Obesity and metabolic syndrome are considered as responsible for a condition known as the non-alcoholic fatty liver disease that goes from simple accumulation of triglycerides to hepatic inflammation and may progress to cirrhosis. Patients with obesity also have an increased risk of primary liver malignancies and increased body mass index is a predictor of decompensation of liver cirrhosis. Sarcopenic obesity confers a risk of physical impairment and disability that is significantly higher than the risk induced by each of the two conditions alone as it has been shown to be an independent risk factor for chronic liver disease in patients with obesity and a prognostic negative marker for the evolution of liver cirrhosis and the results of liver transplantation. Cirrhotic patients with obesity are at high risk for depletion of various fat-soluble, water-soluble vitamins and trace elements and should be supplemented appropriately. Diet, physical activity and protein intake should be carefully monitored in these fragile patients according to recent recommendations. Bariatric surgery is sporadically used in patients with morbid obesity and cirrhosis also in the setting of liver transplantation. The risk of sarcopenia, micronutrient status, and the recommended supplementation in patients with obesity and cirrhosis are discussed in this review. Furthermore, the indications and contraindications of bariatric surgery-induced weight loss in the cirrhotic patient with obesity are discussed.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a common and deadly malignancy. The disease usually develops on a background of chronic liver disease. Until recently, the most common etiology was infection with the hepatitis C virus (HCV). The advent of direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapies has been a major breakthrough in HCV treatment. Sustained virologic response can now be achieved in almost all treated patients, even in patients with a high risk for the development of HCC, such as the elderly or those with significant fibrosis. Early reports raised concerns of a high risk for HCC occurrence after DAA therapy both in patients with previous resection of tumors and those without previous tumors. As the World Health Organization’s goals for eradication of HCV are being endorsed worldwide, the elimination of HCV seems feasible. Simultaneous to the decrease in the burden of cirrhosis from HCV, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) incidence has been increasing dramatically including significant increased incidence of cirrhosis and HCC in these patients. Surprisingly, a substantial proportion of patients with NAFLD were shown to develop HCC even in the absence of cirrhosis. Furthermore, HCC treatment and potential complications are known to be influenced by liver steatosis. These changes in etiology and epidemiology of HCC suggest the beginning of a new era: The post–HCV era. Changes may eventually undermine current practices of early detection, surveillance and management of HCC. We focused on the risk of HCC occurrence and recurrence in the post–HCV era, the surveillance needed after DAA therapy and current studies in HCC patients with NAFLD.

No abstract

Background: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is a leading cause of chronic liver disease and hepatocellular carcinoma. Treatment with first generation protease inhibitors (PI) + peg-interferon (pegIFN) and ribavirin (RBV) achieved sustained virologic response (SVR) rates of 65-75% but was associated with multiple side effects. The aim of this study was to evaluate safety and efficacy of Ombitasvir/Paritaprevir/Ritonavir and Dasabuvir (3D) ± RBV in HCV genotype 1 patients that failed previous treatment with first generation PIs. Methods: An investigator-initiated, open-label, multi-centre clinical trial. HCV Genotype 1 patients who were previously null/partial responders or relapsers to telaprevir, boceprevir or simepravir+pegIFN/RBV and met eligibility criteria were included. 3D ± RBV were administrated for 12 or 24 weeks according to label. The primary outcome was antiviral response (SVR12); Secondary outcomes were patient reported outcomes, adverse events and resistance associated variants. Results: Thirty-nine patients initiated treatment according to study protocol (59% men, age 54.0 ± 8.7 years, BMI 28.7 ± 4.5 kg/m 2). Thirty-seven (94.9%) completed the study. Thirty-five patients had genotype 1b (9 cirrhotics) and 4 had genotype 1a (2 cirrhotics). Intention-to-treat SVR12 was 92.3% and per-protocol SVR12 was 97.3%. The rate of advanced fibrosis (FibroScan® score F3-4) declined from 46.2 to 25.7% (P = 0.045). Abnormal ALT levels declined from 84.6 to 8.6% (P < 0.001). Seven patients (17.9%) experienced serious adverse events (3 Psychiatric admissions, 1 pneumonia, 1 ankle fracture, 2 palpitations), and 12 patients (30.8%) experienced self-reported adverse events, mostly weakness. Conclusion: 3D ± RBV is safe and effective in achieving SVR among patients with HCV genotype 1 who failed previous first-generation PI treatment.