Clinical outcomes of MAFLD versus NAFLD: A meta-analysis of observational studies.

IMPORTANCE: The recent change in terminology from nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) to metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) highlights the link between hepatic steatosis and metabolic dysfunction, taking out the stigmata of alcohol. OBJECTIVE: We compared the effects of NAFLD and MAFLD definitions on the risk of overall and cardiovascular (CV) mortality, liver-related events (LRE), nonfatal CV events (CVE), chronic kidney disease (CKD), and extra-hepatic cancers (EHC). DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: We systematically searched four large electronic databases for cohort studies (published through August 2023) that simultaneously used NAFLD and MAFLD definitions for examining the risk of mortality and adverse CV, renal, or oncological outcomes associated with both definitions. In total, 21 eligible cohort studies were identified. Meta-analysis was performed using random-effects modelling. RESULTS: Compared with those with NAFLD, individuals with MAFLD had significantly higher rates of overall mortality (random-effect OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.04-1.21, p = .004) and CV mortality (random-effect OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.04-1.26, p = .004), and a marginal trend towards higher rates of developing CKD (random-effect OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.00-1.12, p = .058) and EHC events (random-effect OR 1.11, 95% CI 1.00-1.23, p = .052). We found no significant differences in the risk LREs and nonfatal CVE between MAFLD and NAFLD. Meta-regression analyses identified male sex and metabolic comorbidities as the strongest risk factors related to the risk of adverse clinical outcomes in MAFLD compared to NAFLD. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Individuals with MAFLD have higher rates of overall and CV mortality and higher rates of developing CKD and EHC events than those with NAFLD, possibly due to the dysmetabolic risk profile related to MAFLD.

What is the benefit of prophylaxis to prevent HBV reactivation in HBsAg-negative anti-HBc-positive patients? Meta-analysis and decision curve analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Patients with overt or occult hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection receiving immunosuppressive treatments have a wide risk of HBV reactivation (HBVr). We performed meta-analysis with decision curve analyses (DCA) to estimate the risk of HBVr in HBsAg-negative anti-HBc-positive patients naïve to nucleos(t)ide analogues (NAs) receiving immunosuppressive treatments. APPROACH AND RESULTS: Studies were identified through literature search until October 2022. Pooled estimates were obtained using random-effects model. Subgroup analyses were performed according to underlying disease and immunosuppressive treatments. DCA was used to identify the threshold probability associated with the net benefit of antiviral prophylaxis in HBsAg-negative anti-HBc-positive patients. We selected 68 studies (40 retrospective and 28 prospective), including 8034 patients with HBsAg negative anti-HBc positive. HBVr was 4% (95% CI 3%-6%) in HBsAg-negative anti-HBc-positive patients, with a significantly high heterogeneity (I2 69%; p < .01). The number-needed-to-treat (NNT) by DCA ranged from 8 to 24 for chemotherapy plus rituximab, from 12 to 24 for targeted therapies in cancer patients and from 13 to 39 for immune-mediated diseases. Net benefit was small for monoclonal antibodies. CONCLUSIONS: Our DCA in HBsAg-negative anti-HBc-positive patients provided evidence that NA prophylaxis is strongly recommended in patients treated with chemotherapy combined with rituximab and could be appropriate in patients with cancer treated with targeted therapies and in patients with immune-mediated diseases. Finally, in patients with cancer treated with monoclonal antibodies or with chemotherapy without rituximab, the net benefit is even lower.

Effect of pharmacological interventions and placebo on liver Histology in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: A network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The aims of this study were to quantify the histological improvement and its risk factors in patients with NASH enrolled in the placebo arms of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and to indirectly compare the effect of several investigational drugs for NASH on validated histological outcomes. DATA SYNTHESIS: A comprehensive search was conducted to detect phase 2 and 3 RCTs comparing pharmacological interventions in patients with NASH. According to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommendations, primary outcomes included: 1) NASH resolution without worsening of fibrosis; 2) At least 1-point reduction in fibrosis without worsening of NASH. Meta-analysis and meta-regressions were conducted on placebo arms, while network meta-analysis was performed on intervention arms. A total of 15 RCTs met the eligibility criteria. The meta-analysis on placebo arms showed a pooled estimate rate of 17% (95%C.I. 12%-23%;I2 = 86%; p < 0.01) for NASH resolution without worsening of fibrosis and of 21% (95%C.I. 13%-31%;I2 = 84%; p < 0.01) for ≥1stage improvement of fibrosis without worsening of NASH. Phase 3 (vs Phase 2)RCTs, older age and higher AST levels were significantly associated with progression of liver disease by univariate meta-regression. At network meta-analysis, Semaglutide (P-score 0.906), Pioglitazione alone (score 0.890) and plus Vitamin E (0.826) had the highest probability of being ranked the most effective intervention for NASH resolution without worsening of fibrosis, while Aldafermin (0.776), Lanifibranor (0.773) and Obeticholic acid (0.771) had the highest probability to achieve ≥1 stage of fibrosis improvement without worsening of NASH. CONCLUSION: This study confirms the heterogeneity of histological progression of untreated patients with NASH and provides evidence to stratify patients according to identified risk factors in future RCTs of combination therapies. PROSPERO CRD42021287205.

Large scale production and characterization of SARS-CoV-2 whole antigen for serological test development.

BACKGROUND: The rapid spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has generated a pandemic with alarming rates of fatality worldwide. This situation has had a major impact on clinical laboratories that have attempted to answer the urgent need for diagnostic tools, since the identification of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Development of a reliable serological diagnostic immunoassay, with high levels of sensitivity and specificity to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies with improved differential diagnosis from other circulating viruses, is mandatory. METHODS: An enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) using whole inactivated virus cultured in vitro, was developed to detect viral antigens. WB and ELISA investigations were carried out with sera of convalescent patients and negative sera samples. Both analyses were concurrently performed with recombinant MABs to verify the findings. RESULTS: Preliminary data from 10 sera (5 patients with COVID-19, and 5 healthy controls) using this immunoassay are very promising, successfully identifying all of the confirmed SARS-CoV-2-positive individuals. CONCLUSION: This ELISA appears to be a specific and reliable method for detecting COVID-19 antibodies (IgG, IgM, and IgA), and a useful tool for identifying individuals which have developed immunity to the virus.

Balancing Efficacy and Tolerability of First-Line Systemic Therapies for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Network Meta-Analysis.

Background: Atezolizumab + bevacizumab represent the current standard of care for first-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, direct comparison with other combination treatments including immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) + tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are lacking. Objectives: This network meta-analysis (NMA) aims to indirectly compare the efficacy and the safety of first-line systemic therapies for unresectable advanced HCC. Method: A literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, and SCOPUS databases was conducted up to October 31, 2022. Phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing TKIs, including sorafenib and lenvatinib, or ICIs reporting overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were included. Individual survival data were extracted from OS and PFS curves to calculate restricted mean survival time. A Bayesian NMA was performed to compare treatments in terms of efficacy (15- and 30-month OS, 6-month PFS) and safety, represented by grade ≥3 (severe) adverse events (SAEs). The incremental safety-effectiveness ratio as measure of net health benefit was calculated as the difference in SAE probability divided by survival difference between the 2 most effective treatments. Results: Nine RCTs enrolling 6,600 patients were included. Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab showed the highest probability (88%) of achieving the 30-month OS landmark. Lenvatinib showed a probability of 86% of achieving best PFS outcomes. ICI monotherapies ranked as most tolerable. Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab showed the best net health benefit for OS, compared to durvalumab plus tremelimumab. When evaluating the net health benefit for PFS, at a willingness-to-risk threshold of 10% of SAEs for life-month gained, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was favoured in 78% of cases, while at threshold of 30% of SAEs for life-month gained, lenvatinib was favoured in 76% of cases. Conclusions: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab is the best treatment in terms of net benefit and therefore it should be recommended as standard of care. Compared to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, lenvatinib monotherapy had the best net benefit for PFS when physicians and patients are available to accept a higher risk of toxicity.