Comparison of miRNA quantitation by Nanostring in serum and plasma samples.

Circulating microRNAs that are associated with specific diseases have garnered much attention for use in diagnostic assays. However, detection of disease-associated miRNA can be affected by several factors such as release of contaminating cellular miRNA during sample collection, variations due to amplification of transcript for detection, or controls used for normalization for accurate quantitation. We analyzed circulating miRNA in serum and plasma samples obtained concurrently from 28 patients, using a Nanostring quantitative assay platform. Total RNA concentration ranged from 32-125 µg/ml from serum and 30-220 µg/ml from plasma. Of 798 miRNAs, 371 miRNAs were not detected in either serum or plasma samples. 427 were detected in either serum or plasma but not both, whereas 151 miRNA were detected in both serum and plasma samples. The diversity of miRNA detected was greater in plasma than in serum samples. In serum samples, the number of detected miRNA ranged from 3 to 82 with a median of 17, whereas in plasma samples, the number of miRNA detected ranged from 25 to 221 with a median of 91. Several miRNA such as miR451a, miR 16-5p, miR-223-3p, and mir25-3p were highly abundant and differentially expressed between serum and plasma. The detection of endogenous and exogenous control miRNAs varied in serum and plasma, with higher levels observed in plasma. Gene expression stability identified candidate invariant microRNA that were highly stable across all samples, and could be used for normalization. In conclusion, there are significant differences in both the number of miRNA detected and the amount of miRNA detected between serum and plasma. Normalization using miRNA with constant expression is essential to minimize the impact of technical variations. Given the challenges involved, ideal candidates for blood based biomarkers would be those that are indifferent to type of body fluid, are detectable and can be reliably quantitated.

Multicenter experience using simeprevir and sofosbuvir with or without ribavirin to treat hepatitis C genotype 1 in patients with cirrhosis.

UNLABELLED: Interferon (IFN)-free regimens are needed to treat hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. Combined simeprevir (SMV) and sofosbuvir (SOF) with or without ribavirin (RBV) results in high sustained virological response (SVR) rates along with minimal adverse events (AEs) in patients with hepatitis C genotype 1 (HCV GT1). The aim of this study was to report on the virological response, safety, and tolerability of SOF and SMV with or without RBV in compensated and decompensated patients with cirrhosis with HCV GT1 infection. Patients treated with standardized clinical protocol utilizing SMV+SOF with or without RBV at three transplant centers were retrospectively reviewed. A total of 119 patients (61% male, 87% white, 69% subtype 1a, 30% Child-Pugh-Turcott [CPT]-B liver cirrhosis [LC], and 82% were treatment experienced) received treatment and were followed for a median of 38 weeks (range, 12-58). Sustained virological response (SVR) at week 12 (SVR12) was achieved in 78% (92 of 118) of patients (95% confidence interval: 69-85). Lower pretreatment Model for End Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score was a predictor of SVR12 (P = 0.018). Baseline viral load, previous treatment status, RBV use, or GT1 subtype did not impact SVR 12. The majority of patients with SVR12 showed stability or improvement in MELD score. Treatment was very well tolerated with mild degrees of AEs. CONCLUSIONS: The regimen of SMV+SOF with or without RBV for 12 weeks was very well tolerated and resulted in high SVR12 rates (78%) in HCV GT1 patients with LC. SVR12 was inversely related to pretreatment MELD. SVR12 had favorable short-term impact on MELD score. Long-term impact on disease stability is yet to be determined. Longer treatment duration or the use of different regimen may still be needed in this population.

Multicenter experience using simeprevir and sofosbuvir with or without ribavirin to treat hepatitis C genotype 1 after liver transplant.

UNLABELLED: Treatment with an all-oral interferon-free antiviral regimen using simeprevir and sofosbuvir with or without ribavirin (RBV) for 12 weeks resulted in high sustained virologic response (SVR) rates along with minimal adverse events in non-liver transplant (LT) patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 infection. This is the first multicenter report on the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of this regimen in LT recipients. A total of 123 patients (76% male, 74% white, 60% genotype 1a, 30% METAVIR F3-F4, 4% decompensation, 11% cholestatic recurrence, 7% had kidney transplant, and 82% previously failed pegylated interferon/RBV-based regimens) received treatment and were followed for a median of 30 weeks (range 12-53 weeks). The median time from LT to treatment was 32 months (range 2-317 months). Tacrolimus was the primary immunosuppression in 91% of patients. Minimal immunosuppression dose adjustments were required. An SVR 12 weeks after treatment completion (SVR12) was achieved in 90% of patients (95% confidence interval 84%-96%). In patients with genotype 1a infection, the SVR12 rate was significantly lower in those with METAVIR F3-F4 (71%) compared to those with F0-F2 (91%). Half of the patients achieved undetected HCV RNA at treatment week 4, and their SVR12 rate was significantly higher (96%) compared to those with detectable HCV RNA (83%). Treatment was very well tolerated with mild degrees of adverse events, except for one death possibly due to drug-induced lung injury. In the 25 patients who received RBV, 72% developed anemia requiring intervention. CONCLUSION: An all-oral interferon-free antiviral regimen using simeprevir and sofosbuvir with or without RBV for 12 weeks was very well tolerated and resulted in excellent SVR12 rates in LT recipients with HCV genotype 1 infection.

Multicenter experience using telaprevir or boceprevir with peginterferon and ribavirin to treat hepatitis C genotype 1 after liver transplantation.

The safety, efficacy, and effect on immunosuppression levels of telaprevir (TVR) or boceprevir (BOC) in combination with peginterferon (PEG-IFN) and ribavirin (RBV) in recipients of liver transplantation (LT) with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 have not been defined. We report our 3 centers' preliminary experiences with administering triple antiviral treatment protocols containing PEG-IFN, RBV, and TVR or BOC. Patients with biopsy-proven HCV recurrence (METAVIR grade ≥ 3 and/or stage ≥ 2) received TVR with PEG-IFN/RBV for 12 weeks and then PEG-IFN/RBV for 36 weeks or BOC with PEG-IFN/RBV for 44 weeks after 4 weeks of lead-in PEG-IFN/RBV. Maintenance immunosuppression was changed to cyclosporine whenever possible, and the levels were followed closely. PEG-IFN/RBV dose adjustments were based on patients' tolerance. Sixty patients started triple antiviral treatment, and they were followed for up to 66 weeks (mean = 35 weeks); all were followed at least 12 weeks. Thirty of the 35 patients treated with TVR (86%) achieved undetectable HCV RNA levels after an average of 6 weeks, whereas 12 patients (48%) in the BOC-treated group achieved undetectable HCV RNA levels after a mean of 11 weeks. According to an intention-to-treat analysis, 14 of 21 TVR-treated patients (67%) and 10 of 22 patients who received BOC (45%) achieved undetectable HCV RNA levels at week 24 without viral breakthrough at the last follow-up. Cytopenias complicated both regimens; all patients required dose reductions of PEG-IFN and/or RBV or the administration of hematological growth factors. One death occurred in each group on triple antiviral treatment. In conclusion, TVR or BOC combined with PEG-IFN/RBV achieved on-treatment virological response rates of approximately 50% to 60% in patients with recurrent HCV after LT, but significant side effects were common.