Background and AimTo investigate the impact of a sustained virological response (SVR) to hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment on liver stiffness (LS).MethodsLS, measured by transient elastography (FibroScan), demographic and laboratory data of patients treated with interferon (IFN)-containing or IFN-free regimens who had an SVR24 (undetectable HCV viral load 24 weeks after the end of treatment) were analyzed using two-tailed paired t-tests, Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon Signed-rank tests and linear regression. Two time intervals were investigated: pre-treatment to SVR24 and SVR24 to the end of follow-up. LS scores ≥ 12.5 kPa indicated LS-defined cirrhosis. A p-value below 0.05 was considered statistically significant.ResultsThe median age of the patients (n = 100) was 60 years [IQR (interquartile range) 54–64); 72% were male; 60% were Caucasian; and 42% had cirrhosis pre-treatment according to the FibroScan measurement. The median LS score dropped from 10.40 kPa (IQR: 7.25–18.60) pre-treatment to 7.60 kPa (IQR: 5.60–12.38) at SVR24, p <0.01. Among the 42 patients with LS-defined cirrhosis pre-treatment, 25 (60%) of patients still had LS scores ≥ 12.5 kPa at SVR24, indicating the persistence of cirrhosis. The median change in LS was similar in patients receiving IFN-containing and IFN-free regimens: -1.95 kPa (IQR: -5.75 –-0.38) versus -2.40 kPa (IQR: -7.70 –-0.23), p = 0.74. Among 56 patients with a post-SVR24 LS measurement, the LS score changed by an additional -0.90 kPa (IQR: -2.98–0.5) during a median follow-up time of 1.17 (IQR: 0.88–1.63) years, which was not a statistically significant decrease (p = 0.99).ConclusionsLS decreased from pre-treatment to SVR24, but did not decrease significantly during additional follow-up. Earlier treatment may be needed to reduce the burden of liver disease.

Contrary to the only two previously published studies, the low prevalence of CD that we found does not suggest that concurrent CD is a common cause of gastrointestinal complaints in SSc patients.

No abstract

One expression of structural injustice in the United States is delivery of health care according to patients' race and insurance status. This de facto segregation in academic health centers limits community organizations' and leaders' capacity to dismantle racism and undermines health equity. This commentary on a case considers this problem, argues why academic health centers are ethically obliged to respond, and offers strategies to do so.Case PR is a community organizer who lives in a historically Black neighborhood in a large city near a prominent academic health center (AHC). Despite PR's community's proximity to this AHC, PR and other community members do not seek care there if they can avoid doing so, since they do not generally feel it is "meant for us." PR and others in the community know that world-class clinicians practice at this AHC and that wealthy people from all over the world come to see them. Neither PR nor PR's neighbors have ever seen a physician in this AHC, but they have received care at the AHC's clinics that are staffed by trainees and students who are "volunteering" and doing "service learning."