Search

Objectives Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) is regularly used in treatment of clinically significant portal hypertension. Liver transplant recipients are, however, rarely indicated for the procedure. The study retrospectively examines the results of TIPS placement in 6 patients after OLT. Methods 4 males and 2 females (aged 36 to 62 years), treated with TIPS between 2007 a 2018, were included in the study. 5 patients had previously undergone liver transplantation for liver graft cirrhosis, 1 patient for Budd-Chiari syndrome. The piggyback caval reconstruction technique was selected in 4/6 cases. PH developed after OLT due to the recurrence of underlying liver condition and sinusoidal obstruction syndrome in half of the cases, respectively. Indications for TIPS were refractory ascites in 4 cases and variceal bleeding in 2 cases. Results Standard TIPS technique was used and technical success was achieved in all cases with a procedure-related complication in 1 patient. One patient died shortly after TIPS placement. The remaining patients all reported regression of clinically significant PH. Late complications appeared in 2 patients. Liver retransplantation after TIPS creation was performed in 1 case. Median TIPS patency was 55 months. 2/6 patient continue to thrive with a patent shunt. Conclusions Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in OLT recipients is technically feasible. Favorable clinical outcomes were reported particularly in patients treated for sinusoidal obstruction syndrome who were indicated to TIPS for refractory ascites.

Liver stiffness (LS) is a novel non-invasive parameter widely used in clinical hepatology. LS correlates with liver fibrosis stage in non-cirrhotic patients. In cirrhotic patients it also shows good correlation with Hepatic Venous Pressure Gradient (HVPG). Our aim was to assess the contribution of liver fibrosis and portal hypertension to LS in patients with advanced liver cirrhosis. Eighty-one liver transplant candidates with liver cirrhosis of various aetiologies underwent direct HVPG and LS measurement by 2D shear-wave elastography (Aixplorer Multiwave, Supersonic Imagine, France). Liver collagen content was assessed in the explanted liver as collagen proportionate area (CPA) and hydroxyproline content (HP). The studied cohort included predominantly patients with Child-Pugh class B and C (63/81, 77.8 %), minority of patients were Child-Pugh A (18/81, 22.2 %). LS showed the best correlation with HVPG (r=0.719, p

Background Intravenous drug use (IVDU) represents the major factor of HCV transmission, but the treatment uptake among people who inject drugs (PWID) remains low owing to a false presumption of low efficacy. The aim of our study was to assess treatment efficacy in PWID and factors determining adherence to therapy. Methods A total of 278 consecutive patients starting DAA (direct-acting antivirals) therapy were included, divided into two groups: individuals with a history of IVDU, PWID group (N = 101) and the control group (N = 177) without a history of IVDU. Results Sustained virological response 12 weeks after the end of therapy (SVR12) was achieved by 99/101 (98%) and 172/177 (98%) patients in the PWID and control group, respectively; in PWID group, two patients were lost to follow-up, and in the control group, four patients relapsed and one was lost to follow-up. PWID patients postponed appointments significantly more often, 29 (28.7%) in PWID versus 7 (4%) in the control group, p = 0.001. Thirteen of 101 (12.9%) and six of 177 (3.4%) patients in the PWID and in the control group, respectively, missed at least one visit (p p p p Conclusions In PWID, treatment efficacy was excellent and was comparable with SVR of the control group. Stable housing and older age contributed to a better adherence to therapy.

In 2016, the WHO announced a plan to eliminate viral hepatitis as a public health threat by 2030. In this narrative review, experts from Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Slovakia assessed the feasibility of achieving the WHO 2030 target for HCV infections in Central Europe. They focused mainly on HCV micro-elimination in prisons, where the highest incidence of HCV infections is usually observed, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the detection and treatment of HCV infections. According to the presented estimates, almost 400,000 people remain infected with HCV in the analyzed countries. Interferon-free therapies are available ad libitum, but the number of patients treated annually in the last two years has halved compared to 2017–2019, mainly due to the COVID-19 pandemic. None of the countries analyzed had implemented a national HCV screening program or a prison screening program. The main reason is a lack of will at governmental and prison levels. None of the countries analyzed see any chance of meeting the WHO targets for removing viral hepatitis from the public threat list by 2030, unless barriers such as a lack of political will and a lack of screening programs are removed quickly.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) mainly stems from liver cirrhosis and its genetic predisposition is believed to be rare. However, two recent studies describe pathogenic/likely pathogenic germline variants (PV) in cancer-predisposition genes (CPG). As the risk of de novo tumors might be increased in PV carriers, especially in immunosuppressed patients after a liver transplantation, we analyzed the prevalence of germline CPG variants in HCC patients considered for liver transplantation. Using the panel NGS targeting 226 CPGs, we analyzed germline DNA from 334 Czech HCC patients and 1662 population-matched controls. We identified 48 PVs in 35 genes in 47/334 patients (14.1%). However, only 7/334 (2.1%) patients carried a PV in an established CPG (PMS2, 4×NBN, FH or RET). Only the PV carriers in two MRN complex genes (NBN and RAD50) were significantly more frequent among patients over controls. We found no differences in clinicopathological characteristics between carriers and non-carriers. Our study indicated that the genetic component of HCC is rare. The HCC diagnosis itself does not meet criteria for routine germline CPG genetic testing. However, a low proportion of PV carriers may benefit from a tailored follow-up or targeted therapy and germline testing could be considered in liver transplant recipients.

According to the recent data presented by Central-European HCV experts, the estimated prevalence of HCV is between 0.2% and 1.7% in certain countries in this region. There are no financial limitations to access to treatment in most countries. Patients in these countries have access to at least one pangenotypic regimen. The most common barriers to the elimination of HCV in Central Europe are a lack of established national screening programmes and limited political commitment to the elimination of HCV. Covid-19 has significantly affected the number of patients who have been diagnosed and treated, thus, delaying the potential elimination of HCV. These data suggest that the elimination of HCV elimination projected by WHO before 2030 will not be possible in the Central Europe.

Aim of the study To collect and analyse data obtained from HCV opinion leaders/experts from central European countries, on factors which can affect the WHO target of HCV elimination by 2030. Material and methods Data were collected from opinion leaders/experts involved in management of HCV infections in Central European countries which participated in 9th Conference of the Central European Hepatologic Collaboration (Warsaw, 10-11 October 2019). A dedicated questionnaire collected current information related to HCV elimination in Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Slovakia. Results The HCV prevalence rate in particular countries varied from 0.2% to 1.7%. In most central European countries all the HCV infected population is eligible for reimbursement of treatment. However, in some countries there are still some limitations related to the stage of the disease and people who inject drugs. All countries have access to at least one pangenotypic regimen. The most common barrier to HCV elimination in all countries is insufficient political will to establish priority for HCV. None of the reporting countries has established a national screening programme. Conclusions Access to therapy for HCV is similar and the majority of patients in Central Europe can be treated according to the current guidelines. Unfortunately there are still some limitations and a lack of political will to implement national screening programmes. According to collected data HCV elimination will not be possible in the region by 2030.

Background Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is a leading cause of liver-related morbidity and mortality worldwide. In the European Union (EU), treatment and cure of HCV with direct-acting antiviral therapies began in 2014. WHO targets are to achieve a 65% reduction in liver-related deaths, a 90% reduction of new viral hepatitis infections, and 90% of patients with viral hepatitis infections being diagnosed by 2030. This study assessed the prevalence of HCV in the EU and the level of intervention required to achieve WHO targets for HCV elimination. Methods We populated country Markov models for the 28 EU countries through a literature search of PubMed and Embase between Jan 1, 2000, and March 31, 2016, and a Delphi process to gain expert consensus and validate inputs. We aggregated country models to create a regional EU model. We used the EU model to forecast HCV disease progression (considering the effect of immigration) and developed a strategy to acehive WHO targets. We used weighted average sustained viral response rates and fibrosis restrictions to model the effect of current therapeutic guidelines. We used the EU model to forecast HCV disease progression (considering the effect of immigration) under current screening and therapeutic guidelines. Additionally, we back-calculated the total number of patients needing to be screened and treated to achieve WHO targets. Findings We estimated the number of viraemic HCV infections in 2015 to be 3 238 000 (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 2 106 000–3 795 000) of a total population of 509 868 000 in the EU, equating to a prevalence of viraemic HCV of 0·64% (95% UI 0·41–0·74). We estimated that 1 180 000 (95% UI 1 003 000–1 357 000) people were diagnosed with viraemia (36·4%), 150 000 (12 000–180 000) were treated (4·6% of the total infected population or 12·7% of the diagnosed population), 133 000 (106 000–160 000) were cured (4·1%), and 57 900 (43 900–67 300) were newly infected (1·8%) in 2015. Additionally, 30 400 (26 600–42 500) HCV-positive immigrants entered the EU. To achieve WHO targets, unrestricted treatment needs to increase from 150 000 patients in 2015 to 187 000 patients in 2025 and diagnosis needs to increase from 88 800 new cases annually in 2015 to 180 000 in 2025. Interpretation Given its advanced health-care infrastructure, the EU is uniquely poised to eliminate HCV; however, expansion of screening programmes is essential to increase treatment to achieve the WHO targets. A united effort, grounded in sound epidemiological evidence, will also be necessary. Funding Gilead Sciences.

BackgroundPNPLA3 rs738409 minor allele c.444G represents a risk factor for liver steatosis and fibrosis progression also in chronic hepatitis C (HCV). We investigated its impact on the timing of liver transplantation (LT) in patients with genotype 1b HCV cirrhosis.MethodsWe genotyped and evaluated 172 LT candidates with liver cirrhosis owing to chronic HCV infection, genotype 1b. One hundred patients needed LT for chronic liver failure (CLF) and 72 for a small hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the cirrhotic liver without CLF. Population controls (n = 647) were selected from the Czech cross-sectional study MONICA.ResultsThe CLF patients were younger (53.5 ± 7.2 vs. 59.6 ± 6.6, P < 0.001) with more advanced liver disease than HCC patients (Child-Pugh's score 9.1 ± 1.8 vs. 7.1 ± 1.9, P < 0.001, MELD 14.1 ± 3.9 vs. 11.1 ± 3.7, P < 0.001). PNPLA3 G allele increased the risk of LT for CLF in both allelic and recessive models (CG + GG vs. CC: OR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.017-3.472, P = 0.045 and GG vs. CC + CG: OR, 2.94; 95% CI, 1.032-7.513, P = 0.042). Multivariate analysis identified younger age (P < 0.001) and the G allele (P < 0.05) as risk factors for CLF. The genotype frequencies between the CLF group and MONICA study significantly differed in both, allelic and recessive model (P = 0.004, OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.222-2.875; P < 0.001, OR 3.33, 95% CI 1.824-6.084, respectively). The OR values almost doubled in the recessive model compared with the allelic model suggesting the additive effect of allele G. In contrast, genotype frequencies in the HCC group were similar to the MONICA study in both models. Pretransplant viral load was significantly lower in GG than in CC + CG genotypes (median, IQR; 162,500 (61,550-319,000) IU/ml vs. 570,000 (172,000-1,595,000) IU/ml, P < 0.0009).ConclusionsOur results suggest that PNPLA3 rs738409 G allele carriage may be associated with a faster progression of HCV cirrhosis to chronic liver failure.

BACKGROUND Cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease represents a serious complication in liver transplant (OLT) recipients. CMV prophylaxis reduces incidence of CMV disease in the early post-transplant period (on-prophylaxis disease, OPD) but may postpone its manifestation after the completion of prophylaxis. Post-prophylaxis disease (PPD) incidence after prophylaxis cessation may be modified by genetic factors. METHODS We analyzed impact of IL28B rs1297986 variants on CMV disease incidence in 743 adult OLT recipients receiving universal prophylaxis. RESULTS One hundred and forty-four (19.4%) patients had at least one CMV disease episode. One hundred and two of them (70.8%) had at least one OPD and 36 (25%) patients had PPD, six (4.2%) patients had both. The rate of IL28B T allele carriers was lower in PPD group (38.9%) in comparison with OPD group (66.7%, P = 0.005) and group without CMV disease (61.4%, P = 0.009). The impact of IL28B genotype on the risk of CMV OPD was significant neither in the allelic (TT + CT vs CC, P = 0.32) nor in the recessive model (TT vs CT + CC, P = 0.79). Contrarily, in the PPD group, T allele (TT + CT vs CC) had a protective effect, OR 0.4 (95% CI 0.2-0.8, P = 0.008). Further risk factors of PPD were age

Liver stiffness is a reliable non-invasive predictor of Hepatic Venous Pressure Gradient (HVPG) above 10 mm Hg. However, it failed to predict higher thresholds of HVPG. Our aim was to investigate whether liver stiffness and selected previously published non-invasive blood biomarkers could predict higher HVPG thresholds in liver transplant candidates without ongoing alcohol use. One hundred and nine liver transplant candidates with liver cirrhosis of various aetiologies underwent direct HVPG measurement, liver stiffness measurement by 2D shear-wave elastography (Aixplorer Multiwave, Supersonic Imagine, France) and assessment of blood HVPG biomarkers (osteopontin, VCAM-1, IL-6, TNF-α, IL-1ra/IL-1F3 and ELF score). The correlation between liver stiffness and HVPG was linear up to 30 mm Hg of HVPG (r = 0.765, p < 0.0001). The regression lines had similar slopes for HVPG values below and above 16 mm Hg (p > 0.05) and the correlation in patients with HVPG

PubMed: 29599078, 2-s2.0-85044540918, Background: The 69th World Health Assembly approved the Global Health Sector Strategy to eliminate viral hepatitis by 2030. Although no virological cure exists for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, existing therapies to control viral replication and prophylaxis to minimise mother-to-child transmission make elimination of HBV feasible. We aimed to estimate the national, regional, and global prevalence of HBsAg in the general population and in the population aged 5 years in 2016, as well as coverage of prophylaxis, diagnosis, and treatment. Methods: In this modelling study, we used a Delphi process that included a literature review in PubMed and Embase, followed by interviews with experts, to quantify the historical epidemiology of HBV infection. We then used a dynamic HBV transmission and progression model to estimate the country-level and regional-level prevalence of HBsAg in 2016 and the effect of prophylaxis and treatment on disease burden. Findings: We developed models for 120 countries, 78 of which were populated with data approved by experts. Using these models, we estimated that the global prevalence of HBsAg in 2016 was 3·9% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 3·4–4·6), corresponding to 291 992 000 (251 513 000–341 114 000) infections. Of these infections, around 29 million (10%) were diagnosed, and only 4·8 million (5%) of 94 million individuals eligible for treatment actually received antiviral therapy. Around 1·8 (1·6–2·2) million infections were in children aged 5 years, with a prevalence of 1·4% (1·2–1·6). We estimated that 87% of infants had received the three-dose HBV vaccination in the first year of life, 46% had received timely birth-dose vaccination, and 13% had received hepatitis B immunoglobulin along with the full vaccination regimen. Less than 1% of mothers with a high viral load had received antiviral therapy to reduce mother-to-child transmission. Interpretation: Our estimate of HBV prevalence in 2016 differs from previous studies, potentially because we took into account the effect of infant prophylaxis and early childhood vaccination, as well as changing prevalence over time. Although some regions are well on their way to meeting prophylaxis and prevalence targets, all regions must substantially scale-up access to diagnosis and treatment to meet the global targets. Funding: John C Martin Foundation. © 2018 Elsevier Ltd, H28-kansei-ippan-001 National Academy of Sciences, NAS Novartis Roche World Health Organization, WHO Gilead Sciences Alnylam Pharmaceuticals AbbVie Meso Scale Diagnostics, MSD British Microcirculation Society, BMS Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, JSPS: 17H03589 Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, MHLW Vetenskapsrådet, VR Siemens Universiteit Antwerpen OLL-683801, DR-S, IGa, SB, SMB, CE, KM, HMN, KP, KR-S, SR, JDS, and HR report grants from John C Martin Foundation, during the conduct of the study, and grants from Gilead Sciences, AbbVie, WHO, National Academy of Sciences, Intercept Pharmaceuticals, and Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work. MHN reports grants and personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Gilead Sciences, and Janssen, and personal fees from Novartis, Anylam, and Dynavax, outside the submitted work. PVD acts as chief and principal investigator for vaccine trials done on behalf of the University of Antwerp, Belgium, for which the University obtains research grants from vaccine manufacturers; speaker's fees for presentations on vaccines are paid directly to an educational fund held by the University of Antwerp, and PVD receives no personal remuneration for this work. ACA reports personal fees from Mylan Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. JEA reports fees paid to his hospital for participation on the advisory boards of Gilead Sciences, ViiV Healthcare, BMS, Janssen, and AbbVie, and grants from BMS, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), AbbVie, and ViiV Healthcare, outside the submitted work. TB reports grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from AbbVie and Gilead Sciences; grants and personal fees from BMS, Janssen, Roche, MSD, and Sequana Medical; and personal fees from Bayer, Vertex, Tibotec, Intercept, Sirtex, and Alexion, outside the submitted work. PB reports grants and personal fees from AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, and MSD, outside the submitted work. MBr reports personal fees from BMS, Gilead Sciences, and Janssen, and grants from BMS, outside the submitted work. HLYC reports personal fees from Gilead Sciences, BMS, AbbVie, Roche, MedImmune, and Intellia, outside the submitted work. PBC reports grants from AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, and MSD, outside the submitted work. VC reports personal fees from AbbVie, BMS, Gilead Sciences, and MSD, and grants from BMS, outside the submitted work. MCor reports personal fees from AbbVie, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Biogen Idec, Falk Foundation, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, MSD, Roche Diagnostics, Roche Pharma, and Siemens, outside the submitted work. SD and PJ report personal fees and non-financial support from AbbVie and Gilead Sciences, and personal fees from MSD, outside the submitted work. MHE-S is an advisory board member for Perspectum Diagnostics, and reports grants and non-financial support from Gilead Sciences, and non-financial support from AbbVie and Quadri Pharma, outside the submitted work. RF reports grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from Roche and Gilead Sciences, and personal fees and non-financial support from BMS, outside the submitted work. GBG reports grants and personal fees from Gilead Sciences, outside the submitted work. JG-S reports grants and personal fees from Gilead Sciences, and personal fees from MSD, Abbvie, Janssen, and BMS, outside the submitted work. JGer reports grants and personal fees from AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, MSD, BMS, and ViiV Healthcare, outside the submitted work. RG reports grants from New South Wales Ministry of Health and provided project advice regarding viral hepatitis treatment to Gilead Sciences, outside the submitted work. AHa reports unrestricted grants from AbbVie, MSD, Gilead Sciences, BMS, and Novartis, and non-financial support from Gilead Sciences, outside the submitted work; he was also on advisory boards for AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, and BMS. CH reports personal fees from AbbVie, BMS, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, and MSD, outside the submitted work. JJ reports personal fees and non-financial support from Gilead Sciences and AbbVie, and personal fees from Roche and BMS, outside the submitted work. MK reports grants from Roche, Siemens, Hologic, and Boerhinger Ingleheim, outside the submitted work. JVL reports grants and personal fees from Gilead Sciences and personal fees from Cepheid, outside the submitted work. MMan reports personal fees from Roche, BMS, GlaxoSmithKline, Aevi Genomic Medicine, ENYO Pharma, and CureVac, and grants and personal fees from Gilead Sciences and Novartis, outside the submitted work. SMau reports personal fees and non-financial support from Gilead Sciences and BMS, outside the submitted work. CM reports grants and personal fees from AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, and BMS; personal fees from MSD; and grants from Roche, outside the submitted work. BM reports grants and personal fees from Gilead Sciences and personal fees from AbbVie, MSD, BMS, Bayer, Intercept, and Sigma-Tau, during the conduct of the study. FN reports personal fees and non-financial support from Gilead Sciences, during the conduct of the study. AR reports grants and personal fees from AbbVie, Gilead, and MSD, and personal fees form BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Intercept, and Lupin, outside the submitted work. HWR reports grants and personal fees from AbbVie, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, ENYO Pharma, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, MSD, PRA Health Sciences, Regulus, and Roche; personal fees from Alnylam and R-Pharm; and grants from Replicor, outside the submitted work. LRR reports grants from the Center for Clinical and Translational Science and the Swedish Research Council (Ghana), during the conduct of the study. LRR also reports grants from Gilead Sciences, BTG, Ariad, and Wako, outside the submitted work, and was a consultant and advisory board member for Wako, Medscape, Axis, OncLive, Bayer, Tavec, and Grail. SDR has served as an advisory board member and speaker for Gilead Sciences, AbbVie, and MSD. OS has served as a consultant and on advisory boards for MSD; received research grants from AbbVie, BMS, MSD, Boehringer Ingelheim, R-Pharm, and Hepatera; and served as a speaker for Abbott, AbbVie, BMS, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, MSD, and R-Pharm. JFS-A reports personal fees from AbbVie and grants from Gilead Sciences and Janssen, outside the submitted work. CSa reports personal fees from Gilead Sciences and BMS, outside the submitted work. PS reports grants and personal fees from Gilead Sciences, AbbVie, and BMS, and personal fees from Intercept, outside the submitted work. CSt has consulted with and served on advisory boards for Gilead Sciences, AbbVie, and MSD. VSy reports grants and personal fees from Gilead Sciences, personal fees and non-financial support from AbbVie, and personal fees from Janssen, outside the submitted work. KT reports grants and personal fees from AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, and BMS; personal fees from MSD and Alfa Wasserman; and grants from Janssen, outside the submitted work. AJvdM reports grants and personal fees from Gilead Sciences and personal fees from AbbVie, outside the submitted work. IW reports personal fees from AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Marcyrl, Mylan, Onxio, and Pharco, outside the submitted work. NW reports personal fees paid to her department from AbbVie, BMS, Gilead Sciences, and MSD, outside the submitted work. VWW reports personal fees from Gilead Sciences, BMS, and MSD, outside the submitted work. M-FY was a speaker or advisory board member for AbbVie, BMS, Gilead Sciences, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Fujirebio, Biocartis, and MSD, outside the submitted work. SZ reports consultancy and lecture fees from AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, and MSD, and consultancy fees from Intercept, outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests., This study was funded by the John C Martin Foundation through the Polaris Observatory. We thank the Research on Hepatitis group (H28-kansei-ippan-001 and H25-kanen-ippan-010; led by JT), funded by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan, for their provision of country-level data for Japan, and Örebro County Council for providing ALF grants (OLL-683801) to A-SD, which allowed collection of country-level data for Sweden.

Jan Sperl,1 Sona Frankova,1 Miluse Kreidlova,2 Dusan Merta,3 Monika Tothova,4 Julius Spicak1 1Department of Hepatogastroenterology, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, 2Institute of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine, General University Hospital, Charles University, 3Department of Anesthesiology, Resuscitation and Intensive Care, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, 4Dialysis Center Motol, Fresenius Medical Care, Prague, Czech Republic Abstract: Chronic hepatitis C virus infection (HCV) has a negative impact on the long-term survival of recipients of kidney transplants. HCV should be treated in hemodialyzed patients before their enlistment for kidney transplantation in order to avoid the reactivation of virus after transplantation. Direct-acting antivirals represent the current standard of care in hemodialyzed patients with HCV genotypes 1 and 4; in patients with genotypes 2 or 3, the optimal regimen is yet to be established. Sofosbuvir (SOF) and daclatasvir (DCV) represent an antiviral pangenotypic regimen with favorable pharmacokinetics in hemodialyzed patients. We retrospectively evaluated safety and efficacy of the combination of SOF and DCV in the treatment of genotype 3a chronic HCV in six male patients (mean age of 39 years, range 25–53 years) with end-stage renal disease on maintenance hemodialysis; these patients were treated with a reduced dose of SOF (one half of a 400 mg tablet) and 60 mg of DCV once daily. The anticipated treatment duration was 12 weeks. Initial HCV RNA ranged from 120,000 to 11,000,000 IU/mL. Two of the six patients had compensated liver cirrhosis based on shear-wave elastography result. All of the patients completed a 12-week treatment. Viremia became negative on treatment and remained negative 12 weeks after the end of therapy in all the patients. All of them (6/6, 100%) achieved sustained virological response, including two with cirrhosis and two with HCV RNA >6,000,000 IU/mL. The treatment was well tolerated: none of the patients presented with a serious adverse event requiring hospital admission and none had anemia or any significant changes in blood count. One patient had a short period of diarrhea, which was resolved with antibiotic treatment. The combination of reduced-dose SOF and full-dose DCV, daily, was a safe and effective treatment in our group of hemodialyzed patients infected with HCV genotype 3. Keywords: HCV infection, genotype 3, sofosbuvir, daclatasvir, end-stage renal disease, maintenance hemodialysis&nbsp

WOS: 000426979400014, PubMed ID: 28404132, Background The 69th World Health Assembly approved the Global Health Sector Strategy to eliminate hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection by 2030, which can become a reality with the recent launch of direct acting antiviral therapies. Reliable disease burden estimates are required for national strategies. This analysis estimates the global prevalence of viraemic HCV at the end of 2015, an update of-and expansion on-the 2014 analysis, which reported 80 million (95% CI 64-103) viraemic infections in 2013. Methods We developed country-level disease burden models following a systematic review of HCV prevalence (number of studies, n=6754) and genotype (n=11 342) studies published after 2013. A Delphi process was used to gain country expert consensus and validate inputs. Published estimates alone were used for countries where expert panel meetings could not be scheduled. Global prevalence was estimated using regional averages for countries without data. Findings Models were built for 100 countries, 59 of which were approved by country experts, with the remaining 41 estimated using published data alone. The remaining countries had insufficient data to create a model. The global prevalence of viraemic HCV is estimated to be 1.0% (95% uncertainty interval 0.8-1.1) in 2015, corresponding to 71.1 million (62.5-79.4) viraemic infections. Genotypes 1 and 3 were the most common cause of infections (44% and 25%, respectively). Interpretation The global estimate of viraemic infections is lower than previous estimates, largely due to more recent (lower) prevalence estimates in Africa. Additionally, increased mortality due to liver-related causes and an ageing population may have contributed to a reduction in infections., John C Martin Foundation, John C Martin Foundation.

Urinary aquaporin-2 (AQP2) is a parameter of water transport in the principal cells in the distal part of the nephron and involved in water retention in cirrhosis and may be a marker of renal function. The aim of the study was to evaluate AQP2 as a predictor of renal insufficiency and death in patients with cirrhosis.Urine samples from 199 patients (90 patients without organ failure [Group 1], 58 patients with organ failure excluding renal failure [Group 2], and 51 patients with organ failure including renal failure [Group 3]) from the CANONIC study were analyzed for urine AQP2 and urine osmolality.There was no difference in AQP2 between the three groups. Urine osmolality was significantly lower in patients in Group 3 versus Group 1 and Group 2 (P = 0.0004). No relation was found between AQP2 and glomerular filtration rate or creatinine; however, AQP2 was a significant predictor of the development of renal insufficiency (P = 0.0485). In a univariate analysis, AQP2 was a significant predictor of 14 and 28-day survival, but this was not confirmed in multivariate analysis.Aquaporin-2 was not associated with disease severity or markers of renal function but was a predictor for the development of renal insufficiency and death. Therefore, its future use as marker of renal insufficiency could be promising, but further research is needed before it can be considered a clinical useful tool.

Sona Frankova,1 Milan Jirsa,2 Dusan Merta,3 Magdalena Neroldova,2 Petr Urbanek,4 Renata Senkerikova,1 Julius Spicak,1 Jan Sperl1 1Department of Hepatogastroenterology, 2Laboratory of Experimental Hepatology, 3Department of Anesthesiology, Resuscitation and Intensive Care, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, 4Department of Internal Medicine, Central Military Hospital, First Medical School, Prague, Czech Republic Background and aims: Patients with advanced liver fibrosis owing to chronic hepatitis C virus genotype 1 represent a difficult-to-treat group even if a protease inhibitor is added to pegylated interferon alpha and ribavirin. Therefore, only patients with a high chance of cure should be treated with interferon-based treatment. Patients and methods: Expression of IFNG, IFNLR1, and interferon-sensitive genes CXCL9, IFI16, IFI27, ISG15, and USP18 in peripheral blood mononuclear cells was assessed before and during the initial 12 weeks of treatment. The studied group consisted of 26 treatment-experienced patients of average age of 50 years with advanced liver fibrosis compared to seven healthy volunteers. Fourteen patients were treated with pegylated interferon alpha 2b, ribavirin, and boceprevir and 12 patients with telaprevir. The overall sustained virological response (SVR) rate was 69% (18/26). Results: A significant difference in the initial expression (median, interquartile range [IQR]) of CXCL9 2.9×, IQR: 1.7–12.4 vs 1.2×, IQR: 0.5–1.8; (P=0.01) IFNG 7.3×, IQR: 1.7–32.6 vs 0.7×, IQR: 0.4–1.3; P=0.002 and USP18 3.7×, IQR: 2.1–7.7 vs 1.4×, IQR: 0.9–1.6; (P=0.03) was found between the SVR and non-SVR groups. Expression of all analyzed genes was progressively increasing during the first 12 weeks of therapy, but a significant difference between SVR and non-SVR group was found only in USP18 expression at week 12 (P=0.001). Initial expression of four genes predicted SVR in univariate analysis (CXCL9 [OR: 12.00, 95% CI:1.21–118.89], IFI27 [OR: 12.00, 95% CI: 1.21–118.89], IFNG [OR: 10.50, 95% CI: 1.50–73.67], USP18 [OR: 21.00, 95% CI: 2.05–215.18]). In multivariate analysis, only the initial expression of USP18 was identified as a predictor of SVR (P=0.047). Conclusion: Initial expression of USP18 and the course of its activation could be a reliable predictor of SVR achievement. Keywords: chronic hepatitis C, interferon-sensitive gene, USP18, protease inhibitor, virological response

Aim: Organic anion-transporting polypeptides OATP1B1 and OATP1B3 are sinusoidal membrane transporters mediating liver uptake of a wide range of substrates including conjugated and unconjugated bilirubin, xenobiotics and drugs. Absence of OATP1Bs in the liver causes Rotor syndrome. Our aim was to correlate OATP1B expression with hyperbilirubinemia in common liver diseases. Methods: Immunoreactivity of five antibodies against human OATP1Bs was tested on frozen and formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded liver tissue of mouse strains transgenic for SLCO1B1 or SLCO1B3 and on human specimens. The proportion of hepatocytes expressing OATP1Bs was then assessed immunohistologically in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded liver samples obtained from patients with hepatocellular and primary biliary liver diseases. UGT1A1 promoter TATA-box and SLCO1B1 rs4149056 genotyping was performed to rule out individuals predisposed to hyperbilirubinemia. Results: The most specific detection of OATP1B3 was achieved with the H-52 (sc-98981) antibody. OATP1B1 was specifically recognized with the ESL (ab15441) anti-OATP1B1 antibody, but only in frozen sections. The MDQ (ab15442) anti-OATP1B1 antibody cross-reacted with both OATP1B proteins in liver tissue of the transgenic mouse strains. Expression of the OATP1B proteins was decreased in advanced liver diseases and inversely correlated with serum bilirubin levels. The reduction was more pronounced in advanced primary biliary diseases (1.9±1.1 vs. 2.7±0.6; P=0.009). Conclusions: Down-regulation of OATP1B proteins may contribute to pathogenesis of jaundice accompanying advanced cholestatic liver diseases.

To identify predictors of sustained virological response in hemodialysed patients treated by PEGinterferon α for chronic hepatitis C, genotype 1.The sustained virological response (SVR) rate, IL28B genotype, IFNL4 genotype, initial viral load (IVL) and other pretreatment variables in 39 end-stage renal disease patients (ESRD) on maintenance haemodialysis (HD) infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV), genotype 1b, were compared with a control group of 109 patients with normal kidney function treated within the same period. All the patients were treatment naïve and had well compensated liver disease. The ESRD patients received 135 μg of PEGylated interferon α-2a (PegIFN-α) weekly and a reduced dose of ribavirin (RBV) was administered to 23/39 patients with an initial haemoglobin level10 g/dL. Control group patients were given standard doses of PegIFN-α and RBV. SVR was assessed as HCV RNA negativity 24 wk post-treatment. A t-test or ANOVA were used for comparisons of the means and a χ(2) test compared the frequencies. Logistic regression was used to determine significant predictors of SVR. Cutoff values for continuous variables were obtained from Receiver Operating Characteristic analysis.The distribution of IL28B rs12979860 CC, CT and TT genotypes in the ESRD group was 28.2%, 64.1% and 7.7%, respectively, and 19.3%, 62.4% and 18.3% in the controls. The IFNL4 genotype was in almost absolute linkage disequlibrium with IL28B. The proportion of patients with a low IVL (600000 IU/mL) was significantly higher in the ESRD group than in the controls (28/39, 71.8% vs 51/109, 46.8%, P = 0.009), as was the proportion of patients with low IVL in IL28B CC carriers compared with non-CC carriers in the ESRD group (10/11, 90.9% vs 18/28, 64.3%, P = 0.0035). This difference was not found in the controls (7/22, 31.8% vs 44/87, 50.6%, P = 0.9). The overall SVR rate was 64.1% (25/39) in the ESRD group and 50.5% (55/109) in the control group (P = 0.19). 11/11 (100%) and 19/22 (86.4%) IL28B CC patients achieved SVR in the ESRD and control groups, respectively. A statistically significant association between SVR and IL28B and IFNL4 variants was found in both groups. The ESRD patients who achieved SVR showed the lowest IVL [median 21000, interquartile range (IQR): 6000-23000 IU/mL], compared with ESRD individuals without SVR (1680000, IQR: 481000-6880000, P = 0.001), controls with SVR (387000, IQR: 111000-1253000) and controls without SVR (905000, IQR: 451000-3020000). In ESRD, an IVL600000 IU/mL was strongly associated with SVR: 24/28 (85.7%) patients who achieved SVR had viraemia below this threshold.Haemodialysis decreases the viral load, especially in IL28B CC genotype carriers. A low IVL was the strongest predictor of SVR in ESRD patients identified in multivariate analysis.