Explore the vast range of titles available.

ObjectivesPakistan has a hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection prevalence of 6%–9% and aims to achieve World Health Organisation (WHO) targets for elimination of HCV by the year 2030. We aim to evaluate the potential cost-effectiveness of a reference laboratory-based (centralised laboratory testing; CEN) confirmatory testing approach versus a molecular near-patient point-of-care (POC) confirmatory approach to screen the general population for HCV in Pakistan.Study designWe used a decision tree-analytic model from a governmental (formal healthcare sector) perspective.Study settingIndividuals were assumed to be initially screened with an anti-HCV test at home, followed by POC nucleic acid test (NAT) at nearby district hospitals or followed by NAT at centralised laboratories.ParticipantsWe included the general testing population for chronic HCV in Pakistan.InterventionScreening with an anti-HCV antibody test (Anti-HCV) followed by either POC NAT (Anti-HCV-POC), or reference laboratory NAT (Anti-HCV-CEN), was compared, using data from published literature and the Pakistan Ministry of Health.MeasuresOutcome measures included: number of HCV infections identified per year, percentage of individuals correctly classified, total costs, average costs per individual tested, and cost-effectiveness (assessed as cost per additional HCV infection identified). Sensitivity analysis was also performed.ResultsAt a national level (25 million annual screening tests), the Anti-HCV-CEN strategy would identify 142 406 more HCV infections in 1 year and increase correct classification of individuals by 0.57% compared with the Anti-HCV-POC strategy. The total annual cost of HCV testing was reduced using the Anti-HCV-CEN strategy by US$7.68 million (US$0.31/person). Thus, incrementally, the Anti-HCV-CEN strategy costs less and identifies more HCV infections than Anti-HCV-POC. The incremental difference in HCV infections identified was most sensitive to the probability of loss to follow-up (for POC confirmatory NAT).ConclusionsAnti-HCV-CEN would provide the best value for money when scaling up HCV testing in Pakistan.

The Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL) convened an international working party on the “APASL Consensus Statements and Management Algorithms for Hepatitis C Virus Infection” in December, 2010, in order to revise “Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver consensus statements on the diagnosis, management and treatment of hepatitis C virus infection (J Gastroenterol Hepatol 22:615–633, 2007 )”. The working party consisted of expert hepatologists from the Asian-Pacific region gathered at Makuhari, Chiba, Japan on 19 December 2010. New data were presented, discussed and debated to draft a revision. Participants of the consensus meeting assessed the quality of cited studies. Finalized recommendations are presented in this review.

Estimated hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection rates in the general populations were 1.3, 0.9, 0.4–1.0, 14.7, 0.1–0.3, 0.9–1.9, 1.0–2.0, 5, 4.4–8.6 and 0.5–1.3 % in Australia, Bangladesh, Mainland China, Egypt, Hong Kong, India, Japan, Pakistan, Taiwan and Turkey, respectively. The main HCV genotypes (Gs) are G1, G3, G1b, G4, G1b, G3, G1b, G3, G1b and G2, and G1 in Australia, Bangladesh, Mainland China, Egypt, Hong Kong, India, Japan, Pakistan, Taiwan and Turkey, respectively. Of IL28B genotypes, favorable alleles are ~50 % in Australia and Turkey, but 60–70 % in most of the other Asian countries. Peginterferon plus ribavirin is available in all ten Asian Pasific countries. In addition, HCV NS3/4A protease inhibitors with peginterferon plus ribavirin are currently available in several countries. Clinical trials of interferon-free regimens for HCV are ongoing in most of the ten Asian Pacific countries.

The Asian-Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL) convened an international working party on the “APASL consensus statements and recommendation on management of hepatitis C” in March, 2015, in order to revise “APASL consensus statements and management algorithms for hepatitis C virus infection (Hepatol Int 6:409–435, 2012)”. The working party consisted of expert hepatologists from the Asian-Pacific region gathered at Istanbul Congress Center, Istanbul, Turkey on 13 March 2015. New data were presented, discussed and debated to draft a revision. Participants of the consensus meeting assessed the quality of cited studies. Finalized recommendations on treatment of hepatitis C are presented in this review.

The CCWG has partnered with three major GI journals, which are copublishing this commentary, given the timeliness and importance of the topic.3 4 Overview of the impact of climate change Climate change The earth’s climate is changing because of increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which has already warmed by more than 1°C compared with preindustrial times. [...]as global average temperature reaches +2°C, temperature in the Arctic may exceed +5°C. The changes in atmospheric temperature, moisture content and movement will lead to shifts in rainfall, with decreased or increased precipitation depending on the region (figure 1). [...]two-thirds of global agricultural land is now at risk of pesticide pollution.8 These chemicals are found on food for sale, are biologically active in humans, metabolised in part by gut microbiota, and capable of altering gut flora.9 There is also a wide variety of biological toxins that are climate sensitive. Climate change alters these relationships through changes in temperature, humidity, habitat, access to clean water, food and sanitation, and is predicted to bring major changes in the epidemiology of infections.17 Both high and low rainfall extremes are associated with an increased risk of GI infections, even in higher-income countries.18 High rainfall events can lead to contamination of reservoirs with water containing surface organisms and can also overwhelm wastewater treatment.

Carcinoma of unknown primary origin (CUP) is heterogeneous group of cancers. Role of gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy in this entity is under investigated. Aim of this study was to evaluate yield of Colonoscopy and Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) in localizing primary tumor in patients with CUP. Patients with histopathologically proven CUP who underwent colonoscopy / EGD to find the primary tumor from December 2009 to December 2011 were included in the study. Abdominal symptoms and cytokeratin (CK) 7 and 20 markers were correlated with presence of primary in GI tract. After giving informed consent 86 patients were included in final analysis. All patients underwent colonoscopy while 60(70%) got EGD along with colonoscopy. Mean age was 55.10 +/-11.94 years with 52(60%) male. Abdominal symptoms were present in 50%. CK7+/CK20- in 34(40%); CK7-/CK20+ in 2(2%) while CK7+/20+ in 7(8%) of metastatic tumor samples. Liver was metastatic site in 47(55%), Lymph node 12(14%) and Ascites in 8(9%). Endoscopy detected primary in 6 (7%) patients with 3 each in stomach and colon. No association of abdominal symptoms and cytokeratin markers was found with presence of GI primary site. Yield of localizing primary lesion in the GI tract by pan-endoscopy was limited. Abdominal symptoms and cytokeratin markers do not predict presence of gastrointestinal malignancies.

The Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL) convened an international working party on “APASL consensus statements and recommendations for management of hepatitis C” in March 2015 to revise the “APASL consensus statements and management algorithms for hepatitis C virus infection” (Hepatol Int 6:409–435, 2012). The working party consisted of expert hepatologists from the Asian–Pacific region gathered at the Istanbul Congress Center, Istanbul, Turkey on 13 March 2015. New data were presented, discussed, and debated during the course of drafting a revision. Participants of the consensus meeting assessed the quality of the cited studies. The finalized recommendations for hepatitis C prevention, epidemiology, and laboratory testing are presented in this review.

Chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is common among patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and those on hemodialysis due to nosocomial infections and past blood transfusions. While a majority of HCV-infected patients with end-stage renal disease are asymptomatic, some may ultimately experience decompensated liver diseases and hepatocellular carcinoma. Administration of a combination of elbasvir/grazoprevir for 12 weeks leads to high sustained virologic response (SVR) rates in patients with HCV genotypes (GTs) 1a, 1b or 4 and stage 4 or 5 CKD. Furthermore, a combination of glecaprevir/pibrentasvir for 8–16 weeks also results in high SVR rates in patients with all HCV GTs and stage 4 or 5 CKD. However, these regimens are contraindicated in the presence of advanced decompensated cirrhosis. Although sofosbuvir and/or ribavirin are not generally recommended for HCV-infected patients with severe renal impairment, sofosbuvir-based regimens may be appropriate for those with mild renal impairment. To eliminate HCV worldwide, HCV-infected patients with renal impairment should be treated with interferon-free therapies.

Viral hepatitis B and C represent the primary health challenge confronting Asia and Pakistan. With direct-acting antiviral therapy for hepatitis C, patients will be treated by general physicians (GPs) and will need training through continuing medical education (CME). Blended learning is a combination of didactic teaching with online, self-paced learning, and it has not been evaluated as a CME tool for general physicians. We aimed to compare the change in physician's knowledge about chronic viral hepatitis following a blended learning educational program. Participants enrolled in a 6 week blended learning program comprising three modules, each of 2 weeks duration. These were: 1) epidemiology and prevention of viral hepatitis; 2) diagnosis and assessment of hepatitis; and 3) treatment of hepatitis. Activities were primarily web based with some face-to-face interactive sessions. All study material was available on the Teach - Pak website. Discussions, questions, and comments were encouraged. An overall pre-and postintervention knowledge assessment was performed, in addition to individual module assessments. A total of 48 participants completed the program; 39 passed (81.25%). The participants were from diverse backgrounds with variable previous training. The pass rate rose from 16.1% at the start of the program to 81.2% at the conclusion. The mean pretest score was 26.0 (standard deviation =4.36), while the mean posttest score was 34.6 (standard deviation =5.15), showing an increase in the mean score of 8.56 points. Eighty four percent had completed at least one credit hour for CME as compared to those who did not pass the posttest (44.4% -value =0.02). No significant differences in results of posttest were observed in the categories of participant's age, years since graduation, or years of experience. The participants were satisfied with the blended learning mode of teaching. Blended learning is an efficient way to impart hepatitis CME to a diverse group of postgraduate physicians.