Search

Background and Aims: Nonselective beta-blockers (NSBBs) can lower the risk of first decompensation in patients with cirrhosis and clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH) (identified by a hepatic venous pressure gradient ≥10 mm Hg) with active etiology. Our aim was to examine the effect of NSBBs on first decompensation occurrence in patients with cirrhosis and enduring CSPH after etiological treatment., Methods: Patients with compensated cirrhosis and clinical evidence of CSPH (gastroesophageal varices [GEVs] and/or spontaneous portosystemic collaterals [SPSSs]) after 2 years from etiological treatment. The primary endpoint was first decompensation (occurrence of variceal bleeding, ascites, or hepatic encephalopathy) in patients on NSBBs vs off NSBBs., Results: The final cohort included 406 patients. Baseline characteristics of patients on NSBBs (n = 187) and off NSBBs (n = 219) were comparable, except for signs of portal hypertension that were more pronounced in the on-NSBB group. During a mean follow-up of 32 months, 127 (31%) patients decompensated, with ascites being the most common (77%) decompensating event. Decompensation rates were lower in patients on NSBBs (16% vs 44%; P < .0001). The benefit of NSBBs on decompensation was maintained in patients with small GEVs (17% vs 43%; P < .0001), in those with spontaneous portosystemic shunt only (8% vs 43%; P = .003), and in each different etiology, including hepatitis C virus-cured cirrhosis (9% vs 32%; P < .0001). At Cox regression analysis, hemoglobin, Child-Pugh, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease-Sodium, diabetes at baseline, and previous bacterial infections were independent predictors of decompensation, while NSBB use had a protective effect (hazard ratio, 0.32; 95% confidence interval, 0.20-0.49; P < .0001). NSBB use significantly reduced bacterial infection rates (hazard ratio, 0.36; 95% confidence interval, 0.22-0.58; P < .0001)., Conclusion: NSBBs decrease the risk of first decompensation in patients with cirrhosis and enduring CSPH after etiological treatment., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Microplastics (MPs) are growing and ubiquitous environmental pollutants and represent one of the greatest contemporary challenges caused by human activities. Current research has predominantly examined the singular toxicological effects of individual polymers, neglecting the prevailing reality of organisms confronted with complex contaminant mixtures and potential synergistic effects. To fill this research gap, we investigated the lethal and sublethal effects of two common MPs, polystyrene (PS - 4.8-5.8 μm) and poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA - 1-40 μm), and their combination (MIX), on the pollinating insect Apis mellifera. For each treatment, we evaluated the oral toxicity of two ecologically relevant and one higher concentration (0.5, 5 and 50 mg/L) and analysed their effects on the immune system and worker survival. As immune activation can alter the cuticular hydrocarbon profile of honey bees, we used gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) to investigate whether MPs lead to changes in the chemical profile of foragers and behavioural assay to test whether such changes affect behavioural patterns of social recognition, undermining overall colony integrity. The results indicate an additive negative effect of PS and PMMA on bee survival and immune response, even at ecologically relevant concentrations. Furthermore, alterations in cuticle profiles were observed with both MPs at the highest and intermediate concentrations, with PMMA being mainly responsible. Both MPs exposure resulted in a reduction in the abundance of several cuticular compounds. Hive entry guards did not show increased inspection or aggressive behaviour towards exposed foragers, allowing them to enter the colony without being treated differently from uncontaminated foragers. These findings raise concerns not only for the health of individual bees, but also for the entire colony, which could be at risk if contaminated nestmates enter the colony undetected, allowing MPs to spread throughout the hive., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest All authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Biopesticides are considered eco-friendly alternatives to synthetic agrochemicals. However, their impact on non-target organisms is still poorly understood. Social wasps, in particular, are a largely neglected group when it comes to risk assessment of plant protection products, despite the relevant ecological and economic services provided by these insects. In the present study, we evaluated the impact of a common biopesticide, the entomopathogenic fungus Beauveria bassiana, on the paper wasp Polistes dominula. We adopted a holistic approach in ecotoxicology by focusing not only on the detrimental effects on isolated individuals, but also on the whole colony. Both adult wasps belonging to different castes and immature larvae were topically exposed to a field-realistic concentration of fungal spores from the commercial strain of B. bassiana ATCC 74040 to assess the impact of the biopesticide on their survival, behavior and physiology. Our results showed that the fungus causes a number of adverse effects on P. dominula, that include increased mortality, altered locomotion and feeding rate, selective ejection of exposed larvae from nests, reduced oviposition rate and ovary development in foundresses, and colony failure. Our findings provide new insights on the often-neglected sublethal effects of pollutants that can jeopardize not only individual beneficial insects, but also the delicate social balance of their colonies and their valuable ecosystem services, highlighting that the natural origin of plant-protection products does not always guarantee environmental safety., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)