Antismooth muscle and antiactin antibodies are indirect markers of histological and biochemical activity of autoimmune hepatitis.

UNLABELLED: Reactivity and titers of autoantibodies vary during the course of autoimmune hepatitis (AIH), and some autoantibodies have been associated with disease activity and adverse outcomes after treatment. The aim of this study was to assess the autoantibody behavior in AIH and its significance as predictors of biochemical and histological remission. A total of 117 patients with AIH (mean age 18.6 [4-69] years) were evaluated and tested for autoantibodies at disease onset and successively (mean 3.2 [2-6] times) after a mean follow-up evaluation of 70 [20-185] months. Antismooth muscle (ASMA), antiliver kidney microsome type 1 (anti-LKM1), antiliver cytosol type 1 (anti-LC1), antimitochondrial, antinuclear (ANA), and antiactin antibodies (AAA) were determined at disease onset and 379 other times during the follow-up evaluation through indirect immunofluorescence in rodent tissues, HEp-2 cells, and human fibroblasts. Anti-SLA/LP were assessed 45 times in the follow-up evaluation of 19 patients using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Upon admission, AIH types 1 and 2 were observed in 95 and 17 patients, respectively. Five subjects had AIH with anti-SLA/LP as the sole markers. Patients initially negative for AAA did not develop these antibodies thereafter. ANA were detected de novo in six and three subjects with AIH types 1 and 2, respectively. After treatment, only ASMA (>1:80) and AAA (>1:40) were significantly associated with biochemical (76.9% and 79.8%) and histological features (100% and 100%) of disease activity (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: With the exception of ANA, the autoantibody profile does not markedly vary in the course of AIH. The persistence of high titers of ASMA and/or AAA in patients with AIH is associated with disease activity.

The Risk of Reinfection or Primary Hepatitis E Virus Infection at a Liver Transplant Center in Brazil: An Observational Cohort Study.

The hepatitis E virus is a major etiological agent of chronic hepatitis in immunosuppressed individuals. Seroprevalence in the liver transplantation setting varies according to the seroprevalence of the general population in different countries. This was a prospective cohort study of liver transplant recipients in southeastern Brazil. Recipients were systematically followed for one year, with the objective of determining the prevalence, incidence, and natural history of HEV infection in this population. We included 107 liver transplant recipients and 83 deceased donors. Positivity for anti-HEV IgG was detected in 10.2% of the recipients and in 9.7% of the donors. None of the patients tested positive for HEV RNA at baseline or during follow-up. There were no episodes of reactivation or seroconversion, even in cases of serological donor-recipient mismatch or in recipients with acute hepatitis. Acute and chronic HEV infections seem to be rare events in the region studied. That could be attributable to social, economic, and environmental factors. Our data indicate that, among liver transplant recipients, hepatitis E should be investigated only when there are elevated levels of transaminases with no defined cause, as part of the differential diagnosis of seronegative hepatitis after transplantation.

Comparison of three transfusion protocols prior to central venous catheterization in patients with cirrhosis: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Transfusion of blood components prior to invasive procedures in cirrhosis patients is high and associated with adverse events. OBJECTIVES: We compared three transfusion strategies prior to central venous catheterization in cirrhosis patients. PATIENTS/METHODS: Single center randomized trial that included critically ill cirrhosis patients with indication for central venous line in a tertiary private hospital in Brazil. INTERVENTIONS: Restrictive protocol, thromboelastometry-guided protocol, or usual care (based on coagulogram). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients transfused with any blood component (ie, fresh frozen plasma, platelets, or cryoprecipitate). The secondary endpoints included incidence of bleeding and transfusion-related adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 57 patients (19 per group; 64.9% male; mean age, 53.4 ± 11.3 years) were enrolled. Prior to catheterization, 3/19 (15.8%) in the restrictive arm, 13/19 (68.4%) in the thromboelastometry-guided arm, and 14/19 (73.7%) in the coagulogram-guided arm received blood transfusion (odds ratio [OR], 0.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01-0.45; P = .002 for restrictive versus coagulogram-guided arm; OR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.01-0.56; P = .006 for restrictive versus thromboelastometry-guided arm; and OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.14-4.15; P = .931 for thromboelastometry-guided versus coagulogram-guided arm). The restrictive protocol was cost saving. No difference in bleeding, length of stay, mortality, and transfusion-related adverse events was found. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a restrictive strategy is associated with a reduction in transfusion prior to central venous catheterization and costs in critically ill cirrhosis patients. No effect on bleeding was found among the groups.