Assessment of hepatitis B virus relapse in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy with prophylactic nucleos(t)ide analogues: Implications for overall mortality.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We aimed to explore the risk factors associated with virological and clinical relapse, as well as their impact on overall mortality, in hepatitis B virus (HBV)-infected patients receiving nucleos(t)ide analogues (NUCs) therapy prior to chemotherapy initiation. METHODS: From 2010 to 2020, we conducted a prospective cohort study involving patients with HBV infection undergoing cytotoxic chemotherapy. We utilized the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazard regression models to assess risk factors. RESULTS: We observed that TDF or TAF (HR: 2.16, 95% CI 1.06-4.41; p = .034), anthracycline (HR: 1.73, 95% CI 1.10-2.73; p = .018), baseline HBV DNA (HR: 1.55, 95% CI 1.33-1.81; p < .001) and end-of-treatment HBsAg titre >100 IU/mL (HR: 7.81, 95% CI 1.94-31.51; p = .004) were associated with increased risk of virological relapse. Additionally, TDF or TAF (HR: 4.91, 95% CI 1.45-16.64; p = .011), baseline HBV DNA (HR: 1.48, 95% CI 1.10-1.99; p = .009) and end-of-treatment HBsAg titre >100 IU/mL (HR: 6.09, 95% CI .95-38.87; p = .056) were associated with increased risk of clinical relapse. Furthermore, we found that virological relapse (HR: 3.32, 95% CI 1.33-8.32; p = .010) and clinical relapse (HR: 3.59, 95% CI 1.47-8.80; p = .005) significantly correlated with all-cause mortality in HBV patients receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy with prophylactic NUCs therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of virological and clinical relapse was linked to baseline HBV DNA, end-of-treatment HBsAg levels and TDF or TAF for prophylaxis; additionally, experiencing relapse heightens the risk of all-cause mortality. Further research is warranted to explore potential strategies for preventing virological and clinical relapse in high-risk patients.

The evolution of augmented reality to augment physical therapy: A scoping review.

Augmented reality is increasingly used in health care, yet little is known about how AR is being used in physical therapy practice and what clinical outcomes could occur with technology use. In this scoping review, a broad literature review was conducted to gain an understanding of current knowledge of AR use and outcomes in physical therapy practice. A structured literature search of articles published between 2000 to September 2023 that examined the use of AR in a physical therapy context was conducted. Reference lists of articles for full review were searched for additional studies. Data from articles meeting inclusion criteria were extracted and synthesized across studies. 549 articles were identified; 40 articles met criteria for full review. Gait and balance of neurological and older adult populations were most frequently targeted, with more recent studies including orthopedic and other populations. Approximately half were pilot or observational studies and half are experimental. Many studies found within group improvements. Of studies reporting between group differences, AR interventions were more effective in improving function almost half of the time, with 20%, 27% and 28% showing efficacy in disability, balance, and gait outcomes. AR in physical therapy holds promise; however, efficacy outcomes are unclear.

Third vaccine boosters and anti-S-IgG levels: A comparison of homologous and heterologous responses and poor immunogenicity in hepatocellular carcinoma.

The immune response of patients with chronic liver disease tends to be lower after receiving their second coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine dose, but the effect of a third vaccine dose on their immune response is currently unknown. We recruited 722 patients without previous severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection from three hospitals. The patients received homologous (MMM) and heterologous (AZAZBNT, AZAZM) boosters, where AZ, BNT, and M denoted the AZD1222, BNT162b2, and mRNA-1273 vaccines, respectively. Serum IgG spike antibody levels were measured at a mean 1.5 ± 0.7 (visit 1) and 5.0 ± 0.5 (visit 2) months after the third vaccine booster. A threshold of 4160 AU/mL was considered significant antibody activity. In both visits, the patients who received the MMM booster had higher anti-S-IgG levels than those who received the AZAZBNT and AZAZM boosters. Patients with active hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) had lower anti-S-IgG levels than the control group (761.6 vs. 1498.2 BAU/mL; p = 0.019) at visit 1. The anti-S-IgG levels decreased significantly at visit 2. The patients with significant antibody activity had a lower rate of liver cirrhosis with decompensation (0.7% decompensation vs. 8.0% non-decompensation and 91.3% non-liver cirrhosis, p = 0.015), and active HCC (1.5% active HCC vs. 3.7% non-active HCC and 94.7% non-HCC, p < 0.001). Receiving the MMM booster regimen (OR = 10.67, 95% CI 5.20-21.91, p < 0.001) increased the odds of having significant antibody activity compared with the AZAZBNT booster regimen. Patients with active HCC had a reduced immune response to the third COVID-19 vaccine booster. These findings underscore the importance of booster vaccinations, especially in immunocompromised patients, with superior efficacy observed with the homologous mRNA-1273 regimen.

Performance of noninvasive seromarkers in predicting liver fibrosis among MAFLD patients with or without viral hepatitis.

The accuracy of noninvasive seromarkers in predicting liver fibrosis in metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) patients with or without viral hepatitis is elusive. The AST to platelet ratio index (APRI), fibrosis-4 index (FIB-4), and NAFLD fibrosis score (NFS) were assessed in 871 MAFLD patients who received elastography in a viral hepatitis-endemic area. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve increased substantially with increasing fibrotic stage across the three biomarkers. APRI (AUROC range 0.73-0.80) and FIB-4 (AUROC range 0.66-0.82) performed better than NFS (AUROC range 0.63-0.75). When patients were divided into viral and non-viral MAFLD groups, a better AUROC of APRI (range 0.76-0.80) and FIB-4 (range 0.68-0.78) than NFS (range 0.62-70) existed only in viral MALFD but not in non-viral MAFLD. Regarding the NFS, the AUROC was higher in non-viral MAFLD (range 0.69-0.86) and outperformed viral MAFLD at all fibrotic stages. The accuracy in predicting liver fibrosis increased with the advancement of liver disease for the three biomarkers. NFS exerted better diagnostic accuracy in non-viral than in viral MAFLD patients across different fibrotic stages. The best accuracy was 91.1% using the cutoff value of -9.98 for the NFS in predicting liver cirrhosis in non-viral MAFLD patients. The APRI and FIB-4 performed better than the NFS in predicting liver fibrosis in MAFLD as a whole. The suboptimal performance and accuracy of the NFS existed only in viral MAFLD patients. Caution should be taken when assessing the NFS in MAFLD patients with viral hepatitis.