COVID-19 in liver transplant recipients: incidence, hospitalization and outcome in an Italian prospective double-centre study

Liver transplant (LT) recipients are vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2-infection (COVID-19), due to immunosuppression and comorbidities. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on LT recipients compared to general population in the Campania region. In this prospective double-centre study, we enrolled all consecutive adult LT recipients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2-infection. Data were collected at diagnosis of COVID-19 and during follow-up and compared with the regional population. Thirty LT recipients (3.28%) developed SARS-CoV-2-infection (76.66% male, median age 62.61 years). Sixteen (53.33%) were symptomatic. Common symptoms were fever, cough, fatigue, and anosmia. Twenty-five (83.33%) were outpatients, 5 (16.66%) required hospitalization (6.66% admitted to Intensive Care Unit, 6.62% developed Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome and 6.66% died). Immunosuppressors were in 3 (10%) patients. Incidence rate of COVID-19 was similar between LT patients and general population (3.28% vs 4.37%, p = 0.142) with higher rate of symptoms in LT patients (53.33% vs 15.87%, p < 0.000). At univariate analysis, hospitalization and case fatality rates were higher in LT patients compared to general population (16.66% vs 4.54%, p = 0.001; and 6.66% vs 1.76%, p = 0.041, respectively). At multivariable logistic regression analysis, LT patients with COVID-19 were more frequently symptomatic (OR 5.447 [95% CI 2.437–12.177], p < 0.000), whereas hospitalization and death for COVID-19 were not significatively associated with LT condition (p = 0.724 and p = 0.462, respectively) and were comparable with general population. LT is not a risk factor for acquiring COVID-19. Nonetheless, LT patients are more frequently symptomatic, although comparable to the general population for hospitalization rate and mortality.

Real-Life Clinical Data of Lenvatinib versus Sorafenib for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Italy

Background

Lenvatinib has been approved in Italy since October 2019 as a first-line therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and to date data on effectiveness and safety of lenvatinib are not available in our region. To fill this gap, we performed a multicentric analysis of the real-world treatment outcomes with the propensity score matching in a cohort of Italian patients with unresectable HCC who were treated with either sorafenib or lenvatinib.

Aims and Methods

To evaluate the effectiveness of sorafenib and lenvatinib as primary treatment of advanced HCC in clinical practice we performed a multicentric analysis of the treatment outcomes of 288 such patients recruited in 11 centers in Italy. A propensity score was used to mitigate confounding due to referral biases in the assessment of mortality and progression-free survival.

Results

Over a follow-up period of 11 months the Cox regression model showed 48% reduction of death risk for patients treated with lenvatinib (95% CI: 0.34-0.81; p = 0.0034), compared with those treated with sorafenib. The median PFS was 9.0 and 4.9 months for lenvatinib and sorafenib arm, respectively. Patients treated with lenvatinib showed a higher percentage of response rate (29.4% vs 2.8%; p < 0.00001) compared with patients treated with sorafenib. Sorafenib was shown to be correlated with more HFSR, diarrhea and fatigue, while lenvatinib with more hypertension and fatigue.

Conclusion

Our study highlighted for the first time the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib in an Italian cohort of patients.

Hepatitis C screening in the Emergency Department of a large hospital in southern Italy: results of a pilot study

Around 71 million people worldwide are chronically infected with hepatitis C. HCV prevalence among individuals born in the United States between 1945 and 1965 is estimated to be about 3%. In Italy, about 2% of the population is chronically infected with HCV. Since chronic HCV infection is often asymptomatic, many patients require access to medical care only in an advanced phase of the disease. The best strategy for bringing out hidden chronic HCV infection remains uncertain. The aim of the study was to evaluate the feasibility of an FDA-approved rapid salivary, point-of-care (POC) assay for anti-HCV, performed in patients aged between 45 and 80 years old who were referred to the emergency department of a large hospital in southern Italy and were all unaware of their HCV serostatus. In all, 966 patients were interviewed during the study period. Among them, 220 patients were enrolled. Notably, 25/588 (4%) reported to be anti-HCV positive. Of these, 19 were already being treated with direct-acting antivirals (DAA). Among the enrolled patients, two (0.9%) tested anti-HCV positive and 218 (99.1%) were negative at screening. Both patients with a positive test were male, below the age of 54, with a previous history of intravenous drug abuse, a low level of education, and who had had at least one experience of unprotected sex. We scheduled a visit for treatment evaluation for every positive patient who was not on treatment. Neither of the two de novo patients and 3/6 (50%) patients who were aware of their anti-HCV positivity came to the follow-up visit. Our study shows that a screening strategy for HCV infection in ED is feasible and that about 1% of patients attending the ED and who are unaware of their conditions are anti-HCV positive. Moreover, a non-negligible proportion of subjects, though aware of their condition, was not linked to any hepatologic center.

Development and validation of a questionnaire evaluating the impact of hepatitis B immune globulin prophylaxis on the quality of life of liver transplant recipients

To date, there is still a lack of instruments for specifically assessing the impact of anti-hepatitis B virus prophylaxis after liver transplantation (LT) on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and treatment satisfaction. Focusing on the use of hepatitis B immune globulin (HBIG), we developed and validated the Immunoglobulin Therapy After Liver Transplantation Questionnaire (ITaLi-Q), which includes 41 items and covers 5 domains (side effects, positive and negative feelings, impact on the flexibility of daily activities, support, and satisfaction). The questionnaire was tested by 177 consecutive LT patients [71.8% were male, 38.4% were more than 60 years old, 58.8% were on intramuscular (IM) HBIG, and 41.2% were on intravenous (IV) HBIG]. A factor analysis confirmed the hypothesized structure, and a multitrait, multi-item analysis showed favorable psychometric characteristics for ITaLi-Q: item-scale correlations > 0.40 for all items but 1, high scaling success rates (>90% for all scales but 1), excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's α ≥ 0.8 for all scales), and good reproducibility (test-retest coefficient > 0.70 for all scales but 2). ITaLi-Q was able to discriminate between subgroups of patients according to their clinical and sociodemographic characteristics. In comparison with patients on IV HBIG, patients on IM HBIG reported significantly better HRQOL scores on the Flexibility (81.5 ± 21.4 versus 73.1 ± 24.2, P = 0.01) and Negative Feelings scales (90.1 ± 17.3 versus 85.4 ± 20.7, P = 0.04), but they reported worse HRQOL scores on the Side Effects scale (81.8 ± 22.8 versus 95.6 ± 7.4, P < 0.001). No differences were found between the route of HBIG administration and the Satisfaction, Positive Feelings, Impact, and Support scales. In conclusion, ITaLi-Q showed adequate psychometric characteristics and revealed that the route of HBIG administration has a significant impact on specific HRQOL domains beyond a patient's satisfaction.