Hepatitis B virus reactivation in patients treated with monoclonal antibodies.

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation poses a significant clinical challenge, especially in patients undergoing immunosuppressive therapies, including monoclonal antibody treatments. This manuscript briefly explores the complex relationship between monoclonal antibody therapy and HBV reactivation, drawing upon current literature and clinical case studies. It delves into the mechanisms underlying this phenomenon, highlighting the importance of risk assessment, monitoring, and prophylactic measures for patients at risk. The manuscript aims to enhance the understanding of HBV reactivation in the context of monoclonal antibody therapy, ultimately facilitating informed clinical decision-making and improved patient care. This paper will also briefly review the definition of HBV activation, assess the risks of reactivation, especially in patients treated with monoclonal antibodies, and consider management for patients with regard to screening, prophylaxis, and treatment. A better understanding of patients at risk can help clinicians provide optimum management to ensure successful patient outcomes and prevent morbidity.

Adult eosinophilic esophagitis and advances in its treatment.

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic eosinophil inflammation that seems to be T helper type 2 antigen-driven. The disease is one of several eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders in which there appears to be inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract without any apparent underlying causes. Differential diagnosis needs to be made with gastroesophageal reflux, which is characterized by chronic inflammation due to gastric refluxate from disorders related to motility. EoE, however, is considered a chronic allergic inflammatory disorder related to destructive tissue remodeling. There seems to be a higher prevalence of EoE in Western countries. It is typically found in atopic male individuals. Physiopathological risk factors include atopy, environmental factors, esophageal epithelial barrier dysfunctions, etc. EoE can cause several symptoms that include retrosternal burning sensation, dysphagia, food impaction, chronic reflux symptoms, nausea, and vomiting. Early diagnosis, which requires a biopsy to assess for esophageal inflammation, is essential for proper treatment. The aim of our brief overview is to summarize the current literature regarding the characteristics, diagnosis, complications, mechanisms of pathology, clinical features, influence of comorbidities, and treatment in patients with EoE.

Neither hereditary periodic fever nor periodic fever, aphthae, pharingitis, adenitis: Undifferentiated periodic fever in a tertiary pediatric center.

AIM: To describe the frequency and clinical characteristics of patients with undifferentiated periodic fever (UPF) and to investigate whether a clinical classification of UPF based on the PRINTO-Eurofever score can help predicting the response to treatment and the outcome at follow-up. METHODS: Clinical and therapeutic information of patients with recurrent fever who presented at a single pediatric rheumatology center from January 2006 through April 2016 were retrospectively collected. Patients with a clinical suspicion of hereditary periodic fever (HPF) syndrome and patients with clinical picture of periodic fever, aphthae, pharingitis, adenitis (PFAPA) who were refractory to tonsillectomy underwent molecular analysis of five HPF-related genes: MEFV (NM_000243.2), MVK (NM_000431.3), TNFRSF1A (NM_001065.3), NLRP3 (NM_001079821.2), NLRP12 (NM_001277126.1). All patients who had a negative genetic result were defined as UPF and further investigated. PRINTO-Eurofever score for clinical diagnosis of HPF was calculated in all cases. RESULTS: Of the 221 patients evaluated for periodic fever, twelve subjects with a clinical picture of PFAPA who were refractory to tonsillectomy and 22 subjects with a clinical suspicion of HPF underwent genetic analysis. Twenty-three patients (10.4%) resulted negative and were classified as UPF. The median age at presentation of patients with UPF was 9.5 mo (IQR 4-24). Patients with UPF had a higher frequency of aphthae (52.2% vs 0%, P = 0.0026) and musculoskeletal pain (65.2% vs 18.2%, P = 0.0255) than patients with genetic confirmed HPF. Also, patients with UPF had a higher frequency of aphthous stomatitis (52.2% vs 10.7%, P < 0.0001), musculoskeletal pain (65.2% vs 8,0%, P < 0.0001), and abdominal pain (52.2% vs 4.8%, P < 0.0001) and a lower frequency of pharyngitis (56.6% vs 81.3%, P = 0.0127) compared with typical PFAPA in the same cohort. Twenty-one of 23 patients with UPF (91.3%) received steroids, being effective in 16; 13 (56.2%) were given colchicine, which was effective in 6. Symptoms resolution occurred in 2 patients with UPF at last follow-up. Classification according to the PRINTO-Eurofever score did not correlate with treatment response and prognosis. CONCLUSION: UPF is not a rare diagnosis among patients with periodic fever. Clinical presentation place UPF half way on a clinical spectrum between PFAPA and HPF. The PRINTO-Eurofever score is not useful to predict clinical outcome and treatment response in these patients.

Counterion exchange selectivity coefficients at water-in-oil microemulsion interface.

The counterion binding at a water/Aerosol-OT (AOT)/heptane microemulsion interface was treated in the context of the pseudo-phase ion exchange formalism. Two approaches were used to determine the selectivity coefficient for copper/sodium counterion binding at the AOT microemulsion interface: measurements of the Cu(II) concentration taken up by the reverse micelle in a Winsor II microemulsion system and steady-state emission quenching measurements of an anionic water-solubilized probe, the tris-(4,4'-dicarboxy-2,2'-bipyridine) ruthenium (II) ion. In addition, the selectivity coefficient for methyl viologen/sodium at the microemulsion surface was determined by the same photophysical technique. The value for copper (II)/sodium exchange (K(Cu/Na)) is 1.1+/-0.3 and that for methyl viologen/sodium (K(MV/Na)) is 0.9+/-0.3. The results show that the pseudo-phase ion exchange model can be used to obtain the selectivity coefficient in a microemulsion system.