Search

The optimal therapeutic strategy in nucleoside analogue (NA) experienced chronic hepatitis B (CHB) using peginterferon is still unclear; hence we explored a switch to or add-on peginterferon strategy versus continued NA.We conducted a randomized controlled trial of CHB patients on NA12 months with HBV DNA(-) randomized to switch or add-on peginterferon-alpha2b (1.5 μg/kg/weekly) for 48 weeks versus continuing NA (controls) (allocation 2:2:1; Clinicaltrial.gov: NCT01928511) in tertiary Singapore hospitals. The primary composite endpoint at week 72 was hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) loss or quantitative HBsAg (qHBsAg)1 log IU/mL reduction, and secondary endpoints were HBsAg loss, HBsAg seroconversion, qHBsAg200 IU/mL, qHBsAg100 IU/mL, HBV DNA(-), viral relapse, and safety. Analysis was by intention-to-treat (ITT).A total of 253 patients (controls 51, switch 103, add-on 99) were randomized. The primary ITT endpoint was achieved in 3.9% of controls, 33.3% of switch, and 26.7% of add-on (P.0001, switch/add-on versus controls). HBsAg loss occurred in 0% of controls, 7.8% of switch, and 10.1% of add-on (ITT, P.001, switch/add-on versus controls). HBeAg(+) patients on peginterferon had higher HBeAg loss than controls but poor HBsAg responses, whereas HBeAg(-) patients on peginterferon achieved better HBsAg responses than controls. Reduction in qHBsAg in HBeAg(+) was 0.14 log IU/mL versus 0.51 log IU/mL in HBeAg(-) (P.0001) in peginterferon-treated patients. Clinical relapse was higher in switch (13.6% overall, 27% in HBeAg(+)) versus 1% add-on and 0% controls. Adverse events were typically interferon-related symptoms, with one death (myocardial infarction unrelated to therapy).ITT analysis showed that either peginterferon strategies were superior to NA for the primary endpoint and HBsAg loss, but add-on peginterferon is preferred to switch due to improved safety and similar efficacy. ClincialTrials.gov number: NCT01928511.

Background & Aims It is not clear how the duration of upper endoscopy affects the detection of cancer or premalignant lesions that increase the risk for gastric cancer. We investigated whether the length of time spent performing esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) affects the detection of important pathologic features of the stomach. Methods We collected data from 837 symptomatic patients, during a 3-month period in 2010, who underwent a first diagnostic EGD at a tertiary university hospital in Singapore. Endoscopists were classified as fast or slow based on the mean amount of time it took them to perform a normal EGD examination. We used logistic regression to compare between groups the numbers of intestinal metaplasias, gastric atrophies, dysplasias, and cancers detected, using histologic analysis of biopsy samples collected during endoscopy as the standard. Results Of 224 normal endoscopies, the mean duration was 6.6 minutes (range, 2–32 min). When we used 7 minutes as the cut-off time, 8 endoscopists were considered to have short mean examination times (mean duration, 5.5 ± 2.1 min; referred to as fast endoscopists ), and 8 endoscopists were considered to have long mean examination times (mean duration, 8.6 ± 4.2 min; referred to as slow endoscopists ). Eleven cancers and 81 lesions considered to pose risks for cancer were detected in 86 patients; 1.3% were determined to be cancer, 1.0% were determined to be dysplasia, and 8.7% were determined to be intestinal metaplasia and/or gastric atrophy. Slow endoscopists were twice as likely to detect high-risk lesions as fast endoscopists (odds ratio, 2.50; 95% confidence interval, 1.52–4.12), regardless of whether they were endoscopy staff or trainees. The slow endoscopists also detected 3-fold more neoplastic lesions (cancer or dysplasia; odds ratio, 3.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.25–10.38). Conclusions Endoscopists with mean EGD examination times longer than 7 minutes identified a greater number of high-risk gastric lesions than faster endoscopists. Examination time may be a useful indicator of quality assessment for upper endoscopy. Studies are required to test these findings in different populations.