Randomized clinical trial comparing high versus standard dose of ribavirin plus peginterferon alfa-2a in hepatitis C genotype 3 and high viral load. Dargen-3 study.

INTRODUCTION: Less than half of patients with chronic hepatitis C genotype 3 (G3) and high viral load (HVL) without a rapid virological response (RVR) achieve a sustained virological response (SVR) when treated with peginterferon plus ribavirin (RBV). OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of high doses of RBV on SVR in patients with G3 and HVL. METHODS: Ninety-seven patients were randomized to receive peginterferon α-2a+RBV 800 mg/day (A; n=42) or peginterferon α-2a+RBV 1600 mg/day+epoetin ß 400 IU/kg/week SC (B; n=55). Patients allocated to group B who achieved RVR continued on RBV (800mg/day) for a further 20 weeks (B1; n=42) while non-RVR patients received a higher dose of RBV (1600 mg/day)+epoetin ß (B2; n=13). RESULTS: RVR was observed in 64.3% of patients in A and in 76.4% in B (p=0.259). Intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis showed SVR rates of 64.3% (A) and 61.8% (B), with a reduction of -2.5% (-21.8% to 16.9%) (p=0.835). The SVR rate was 61.9% in arm B1 and 61.5% in arm B2. No serious adverse events were reported, and the rate of moderate adverse events was < 5%. CONCLUSIONS: G3 patients with high viral load without RVR did not obtain a benefit from a higher dose of RBV. Higher doses of RBV plus epoetin ß were safe and well tolerated (Clin Trials Gov NCT00830609).

Esophageal motor abnormalities in eosinophilic esophagitis identified by high-resolution manometry.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Esophageal motility abnormalities, as measured by conventional manometry (CM), are non-specific in the majority of patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Moreover, the study of CM is limited by poor interobserver agreement. The aims of the present study were: (i) to assess the esophageal patterns in EoE by a topographic analysis of high-resolution manometry (HRM) data; and (ii) to establish a relationship between motility abnormalities and symptoms of EoE, such as dysphagia and bolus impaction. METHODS: All adult patients with EoE diagnosed according to histological criteria, and controls with gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms and dysphagia, were included. HRM was done in EoE patients and controls. For the analysis of data, the Chicago classification was followed. RESULTS: HRM was performed in 21 patients with EoE, as well as in 21 controls. Of the 21 patients with EoE, 10 (48%) showed pan-esophageal pressurization, six (28%) showed peristaltic dysfunction, and in five cases (24%), HRM was normal. There was no pan-esophageal pressurization in controls. Nine of 10 patients with pan-esophageal pressurization required endoscopic bolus removal (P < 0.05); none had obstructive endoscopy findings. CONCLUSIONS: The most frequent esophageal motor abnormality measured by HRM was a pan-esophageal pressurization. Bolus impaction in patients with EoE was associated with pan-esophageal pressurization.