Treatment of severe recurrent hepatitis C after liver transplantation in HIV infected patients using sofosbuvir-based therapy.

BACKGROUND: For liver transplant recipients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) co-infection, recurrence after LT is associated with a higher risk of graft loss than for HCV mono-infected patients. Prior HCV treatment options were limited by side effects and drug-drug interactions. AIM: To evaluate treatment outcomes with sofosbuvir (SOF)-based therapy among HIV/HCV coinfected liver transplant recipients. METHODS: Access to SOF and ribavirin (RBV) prior to regulatory approval was attained via an international compassionate access program for transplant recipients with a life expectancy of 1 year or less in the absence of HCV treatment. This report focuses on the short and longer term outcomes in HCV-HIV co-infected liver transplant recipients. RESULTS: Twenty patients were treated, nine with early severe recurrence and 11 with cirrhosis. Eleven patients received SOF and RBV, one SOF, RBV and Peg-interferon, three SOF, RBV and simeprevir and five SOF, RBV and daclatasvir. Of the 18 patients who completed treatment, 16 (89%) achieved sustained virological response 12 weeks after the end of treatment (SVR12). Liver function tests (including bilirubin and albumin) improved significantly over time. Nineteen serious adverse events occurred in eight (40%) patients, none of them related to SOF. Two patients died during treatment and another, 1 year after the end of therapy, due to progressive end-stage liver disease. Importantly, HIV suppression was not compromised. No significant drug-drug interactions were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Sofosbuvir-based regimens are safe, well-tolerated and provide high rates of SVR in HCV-HIV co-infected patients with severe recurrence after-liver transplant.

Bedside assessment of sympathetic skin response after spinal cord injury: a brief report comparing inspiratory gasp and visual stimulus.

STUDY DESIGN: A case control study in five controls, and 20 tetraplegic and paraplegic patients, complete and incomplete. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to assess the feasibility of a simple test for sympathetic system preservation after spinal cord damage in a pain-free manner and which could be undertaken worldwide without specialist equipment or manpower. SETTINGS: Patients were attending the Southport Regional Spinal Injuries Centre, England, either as outpatients or as in-patients during rehabilitation. METHODS: The sympathetic skin response (SSR) was recorded on a single-channel ECG recorder from the right hand and right foot in turn after inspiratory gasp (IG) or visual stimulation. RESULTS: Unlike the visually evoked SSR, the gasp-evoked SSR was reliable, albeit of variable amplitude, and there was little difference between the hand and foot. Paraplegics had similar SSRs in the hands as the controls. There was minor insignificant habituation of response for the gasp reflex. There was occasional unexpected SSR distally in patients with complete lesions, and in patients with incomplete lesions the responses could not have been predicted from the sensory motor pattern. CONCLUSIONS: Trained IG induces an SSR which is sufficient to elucidate sympathetic loss following spinal cord injury. It is superior to visual stimulation in this respect. Habituation is not a problem with at least 1 min between tests, and high doses of anticholinergics agents may impair the response.