Assessment of indicators of vitamin A status in non-cirrhotic chronic hepatitis C patients

Subjects with chronic liver disease are susceptible to hypovitaminosis A due to several factors. Therefore, identifying patients with vitamin deficiency and a requirement for vitamin supplementation is important. Most studies assessing vitamin A in the context of hepatic disorders are conducted using cirrhotic patients. A cross-sectional study was conducted in 43 non-cirrhotic patients with chronic hepatitis C to evaluate markers of vitamin A status represented by serum retinol, liver retinol, and serum retinol-binding protein levels. We also performed the relative dose-response test, which provides an indirect estimate of hepatic vitamin A reserves. These vitamin A indicators were assessed according to the stage of liver fibrosis using the METAVIR score and the body mass index. The sample study was predominantly composed of male subjects (63%) with mild liver fibrosis (F1). The relative dose-response test was <20% in all subjects, indicating vitamin A sufficiency. Overweight or obese patients had higher serum retinol levels than those with a normal body mass index (2.6 and 1.9 µmol/L, respectively; P<0.01). Subjects with moderate liver fibrosis (F2) showed lower levels of serum retinol (1.9 vs 2.5 µmol/L, P=0.01) and retinol-binding protein levels compared with those with mild fibrosis (F1) (46.3 vs 67.7 µg/mL, P<0.01). These results suggested an effect of being overweight on serum retinol levels. Furthermore, more advanced stages of liver fibrosis were related to a decrease in serum vitamin A levels.

Comparison of the effectiveness of initial combined antiretroviral therapy with nelfinavir or efavirenz at a university-based outpatient service in Brazil

Since there are some concerns about the effectiveness of highly active antiretroviral therapy in developing countries, we compared the initial combination antiretroviral therapy with zidovudine and lamivudine plus either nelfinavir or efavirenz at a university-based outpatient service in Brazil. This was a retrospective comparative cohort study carried out in a tertiary level hospital. A total of 194 patients receiving either nelfinavir or efavirenz were identified through our electronic database search, but only 126 patients met the inclusion criteria. Patients were included if they were older than 18 years old, naive for antiretroviral therapy, and had at least 1 follow-up visit after starting the antiretroviral regimen. Fifty-one of the included patients were receiving a nelfinavir-based regimen and 75 an efavirenz-based regimen as outpatients. Antiretroviral therapy was prescribed to all patients according to current guidelines. By intention-to-treat (missing/switch = failure), after a 12-month period, 65 percent of the patients in the efavirenz group reached a viral load <400 copies/mL compared to 41 percent of the patients in the nelfinavir group (P = 0.01). The mean CD4 cell count increase after a 12-month period was also greater in the efavirenz group (195 x 10(6) cells/L) than in the nelfinavir group (119 x 10(6) cells/L; P = 0.002). The efavirenz-based regimen was superior compared to the nelfinavir-based regimen. The low response rate in the nelfinavir group might be partially explained by the difficulty of using a regimen requiring a higher patient compliance (12 vs 3 pills a day) in a developing country.