Search

Background Hepatitis B surface antigen ( HBsAg) positivity is associated with increased risk for cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma ( HCC). HBsAg seroclearance is thought to be rare in general, but cohort data from US patients are limited. Aim To determine the incidence of HBsAg seroclearance in a real-life US cohort. Methods In total, 4737 patients with chronic hepatitis B from five primary care, gastroenterology and multispecialty centres, and a university medical centre were retrospectively enrolled between 2001 and 2014 with data obtained by manual review of individual patient medical records. Seroclearance was determined by loss of HBsAg seropositivity. Persistent HBsAg was confirmed by direct serology or by proxy with positive hepatitis B e-antigen ( HBeAg) or HBV DNA levels. Results HBsAg seroclearance occurred in 52 patients over 16 844 person-years (0.31% annually, 1.2% overall). Median follow-up was 32 months, and mean age 45 ± 14 years. Incidence of HBsAg seroclearance was higher in non-Asians, age >45, males, and those with baseline HBV DNA ≤10 000 IU/mL. On multivariate Cox proportional modelling, non-Asian ethnicity ( HR 2.8), male sex ( HR 2.1), baseline HBVDNA ≤10 000 ( HR 2.0) and age >45 ( HR 1.8) were significant independent predictors of seroclearance. Conclusion HBsAg seroclearance rates were lower than previously described in this real-life cohort of patients with chronic hepatitis B, especially among Asian, female and younger patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The primary and secondary prevention of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis ( SBP) is recommended in high-risk patients with cirrhosis. Several studies evaluating the efficacy of rifaximin for SBP prophylaxis have yielded conflicting results. Rifaximin has the potential advantage of preventing bacterial overgrowth and translocation without the systemic side effects of broad-spectrum antibiotics. Aim To evaluate the efficacy of rifaximin in the primary and secondary prevention of SBP. Methods A literature search using five databases was performed to identify studies on the association between rifaximin and SBP. We performed two meta-analyses: (1) rifaximin compared to systemic antibiotics and (2) rifaximin compared to no antibiotics. Random-effect modelling was conducted to determine overall pooled estimates and 95% confidence intervals ( CIs). Results Five studies with 555 patients (295 rifaximin, 260 systemic antibiotics) compared rifaximin with systemic antibiotics. The pooled odds ratio ( OR) for SBP was 0.45 (95% CI 0.16-1.27; P = .13) in patients receiving rifaximin and strengthened on sensitivity analysis ( OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.19-0.76, P = .01). In the analysis comparing rifaximin with no antibiotics, there were five studies with 784 patients (186 rifaximin, 598 no antibiotics). The OR for SBP was 0.34 (95% CI 0.11-0.99; P < .05) in patients receiving rifaximin. In subgroup analysis, rifaximin reduced the risk of SBP by 47% compared to no antibiotics for primary prophylaxis and by 74% compared to systemic antibiotics for secondary prophylaxis. Conclusion Rifaximin may be effective in preventing SBP in patients with cirrhosis and ascites compared to systemically absorbed antibiotics and compared to placebo. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]