This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Cheung, M. C. M. et al. (2016) Outcomes after successful direct-acting antiviral therapy for patients with chronic hepatitis C and decompensated cirrhosis. Journal of Hepatology, 65(4), pp. 741-747. (doi:10.1016Hepatology, 65(4), pp. 741-747. (doi:10. /j.jhep.2016 This is the author's final accepted version.There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher's version if you wish to cite from it.http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/123893/ There was no significant difference in liver cancer incidence (10/406 (2.5%) in months 6-15 and 17/406 (4%) in months 0-6 for treated patients vs 11/261 (4%) in untreated patients).2

Treatment with glecaprevir and pibrentasvir for 12 weeks resulted in a high rate of sustained virologic response in patients with stage 4 or 5 chronic kidney disease and HCV infection. (Funded by AbbVie; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02651194 .).

No abstract

In a phase 3 trial of patients who had relapsed after interferon-based therapy, the addition of simeprevir to PR was generally well tolerated, with an SVR12 rate of 79.2%. Most patients (92.7%) receiving simeprevir were able to shorten therapy to 24 weeks. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01281839.

Cumulative incidence of HCC is low in patients treated with ETV, but ETV does not eliminate the risk of HCC. Discriminatory performance of HCC risk scores was limited, particularly in Caucasians, at baseline and during therapy.

Primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) is a classical autoimmune liver disease for which effective immunomodulatory therapy is lacking. Here we perform meta-analyses of discovery datasets from genome-wide association studies of European subjects (n=2,764 cases and 10,475 controls) followed by validation genotyping in an independent cohort (n=3,716 cases and 4261 controls). We discover and validate six previously unknown risk loci for PBC (Pcombined<5×10−8) and used pathway analysis to identify JAK-STAT/IL12/IL27 signaling and cytokine-cytokine pathways, for which relevant therapies exist.

Entecavir (ETV) is a potent inhibitor of viral replication in nucleos(t)ide analogue (NA)-naïve chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients. The aim of this study was to investigate the long term efficacy and safety of ETV in NA-naïve CHB patients, particularly in those with detectable hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA after 48 weeks, in whom treatment adaptation is suggested by current guidelines. In a multicenter cohort study, we investigated 333 CHB patients treated with entecavir monotherapy. The NA-naïve population consisted of 243 patients, whereas 90 were NA-experienced. Virological response (VR) (HBV DNA <80 IU/ mL) was achieved in 48%, 76%, and 90% of hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-positive and in 89%, 98%, and 99% of HBeAg-negative NA-naïve patients at weeks 48, 96, and 144, respectively. Thirty-six of 175 (21%) NA-naïve patients with at least 48 weeks of follow-up had a detectable load at week 48 (partial virological response [PVR]). Twenty-nine (81%) patients with PVR reached VR during prolonged ETV monotherapy, and none of them developed ETV-resistance. Among 22 patients with HBV DNA <1,000 IU/mL at week 48, VR was achieved in 21 (95%) patients, compared with eight of 14 (57%) patients with HBV DNA !1,000 IU/mL. Continuous HBV DNA decline was observed in most patients without VR during follow-up, and in three patients adherence was suboptimal according to the treating physician. ETV was safe and did not affect renal function or cause lactic acidosis. Conclusion: ETV monotherapy can be continued in NA-naïve patients with detectable HBV DNA at week 48, particularly in those with a low viral load because long-term ETV leads to a virological response in the vast majority of patients. (HEPATOLOGY 2011;54:443-451) C urrent treatment guidelines consider nucleos(-t)ide analogues (NAs) and pegylated interferon as first-line treatment for chronic hepatitis B (CHB). The ultimate goal of treatment is prevention of cirrhosis, hepatic decompensation, and hepatocellular carcinoma.1 Entecavir (ETV) is a cyclopentyl guanosine analogue that has shown superior biochemical, virological, and histological efficacy compared with lamivudine (LAM) in large phase III trials.2,3 Moreover, genotypic resistance to ETV is rare in NA-naïve