions and threats.

Immature relationships live by preconceived timelines; mature relationships let everything happen naturally

There’s no right or wrong time to move in together. There’s no specific year to get married and definitely not a timeline for your life together.

When you’re in love, things happen at their own pace. You feel things, and you follow your heart.

Immature couples, however, don’t have those feelings, those instincts and those effortless moments. They make up rules and guidelines and assume time is the only thing that makes or breaks their relationship.

Immature relationships judge you on your past; mature relationships help you carry it

We all have a past, and in many cases, one we’re not proud of. We can’t help what happened to people before we knew them. All that matters is how they are now. Immature couples, however, refuse to see beyond the past.

Mature couples don’t just accept one another’s pasts but want to help heal the wounds. They look beyond the mistakes and the flaws toward the beauty in the future together. – See more at: http://www.thinkinghumanity.com/2016/02/the-difference-between-a-mature-relationship-and-an-immature-relationship.html?m=1#sthash.b3IKzaSj.6WkO8Msb.dpuf

Why we need another Einstein


In January, before lecturing at a retirement home in Maryland, I talked to an elderly physicist named Joe who told me about the first time he met his mother-in-law, decades ago.

Paparazzi

Joe’s wife had no idea how to describe to her mother what a physicist actually does. He wasn’t a bricklayer, and he wasn’t a fireman, and he wasn’t a salesman—any of which would have been self-explanatory.

“Mom,” she asked, “have you ever wondered why the sun comes up every morning and sets at night?”

“No,” her mother answered.

“Have you ever wondered why, if you pick up a rock and let it go, it falls down?”

“No.”

“Uh, okay. Well … have you heard of Einstein?”

“Yes!” her mother replied enthusiastically.

“Joe does what he does.”

And that’s how Joe endeared himself to his new mother-in-law—not through the importance of his work, not through their shared interests, but because of his similarity to a celebrity.

Because Einstein was a legitimate scientist who made brilliant discoveries, some may not think he should be classified as a celebrity. But that’s exactly what makes him a celebrity—the fact that everyone has heard of him. Einstein wasn’t a scientist celebrity because he hosted a television show or wore designer eveningwear. He was a celebrity because there was something iconic about him. There was something special that even Joe’s mother-in-law recognized, and that has made him pretty much the only scientist represented in Microsoft Office clip art. (Unless you count Dr. Clippy: “It looks like you’re typing a grant application. Would you like help?”)

Being the most famous scientist is a triumph within a nondominant subset.

Yet today—more than 60 years since Einstein’s death, despite living in possibly the most celebrity-filled and fame-obsessed culture in human history—where are all the celebrity scientists?

If you don’t believe me about the scarcity of celebrity scientists, ask nonscientific friends to name one who’s alive today.

“Bill Nye,” they’ll say.

“Great,” you’ll tell them. “Name another.”

Next they’ll suggest Neil deGrasse Tyson or Richard Dawkins. Maybe they’ll say Stephen Hawking, then pause to think about whether he’s actually a celebrity or simply well-known, and then pause again to think about whether he’s alive. (He is.)

“Name another.”

Silence.

Exactly.

Before they speak again, remind them that Adam and Jamie from MythBusters don’t count.

Last year, Declan Fahy, a communications lecturer at Dublin City University, argued in his book titled The New Celebrity Scientists: Out of the Lab and into the Limelight, that, for good or ill, celebrity scientists are more abundant today than ever. He names scientists likepsychologist Steven Pinker, physicist Brian Greene, and neuroscientist Susan Greenfieldto illustrate his point. There’s just one problem: To me, that definition of “celebrity” is pretty rinky-dink.

As worthy as these scientists’ scientific and public achievements are, when the average person can name maybe five science celebrities at the most—but could probably name more than 1000 nonscience celebrities (I’m just guessing, but if you have a few hours, try it)—it’s time to admit that we’re using the word “celebrity” differently than the rest of the world is. Being the most famous scientist is a triumph within a nondominant subset, like being the tallest kindergartner, or the most honest politician, or the wealthiest postdoc.

In October, after giving a talk at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, I spoke to the organizer of a statewide science festival. She said they were hoping to find a famous female science celebrity to headline their next event. It had to be a science-y woman—not necessarily even an actual scientist—that the average Nebraskan might have heard of. But they just couldn’t think of any.

“Uh,” I said, a little ashamed of the idea I was about to suggest but aware that it was the kind of suggestion she wanted, “how about—”

Before I could finish my sentence, she finished it for me: “And Kari from MythBusters is too expensive.”

I started wondering how people become celebrities in the first place and why they’re so interesting. Why do we care about someone we’ve never met, whose existence is unfathomably different from ours? Why, for the love of all that’s holy, would anyone ever read Us Weekly orPeople? (And why would they call the magazines Us and People when they’re clearly about people who are nothing like us?)

To find out, I decided to read an issue of Us Weekly. Okay, I didn’t read it, I glanced at the website for 30 seconds, because that was all I could take without wanting to pluck my traitorous eyeballs from their miserable sockets.

The general frivolity of what I saw—“news” about what celebrities wore, when they entered or left rehab, and how they reacted to each other’s misdemeanor arrests—makes it hard to argue that science celebrities would do science a favor. But the importance of celebrity scientists is not just about narcissism and putting a public face on a field that, many would say, requires no public face because it encompasses The Truth. Nor is it about a need to keep science relevant and understandable—there are plenty of good science communicators who do that but aren’t “celebrities” per se.

It’s about demonstrating that scientists can be celebrities, and that we can earn admiration and fascination in the same way other human beings can. That the Kardashians can dominate every headline without seemingly having a function in the world—and, sometimes, so can we. That people (in-laws included) want to know more about us.

So let’s help elevate scientists to celebrity status by doing what Joe’s wife did. I’ll start: I conduct experiments to answer questions about human biology. So, in other words … shoot, there’s no way around this.

I do what the MythBusters do.

The 15 Best Superfoods for Diabetics 


Include these nutrition superstars in your diabetes diet to lower blood sugar, burn fat, reduce inflammation, and gain more health benefits.

http://www.rd.com/health/healthy-eating/10-diabetes-super-foods/1/?trkid=FBPAGE_RD_20160317_Conditions_Diabetes_HealthyEating_Slideshow

Complex learning dismantles barriers in the brain


Biology lessons teach us that the brain is divided into separate areas, each of which processes a specific sense. But findings to be published in eLife show we can supercharge it to be more flexible.

Scientists at the Jagiellonian University in Poland taught Braille to sighted individuals and found that learning such a complex tactile task activates the visual cortex, when you’d only expect it to activate the tactile one.

“The textbooks tell us that the visual cortex processes visual tasks while the tactile cortex, called the somatosensory cortex, processes tasks related to touch,” says lead author Marcin Szwed from Jagiellonian University.

“Our findings tear up that view, showing we can establish new connections if we undertake a complex enough task and are given long enough to learn it.”

The findings could have implications for our power to bend different sections of the brain to our will by learning other demanding skills, such as playing a musical instrument or learning to drive. The flexibility occurs because the brain overcomes the normal division of labour and establishes new connections to boost its power.

It was already known that the brain can reorganize after a massive injury or as a result of massive sensory deprivation such as blindness. The visual cortex of the blind, deprived of its input, adapts for other tasks such as speech, memory, and reading Braille by touch. There has been speculation that this might also be possible in the normal, adult brain, but there has been no conclusive evidence.

“For the first time we’re able to show that large-scale reorganization is a viable mechanism that the sighted, adult brain is able to recruit when it is sufficiently challenged,” says Szwed.

Over nine months, 29 volunteers were taught to read Braille while blindfolded. They achieved reading speeds of between 0 and 17 words per minute. Before and after the course, they took part in a functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) experiment to test the impact of their learning on regions of the brain. This revealed that following the course, areas of the visual cortex, particularly the Visual Word Form Area, were activated and that connections with the tactile cortex were established.

In an additional experiment using transcranial magnetic stimulation, scientists applied magnetic field from a coil to selectively suppress the Visual Word Form Area in the brains of nine volunteers. This impaired their ability to read Braille, confirming the role of this site for the task. The results also discount the hypothesis that the visual cortex could have just been activated because volunteers used their imaginations to picture Braille dots.

“We are all capable of retuning our brains if we’re prepared to put the work in,” says Szwed.

He asserts that the findings call for a reassessment of our view of the functional organization of the human brain, which is more flexible than the brains of other primates.

“The extra flexibility that we have uncovered might be one those features that made us human, and allowed us to create a sophisticated culture, with pianos and Braille alphabet,” he says.

Oral vs. Intravenous Proton-Pump Inhibitors for Bleeding Peptic Ulcer


Oral PPIs are as effective as IV PPIs in preventing rebleeding after successful endoscopic therapy.

High-dose intravenous (IV) proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy decreases rebleeding in patients with nonvariceal gastrointestinal bleeding (NVGIB) and high-risk endoscopic stigmata (HRS). Some studies have shown a similar effect with oral PPI treatment.

To compare the effectiveness of these two therapeutic approaches, investigators performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of seven randomized trials involving 859 patients with NVGIB and HRS who received oral or IV PPI treatment after successful endoscopic therapy.

The pooled relative risk for rebleeding within 30 days was similar with oral or IV PPI therapy (risk ratio, 0.90); rebleeding rates were also similar with either therapy at 3, 7, and 15 days after endoscopy. Mortality, length of hospital stay, and requirements for transfusion were likewise similar with either therapy. No significant heterogeneity was detected in the analysis. The authors conclude that use of an oral PPI is a safe and effective alternative to high-dose IV PPI therapy for patients with nonvariceal bleeding and HRS.

COMMENT

The results of this study are consistent with other studies showing similar reductions in 72-hour gastric pH with oral or IV PPIs. However, the small number of studies that used different PPIs in their comparisons limits the results. Moreover, none of the studies were designed to prove equivalence or noninferiority. Failing to detect a difference is different from proving that there is no difference, raising the issue that even this analysis may be underpowered to meet the statistical requirements for that conclusion. Nonetheless, there is growing evidence that high-dose oral PPI therapy may be as effective as IV therapy in preventing rebleeding after endoscopic therapy in patients with NVGIB and HRS. These findings identify an equivalent treatment option that is more convenient and less costly than current standard IV therapy.

– See more at: http://www.jwatch.org/na40507/2016/03/16/oral-vs-intravenous-proton-pump-inhibitors-bleeding-peptic?ijkey=oEu0kY.wS8puE&keytype=ref&siteid=jwatch&variant=full-text#sthash.3iv49g8W.dpuf