The Gastropack Access System as a Model to Access Gastroenterology Services for Gastroscopy Appropriateness in Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Symptoms: A Comparison with the Open Access System.

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) appropriateness in Open-Access System (OAS) is a relevant issue. The Gastropack Access System (GAS) is a new system to access gastroenterological services, based on the partnership between Gastroenterologists and GPs. This study aims to evaluate if GAS is superior to OAS in terms of EGDS appropriateness. Secondarily, we evaluated the diagnostic yield of EGDS according to ASGE guidelines. The GAS was developed in an area of Bologna where General Practitioners (GPs) could decide to directly prescribe EGDS through OAS or referring to GAS, where EGDS can be scheduled after contact between GPs and specialists sharing a patient's clinical information. Between 2016 and 2019, 2179 cases (M:F = 861:1318, median age 61, IQR 47.72) were referred to GAS and 1467 patients (65%) had a prescription for EGDS; conversely, 874 EGDS were prescribed through OAS (M:F = 383:491; median age 58 yrs, IQR 45.68). Indication was appropriate in 92% in GAS (1312/1424) versus 71% in OAS (618/874), p < 0.001. The rate of clinically significant endoscopic findings (CSEF) was significantly higher in GAS (49% vs. 34.8%, p < 0.001). Adherence to ASGE guidelines was not related to CSEF; however, surveillance for pre-malignant conditions was independently related to CSEF. All neoplasm were observed in appropriate EGD. GAS is an innovative method showing extremely high rates of appropriateness. ASGE guidelines confirmed their validity for cancer detection, but their performance for the detection of other conditions needs to be refined.

Treatment choice for early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma in real-world practice: impact of treatment stage migration to transarterial chemoembolization and treatment response on survival.

OBJECTIVE: The objectives of our study were firstly to characterize the treatment stage migration phenomenon in early (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer [BCLC]-0/A) stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) by comparing the efficacy of curative therapies with trans-arterial chemoembolization [TACE] and secondly, determining baseline and on-treatment predictors of survival. METHODS: All patients within BCLC-0/A stage from six tertiary hospitals who received curative therapy with either resection, transplantation, or ablation or TACE as first-line treatment were included in the analyses. The primary endpoint was overall survival; secondary end-points were transplant-free survival and recurrence-free survival. RESULTS: Between January 2000 and December 2013, we identified 253 BCLC-0/A HCC patients of whom 148 (58.5%) received curative therapy and 105 (41.5%) migrated to TACE. Patients undergoing TACE had lower median survival (2.7 vs. 6.7 years; p < .0001), transplant-free survival (2.6 vs. 4.8 years; p < .0001) and recurrence-free survival (1.3 vs. 2.7 years; p < .001). On multivariate analysis treatment allocation to TACE was an independent prognostic predictor for both lower overall survival (HR 1.70, p = .04) and for HCC recurrence (HR 2.25, p < .001). The main prognostic determinant for each target outcome was Child-Pugh score. CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirms that curative treatments should always be preferred when applicable in early-stage HCC, but that in cases where this is not possible, TACE is a reasonable albeit inferior treatment option. In addition, it provides unique prognostic information on a significant proportion of patients with early-stage disease in whom curative therapy is not applicable.

Efficacy and Safety of Mycophenolate Mofetil in Patients With Autoimmune Hepatitis and Suboptimal Outcomes After Standard Therapy.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Little is known about outcomes of patients with autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) who have a suboptimal outcome to standard therapy and are then given mycophenolate mofetil as rescue therapy. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of mycophenolate mofetil in patients failed by or intolerant to corticosteroids, with or without azathioprine. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of 105 patients with AIH who received mycophenolate mofetil therapy after an inadequate response or intolerance to standard therapy (98% received combination therapy with corticosteroids plus thiopurines). Patients were recruited from 17 liver clinics via the Australian Liver Association Clinical Research Network. We reviewed records for baseline demographic features and characteristics of liver disease, initial therapy, mycophenolate mofetil indications, treatment outcome, and side effects. The primary outcome was biochemical remission, defined as levels of alanine and aspartate transferase and IgG level within the normal reference range, with or without normal liver histology within the first 2 years of treatment. RESULTS: The indication for mycophenolate mofetil therapy was non-response to treatment for 40% of cases and intolerance to therapy for 60%. Overall, 63 patients (60%) achieved biochemical remission following a median 12 weeks treatment with mycophenolate mofetil. The proportion of patients who achieved biochemical remission was similar between patients receiving mycophenolate mofetil for non-response to standard therapy (57%) and patients with intolerance to standard therapy (62%). However, a lower proportion of patients with cirrhosis achieved biochemical remission (47%) than patients without cirrhosis (6%) (P = .07). Serious adverse events occurred in 3 patients (2.7%) including 1 death, and 10 patients (9.2%) discontinued mycophenolate mofetil because of adverse events. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective study of patients with AIH who received mycophenolate mofetil as a rescue therapy, we found the drug to be well tolerated and moderately effective, inducing biochemical remission in 60% of subjects. Rates of response are lower and rates of infection are higher in patients with AIH and cirrhosis. Prospective studies of mycophenolate mofetil are warranted for this population.

Real-world efficacy and safety of ritonavir-boosted paritaprevir, ombitasvir, dasabuvir ± ribavirin for hepatitis C genotype 1 - final results of the REV1TAL study.

BACKGROUND: Limited data exist on the outcomes of ritonavir-boosted paritaprevir with ombitasvir and dasabuvir (PrOD) ± ribavirin in a real-world setting. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of PrOD-based therapy in hepatitis C genotype 1 patients with and without cirrhosis, and to explore pre-treatment factors predictive of sustained viral response (SVR) and serious adverse events (SAEs) on treatment. METHODS: 451 patients with hepatitis C genotype 1 treated in 20 centres across Australia were included. Baseline demographic, clinical and laboratory information, on-treatment biochemical, virological and haematological indices and details on serious adverse events were collected locally. RESULTS: Cirrhosis was present in 340 patients (75.4%). Overall SVR was 95.1% with no differences in SVR between the cirrhosis and non-cirrhosis groups (94.7% versus 96.4%). SVR in subgenotypes 1a and 1b was 93.1% and 99.2%, respectively. On multivariate analysis, baseline bilirubin level and early treatment cessation predicted SVR. SAEs occurred in 10.9% of patients including hepatic decompensation (2.7%) and hepatocellular carcinoma (1.8%). On multivariate analysis of factors predictive of SAEs in the overall group, Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) B was the only significant factor, while in those with cirrhosis, baseline albumin and creatinine levels were significant. CONCLUSIONS: In this large real-world cohort of HCV genotype 1 subjects, treatment with PrOD was highly effective and similar to clinical trials. Important determinants of reduced SVR include early cessation of therapy and baseline bilirubin concentration. SAEs were not infrequent with CTP B patients being at greatest risk.

Systemic Treatment: Expecting Further Success.

From its approval in 2008, sorafenib is the recommended treatment option for advanced-stage patients and its safety and efficacy has been confirmed by several studies. However, its mechanism of action is not completely understood and many efforts have been dedicated to investigating possible treatment response predictors. Dermatological adverse events occurring within the first 2 months of treatment are predictors of longer survival, while the same role for hypertension and diarrhea still needs a prospective confirmation. This association is opposite to the strategy of starting at a low dose as it may imply suboptimal drug exposure. In case of radiological progression, the appearance of new extrahepatic metastasis or vascular invasion significantly worsens life expectancy if compared to other patterns of progression. To date no genetic or biologic marker is available to predict response, even if some encouraging results have been reported by the study of polymorphism of VEGF and its receptor. Currently, data are conflicting about the possible predictive role of α-fetoprotein. Due to failure or the progression of therapies for earlier evolutionary stages (BCLC B) some patients in such a clinical profile may be treated with sorafenib. Indeed, almost 50% of the sorafenib-treated patients belong to this class. Patients with severely decompensated liver disease (jaundice, ascites in need of intense diuretic therapy/paracentesis) may not benefit from treatment. The use of sorafenib in the waiting list for liver transplantation is controversial, while its use at an advanced age requires careful evaluation of existing comorbidities that may increase the risk of adverse events. Many strides have been made in the field of hepatocellular carcinoma systemic therapy, and many remain to be realized. Considering the disappointing results of the trials conducted on new agents, a more dynamic interpretation of events together with the development of new strategies is key to enriching new and hopefully more successful trials.

Systemic treatment.

In the last years the management of patients with liver cancer has been improved. The BCLC staging/treatment strategy identifies the optimal candidates for each treatment option and sorafenib is the only effective systemic treatment. Others (sunitinib, brivanib, linifanib, everolimus, ramucirumab) have failed in terms of safety/survival benefit. Some patients at intermediate/early stage, may be considered for systemic therapy when options of higher priority may have failed or not be feasible. The 800 mg/day is the recommended starting dose. Close follow-up and easy access for the patients so that they can report any adverse event and implement dose adjustments is the key point in the management of them. Development of early dermatologic adverse events has been correlated with better outcome and the pattern of radiologic progression characterizes better the prognosis/outcome of these patients. Treatment beyond progression may be considered if there is no option for a second line research trial.

Molecular targeted therapy in hepatocellular carcinoma: present achievements and future challenges.

Therapeutic options in advanced stage hepatocellular carcinoma have been very poor until the discovery of new therapeutic agents that target the molecular pathways involved in hepatocarcinogenesis. In this paper we try to review the most important molecular agents in development, with a specific focus on sorafenib's role and safety profile, especially in the treatment of patients with suboptimal liver function.