Hong Soo Kim

Bone marrow‐derived mesenchymal stem cell (BM‐MSC) transplantation has been suggested as an effective therapy for liver cirrhosis. The efficacy and safety of autologous BM‐MSC transplantation in the treatment of alcoholic cirrhosis were investigated. Seventy‐two patients with baseline biopsy‐proven alcoholic cirrhosis who had been alcohol‐abstinent for more than 6 months underwent a multicenter, randomized, open‐label, phase 2 trial. Patients were randomly assigned to three groups: one control group and two autologous BM‐MSC groups that underwent either one‐time or two‐time hepatic arterial injections of 5 × 10 7 BM‐MSCs 30 days after BM aspiration. A follow‐up biopsy was performed 6 months after enrollment, and adverse events were monitored for 12 months. The primary endpoint was improvement in fibrosis quantification based on picrosirius red staining. The secondary endpoints included liver function tests, Child‐Pugh score, and Model for End‐stage Liver Disease score. Outcomes were analyzed by per‐protocol analysis. In terms of fibrosis quantification (before versus after), the one‐time and two‐time BM‐MSC groups were associated with 25% (19.5 ± 9.5% versus 14.5 ± 7.1%) and 37% (21.1 ± 8.9% versus 13.2 ± 6.7%) reductions in the proportion of collagen, respectively ( P < 0.001). In the intergroup comparison, two‐time BM‐MSC transplantation in comparison with one‐time BM‐MSC transplantation was not associated with improved results in fibrosis quantification ( P > 0.05). The Child‐Pugh scores of both BM‐MSC groups (one‐time 7.6 ± 1.0 versus 6.3 ± 1.3 and two‐time 7.8 ± 1.2 versus 6.8 ± 1.6) were also significantly improved following BM‐MSC transplantation ( P < 0.05). The proportion of patients with adverse events did not differ among the three groups. Conclusion : Autologous BM‐MSC transplantation safely improved histologic fibrosis and liver function in patients with alcoholic cirrhosis. (H epatology 2016;64:2185‐2197)

UNLABELLED: Vasoactive drugs are recommended to be started as soon as possible in suspected variceal bleeding, even before diagnostic endoscopy. However, it is still unclear whether the therapeutic efficacies of the various vasoactive drugs used are comparable. The aim of this prospective, multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial was to characterize the effects of terlipressin, somatostatin, and octreotide when they are initiated before endoscopic treatment in patients with acute variceal bleeding. Patients with liver cirrhosis and significant upper gastrointestinal bleeding were randomly assigned to receive early administration of terlipressin, somatostatin, or octreotide, followed by endoscopic treatment. Patients with nonvariceal bleeding were excluded after endoscopy. The primary endpoint was 5-day treatment success, defined as control of bleeding without rescue treatment, rebleeding, or mortality, with a noninferiority margin of 0.1. In total, 780 patients with variceal bleeding were enrolled: 261 in the terlipressin group; 259 in the somatostatin group; and 260 in the octreotide group. At the time of initial endoscopy, active bleeding was noted in 43.7%, 44.4%, and 43.5% of these patients, respectively (P=0.748), and treatment success was achieved by day 5 in 86.2%, 83.4%, and 83.8% (P=0.636), with similar rates of control of bleeding without rescue treatment (89.7%, 87.6%, and 88.1%; P=0.752), rebleeding (3.4%, 4.8%, and 4.4%; P=0.739), or mortality (8.0%, 8.9%, and 8.8%; P=0.929). The absolute values of the lower bound of confidence intervals for terlipressin versus somatostatin, terlilpressin versus octreotide, and octreotide versus somatostatin were 0.095, 0.090, and 0.065, respectively. CONCLUSION: Hemostatic effects and safety did not differ significantly between terlipressin, somatostatin, and octreotide as adjuvants to endoscopic treatment in patients with acute gastroesophageal variceal bleeding.

Alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), Lens culinaris-agglutinin-reactive fraction of AFP (AFP-L3), and protein induced by vitamin K absence or antagonist-II (PIVKA-II) are widely used as tumor markers for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study compared the diagnostic values of AFP, AFP-L3, and PIVKA-II individually and in combination to find the best biomarker or biomarker panel.Seventy-nine patients with newly diagnosed HCC and 77 non-HCC control patients with liver cirrhosis were enrolled. AFP, AFP-L3, and PIVKA-II were measured in the same serum samples using microchip capillary electrophoresis and a liquid-phase binding assay on an automatic analyzer. Receiver-operating characteristic curve analyses were also applied to all combinations of the markers.When the 3 biomarkers were analyzed individually, AFP showed the largest area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) (0.751). For combinations of the biomarkers, the AUC was highest (0.765) for "PIVKA-II > 40 mAU/mL and AFP > 10 ng/mL." The combination of "PIVKA-II > 40 mAU/mL and AFP > 10 ng/mL and AFP-L3 > 10%" had worse sensitivity and lower AUC (P = 0.001). The highest AUC of a single biomarker was highest for AFP and of a combination was "PIVKA-II > 40 mAU/mL and AFP > 10 ng/mL," with this also being the case when the cut-off value of AFP and AFP-L3 was changed.Alpha-fetoprotein showed the best diagnostic performance as a single biomarker for HCC. The diagnostic value of AFP was improved by combining it with PIVKA-II, but adding AFP-L3 did not contribute to the ability to distinguish between HCC and non-HCC liver cirrhosis. These findings were not altered when the cut-off value of AFP and AFP-L3 was changed.

Table 1. Grading evidence and recommendations Evidence Notes High quality Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect A Moderate quality Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate B Low quality Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Any change of estimate is uncertain C Recommendation Notes Strong Factors influencing the strength of the recommendation included the quality of the evidence, presumed patient-important outcomes, and cost 1 Weak Variability in preferences and values, or more uncertainty. Recommendation is made with less certainty, higher cost or resource consumption 2