Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is swiftly increasing in prevalence globally with a high mortality rate. The progression of HCC in patients is induced with advanced fibrosis, mainly cirrhosis, and hepatitis. The absence of proper preventive or curative treatment methods encouraged extensive research against HCC to develop new therapeutic strategies. The Food and Drug Administration-approved Nexavar (sorafenib) is used in the treatment of patients with unresectable HCC. In 2017, Stivarga (regorafenib) and Opdivo (nivolumab) got approved for patients with HCC after being treated with sorafenib, and in 2018, Lenvima (lenvatinib) got approved for patients with unresectable HCC. But, owing to the rapid drug resistance development and toxicities, these treatment options are not completely satisfactory. Therefore, there is an urgent need for new systemic combination therapies that target different signaling mechanisms, thereby decreasing the prospect of cancer cells developing resistance to treatment. In this review, HCC etiology and new therapeutic strategies that include currently approved drugs and other potential candidates of HCC such as Milciclib, palbociclib, galunisertib, ipafricept, and ramucirumab are evaluated.

Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) reactivation in patients receiving chemotherapy, biologicals, immunosupressants, or corticosteroids is emerging to be an important cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with current or prior exposure to HBV infection. These patients suffer a dual onslaught of illness: one from the primary disease for which they are receiving the culprit drug that led to HBV reactivation, and the other from HBV reactivation itself. The HBV reactivation not only leads to a compromised liver function, which may culminate into hepatic failure; it also adversely impacts the treatment outcome of the primary illness. Hence, identification of patients at risk of reactivation before starting these drugs, and starting treatment aimed at prevention of HBV reactivation is the best strategy of managing these patients. There are no Indian guidelines on management of HBV infection in patients receiving chemotherapy, biologicals, immunosupressants, or corticosteroids for the treatment of rheumatologic conditions, malignancies, inflammatory bowel disease, dermatologic conditions, or solid-organ or bone marrow transplantation. The Indian National Association for Study of the Liver (INASL) had set up a taskforce on HBV in 2016, with a mandate to develop consensus guidelines for management of various aspects of HBV infection, relevant to India. In 2017 the taskforce had published the first INASL guidelines on management of HBV infection in India. In the present guidelines, which are in continuation with the previous guidelines, the issues on management of HBV infection in patients receiving chemotherapy, biologicals, immunosupressants, or corticosteroids are addressed.

Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) infection is one of the major causes of morbidity, mortality and healthcare expenditure in India. There are no Indian consensus guidelines on prevention, diagnosis and management of HBV infection. The Indian National Association for Study of the Liver (INASL) set up a taskforce on HBV in 2016, with a mandate to develop consensus guidelines for diagnosis and management of HBV infection, relevant to disease patterns and clinical practices in India. The taskforce first identified contentious issues on various aspects of HBV management, which were allotted to individual members of the taskforce who reviewed them in detail. A 2-day round table discussion was held on 11th and 12th February 2017 at Port Blair, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, to discuss, debate, and finalize the consensus statements. The members of the taskforce reviewed and discussed the existing literature threadbare at this meeting and formulated the \'INASL position statements\' on each of the issues. The evidence and recommendations in these guidelines have been graded according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system with minor modifications. The strength of recommendations (strong: 1, weak: 2) thus reflects the quality (grade) of underlying evidence (A, B, C, D). We present here the INASL position statements on prevention, diagnosis and management of HBV in India.

In chronic hepatitis B (CHB), hepatitis D virus (HDV) superinfection can lead to acute liver failure. The incidence of HDV superinfection is unknown, but is often detected in immigrants from HDV endemic countries. In this report, we characterize long-term clinical and virological outcomes in a hepatitis B virus (HBV) infected carrier before and after HDV superinfection, acquired from their spouse having HBV/HDV co-infection. A 38 year-old Mongolian male with CHB on anti-HBV therapy developed acute liver failure following HDV superinfection. Although he recovered, avoiding the need for liver transplant, HDV serological and molecular markers of infection persisted for the subsequent 16-month follow-up period, suggesting the development of CHB/HDV co-infection. The source of his HDV was from his wife of 10 years, a 34-year old Mongolian female known to have inactive CHB/HDV co-infection but who was not on anti-HBV therapy. Phylogenetic analysis of the complete HDV genome from the couple showed >99% similarity, with post-transmission longitudinal sequence revealing specific nucleotide substitutions between both spouse\'s HDV genome sequences. This study highlights the ongoing risk of HDV superinfection due to long-term co-habitation or sexual transmission in CHB patients. The fact that transmission occurred after almost a decade of marriage may be due to host immune or environmental factors that created a more favorable condition for transmission.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic efficiency for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with the combined analysis of alpha-l-fucosidase (AFU), alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) and thymidine kinase 1 (TK1). Serum levels of AFU, AFP and TK1 were measured in: 116 patients with HCC, 109 patients with benign hepatic diseases, and 104 normal subjects. The diagnostic value was analyzed using the logistic regression equation and receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC). Statistical distribution of the three tested tumor markers in every group was non-normally distributed (Kolmogorov-Sminov test, Z = 0.156-0.517, P < 0.001). The serum levels of AFP and TK1 in patients with HCC were significantly higher than those in patients with benign hepatic diseases (Mann-Whitney U test, Z = -8.570 to -5.943, all P < 0.001). However, there was no statistically significant difference of AFU between these two groups (Mann-Whitney U test, Z = -1.820, P = 0.069). The levels of AFU were significantly higher in patients with benign hepatic diseases than in normal subjects (Mann-Whitney U test, Z = -7.984, P < 0.001). Receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC) in patients with HCC versus those without HCC indicated the optimal cut-off value was 40.80 U/L for AFU, 10.86 μg/L for AFP and 1.92 pmol/L for TK1, respectively. The area under ROC curve (AUC) was 0.718 for AFU, 0.832 for AFP, 0.773 for TK1 and 0.900 for the combination of the three tumor markers. The combination resulted in a higher Youden index and a sensitivity of 85.3%. The combined detection of serum AFU, AFP and TK1 could play a complementary role in the diagnosis of HCC, and could significantly improve the sensitivity for the diagnosis of HCC.

OBJECTIVE: Viral hepatitis and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection are important causes of morbidity and mortality in hemodialysis (HD) patients. The present study was performed to assess the prevalence of hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), hepatitis D virus (HDV) and HIV infections in hemodialysis patients of a tertiary care hospital in Uttarakhand.
METHODS: All patients undergoing maintenance HD at our center were screened for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), antibody to HCV (anti-HCV), antibody to HDV (anti-HDV) and HIV antibody by ELISA. Detailed history regarding age, sex, duration of dialysis, blood transfusions, number of dialysis centers, dialyzer reuse and laboratory data was recorded.
RESULTS: A total of 118 patients (79 males and 39 females) were followed for 18 months with screening for the presence of HBV, HCV and HIV infections. At baseline, 12 (10.2%) patients were positive for HBsAg, 19 (16.1%) for anti-HCV and 2 (1.7%) for HIV antibody. Over 18 months, one additional patient became HBsAg positive and an additional 17 became anti-HCV-positive to give a total of 36 HCV-positive patients. Dual HBV and HCV infection was seen in 5 (4.2%) and anti-HDV antibodies were found in 1 (0.9%) patient. History of blood transfusions, duration of HD, dialyzer reuse and dialysis at multiple centers were found to be important risk factors for anti-HCV positivity.
CONCLUSIONS: Implementation and adherence to universal work precautions by dialysis staff is imperative to prevent transmission of these infections.