Is pegylated interferon superior to interferon, with ribavarin, in chronic hepatitis C genotypes 2/3？

Over the past decade, significant improvements have been made in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C （CHC）, especially with the introduction of combined therapy using both interferon and ribavarin. The optimal dose and duration of treatment is still a matter of debate and, importantly, the efficacy of this combined treatment varies with the viral genotype responsible for infection. In general, patients infected with viral genotypes 2 or 3 more readily achieve a sustained viral response than those infected with viral genotype 1. The introduction of a pegylated version of interferon in the past decade has produced better clinical outcomes in patients infected with viral genotype 1. However, the published literature shows no improvement in clinical outcomes in patients infected with viral genotypes 2 or 3 when they are treated with pegylated interferon as opposed to nonpegylated interferon, both given in combination with ribavarin. This is significant because the cost of a 24-wk treatment with pegylated interferon in lessdeveloped countries is between six and 30 times greater than that of treatment with interferon. Thus, clinicians need to carefully consider the cost-versusbenefit of using pegylated interferon to treat CHC, particularly when there is no evidence for clinically measurable benefits in patients with genotypes 2 and 3 infections.     

The metabolic syndrome: what to treat, how to treat, what are the goals?

Metabolic syndrome is a cluster of risk factors for cardiovascular disease that include obesity, atherogenic dyslipidemia, raised blood pressure, and insulin resistance. The growing trend of obesity is associated with increased prevalence of metabolic syndrome. Optimizing diet and exercise are still the leading therapy for controlling the metabolic syndrome. Based on the current evidence, further emphasis should be placed on aggressive management of other metabolic risk factors such as high blood pressure and dyslipidemia.     

Vitamin D, UV, and skin cancer in the elderly: to expose or not to expose?

There is mounting concern about vitamin D insufficiency, especially in the ageing population. Increases in indoor lifestyle, obesity, car travel, clothing habits, the use of photo-protective makeup, and campaigns driven by dermatologists, governments, and the cosmetic industry to avoid or protect against the sun as much as possible are contributing to this trend. In a recent article in Gerontology, Barysch et al. [1] recommend that the ageing population avoid any 'intentional' UV radiation as well as 'minimize sun exposure' based on known dangers of developing skin cancer. They warn that 'studies with vitamin D supplements reported increased risks of prostate and esophagus cancer as well as atopy in childhood' and concluded that 'adequate levels of vitamin D are essential for the elderly', but do not suggest which level is optimal. I will argue that the ageing population should keep their serum 25-(OH)-vitamin D(3) (25-(OH)-D) levels in the 75-100 nmol/l range. An oral cholecalciferol intake of ～2,000 IU/day is recommended as a supplement throughout the year for those who cannot enjoy the sun in summer or only during 'vitamin D winter' for the others.     

Primovist, Eovist: what to expect?

Gadolinium ethoxybenzyl dimeglumine (Gd-EOB-DTPA, Primovist in Europe and Eovist in the USA) is a liver-specific magnetic resonance imaging contrast agent that has up to 50% hepatobiliary excretion in the normal liver. After intravenous injection, Gd-EOB-DTPA distributes into the vascular and extravascular spaces during the arterial, portal venous and late dynamic phases, and progressively into the hepatocytes and bile ducts during the hepatobiliary phase. The hepatocyte uptake of Gd-EOB-DTPA mainly occurs via the organic anion transporter polypeptides OATP1B1 and B3 located at the sinusoidal membrane and biliary excretion via the multidrug resistance-associated proteins MRP2 at the canalicular membrane. Because of these characteristics, Gd-EOB-DTPA behaves similarly to non-specific gadolinium chelates during the dynamic phases, and adds substantial information during the hepatobiliary phase, improving the detection and characterization of focal liver lesions and diffuse liver disease. This information is particularly relevant for the detection of metastases, and for the detection and characterization of nodular lesions in liver cirrhosis, including early hepatocellular carcinomas. Finally, GD-EOB-DTPA-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging may provide quantitative assessment regarding liver perfusion and hepatocyte function in diffuse liver diseases. The full potential of GD-EOB-DTPA-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging has to be established further. It is already clear that GD-EOB-DTPA-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging provides anatomic and functional information in the setting of focal and diffuse liver disease that is unattainable with magnetic resonance imaging enhanced with non-specific contrast agents.