The aim of this study was to evaluate cenicriviroc (CVC), a dual antagonist of CC chemokine receptor types 2 and 5, for treatment of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) with liver fibrosis (LF). A randomized, double‐blind, multinational phase 2b study enrolled subjects with NASH, a nonalcoholic fatty liver disease activity score (NAS) ≥4, and LF (stages 1‐3, NASH Clinical Research Network) at 81 clinical sites. Subjects (N = 289) were randomly assigned CVC 150 mg or placebo. Primary outcome was ≥2‐point improvement in NAS and no worsening of fibrosis at year 1. Key secondary outcomes were: resolution of steatohepatitis (SH) and no worsening of fibrosis; improvement in fibrosis by ≥1 stage and no worsening of SH. Biomarkers of inflammation and adverse events were assessed. Full study recruitment was achieved. The primary endpoint of NAS improvement in the intent‐to‐treat population and resolution of SH was achieved in a similar proportion of subjects on CVC (N = 145) and placebo (N = 144; 16% vs. 19%, P = 0.52 and 8% vs. 6%, P = 0.49, respectively). However, the fibrosis endpoint was met in significantly more subjects on CVC than placebo (20% vs. 10%; P = 0.02). Treatment benefits were greater in those with higher disease activity and fibrosis stage at baseline. Biomarkers of systemic inflammation were reduced with CVC. Safety and tolerability of CVC were comparable to placebo. Conclusion: After 1 year of CVC treatment, twice as many subjects achieved improvement in fibrosis and no worsening of SH compared with placebo. Given the urgent need to develop antifibrotic therapies in NASH, these findings warrant phase 3 evaluation. (Hepatology 2018;67:1754‐1767).

Background and Aim: Decisions on public health issues are dependent on reliable epidemiological data. A comprehensive review of the literature was used to gather country‐specific data on risk factors, prevalence, number of diagnosed individuals and genotype distribution of the hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in selected European countries, Canada and Israel.Methodology: Data references were identified through indexed journals and non‐indexed sources. In this work, 13 000 articles were reviewed and 860 were selected based on their relevance.Results: Differences in prevalence were explained by local and regional variances in transmission routes or different public health measures. The lowest HCV prevalence (≤0.5%) estimates were from northern European countries and the highest (≥3%) were from Romania and rural areas in Greece, Italy and Russia. The main risk for HCV transmission in countries with well‐established HCV screening programmes and lower HCV prevalence was injection drug use, which was associated with younger age at the time of infection and a higher infection rate among males. In other regions, contaminated glass syringes and nosocomial infections continue to play an important role in new infections. Immigration from endemic countries was another factor impacting the total number of infections and the genotype distribution. Approximately 70% of cases in Israel, 37% in Germany and 33% in Switzerland were not born in the country. In summary, HCV epidemiology shows a high variability across Europe, Canada and Israel.Conclusion: Despite the eradication of transmission by blood products, HCV infection continues to be one of the leading blood‐borne infections in the region.

Peginterferon alfa‐2a results in a sustained response (SR) in a minority of patients with hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)–negative chronic hepatitis B (CHB). This study investigated the role of early on‐treatment serum hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) levels in the prediction of SR in HBeAg‐negative patients receiving peginterferon alfa‐2a. HBsAg (Architect from Abbott) was quantified at the baseline and during treatment (weeks 4, 8, 12, 24, 36, and 48) and follow‐up (weeks 60 and 72) in the sera from 107 patients who participated in an international multicenter trial (peginterferon alfa‐2a, n = 53, versus peginterferon alfa‐2a and ribavirin, n = 54). Overall, 24 patients (22%) achieved SR [serum hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA level < 10,000 copies/mL and normal alanine aminotransferase levels at week 72]. Baseline characteristics were comparable between sustained responders and nonresponders. From week 8 onward, serum HBsAg levels markedly decreased in sustained responders, whereas only a modest decline was observed in nonresponders. However, HBsAg declines alone were of limited value in the prediction of SR [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) at weeks 4, 8, and 12 = 0.59, 0.56, and 0.69, respectively]. Combining the declines in HBsAg and HBV DNA allowed the best prediction of SR (AUC at week 12 = 0.74). None of the 20 patients (20% of the study population) in whom a decrease in serum HBsAg levels was absent and whose HBV DNA levels declined less than 2 log copies/mL exhibited an SR (negative predictive value = 100%). Conclusion: At week 12 of peginterferon alfa‐2a treatment for HBeAg‐negative CHB, a solid stopping rule was established with a combination of declines in serum HBV DNA and HBsAg levels from the baseline. Quantitative serum HBsAg in combination with HBV DNA enables on‐treatment adjustments of peginterferon therapy for HBeAg‐negative CHB. (HEPATOLOGY 2010)

Entecavir (ETV) is a potent inhibitor of hepatitis B viral replication, but long‐term therapy may be required. We investigated whether adding on pegylated interferon (Peg‐IFN) to ETV therapy enhances serological response rates. In this global investigator‐initiated, open‐label, multicenter, randomized trial, hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)‐positive chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients with compensated liver disease started on ETV monotherapy (0.5 mg/day) and were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either Peg‐IFN add‐on therapy (180 µg/week) from week 24 to 48 (n = 85) or to continue ETV monotherapy (n = 90). Response was defined as HBeAg loss with HBV DNA <200 IU/mL at week 48. Responders discontinued ETV at week 72. All patients were followed until week 96. Response was achieved in 16 of 85 (19%) patients allocated to the add‐on arm versus 9 of 90 (10%) in the monotherapy arm (P = 0.095). Adjusted for HBV DNA levels before randomized therapy, Peg‐IFN add‐on was significantly associated with response (odds ratio: 4.8; 95% confidence interval: 1.6‐14.0; P = 0.004). Eleven (13%) of the add‐on‐treated patients achieved disease remission after ETV cessation versus 2 of 90 (2%) of those treated with monotherapy (P = 0.007), which was 79% (11 of 14) versus 25% (2 of 8) of those who discontinued ETV (P = 0.014). At week 96, 22 (26%) patients assigned add‐on versus 12 (13%) assigned monotherapy achieved HBeAg seroconversion (P = 0.036). Peg‐IFN add‐on led to significantly more decline in hepatitis B surface antigen, HBeAg, and HBV DNA (all P < 0.001). Combination therapy was well tolerated. Conclusion: Although the primary endpoint was not reached, 24 weeks of Peg‐IFN add‐on therapy led to a higher proportion of HBeAg response, compared to ETV monotherapy. Add‐on therapy resulted in more viral decline and appeared to prevent relapse after stopping ETV. Hence, Peg‐IFN add‐on therapy may facilitate the discontinuation of nucleos(t)ide analogs. (Hepatology 2015;61:1512–1522)

COVID-19 vaccinations are about to begin in various countries or are already ongoing. This is an unprecedented operation that is also met with a loud response from anti-vaccine communities—currently using all available channels to manipulate public opinion. At the same time, the strategy to educate on vaccinations, explain their mechanism of action, and build trust in science is subdued in different world parts. Such actions should go much beyond campaigns promoting the COVID-19 vaccines solely on the information provided by the health institutions and national authorities. In this paper, actions provided by independent expert groups needed to counteract the anti-vaccine propaganda and provide scientific-based information to the general public are offered. These actions encompass organizing groups continuously communicating science on COVID-19 vaccines to the general public; tracking and tackling emerging and circulating fake news; and equipping celebrities and politicians with scientific information to ensure the quality of messages they communicate, as well as public letters, and statements of support for vaccination by healthcare workers, recognized scientists, VIPs, and scientific societies; and no tolerance to false and manipulated claims on vaccination spread via traditional and social media as well as by health professionals, scientists, and academics. These activities should be promptly implemented worldwide, regardless of the current status and availability of the COVID-19 vaccine in a particular region. If we are about to control the pandemic for the sake of public benefit, it is high time to collectively speak out as academic and medical societies with support from decision-makers. Otherwise, the battle will be lost to those who stand against scientific evidence while offering no feasible solution to the problem.