METHODS: This prospective open-label single-arm observational clinical trial enrolled 41 patients who underwent liver transplantation between 2010 and 2016 because of a condition related to chronic HBV infection. At the time of enrollment, all patients had taken entecavir and discontinued HBIG administration. When hepatitis B surface antibody titer was undetectable after the withdrawal of HBIG, a recombinant HBV vaccine was injected intramuscularly at month 0, 1, and 6.
RESULTS: After excluding 5 patients who dropped out and 2 patients who had a persistent hepatitis B surface antibody titer, 9 (26.5%) of 34 patients had a positive vaccination response. The median hepatitis B surface antibody titer at seroconversion was 86 (12-1000) IU/L, and those at the end of follow-up were 216 (30-1000) IU/L. No patients experienced HBV recurrence during the study period. Sex (female, odds ratio 32.91 [1.83-592.54], P = .018) and the dosing interval of HBIG before withdrawal (≥90 days, 16.21 [1.21-217.31], P = .035) were independent contributing factors for positive response to the vaccination.
CONCLUSION: HBV vaccination still deserves consideration as active immunoprophylaxis after liver transplantation because it could provide added immunity to nucleoside/nucleotide analogs monotherapy with excellent cost-effectiveness.
METHODS: In this single-arm, open-label, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients from 38 sites across China, Thailand, Vietnam, Singapore, and Malaysia, who were chronically infected with HCV genotypes 1-6, and were HCV treatment-naive or treatment-experienced, either without cirrhosis or with compensated cirrhosis. Patients self-administered a combined sofosbuvir (400 mg) and velpatasvir (100 mg) tablet once daily for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was sustained virological response, defined as HCV RNA less than 15 IU/mL at 12 weeks after completion of treatment (SVR12), assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. The primary safety endpoint was the proportion of adverse events leading to premature discontinuation of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02671500, and is completed.
FINDINGS: Between April 14, 2016, and June 30, 2017, 375 patients were enrolled in the study, of whom 374 completed the full treatment course and one discontinued treatment. Overall, 362 (97% [95% CI 94-98]) of 375 patients achieved SVR12. Among 42 patients with HCV genotype 3b, all of whom had baseline resistance-associated substitutions in NS5A, 25 (89% [95% CI 72-98]) of 28 patients without cirrhosis and seven (50% [23-77]) of 14 patients with cirrhosis achieved SVR12. The most common adverse events were upper respiratory tract infection (36 [10%] patients) and headache (18 [5%] patients). There were no discontinuations due to adverse events. Serious adverse events were reported in three (1%) patients, none of which was judged to be related to sofosbuvir-velpatasvir treatment.
INTERPRETATION: Consistent with data from other phase 3 studies, single-tablet sofosbuvir-velpatasvir for 12 weeks is an efficacious and safe treatment for Asian patients with chronic HCV infection, but might have lower efficacy in those infected with HCV genotype 3b and with cirrhosis.
FUNDING: Gilead Sciences.
METHODS: The KDIGO Work Group (WG) updated the guideline, which included reviewing and grading new evidence that was identified and summarized. As in the previous guideline, the WG used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to appraise evidence and rate the strength of recommendations and used expert judgment to develop recommendations. New evidence led to updating of recommendations in the chapters on treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in patients with CKD (Chapter 2), management of HCV infection before and after kidney transplant (Chapter 4), and diagnosis and management of kidney disease associated with HCV infection (Chapter 5). Recommendations in chapters on detection and evaluation of hepatitis C in CKD (Chapter 1) and prevention of HCV transmission in hemodialysis units (Chapter 3) were not updated because of an absence of significant new evidence.
RECOMMENDATIONS: The 2022 updated guideline includes 43 graded recommendations and 20 ungraded recommendations, 7 of which are new or modified on the basis of the most recent evidence and consensus among the WG members. The updated guidelines recommend expanding treatment of hepatitis C with sofosbuvir-based regimens to patients with CKD glomerular filtration rate categories G4 and G5, including those receiving dialysis; expanding the donor pool for kidney transplant recipients by accepting HCV-positive kidneys regardless of the recipient's HCV status; and initiating direct-acting antiviral treatment of HCV-infected patients with clinical evidence of glomerulonephritis without requiring kidney biopsy. The update also addresses the use of immunosuppressive regimens in such patients.
METHODS: An extensive search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), prospective case series studies that evaluated therapies COVID-19. The outcomes searched for were mortality, recovery rate, length of hospital stay and clinical improvement from January to May 15, 2020. Independent reviewers searched, identified, screened, and related studies were included.
RESULTS: Total of five RCTs on 439 patients and seventeen case series involving 1656 patients were found in the specified review period that reported the use of Lopinavir, Ritonavir, Remdesivir. Oseltamivir, Ribavirin in patients with COVID-19; but none of which showed efficacy of antiviral therapy. Such current findings impede researchers from recommending an appropriate and effective antiviral therapy against COVID-19, making it a serious concern for the global community.
DISCUSSION: In the present pandemic and any future epidemics, all the related authorities should pursue many more RCTs, cohort and case series for a prospective outcome in the management and treatment guidelines.
METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar, and medRxiv (preprint repository) databases (up to 7 January 2021). Pooled effect sizes with 95% confidence interval (CI) were generated using random-effects and inverse variance heterogeneity models. The risk of bias of the included RCTs was appraised using version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials.
RESULTS: Six RCTs were included: two trials with an overall low risk of bias and four trials had some concerns regarding the overall risk of bias. Our meta-analysis did not find significant mortality benefits with the use of tocilizumab among patients with COVID-19 relative to non-use of tocilizumab (pooled hazard ratio = 0.83; 95% CI 0.66-1.05, n = 2,057). Interestingly, the estimated effect of tocilizumab on the composite endpoint of requirement for mechanical ventilation and/or all-cause mortality indicated clinical benefits, with some evidence against our model hypothesis of no significant effect at the current sample size (pooled hazard ratio = 0.62; 95% CI 0.42-0.91, n = 749).
CONCLUSION: Despite no clear mortality benefits in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, tocilizumab appears to reduce the likelihood of progression to mechanical ventilation.
METHODS: A systematic literature search with no language restriction was performed in electronic databases and preprint repositories to identify eligible studies published up to 29 June 2021. The outcomes of interest were hospital admission and all-cause mortality. A random-effects model was used to estimate the pooled odds ratio (OR) for outcomes of interest with the use of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies relative to nonuse of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies, at 95% confidence intervals (CI).
RESULTS: Our systematic literature search identified nine randomized controlled trials. Three trials had an overall low risk of bias, while four trials had some concerns in the overall risk of bias. The meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in the odds of mortality (pooled OR = 0.69; 95% CI 0.33-1.47), but a statistically significant reduction in the odds of hospital admission (pooled OR = 0.29; 95% CI 0.21-0.42), with the administration of a neutralizing monoclonal antibody among patients with COVID-19, relative to non-administration of a neutralizing monoclonal antibody, at the current sample size.
CONCLUSION: The reduced risk of hospital admission with neutralizing monoclonal antibodies use suggests that the timing of neutralizing antibodies administration is key in preventing hospital admission and, ultimately, death. Future randomized trials should aim to determine if the clinical outcomes with neutralizing monoclonal antibodies differ based on serostatus.