Systematic review with meta-analysis: infliximab and immunosuppressant therapy vs. infliximab alone for active ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of the combination of infliximab (IFX) and immunosuppressant (IS) therapy is debated in ulcerative colitis (UC). AIMS: To determine whether the combination of IFX and IS therapy is more effective than infliximab alone for active UC regardless of prior IS use. METHODS: We identified all controlled trials including patients with moderate-to-severe active UC, treated by either IFX or combined IFX-IS therapy. The main outcome was clinical remission at 4-6 months. Two statistical methods were used, Mantel-Haenszel and Der-Simonian and Laird. Inter-trial heterogeneity was taken into account and publication bias was assessed. RESULTS: Four controlled trials were analysed and included in the meta-analysis. These four trials included 765 patients, 389 treated with IFX alone and 376 treated with IFX and IS. At 4-6 months' therapy, the clinical remission rate was significantly lower for the IFX monotherapy group OR 0.50, 95% CI [0.34-0.73], P < 0.01 (P-heterogeneity = 0.49). The Harbord test did not show evidence of publication bias (P = 0.29). Calculation of an adjusted OR using the Duval and Tweedie method did not significantly modify results [OR 0.63, 95% CI (0.47-0.85)]. According to Orwin's formula, four additional medium-sized nonsignificant studies would be necessary to reduce the effect size to a nonsignificant value. At 12 months of therapy, there was no significant difference between the two groups: OR 0.60, 95% CI [0.17-2.06], P = 0.41 (P-heterogeneity = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Combination therapy with IFX-IS is more effective than IFX alone for achieving and maintaining clinical remission at 4-6 months for patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis, regardless of prior IS use.

Investigation of memory B cell responses to hepatitis B surface antigen in health care workers considered as non-responders to vaccination.

Up to 20% of health care workers are considered as non-responders to hepatitis B vaccination (anti-HBs<10 m UI/ml in serum). We have explored memory B cells differentiated in vitro into anti-HBs antibody-secreting cells (anti-HBs-SCs) by ELISPOT assay. Anti-HBs-SCs were detected in vaccinated responders (n = 11) and non-responders (n = 10) but IgG anti-HBs-SCs were significantly lower in the non-responder group (p<0.001). Low amounts of HBs antibodies were also quantified by ELISA in non-responders' sera. These results indicate that a suboptimal B cell response exists in non-responders to HBV vaccination. This B cell response may mediate a protection against clinically significant breakthrough hepatitis B infection.

Plasma proteasome level is a reliable early marker of malignant transformation of liver cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND: Proteasomes are the main non-lysosomal proteolytic structures which regulate crucial cellular processes. Circulating proteasome levels can be measured using an ELISA test and can be considered as a tumour marker in several types of malignancy. Given that there is no sensitive marker of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with cirrhosis, we measured plasma proteasome levels in 83 patients with cirrhosis (33 without HCC, 50 with HCC) and 40 controls. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with HCC were sub-classified into three groups according to tumour mass. alpha-Fetoprotein (AFP) was also measured. Plasma proteasome levels were significantly higher in patients with HCC compared to controls (4841 (SEM 613) ng/ml vs 2534 (SEM 187) ng/ml; p<0.001) and compared to patients with cirrhosis without HCC (2077 (SEM 112) ng/ml; p<0.001). This difference remained significant when the subgroup of patients with low tumour mass (proteasome level 3970 (SEM 310) ng/ml, p<0.001) was compared to controls and patients with cirrhosis without HCC. Plasma proteasome levels were independent of the cause of cirrhosis and were weakly correlated with AFP levels. With a cut-off of 2900 ng/ml, diagnostic specificity for HCC was 97% with a sensitivity of 72%, better than results obtained with AFP. Diagnostic relevance of plasma proteasome measurement was also effective in low tumour mass patients (sensitivity 76.2% vs 57.1% for AFP). CONCLUSION: The plasma proteasome level is a reliable marker of malignant transformation in patients with cirrhosis, even when there is a low tumour mass.