Glecaprevir/pibrentasvir for patients with chronic hepatitis C virus infection and severe renal impairment

Data are limited regarding the real‐world effectiveness and safety of glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (GLE/PIB) in patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and severe renal impairment (RI). We aimed to evaluate the performance of GLE/PIB in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage 4 or 5 in Taiwan. 108 chronic HCV patients with CKD stage 4 (n = 32) or 5 (n = 76) receiving GLE/PIB for 8‐12 weeks were retrospectively recruited at 4 academic centres in Taiwan. The effectiveness was determined by sustained virologic response at off‐therapy week 12 (SVR₁₂) for evaluable (EP) and per‐protocol populations (PP). The safety profiles were also assessed. By EP and PP analyses, the SVR₁₂ rate was 99.1% (107 of 108 patients; 95% confidence interval (CI): 94.9%‐99.8%) and 100% (107 of 107 patients; 95% CI: 96.5%‐100%). The SVR₁₂ rates were 100% (95% CI: 89.3%‐100%) and 98.7% (95% CI: 92.9%‐99.8%) in patients with CKD stage 4 and 5, respectively. One patient, who declined off‐therapy follow‐up after permanently discontinuing GLE/PIB at on‐treatment week 9 due to scheduled cardiac surgery, had nonvirologic failure. Sixteen (14.8%) patients had serious adverse events (AEs), which were judged not related to GLE/PIB. The three most common AEs were pruritus (19.4%), fatigue (15.7%) and nausea (13.9%). None had ≥3‐fold upper limit of normal for total bilirubin and alanine aminotransferase levels. None of the 9 patients with hepatitis B virus (HBV) coinfection developed HBV‐associated hepatitis. In conclusion, GLE/PIB for 8‐12 weeks is effective and well‐tolerated in HCV patients with severe RI.     

Nonsurgical and nonprosthetic camouflage treatment of skeletal Class II open bite with bilaterally missing lower first molars

This report illustrates the successful nonsurgical and nonprosthetic camouflage treatment of a skeletal Class II open bite malocclusion combined with missing mandibular first molars bilaterally. In the mandible, the second and third molars were uprighted and protracted, substituting for the missing first molars. In the maxilla, anterior bodily retraction and full-arch intrusion were achieved following premolar and second molar extraction, which also induced autorotation of the mandible. The treatment outcome and prognosis were confirmed with three-dimensional superimposition techniques, along with long-term stability.     

Fixed‐dose combination of amlodipine and atorvastatin improves clinical outcomes in patients with concomitant hypertension and dyslipidemia

Hypertension and dyslipidemia are important risk factors for cardiovascular disease. However, the clinical outcomes of fixed‐dose combination (FDC) versus free‐equivalent combination (FEC) of amlodipine and atorvastatin in the treatment of concurrent hypertension and dyslipidemia remain unknown. In this study, we included patients with newly diagnosed hypertension and dyslipidemia, without previously established cardiovascular disease, and treated with either FDC or FEC of amlodipine and atorvastatin were identified from the National Health Insurance Research Database of Taiwan and follow‐up for 5 years. By using 1:1 propensity score matching, a total of 1756 patients were enrolled in this study. The composite of major adverse cardiovascular events, including all‐cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and coronary revascularization, occurred more frequently in the FEC group than in the FDC group (hazard ratio, 1.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.42 to 2.5). Although the all‐cause mortality did not differ (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.36 to 1.59), the FEC group developed increased MI, stroke, and coronary revascularization (hazard ratio, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.07 to 7.68; hazard ratio, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.41 to 2.74; and hazard ratio, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.26 to 4.69, respectively). Furthermore, as an unexpected result, a higher risk to develop new‐onset diabetes mellitus was observed with FEC regimens (hazard ratio, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.6 to 3.0). In conclusion, although the all‐cause mortality did not differ between the two groups, the FDC regimen of amlodipine and atorvastatin improved clinical outcomes when compared to FEC in patients with newly diagnosed hypertension and dyslipidemia.     

Six year follow-up after catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: a palliation more than a true cure

Long-term outcomes after pulmonary vein isolation for atrial fibrillation (AF) remain uncertain. In particular, the influence of rigorous arrhythmia monitoring on outcomes is not yet clear. In this study, 103 patients with symptomatic AF who underwent catheter ablation at a single academic medical center from 2002 to 2006 were evaluated, with a median follow-up time of 6 years. The primary end point was the success rate of catheter ablation, defined as the absence of any atrial arrhythmia recurrence lasting >10 seconds at the clinical visit and electrocardiographic or long-term cardiac rhythm recording after a single procedure and after the last procedure. In all, 153 procedures were performed, with a median of 1 (interquartile range 1 to 2) per patient as follows: 61 had 1, 35 had 2, 6 had 3, and 1 had 4 catheter ablations. Freedom from all atrial arrhythmias was present in 23% of patients at 6 years after a single procedure and in 39% of patients after the last procedure. No clinical predictors of AF recurrence were recognized after a single procedure, whereas after the last procedure, in univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis, only nonparoxysmal AF (hazard ratio 1.92, 95% confidence interval 1.07 to 3.47, p = 0.02) was a predictor of recurrence. In conclusion, AF recurrence at 6-year follow-up after catheter ablation in a selected group of patients with symptomatic drug-refractory AF was relatively high, with 2/3 of AF relapses occurring in the first year of follow-up. Strict clinical surveillance after catheter ablation should be considered to help guide clinical decisions.     

Peri-implantitis: from diagnosis to therapeutics

Peri‐implantitis is an infection of the tissue around an implant, resulting in the loss of supporting bone. Risk factors for peri‐implantitis consist of a history of periodontitis, dental plaque, poor oral hygiene, smoking, alcohol consumption and diabetes. A clinical diagnosis indicates inflammatory signs including bleeding on probing with or without suppuration and a peri‐implant pocket depth ≥5 mm. A radiograph shows images of marginal bone loss ≥2 mm. A differential diagnosis of peri‐implant mucositis, occlusal overload, retrograde peri‐implantitis and inflammatory implant periapical lesions suggests the appropriate treatment in each case. The non‐surgical treatment of peri‐implantitis, including a mechanical treatment alone or combined with antiseptics or antibiotics can improve clinical parameters in the short term but residual defects may still persist. Surgical treatment such as guided bone regeneration results in a gain of clinical attachment level and bone reconstruction in the long term. The limited effect of laser‐assisted therapy needs to be further evaluated. The concept of prevention based on early detection and regular maintenance plays a principal role in reducing the occurrence of peri‐implantitis.