Comparative Analysis of the Efficacy of Different Regimens of 12 Months Rifaximin-Alfa Therapy in Patients with Liver Cirrhosis and Minimal Hepatic Encephalopathy.

It is a matter of current interest which rifaximin-α regimens in patients with liver cirrhosis and minimal hepatic encephalopathy are the most efficient. STUDY OBJECTIVE: to evaluate the effect of various rifaximin-α regimens for 12 months on clinical and laboratory parameters and quality of life in patients with liver cirrhosis and minimal hepatic encephalopathy. METHODS: It was a multicenter, prospective, open-label, observational study that included 288 patients with liver cirrhosis and minimal hepatic encephalopathy of both sexes over the age of 18 years, who were prescribed a 12-month course of treatment with rifaximin-α in accordance with the product label. Statistical analysis was performed in the population of patients who completed all visits according to the protocol (n = 258). Retrospectively, the patients were divided into two subgroups: subgroup 1 (continuous course)-patients who received the study drug for a year and the number of days of administration was 360 days (n = 41); subgroup 2 (cyclic course)-patients who received the study drug during the year for less than 360 days (n = 217). At each of the 4 visits, the quality of life was assessed using the CLDQ questionnaire, the time to perform the number connection test, the severity of symptoms associated with hepatic encephalopathy, and laboratory parameters. RESULTS: During the 12-month observation period, an increase in the total score on the CLDQ quality of life questionnaire in patients with chronic liver diseases was revealed, which indicates an improvement in the quality of life of patients receiving rifaximin-α therapy. When patients were divided into subgroups depending on the duration of therapy, some benefits of continuous rifaximin-α therapy were noted in the more pronounced dynamics of decrease in the time to perform the number connection test, and in decreased severity of the following symptoms associated with hepatic encephalopathy: impaired concentration and memory, cognitive impairment, and decreased performance. Laboratory findings showed positive dynamics in both subgroups. CONCLUSION: A continuous rifaximin-α regimen in patients with liver cirrhosis and minimal hepatic encephalopathy for 12 months was superior to cyclic use with a more pronounced effect on the quality of life of patients and on the symptoms associated with hepatic encephalopathy.

Safety and efficacy of bulevirtide in combination with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in patients with hepatitis B virus and hepatitis D virus coinfection (MYR202): a multicentre, randomised, parallel-group, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Bulevirtide is a first-in-class peptidic entry inhibitor for hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis D virus infection. In July, 2020, bulevirtide 2 mg received conditional marketing authorisation by the European Medical Agency for treatment of chronic hepatitis D virus infection. We investigated the antiviral activity of bulevirtide in patients chronically infected with HBV and hepatitis D virus. METHODS: MYR202 (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03546621; EudraCT, 2016-000395-13) was a multicentre, parallel-group, randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial. Adults (aged 18-65 years) with chronic hepatitis D virus infection, including patients with cirrhosis and patients who had contraindications to PegIFNα treatment or for whom treatment did not work, were eligible and were enrolled from four hospitals in Germany and 12 hospitals in Russia. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to receive 2 mg (n=28), 5 mg (n=32), or 10 mg (n=30) subcutaneous bulevirtide once per day with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF; 245 mg once per day orally) or TDF alone (245 mg once per day orally; n=30) for 24 weeks. Randomisation was done using a digital block scheme with stratification, consisting of 480 randomisation numbers separated into 30 blocks. The primary endpoint was undetectable hepatitis D virus RNA or 2 log10 IU/mL or higher decline in hepatitis D virus RNA at week 24, which was analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population, including patients who received study medication at least once after randomisation. Hepatitis D virus RNA concentrations were monitored until week 48. Safety was assessed for all patients who received at least one dose of bulevirtide or TDF. FINDINGS: Between Feb 16, 2016, and Dec 8, 2016, 171 patients with chronic hepatitis D virus infection were screened; 51 were ineligible based on the exclusion criteria and 120 patients (59 with cirrhosis) were enrolled. At week 24, 15 (54%, 95% CI 34-73) of 28 patients achieved undetectable hepatitis D virus RNA or a 2 log10 IU/mL or more decline in hepatitis D virus RNA (p<0·0001 vs TDF alone) with 2 mg bulevirtide, 16 (50%, 32-68) of 32 with 5 mg bulevirtide (p<0·0001), and 23 (77%, 58-90) of 30 with 10 mg bulevirtide (p<0·0001), versus one (4%, 0·1-18) of 28 with TDF alone. By week 48 (24 weeks after bulevirtide cessation), hepatitis D virus RNA concentrations had rebounded, with median changes from week 24 to week 48 of 1·923 log10 IU/mL (IQR 0·566-2·485) with 2 mg bulevirtide, 1·732 log10 (0·469-2·568) with 5 mg bulevirtide, and 2·030 log10 (1·262-2·903) with 10 mg bulevirtide. There were no deaths associated with treatment. Three (9%) patients in the bulevirtide 5 mg group, two (7%) patients in the bulevirtide 10 mg group, and one (4%) patient in the TDF group had serious adverse events. Common treatment-emergent adverse events included asymptomatic bile salt increases and increases in alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase. INTERPRETATION: Bulevirtide induced a significant decline in hepatitis D virus RNA over 24 weeks. After cessation of bulevirtide, hepatitis D virus RNA concentrations rebounded. Longer treatment durations and combination therapies should be investigated. FUNDING: Hepatera LLC, MYR GmbH, and the German Centre for Infection Research, TTU Hepatitis.

Role of silymarin as antioxidant in clinical management of chronic liver diseases: a narrative review.

Chronic liver disease (CLD), manifested as hepatic injury, is a major cause of global morbidity and mortality. CLD progresses to fibrosis, cirrhosis, and-ultimately-hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) if left untreated. The different phenotypes of CLD based on their respective clinical features and causative agents include alcoholic liver disease (ALD), non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), metabolic-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD), and drug-induced liver injury (DILI). The preferred treatment modality for CLD includes lifestyle modification and diet, along with limited pharmacological agents for symptomatic treatment. Moreover, oxidative stress (OS) is an important pathological mechanism underlying all CLD phenotypes; hence, the use of antioxidants to manage the disease is justified. Based on available clinical evidence, silymarin can be utilized as a hepatoprotective agent, given its potent antioxidant, antifibrotic, and anti-inflammatory properties. The role of silymarin in suppressing OS has been well established, and therefore silymarin is recommended for use in ALD and NAFLD in the guidelines approved by the Russian Medical Scientific Society of Therapists and the Gastroenterology Scientific Society of Russia. However, to discuss the positioning of the original silymarin in clinical guidelines and treatment protocols as a hepatoprotective agent for managing CLD concomitantly with other therapies, an expert panel of international and Russian medical professionals was convened on 11 November 2020. The panel reviewed approaches for the prevention and treatment of OS, existing guidelines for patient management for CLD, and available evidence on the effectiveness of silymarin in reducing OS, fibrosis, and hepatic inflammation and presented in the form of a narrative review. Key messagesAn expert panel of international and Russian medical professionals reviewed existing guidelines for ALD, NAFLD, MAFLD, and DILI to establish consensus recommendations that oxidative stress is the common pathophysiological mechanism underlying these conditions.The panel also discussed the positioning of original silymarin in clinical guidelines and treatment protocols as a hepatoprotective agent for managing CLD concomitantly with other therapies.The panel reviewed the effectiveness of 140 mg original silymarin three times a day in reducing oxidative stress in chronic liver diseases such as ALD, NAFLD, MAFLD, and DILI.

Links of gut microbiota composition with alcohol dependence syndrome and alcoholic liver disease.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol abuse has deleterious effects on human health by disrupting the functions of many organs and systems. Gut microbiota has been implicated in the pathogenesis of alcohol-related liver diseases, with its composition manifesting expressed dysbiosis in patients suffering from alcoholic dependence. Due to its inherent plasticity, gut microbiota is an important target for prevention and treatment of these diseases. Identification of the impact of alcohol abuse with associated psychiatric symptoms on the gut community structure is confounded by the liver dysfunction. In order to differentiate the effects of these two factors, we conducted a comparative "shotgun" metagenomic survey of 99 patients with the alcohol dependence syndrome represented by two cohorts-with and without liver cirrhosis. The taxonomic and functional composition of the gut microbiota was subjected to a multifactor analysis including comparison with the external control group. RESULTS: Alcoholic dependence and liver cirrhosis were associated with profound shifts in gut community structures and metabolic potential across the patients. The specific effects on species-level community composition were remarkably different between cohorts with and without liver cirrhosis. In both cases, the commensal microbiota was found to be depleted. Alcoholic dependence was inversely associated with the levels of butyrate-producing species from the Clostridiales order, while the cirrhosis-with multiple members of the Bacteroidales order. The opportunist pathogens linked to alcoholic dependence included pro-inflammatory Enterobacteriaceae, while the hallmarks of cirrhosis included an increase of oral microbes in the gut and more frequent occurrence of abnormal community structures. Interestingly, each of the two factors was associated with the expressed enrichment in many Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus-but the exact set of the species was different between alcoholic dependence and liver cirrhosis. At the level of functional potential, the patients showed different patterns of increase in functions related to alcohol metabolism and virulence factors, as well as pathways related to inflammation. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple shifts in the community structure and metabolic potential suggest strong negative influence of alcohol dependence and associated liver dysfunction on gut microbiota. The identified differences in patterns of impact between these two factors are important for planning of personalized treatment and prevention of these pathologies via microbiota modulation. Particularly, the expansion of Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus suggests that probiotic interventions for patients with alcohol-related disorders using representatives of the same taxa should be considered with caution. Taxonomic and functional analysis shows an increased propensity of the gut microbiota to synthesis of the toxic acetaldehyde, suggesting higher risk of colorectal cancer and other pathologies in alcoholics.

Data on gut metagenomes of the patients with alcoholic dependence syndrome and alcoholic liver cirrhosis.

Alcoholism is associated with significant changes in gut microbiota composition. Metagenomic sequencing allows to assess the altered abundance levels of bacterial taxa and genes in a culture-independent way. We collected 99 stool samples from the patients with alcoholic dependence syndrome (n=72) and alcoholic liver cirrhosis (n=27). Each of the samples was surveyed using "shotgun" (whole-genome) sequencing on SOLiD platform. The reads are deposited in the ENA (project ID: PRJEB18041).