Search

Population screening; Liver fibrosis; Early diagnosis Cribratge de població; Fibrosi hepàtica; Diagnòstic precoç Cribado de población; Fibrosis hepática; Diagnóstico precoz Cirrhosis, highly prevalent worldwide, develops after years of hepatic inflammation triggering progressive fibrosis. Currently, the main etiologies of cirrhosis are non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and alcohol-related liver disease, although chronic hepatitis B and C infections are still major etiological factors in some areas of the world. Recent studies have shown that liver fibrosis can be assessed with relatively high accuracy noninvasively by serological tests, transient elastography, and radiological methods. These modalities may be utilized for screening for liver fibrosis in at-risk populations. Thus far, a limited number of population-based studies using noninvasive tests in different areas of the world indicate that a significant percentage of subjects without known liver disease (around 5% in general populations and a higher rate −18% to 27%-in populations with risk factors for liver disease) have significant undetected liver fibrosis or established cirrhosis. Larger international studies are required to show the harms and benefits before concluding that screening for liver fibrosis should be applied to populations at risk for chronic liver diseases. Screening for liver fibrosis has the potential for changing the current approach from diagnosing chronic liver diseases late when patients have already developed complications of cirrhosis to diagnosing liver fibrosis in asymptomatic subjects providing the opportunity of preventing disease progression. LiverScreen Consortium and the European Commission under the H20/20 program (847989); AGAUR (2017SGR-01281); Centro de Investigacion Biomedica en Enfermedades Hepaticas y Digestivas; Fundación de Investigación Sanitaria, cofunded by Instituto Carlos III–Subdirección General de Evaluación and the European Regional Development Fund (PI18/01330, PI18/00662, and PI18/00862); and Gilead’s Investigator–sponsored research program (IN-ES-989-5309)

Clinical trials; Liver transplant; Quality of life Ensayos clínicos; Trasplante de hígado; Calidad de vida Assaigs clínics; Trasplantament de fetge; Qualitat de vida Management of decompensated cirrhosis is currently geared towards the treatment of complications once they occur. To date there is no established disease-modifying therapy aimed at halting progression of the disease and preventing the development of complications in patients with decompensated cirrhosis. The design of clinical trials to investigate new therapies for patients with decompensated cirrhosis is complex. The population of patients with decompensated cirrhosis is heterogeneous (i.e., different etiologies, comorbidities and disease severity), leading to the inclusion of diverse populations in clinical trials. In addition, primary endpoints selected for trials that include patients with decompensated cirrhosis are not homogeneous and at times may not be appropriate. This leads to difficulties in comparing results obtained from different trials. Against this background, the LiverHope Consortium organized a meeting of experts, the goal of which was to develop recommendations for the design of clinical trials and to define appropriate endpoints, both for trials aimed at modifying the natural history and preventing progression of decompensated cirrhosis, as well as for trials aimed at managing the individual complications of cirrhosis.

Summary Background Statins have beneficial effects on intrahepatic circulation and decrease portal hypertension and rifaximin modulates the gut microbiome and might prevent bacterial translocation in patients with cirrhosis. Therefore, this drug combination might be of therapeutic benefit in patients with decompensated cirrhosis. However, there is concern regarding the safety of statins in patients with decompensated cirrhosis. We assessed the safety of two different doses of simvastatin, in combination with rifaximin, in patients with decompensated cirrhosis. Methods We did a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial in patients with decompensated cirrhosis and moderate-to-severe liver failure from nine university hospitals in six European countries (Italy, France, Holland, Germany, the UK, and Spain). Patients older than 18 years with Child-Pugh class B or C disease were eligible. We randomly assigned patients (1:1:1) to receive either simvastatin 40 mg/day plus rifaximin 1200 mg/day, simvastatin 20 mg/day plus rifaximin 1200 mg/day, or placebo of both medications for 12 weeks. Randomisation was stratified according to Child-Pugh class (B vs C) and restricted using blocks of multiples of three. The primary endpoint was development of liver or muscle toxicity, as defined by changes in liver aminotransferases (aspartate aminotransferase [AST] and alanine aminotransferase [ALT]), alkaline phosphastase, and creatine kinase. The study is registered with the European Union Clinical Trials Register, 2016-004499-23, and with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03150459. Findings The study recruitment period was between July 28, 2017, and Jan 2, 2018. Follow-up finished on March 12, 2018. 50 patients were randomly assigned to simvastatin 40 mg/day plus rifaximin 1200 mg/day (n=18), simvastatin 20 mg/day plus rifaximin 1200 mg/day (n=16), or placebo of both medications (n=16). Six patients (two from each group) were excluded. Therefore, the full analysis set included 44 patients (16 in the simvastatin 40 mg/day plus rifaximin 1200 mg/day group, 14 in the simvastatin 20 mg/day plus rifaximin mg/day group, and 14 in the placebo group). After a safety analyses when the first ten patients completed treatment, treatment was stopped prematurely in the simvastatin 40 mg/day plus rifaximin group due to recommendations by the data safety monitoring board. Patients in the simvastatin 40 mg/day plus rifaximin group showed a significant increase in AST and ALT compared with the placebo group (mean differences between the groups at the end of treatment for AST 130 IU/L [95% CI 54 to 205; p=0·0009] and for ALT 61 IU/L [22 to 100; p=0·0025]. We observed no significant differences at 12 weeks in AST and ALT between the simvastatin 20 mg/day plus rifaximin and placebo group (for AST −14 IU/L [–91 to 64; p=0·728] and for ALT −8 IU/L [–49 to 33; p=0·698]). We observed no significant differences in alkaline phosphatase between the the simvastatin 40 mg/day plus rifaximin or the simvastatin 20 mg/day plus rifaximin groups compared with placebo. Patients in the simvastatin 40 mg/day plus rifaximin group showed an increase in creatine kinase at the end of treatment compared with patients in the placebo group (1009 IU/L [208 to 1809]; p=0·014). We observed no significant changes in creatine kinase in the simvastatin 20 mg/day plus rifaximin group (4·2 IU/L [–804 to 813]; p=0·992). Three (19%) patients in the simvastatin 40 mg/day group developed liver and muscle toxicity consistent with rhabdomyolysis. The number of patients who stopped treatment because of adverse events was significantly higher in the simvastatin 40 mg/day plus rifaximin group (nine [56%] of 16 patients) compared with the other two groups (two [14%] of 14 for both groups; p=0·017). There were no serious unexpected adverse reactions reported during the study. Interpretation Treatment with simvastatin 40 mg/day plus rifaximin in patients with decompensated cirrhosis was associated with a significant increase in adverse events requiring treatment withdrawal, particularly rhabdomyolysis, compared with simvastatin 20 mg/day plus rifaximin. We recommend simvastatin 20 mg/day as the dose to be used in studies investigating the role of statins in patients with decompensated cirrhosis. Funding Horizon 20/20 European programme.

There are few studies comparing the safety and immunogenicity of the same HIV immunogen in healthy volunteers and HIV-infected individuals. We analyzed demographics, adverse events (AEs), and immunogenicity against vaccinia virus in preventive (RISVAC02, n = 24 low-risk HIV-negative volunteers) and therapeutic (RISVAC03, n = 20 successfully treated chronically HIV-1-infected individuals) vaccine phase-I clinical trials that were performed with the same design and the same immunogen (modified vaccinia virus Ankara-B: MVA-B). Total AEs were significantly higher in HIV-infected patients (mean AEs/patient 6.6 vs. 12.8 (p &lt, 0.01)). Conversely, the number of AEs related to vaccination (AEsRV) was similar between both groups. No grade III or IV AEsRV were observed in either clinical trial. Regarding the immunogenicity, the proportion of anti-vaccinia virus antibody responders was similar in both studies. Conversely, the magnitude of response was significantly higher in HIV-infected patients (median binding antibodies at w8 267 vs. 1600 U/mL (p = 0.002) and at w18 666 vs. 3200 U/mL (p = 0.003)). There was also a trend towards higher anti-vaccinia virus neutralizing activity in HIV-infected individuals (proportion of responders 37% vs. 63% (p = 0.09), median IC50 32 vs. 64 (p = 0.054)). This study confirms the safety of MVA-B independent of HIV serostatus. HIV-infected patients showed higher immune responses against vaccinia virus.

To evaluate the incidence and risk factors for significant creatine kinase elevation in HIV-1-infected patients who were prescribed a raltegravir-containing antiretroviral therapy.A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected cohort involving all consecutive patients who were prescribed a raltegravir-containing antiretroviral regimen between June 2005 and December 2010.Significant creatine kinase elevation was defined as an elevation of at least 3-fold from the upper limit of normal (ULN) (grade 2, WHO classification) while receiving raltegravir. Blood analysis at each visit included at least creatine kinase, as well as plasma HIV-1 RNA and CD4 cell count.There were 475 patients who had been exposed to raltegravir for a median of 11.5 (IQR 8.2-15.2) months. An increase of creatine kinase ≥ 3-fold ULN was detected in 53 (11.2%) patients, representing an incidence of 3.8/100 person-years. Symptoms were reported by seven patients (1.5%), they showed either grade 1 (n = 3) or 2 (n = 4) creatine kinase increases. The median duration of raltegravir therapy before creatine kinase elevation was 5.9 (IQR 3.3-9.3) months. Evidence of creatine kinase elevation prior to raltegravir therapy [hazard ratio (HR) 3.30; 95% CI 1.59 ± 6.86; P = 0.001], abnormal baseline creatine kinase (HR 3.24; 95% CI 1.63 ± 6.45; P = 0.001) and male gender (HR 4.17; 95% CI 1.33 ± 1.27; P = 0.001) were identified as independent risk factors for creatine kinase elevation during raltegravir treatment.Although ≈ 1 in 10 patients on raltegravir therapy developed significant creatine kinase elevation as defined in this study, symptoms were uncommon, not severe and occurred in patients with easily identifiable risk factors.

Objective: To assess the effects of initiating abacavir-containing therapy on plasma lipids and cardiovascular biomarkers. Design: Sub-study of the BICOMBO study in which participants were randomized to switch their nucleoside backbone to either abacavir/lamivudine or tenofovir/emtricitabine. Methods: We assessed 48-week changes in fasting lipids and several biomarkers including serum high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1), osteoprotegerin, interleukin (IL)-6, IL-10, tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha), intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1), vascular adhesion molecule-1 (VCAM-1), selectin E and P, adiponectin, insulin, and D-dimer in otherwise healthy, virologically suppressed HIV-infected patients randomly switched to abacavir/ lamivudine or tenofovir/emtricitabine with no history of cardiovascular disease, no prior abacavir or tenofovir use, and no virological failure or AIDS during follow-up. Results: Eighty (46 abacavir/lamivudine and 34 tenofovir/emtricitabine) patients were included. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups and between patients in the sub-study vs. those not. There were no significant differences in baseline lipids and markers between groups. Although total (6.5 vs. -6.7%, P < 0.0001) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) (8.6 vs. -9.1%, P=0.004) cholesterol increased significantly in the abacavir/lamivudine group relative to the tenofovir/emtricitabine group, we found no significant changes in the biomarkers: CRP (-3.9 vs. 0.0%), MCP-1 (5.9 vs. 4.0%), osteoprotegerin (5.1 vs. -2.8%), IL-6 (0.0 vs. 0.0%), IL-10 (0.0 vs. 0.0%), TNF-alpha (0.0 vs. 0.0%), ICAM-1 (6.6 vs. 5.2%), VCAM-1 (0.02 vs. -0.01 %), selectin E (-0.4 vs. 7.8%), selectin P (4.6 vs. 12.6%), insulin (-2.5 vs. 8.8%), adiponectin (-2.2 vs. 15.4%), and D-dimer (0.0 vs. 0.0%) (P≥0.12 for all comparisons). Conclusion: Abacavir/lamivudine increased total and LDL cholesterol compared with tenofovir/emtricitabine, but it did not cause inflammation, endothelial dysfunction, insulin resistance, or hypercoagulability in virologically suppressed HIV-infected patients.

Background & Aims The combination of β-blockers and band ligation is the standard approach to prevent variceal rebleeding, but bleeding recurs and mortality is high. The lipid-lowering drug simvastatin decreases portal pressure, improves hepatocellular function, and might reduce liver fibrosis. We assessed whether adding simvastatin to standard therapy could reduce rebleeding and death after variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis. Methods We performed a multicenter, double-blind, parallel trial of 158 patients with cirrhosis receiving standard prophylaxis to prevent rebleeding (a β-blocker and band ligation) in Spain from October 2010 through October 2013. Within 10 days of bleeding, subjects were randomly assigned, but stratified by Child-Pugh class of A or B vs C, to groups given simvastatin (20 mg/d the first 15 days, 40 mg/d thereafter; n = 69) or placebo (n = 78). Patients were followed for as long as 24 months. The primary end point was a composite of rebleeding and death, and main secondary end points were the individual components of the composite (death and rebleeding). Results The primary end point was met by 30 of 78 patients in the placebo group and 22 of 69 in the simvastatin group ( P = .423). Seventeen patients in the placebo group died (22%) vs 6 patients in the simvastatin group (9%) (hazard ratio for adding simvastatin to therapy = 0.39; 95% confidence interval: 0.15–0.99; P = .030). Simvastatin did not increase survival of patients with Child-Pugh class C cirrhosis. Rebleeding occurred in 28% of patients in the placebo group and 25% in the simvastatin group ( P = .583). Serious adverse events occurred in 53% of patients in the placebo group and 49% in the simvastatin group ( P = .752); the percentages of serious adverse events related to therapy were 11% in the placebo group vs 8% in the in the simvastatin group ( P = .599). Two patients in the simvastatin group, each with advanced liver disease, developed rhabdomyolysis. Conclusions In a randomized controlled trial, addition of simvastatin to standard therapy did not reduce rebleeding, but was associated with a survival benefit for patients with Child-Pugh class A or B cirrhosis. Survival was not the primary end point of the study, so these results require validation. The incidence of rhabdomyolysis in patients receiving 40 mg/d simvastatin was higher than expected. European Clinical Trial Database ID: EUDRACT 2009-016500-24; ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT01095185.

The objective of this study was to assess post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) non-completion at day 28, comparing ritonavir-boosted lopinavir versus maraviroc, both with tenofovir disoproxil/emtricitabine as the backbone.We conducted a prospective, open, randomized clinical trial. Individuals attending the emergency room because of potential sexual exposure to HIV and who met criteria for receiving PEP were randomized to one of two groups: tenofovir disoproxil/emtricitabine (245/200 mg) once daily plus either ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (400/100 mg) or maraviroc (300 mg) twice daily. Five follow-up visits were scheduled for days 1, 10, 28, 90 and 180. The primary endpoint was PEP non-completion at day 28. Secondary endpoints were adherence, adverse events and rate of seroconversions. This study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01533272.One-hundred-and-seventeen individuals were randomized to receive ritonavir-boosted lopinavir and 120 to maraviroc (n = 237). PEP non-completion at day 28 was 38% (n = 89), with significant differences between arms [ritonavir-boosted lopinavir 44% (n = 51) versus maraviroc 32% (n = 38), P = 0.05]. We performed a modified ITT analysis including only those patients who attended on day 1 (n = 182). PEP non-completion in this subgroup was also significantly higher in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir arm (27% versus 13%, P = 0.004). The proportion of patients with low adherence was similar between arms (52% versus 47%, P = 0.56). Adverse events were reported by 111 patients and were significantly more common in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir arm (72% versus 51%, P = 0.003). No seroconversions were observed during the study.PEP non-completion and adverse events were both significantly higher in patients allocated to ritonavir-boosted lopinavir. These data suggest that maraviroc is a well-tolerated antiretroviral that can be used in this setting.

OBJECTIVES The objective of this study was to assess post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) non-completion at day 28, comparing ritonavir-boosted lopinavir versus maraviroc, both with tenofovir disoproxil/emtricitabine as the backbone. METHODS We conducted a prospective, open, randomized clinical trial. Individuals attending the emergency room because of potential sexual exposure to HIV and who met criteria for receiving PEP were randomized to one of two groups: tenofovir disoproxil/emtricitabine (245/200 mg) once daily plus either ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (400/100 mg) or maraviroc (300 mg) twice daily. Five follow-up visits were scheduled for days 1, 10, 28, 90 and 180. The primary endpoint was PEP non-completion at day 28. Secondary endpoints were adherence, adverse events and rate of seroconversions. This study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01533272. RESULTS One-hundred-and-seventeen individuals were randomized to receive ritonavir-boosted lopinavir and 120 to maraviroc (n = 237). PEP non-completion at day 28 was 38% (n = 89), with significant differences between arms [ritonavir-boosted lopinavir 44% (n = 51) versus maraviroc 32% (n = 38), P = 0.05]. We performed a modified ITT analysis including only those patients who attended on day 1 (n = 182). PEP non-completion in this subgroup was also significantly higher in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir arm (27% versus 13%, P = 0.004). The proportion of patients with low adherence was similar between arms (52% versus 47%, P = 0.56). Adverse events were reported by 111 patients and were significantly more common in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir arm (72% versus 51%, P = 0.003). No seroconversions were observed during the study. CONCLUSIONS PEP non-completion and adverse events were both significantly higher in patients allocated to ritonavir-boosted lopinavir. These data suggest that maraviroc is a well-tolerated antiretroviral that can be used in this setting.

This article has been accepted for publication in Clinical Infectious Diseases ©2014 The Authors .Published by Oxford University Press on Clinical Infectious Disease 60.5. DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciu898, Background. It is unclear whether metabolic or body composition effects may differ between protease inhibitor-based regimens recommended for initial treatment of HIV infection. Methods. ATADAR is a phase IV, open-label, multicenter randomized clinical trial. Stable antiretroviral-naive HIV-infected adults were randomly assigned to atazanavir/ritonavir 300/100 mg or darunavir/ritonavir 800/100 mg in combination with tenofovir/emtricitabine daily. Pre-defined end-points were treatment or virological failure, drug discontinuation due to adverse effects, and laboratory and body composition changes at 96 weeks. Results. At 96 weeks, 56 (62%) atazanavir/ritonavir and 62 (71%) darunavir/ritonavir patients remained free of treatment failure (estimated difference 8.2%; 95%CI -0.6 to 21.6); and 71 (79%) atazanavir/ritonavir and 75 (85%) darunavir/ritonavir patients remained free of virological failure (estimated difference 6.3%; 95%CI -0.5 to 17.6). Seven vs. five patients discontinued atazanavir/ritonavir or darunavir/ritonavir due to adverse effects. Total and HDL cholesterol similarly increased in both arms, but triglycerides increased more in atazanavir/ritonavir arm. At 96 weeks, body fat (estimated difference 2862.2 gr; 95%CI 726.7 to 4997.7; P=0.0090), limb fat (estimated difference 1403.3 gr; 95%CI 388.4 to 2418.2; P=0.0071), and subcutaneous abdominal adipose tissue (estimated difference 28.4 cm2; 95%CI 1.9 to 55.0; P=0.0362) increased more in atazanavir/ritonavir than in darunavir/ritonavir arm. Body fat changes in atazanavir/ritonavir arm were associated with higher insulin resistance. Conclusions. We found no major differences between atazanavir/ritonavir and darunavir/ritonavir in efficacy, clinically-relevant side effects, or plasma cholesterol fractions. However, atazanavir/ritonavir led to higher triglycerides and total and subcutaneous fat than darunavir/ritonavir and fat gains with atazanavir/ritonavir were associated with insulin resistance, This is an Investigator Sponsored Research study. It was supported in part by research grants from Bristol‐Myers Squibb and Janssen‐Cilag; Instituto de Salud Carlos III (PI12/01217) and Red Temática Cooperativa de Investigación en SIDA G03/173 (RIS‐EST11), Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación, Spain. (Registration number: NCT01274780; registry name: ATADAR; EUDRACT; 2010‐021002‐38).

ObjectivesThe safety, immunogenicity, impact on the latent reservoir and rebound of viral load after therapeutic HIV-1 vaccination with recombinant modified vaccinia Ankara-based (MVA-B) HIV-1 vaccine expressing monomeric gp120 and the fused Gag-Pol-Nef polyprotein of clade B with or without a drug to reactivate latent HIV-1 (disulfiram) were assessed.MethodsHIV-1-infected patients were randomized to receive three injections of MVA-B (n = 20) or placebo (n = 10). Twelve patients (eight who received vaccine and four who were given placebo) received a fourth dose of MVA-B followed by 3 months of disulfiram. Combined ART (cART) was discontinued 8 weeks after the last dose of MVA-B. Clinical Trials.gov identifier: NCT01571466.ResultsMVA-B was safe and well tolerated. A minor, but significant, increase in the T cell responses targeting vaccine inserts of Gag was observed [a median of 290, 403 and 435 spot-forming-cells/106 PBMCs at baseline, after two vaccinations and after three vaccinations, respectively; P = 0.02 and P = 0.04]. After interruption of cART, a modest delay in the rebound of the plasma viral load in participants receiving vaccine but not disulfiram was observed compared with placebo recipients (P = 0.01). The dynamics of the viral load rebound did not change in patients receiving MVA-B/disulfiram. No changes in the proviral reservoir were observed after disulfiram treatment.ConclusionsMVA-B vaccination was a safe strategy to increase Gag-specific T cell responses in chronically HIV-1-infected individuals, but it did not have a major impact on the latent reservoir or the rebound of plasma viral load after interruption of cART when given alone or in combination with disulfiram.

There are few clinical data on the combination abacavir/lamivudine plus raltegravir. We compared the outcomes of patients from the SPIRAL trial receiving either abacavir/lamivudine or tenofovir/emtricitabine at baseline who had taken at least one dose of either raltegravir or ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors. For the purpose of this analysis, treatment failure was defined as virological failure (confirmed HIV-1 RNA ≥50 copies/ml) or discontinuation of abacavir/lamivudine or tenofovir/emtricitabine because of adverse events, consent withdrawal, or lost to follow-up. There were 143 (72.59%) patients with tenofovir/emtricitabine and 54 (27.41%) with abacavir/lamivudine. In the raltegravir group, there were three (11.11%) treatment failures with abacavir/lamivudine and eight (10.96%) with tenofovir/emtricitabine (estimated difference 0.15%; 95% CI -17.90 to 11.6). In the ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor group, there were four (14.81%) treatment failures with abacavir/lamivudine and 12 (17.14%) with tenofovir/emtricitabine (estimated difference -2.33%; 95% CI -16.10 to 16.70). Triglycerides decreased and HDL cholesterol increased through the study more pronouncedly with abacavir/lamivudine than with tenofovir/emtricitabine and differences in the total-to-HDL cholesterol ratio between both combinations of nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) tended to be higher in the raltegravir group, although differences at 48 weeks were not significant. While no patient discontinued abacavir/lamivudine due to adverse events, four (2.80%) patients (all in the ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor group) discontinued tenofovir/emtricitabine because of adverse events (p=0.2744). The results of this analysis do not suggest that outcomes of abacavir/lamivudine are worse than those of tenofovir/emtricitabine when combined with raltegravir in virologically suppressed HIV-infected adults.