Hepatitis: USA

Strader DB, Wright T, Thomas DL, Seeff LB, Anonymous00224. · Fletcher Allen Health Care University of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington, VA, USA. · Hepatology. · Pubmed #15057920 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Lok AS, McMahon BJ, Anonymous00061. · Division of Gastroenterology, University of Michigan Medical Center, 3912 Taubman Center, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0362, USA. · Hepatology. · Pubmed #14999707 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Masur H, Kaplan JE, Holmes KK, Anonymous00122, Anonymous00123. · National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. · Ann Intern Med. · Pubmed #12617574 No free full text.

Abstract: In 1995, the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) developed guidelines for preventing opportunistic infections (OIs) among persons infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV); these guidelines were updated in 1997 and 1999. This fourth edition of the guidelines, made available on the Internet in 2001, is intended for clinicians and other health-care providers who care for HIV-infected persons. The goal of these guidelines is to provide evidence-based guidelines for preventing OIs among HIV-infected adults and adolescents, including pregnant women, and HIV-exposed or infected children. Nineteen OIs, or groups of OIs, are addressed, and recommendations are included for preventing exposure to opportunistic pathogens, preventing first episodes of disease by chemoprophylaxis or vaccination (primary prophylaxis), and preventing disease recurrence (secondary prophylaxis). Major changes since the last edition of the guidelines include 1) updated recommendations for discontinuing primary and secondary OI prophylaxis among persons whose CD4+ T lymphocyte counts have increased in response to antiretroviral therapy; 2) emphasis on screening all HIV-infected persons for infection with hepatitis C virus; 3) new information regarding transmission of human herpesvirus 8 infection; 4) new information regarding drug interactions, chiefly related to rifamycins and antiretroviral drugs; and 5) revised recommendations for immunizing HIV-infected adults and adolescents and HIV-exposed or infected children.

Weinbaum C, Lyerla R, Margolis HS, Anonymous00281. · Division of Viral Hepatitis, National Center for Infectious Diseases, USA. · MMWR Recomm Rep. · Pubmed #12562146 links to  free full text

Abstract: This report consolidates previous recommendations and adds new ones for preventing and controlling infections with hepatitis viruses in correctional settings. These recommendations provide guidelines for juvenile and adult correctional systems regarding 1) identification and investigation of acute viral hepatitis; 2) preexposure and postexposure immunization for hepatitis A and hepatitis B; 3) prevention of hepatitis C virus infection and its consequences; 4) health education; and 5) release planning. Implementation of these recommendations can reduce transmission of infections with hepatitis viruses among adults at risk in both correctional facilities and the outside community. These recommendations were developed after consultation with other federal agencies and specialists in the fields of corrections, correctional health care, and public health at a meeting in Atlanta, March 5-7, 2001. This report can serve as a resource for those involved in planning and implementing health-care programs for incarcerated persons.

Czaja AJ, Freese DK, Anonymous00040. · Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic and Mayo Foundation, Rochester, MN 55905, USA. · Hepatology. · Pubmed #12143059 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Kaplan JE, Masur H, Holmes KK, Anonymous00119, Anonymous00120. · Division of AIDS, STD, and TB Laboratory Research, National Center for Infectious Diseases, USA. · MMWR Recomm Rep. · Pubmed #12081007 links to  free full text

Abstract: In 1995, the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) developed guidelines for preventing opportunistic infections (OIs) among persons infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV); these guidelines were updated in 1997 and 1999. This fourth edition of the guidelines, made available on the Internet in 2001, is intended for clinicians and other health-care providers who care for HIV-infected persons. The goal of these guidelines is to provide evidence-based guidelines for preventing OIs among HIV-infected adults and adolescents, including pregnant women, and HIV-exposed or infected children. Nineteen OIs, or groups of OIs, are addressed, and recommendations are included for preventing exposure to opportunistic pathogens, preventing first episodes of disease by chemoprophylaxis or vaccination (primary prophylaxis), and preventing disease recurrence (secondary prophylaxis). Major changes since the last edition of the guidelines include 1) updated recommendations for discontinuing primary and secondary OI prophylaxis among persons whose CD4+ T lymphocyte counts have increased in response to antiretroviral therapy; 2) emphasis on screening all HIV-infected persons for infection with hepatitis C virus; 3) new information regarding transmission of human herpesvirus 8 infection; 4) new information regarding drug interactions, chiefly related to rifamycins and antiretroviral drugs; and 5) revised recommendations for immunizing HIV-infected adults and adolescents and HIV-exposed or infected children.

Lok AS, McMahon BJ, Anonymous00237. · Division of Gastroenterology, University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA. · Hepatology. · Pubmed #11732013 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Rangel MC, Coronado VG, Euler GL, Strikas RA. · Adult Vaccine Preventable Diseases Branch, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, USA. · Semin Dial. · Pubmed #10795113 No free full text.

Abstract: Pediatric patients on dialysis should receive all the vaccines currently recommended by the ACIP and the AAP for healthy children, except the oral polio vaccine (34, 35). Adult patients should receive the hepatitis B vaccine series, pneumococcal vaccine, yearly influenza vaccinations, tetanus-diphtheria toxoids, and varicella vaccine, if they are susceptible (33, 48, 69). Vaccines are well tolerated by these patients (33), but higher doses and/or additional boosters may be required periodically to adequately protect dialysis patients from vaccine-preventable diseases (33, 36, 37, 82, 83). Following vaccination, antibody concentrations for hepatitis B vaccine should be measured annually and booster doses administered when antibody concentrations fall below protective levels (33, 38). Although both children and adults on dialysis may show an impaired and/or delayed immunologic response to certain antigens, particularly hepatitis B virus and S. pneumoniae, appropriate immunizations can significantly reduce the risk of serious complications from vaccine-preventable diseases (11, 84). Because the protection these vaccines provide may be incomplete or transient, infection control strategies at hospitals and other health care facilities should be implemented simultaneously. Health care providers are encouraged to assess each patients need for vaccinations individually and formulate immunization strategies early in the course of progressive renal disease, ideally before the patient requires dialysis.

DeCastro MG, Denys GA, Fauerbach LL, Ferranti JK, Hawkins K, Masters LC, Rimland D, Sharbaugh RJ, Zeller J. · APIC, Washington, DC 20036, USA. · Am J Infect Control. · Pubmed #9949378 No free full text.

Abstract: The Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc (APIC), is a multidisciplinary, voluntary, international organization of professionals who practice infection control and the application of epidemiology in all health settings. APIC is an international leader in prevention and control of infection transmission.

Laurence J. · Laboratory for AIDS Virus Research, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, USA. · AIDS Read. · Pubmed #19062396 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Treisman GJ. · Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. · AIDS Read. · Pubmed #18770901 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Razonable RR. · Division of Infectious Diseases, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA. · World J Gastroenterol. · Pubmed #18756591 links to  free full text

Abstract: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is a common viral pathogen that influences the outcome of liver transplantation. In addition to the direct effects of CMV syndrome and tissue-invasive diseases, CMV is associated with an increased predisposition to acute and chronic allograft rejection, accelerated hepatitis C recurrence, and other opportunistic infections, as well as reduced overall patient and allograft survival. Risk factors for CMV disease are often interrelated, and include CMV D+/R- serostatus, acute rejection, female gender, age, use of high-dose mycophenolate mofetil and prednisone, and the overall state of immunity. In addition to the role of CMV-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T lymphocytes, there are data to suggest that functionality of the innate immune system contributes to CMV disease pathogenesis. In one study, liver transplant recipients with a specific polymorphism in innate immune molecules known as Toll-like receptors were more likely to develop higher levels of CMV replication and clinical disease. Because of the direct and indirect adverse effects of CMV disease, its prevention, whether through antiviral prophylaxis or preemptive therapy, is an essential component in improving the outcome of liver transplantation. In the majority of transplant centers, antiviral prophylaxis is the preferred strategy over preemptive therapy for the prevention of CMV disease in CMV-seronegative recipients of liver allografts from CMV-seropositive donors (D+/R-). However, the major drawback of antiviral prophylaxis is the occurrence of delayed-onset primary CMV disease. In several prospective and retrospective studies, the incidence of delayed-onset primary CMV disease ranged from 16% to 47% of CMV D+/R- liver transplant recipients. Current data suggests that delayed-onset CMV disease is associated with increased mortality after liver transplantation. Therefore, optimized strategies for prevention and novel drugs with unique modes of action are needed. Currently, a randomized controlled clinical trial is being performed comparing the efficacy and safety of maribavir, a novel benzimidazole riboside, and oral ganciclovir as prophylaxis against primary CMV disease in liver transplant recipients. The treatment of CMV disease consists mainly of intravenous (IV) ganciclovir, and if feasible, a reduction in the degree of immunosuppression. A recent controlled clinical trial demonstrated that valganciclovir is as effective and safe as IV ganciclovir for the treatment of CMV disease in solid organ (including liver) transplant recipients. In this article, the author reviews the current state and the future perspectives of prevention and treatment of CMV disease after liver transplantation.

Perrillo R. · Ochsner Clinic Foundation, New Orleans, Louisiana. · Gastroenterology. · Pubmed #16530534 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Berk PD. · The Division of Digestive Liver Diseases, Department of Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY. · Hepatology. · Pubmed #16447279 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Keeffe EB, Kowdley KV. · Stanford University Medical Center, Palo Alto, CA · J Clin Gastroenterol. · Pubmed #15597022 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Gish RG. · Liver Transplant Program, California Pacific Medical Center, 2340 Clay Street, San Francisco, CA 94115, USA. · Gastroenterol Clin North Am. · Pubmed #15081104 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Bataller R. · Institut de Malalties Digestives. IDIBAPS. Hospital Clínic. Barcelona. España. · Gastroenterol Hepatol. · Pubmed #12732105 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Wong JB. · Division of Clinical Decision Making, Department of Medicine, Tupper Research Institute, Tufts-New England Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, 750 Washington Street, Boston, MA 02111, USA. · Hepatology. · Pubmed #12085373 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Gallegos-Orozco JF, Vargas HE. · Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic Arizona, 13400 E. Shea Boulevard, Scottsdale, AZ 85259, USA. · Med Clin North Am. · Pubmed #19577123 No free full text.

Abstract: The widespread availability of transplantation in most major medical centers in the United States, together with a growing number of transplant candidates, has made it necessary for primary care providers, especially internal medicine and family practice physicians to be active in the clinical care of these patients before and after transplantation. This review provides an overview of the liver transplantation process, including indications, contraindications, time of referral to a transplant center, the current organ allocation system, and briefly touches on the expanding field of living donor liver transplantation.

Mehta G, Rothstein KD. · Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Drexel University College of Medicine, Mail Stop 913, 5th Floor, 219 N. Broad Street, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA. · Med Clin North Am. · Pubmed #19577121 No free full text.

Abstract: Caring for patients with cirrhosis requires special consideration. The role of the hepatologist is to assist the primary care physician in caring for such patients. This involves an active role in immunizations, lifestyle modifications, and providing instructions on when to go to the emergency room (ER). There are also specific recommendations geared toward the patient with cirrhosis relating to slowing down the disease process, maintaining quality of life, and improving survival.

Mackelaite L, Alsauskas ZC, Ranganna K. · Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Drexel University College of Medicine, 245 North 15th Street, Room 6144, Philadelphia, PA 19102, USA. · Med Clin North Am. · Pubmed #19577118 No free full text.

Abstract: Renal failure in cirrhosis poses unique diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. Laboratory values and predictive equations grossly overestimate renal function in patients with cirrhosis. Development of renal failure connotes a worse prognosis; mortality is especially high with hepatorenal syndrome. Classification of the causes of renal failure in patients with cirrhosis is provided with more extensive discussion of selected causes. Finally, a suggested diagnostic approach to renal failure in cirrhosis is given.

Lefton HB, Rosa A, Cohen M. · Department of Medicine, Drexel University College of Medicine, 216 Broad Street, Mail 1001, Philadelphia, PA 19102, USA. · Med Clin North Am. · Pubmed #19577114 No free full text.

Abstract: Cirrhosis is defined histologically as an advanced form of progressive hepatic fibrosis with distortion of the hepatic architecture and regenerative nodule formation. It may be due to a variety of causes. It can be diagnosed incidentally on liver biopsy or hepatic imaging studies, or patients may present clinically with one or more features of hepatic failure. This article gives the reader a broad overview of the epidemiology, diagnosis, and natural history of cirrhosis; laying the foundation for subsequent articles, which will discuss the diagnosis and management of each of the specific cirrhosis-related complications.

Lucey MR, Mathurin P, Morgan TR. · Section of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI 53792, USA. · N Engl J Med. · Pubmed #19553649 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Lin K, Vickery J. · Center for Primary Care, Prevention and Clinical Partnerships, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Maryland 20850, USA. · Ann Intern Med. · Pubmed #19528566 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Screening for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection in pregnant women to identify newborns who will require prophylaxis against perinatal infection is a well-established, evidence-based standard of current medical practice. In 2004, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended universal screening of pregnant women for HBV infection at the first prenatal visit. PURPOSE: To search for large, high-quality studies related to hepatitis B screening in pregnancy that have been published since the 2004 USPSTF recommendation. DATA SOURCES: English-language studies indexed in PubMed and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and published between 1 January 2001 and 5 March 2008. STUDY SELECTION: For benefits of screening and newborn prophylaxis, we included systematic reviews; meta-analyses; and randomized, controlled trials. For harms of screening, we included systematic reviews; meta-analyses; randomized, controlled trials; cohort studies; case-control studies; and case series of large, multisite databases. Abstracts and full articles were independently reviewed for inclusion by both reviewers. DATA EXTRACTION: Data on the benefits of screening, including benefits of hepatitis B immune globulin and hepatitis B vaccine prophylaxis of newborns of hepatitis B surface antigen-positive mothers, were extracted by 1 reviewer. DATA SYNTHESIS: No new studies met inclusion criteria. A 2006 systematic review of randomized, controlled trials found that newborn prophylaxis reduced perinatal transmission of HBV infection; all relevant trials were published in 1996 or earlier. LIMITATION: The focused search strategy, which was restricted to English-language articles, may have missed some smaller studies or new research published in languages other than English. CONCLUSION: No new evidence was found on the benefits or harms of screening for HBV infection in pregnant women. Previously published randomized trials support the 2004 USPSTF recommendation for screening.

Ramachandran R, Kakar S. · Department of Pathology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA. · J Clin Pathol. · Pubmed #19474352 No free full text.

Abstract: The diagnosis of drug-induced liver injury (DILI) is a challenging problem, often confounded by incomplete clinical information and the difficulty of eliciting exposure to herbal products, over-the-counter agents and toxins. The task is further rendered difficult on biopsy, as drugs can mimic all the patterns found in primary liver disease. Acute hepatitis, with or without cholestasis, is the most common histological pattern of DILI, and drugs such as acetaminophen are the leading causes of acute liver failure. Most cases of DILI resolve on discontinuation of the drug, but recovery can take months or rarely the disease can progress despite drug withdrawal. Drugs such as methotrexate can lead to chronic hepatitis and cirrhosis, while others such as minocycline, nitrofurantoin and methyldopa are implicated in autoimmune hepatitis. Prolonged cholestasis and ductopenia resembling primary chronic biliary disease can occur. Drug-induced steatohepatitis is also an uncommon pattern, but is well described with drugs such as amiodarone and irinotecan. In the presence of risk factors such as obesity and diabetes, some drugs such as tamoxifen, oestrogens and nifedipine can precipitate or exacerbate steatohepatitis. Other observed patterns include granulomatous hepatitis, vascular injury (eg, sinusoidal obstruction syndrome), Ito cell lipidosis and neoplasms (eg, adenomas).