Development, validation, and prognostic evaluation of a risk score for long-term liver-related outcomes in the general population: a multicohort study.

BACKGROUND: Liver cirrhosis is a major cause of death worldwide. Cirrhosis develops after a long asymptomatic period of fibrosis progression, with the diagnosis frequently occurring late, when major complications or cancer develop. Few reliable tools exist for timely identification of individuals at risk of cirrhosis to allow for early intervention. We aimed to develop a novel score to identify individuals at risk for future liver-related outcomes. METHODS: We derived the LiverRisk score from an international prospective cohort of individuals from six countries without known liver disease from the general population, who underwent liver fibrosis assessment by transient elastography. The score included age, sex, and six standard laboratory variables. We created four groups: minimal risk, low risk, medium risk, and high risk according to selected cutoff values of the LiverRisk score (6, 10, and 15). The model's discriminatory accuracy and calibration were externally validated in two prospective cohorts from the general population. Moreover, we ascertained the prognostic value of the score in the prediction of liver-related outcomes in participants without known liver disease with median follow-up of 12 years (UK Biobank cohort). FINDINGS: We included 14 726 participants: 6357 (43·2%) in the derivation cohort, 4370 (29·7%) in the first external validation cohort, and 3999 (27·2%) in the second external validation cohort. The score accurately predicted liver stiffness in the development and external validation cohorts, and was superior to conventional serum biomarkers of fibrosis, as measured by area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve (AUC; 0·83 [95% CI [0·78-0·89]) versus the fibrosis-4 index (FIB-4; 0·68 [0·61-0·75] at 10 kPa). The score was effective in identifying individuals at risk of liver-related mortality, liver-related hospitalisation, and liver cancer, thereby allowing stratification to different risk groups for liver-related outcomes. The hazard ratio for liver-related mortality in the high-risk group was 471 (95% CI 347-641) compared with the minimal risk group, and the overall AUC of the score in predicting 10-year liver-related mortality was 0·90 (0·88-0·91) versus 0.84 (0·82-0·86) for FIB-4. INTERPRETATION: The LiverRisk score, based on simple parameters, predicted liver fibrosis and future development of liver-related outcomes in the general population. The score might allow for stratification of individuals according to liver risk and thus guide preventive care. FUNDING: European Commission under the H20/20 programme; Fondo de Investigación Sanitaria de Salud; Instituto de Salud Carlos III; Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry, and Competitiveness; the European Regional Development Fund; and the German Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF).

Immune reconstitution in severely immunosuppressed antiretroviral-naive HIV type 1-infected patients using a nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-based or a boosted protease inhibitor-based antiretroviral regimen: three-year results (The Advanz Trial): a randomized, controlled trial.

Late diagnosis of HIV-1 infection is quite frequent in Western countries. Very few randomized clinical trials to determine the best antiretroviral treatment in patients with advanced HIV-1 infection have been performed. To compare immune reconstitution in two groups of very immunosuppressed (less than 100 CD4(+) cells/microl), antiretroviral-naive HIV-1-infected adults, 65 patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive zidovudine + lamivudine + efavirenz (group A, 34 patients) or zidovudine + lamivudine + ritonavir-boosted indinavir (group B, 31 patients). The median (interquartile range) CD4(+) cell increase after 12 and 36 months was +199 (101, 258) and +299 (170, 464) cells/microl in the efavirenz arm and +136 (57, 235) and +228 (119, 465) cells/microl in the ritonavir-boosted indinavir arm (p > 0.05 for all time points). The proportion (95% confidence interval) of patients achieving HIV-1 RNA levels under 50 copies/ml was significantly greater in the efavirenz arm at 3 years by the intention-to-treat analysis [59% (41%, 75%) vs. 23% (10%, 41%)], whereas no differences were found in the on-treatment analysis. Immune activation (CD8(+)CD38(+) and CD8(+)CD38DR(+) T cells) was significantly lower for the efavirenz arm from month 6 to month 24. Adverse events were more frequent in the ritonavir-boosted indinavir arm. Almost all cases of disease progression and death were observed in the first year of treatment, with no significant differences between the two arms (p = 0.79 by the log-rank test). At 1 and 3 years, the immune reconstitution induced by an efavirenz-based regimen in very immunosuppressed patients was at least as potent as that induced by a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor-based antiretroviral regimen.

Induction therapy with trizivir plus efavirenz or lopinavir/ritonavir followed by trizivir alone in naive HIV-1-infected adults.

BACKGROUND: Induction-maintenance strategies were associated with a low response rate. We compared the virological response with two different induction regimens with trizivir plus efavirenz or lopinavir/ritonavir. METHODS: A randomized, multicentre, open-label clinical trial with 209 antiretroviral-naive HIV-infected patients assigned to trizivir plus either efavirenz or lopinavir/ritonavir during 24-36 weeks. Patients reaching undetectable plasma viral loads during induction entered a 48-week maintenance on trizivir alone. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients without treatment failure at 72 weeks using an intent to treat (ITT) analysis (switching equals failure). RESULTS: Patients were randomly assigned (efavirenz 104; lopinavir/ritonavir 105), and 114 (55%) entered the maintenance phase (efavirenz 54; lopinavir/ritonavir 60). Baseline characteristics were balanced between groups. The response rate at 72 weeks was 31 and 43% (ITT analysis, P = 0.076) and 63 and 75% (on-treatment analysis, P = 0.172) in the efavirenz and lopinavir/ritonavir arms, respectively. Virological failure occurred in 27 patients: six during induction (efavirenz, three; lopinavir/ritonavir, three; P = 1.0) and 21 during maintenance (efavirenz, 14; lopinavir/ritonavir, seven; P = 0.057). Thirty-four patients in the efavirenz arm switched treatment because of adverse events compared with 25 in the lopinavir/ritonavir arm (P = 0.17). CONCLUSION: Trizivir plus either efavirenz or lopinavir/ritonavir followed by maintenance with trizivir achieved a low but similar response at 72 weeks, with a high incidence of adverse events leading to drug discontinuation during the induction phase in both arms. The study showed a trend towards an increased virological failure rate in the efavirenz arm during the maintenance phase.