H1-Antihistamines Reduce the Risk of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients With Hepatitis B Virus, Hepatitis C Virus, or Dual Hepatitis B Virus-Hepatitis C Virus Infection.

PURPOSE: H1-antihistamines (AHs) may exert protective effects against cancer. This study investigated the association of AH use with the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), or dual HBV-HCV virus infection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with HBV, HCV, or dual HBV-HCV infection were enrolled from Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database and examined for the period from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2015. We used the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards regression to evaluate the association between AH use and HCC risk. RESULTS: We included patients with HBV infection (n = 521,071), HCV (n = 169,159), and dual HBV-HCV (n = 39,016). Patients with HBV, HCV, or dual virus infection who used AHs exhibited significantly lower risk of HCC relative to patients who did not use AH, with their adjusted hazard ratio being 0.489 (95% CI, 0.455 to 0.524), 0.484 (95% CI, 0.450 to 0.522), and 0.469 (95% CI, 0.416 to 0.529), respectively. Furthermore, there was a dose-response relationship between AH use and the risk of HCC in the HBV cohort. The adjusted hazard ratios were 0.597 (95% CI, 0.530 to 0.674), 0.528 (0.465 to 0.600), 0.470 (0.416 to 0.531), and 0.407 (0.362 to 0.457) for AH use of 28-42, 43-63, 64-119, and ≥ 120 cumulative defined daily doses, respectively, relative to no AH use. Additionally, there was also a dose-response relationship between AH use and the risk of HCC in the HCV and dual HBV-HCV cohorts. CONCLUSION: AH use may reduce the risk for HCC among patients with HBV, HCV, or dual infection in a dose-dependent manner. Further mechanistic research is needed.

The current status and unmet needs in the management of psoriatic arthritis: Viewpoint from physicians in Taiwan.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: To analyze the real-world clinical practice for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and to assess physicians' prescription, difficulties in diagnosis, therapeutic strategy, rationales for biologic therapies and unmet needs in Taiwan. METHODS: We conducted a nationwide cross-sectional observational study by face-to-face in depth interviews with 50 rheumatologists and 30 dermatologists who took care of patients with PsA. RESULTS: The major procedures for recognizing PsA included joint, skin and nail examinations, radiographic imaging, and medical history. More dermatologists established the diagnosis when psoriatic patients with arthritis didn't present with rheumatoid factors (p < 0.05). For milder arthritis, physicians tended to prescribe etanercept in combination with conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). The efficacy, safety, retention rate, and non-parenteral administration are the major concerns of physicians which are also the primary unmet needs in the current management of PsA. CONCLUSION: This survey showed the status quo in Taiwan of the clinical management for PsA including diagnostic difficulties, therapeutic consideration, rationales for biologic DMARDs selection and unmet needs in treatment. It has indicated that interdisciplinary collaboration may further improve the quality for PsA care. These results may help establish new strategy to develop next generation biologics.