Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common type of primary liver cancer, which in turns accounts for the sixth most common cancer worldwide. Despite being the 6th most common cancer it is the second leading cause of cancer related deaths. HCC typically arises in the background of cirrhosis, however, about 20% of cases can develop in a non-cirrhotic liver. This particular subgroup of HCC generally presents at an advanced stage as surveillance is not performed in a non-cirrhotic liver. HCC in non-cirrhotic patients is clinically silent in its early stages because of lack of symptoms and surveillance imaging; and higher hepatic reserve in this population. Interestingly, F3 fibrosis in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, hepatitis B virus and hepatitis C virus infections are associated with high risk of developing HCC. Even though considerable progress has been made in the management of this entity, there is a dire need for implementation of surveillance strategies in the patient population at risk, to decrease the disease burden at presentation and improve the prognosis of these patients. This comprehensive review details the epidemiology, risk factors, clinical features, diagnosis and management of HCC in non-cirrhotic patients and provides future directions for research.
Background
Data on efficacy of hepatitis-B vaccine (HBV) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is limited. Our aim was to review the literature and perform meta-analysis of available studies to quantify efficacy of HBV in patients with IBD.
Methods
We conducted a comprehensive search of several databases (inception to July 2020) to identify studies evaluating efficacy of HBV in patients with IBD. Random effects model was used to calculate the pooled rates and I2 percentage values were used to assess the heterogeneity.
Results
A total of 14 studies (2375 patients) were included. Four data sets were available from 2 studies that compared HBV response in patients with IBD against healthy controls. The pooled odds ratio of HBV response in IBD patients was 0.13 (95% CI, 0.05–0.33, P = 0.001). The pooled proportion of adequate immune response (AIR) was 64% (95% CI, 55–72.1, P = 0.003) from 13 data sets, and effective immune response (EIR) was 39.7% (95% CI, 30.7–49.5, P = 0.04) from 10 data sets.
Conclusion
Patients with IBD on immunosuppression demonstrated significantly reduced HBV response as compared with general population.
Background: An association between bariatric surgery and development of de-novo inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has been observed.Aim: To evaluate further the association among bariatric surgery, weight loss medications, obesity and new-onset IBD.
Methods: Using Explorys, a population-based Health Insurance Portability andAccountability Act compliant database, we estimated the prevalence of de-novo IBD among patients treated with bariatric surgery (Roux-en-Y gastrojejunostomy, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy or gastric banding) (n = 60 870) or weight loss medications (orlistat, phentermine/topiramate, lorcaserin, bupropion/naltrexone and liraglutide) (n = 193 790) compared with obese controls (n = 5 021 210), between 1999 and 2018.Results: The prevalence of de-novo IBD was lower among obese patients exposed to bariatric surgery (7.72 per 1000 patients) or weight loss medications (7.22 per 1000 patients) compared with patients with persistent obesity not exposed to these interventions (11.66 per 1000 patients, P < 0.0001). The risk reduction for de-novo IBD was consistent across bariatric surgeries and weight loss medications with the exception of orlistat which was not associated with a reduction in risk for de-novo IBD compared with the persistent obese control cohort.
Conclusion:Obese patients undergoing treatment with bariatric surgery or weight loss medications are at a lower risk for developing de-novo IBD compared with persistently obese controls not exposed to these interventions. These data suggest that obesity and ineffective management of obesity are risk factors for de-novo IBD.Further research is needed to confirm these observations and understand potential mechanisms.
Aim
There are limited data on the impact of 2 vs 3 doses of COVID-19 vaccine in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The primary aim of the study was to assess the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccine based on number of administered doses in patients with IBD.
Methods
We conducted a retrospective cohort study using TriNetX, a multi-institutional database to compare patients with IBD who received 1, 2, or 3 doses of BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 to unvaccinated IBD patients (1.1.2020-7.26.2022) to assess the risk of COVID-19 after 1:1 propensity score matching. We also evaluated the impact of vaccine on a composite of severe COVID-19 outcomes including hospitalization, intubation, intensive care unit care, acute kidney injury, or mortality.
Results
After propensity score matching, vaccinated patients with 2 (adjusted OR [aOR], 0.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.6-0.9) and 3 doses (aOR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5-0.9) were found to have a lower risk of COVID-19 compared with unvaccinated patients. Vaccinated patients with IBD had a lower risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes (aOR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.6-0.9) compared with unvaccinated patients. There was no difference in the risk of COVID-19 in IBD patients with 2 compared with 3 doses (aOR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.7-1.3). However, IBD patients with 2 doses were at an increased risk for hospitalization due to COVID-19 (aOR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.02-3.11) compared with those that received 3 doses.
Conclusion
Vaccinated patients with IBD had a lower risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes compared with unvaccinated patients. A third dose of COVID-19 vaccine compared with 2 doses decreases the risk of hospitalization but not breakthrough infection in patients with IBD.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.