Pegylated interferon-α (PEG-IFN-α) is a first line option in the treatment of chronic hepatitis B. Compared with nucleos(t)ide analogues (NAs), therapy with PEG-IFN-α has the advantages of finite treatment duration and higher rates of hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) seroconversion, but the disadvantage of greater adverse effects. Choosing PEG-IFN-α requires careful evaluation of the likelihood of achieving a sustained off-treatment response. Sustained off-treatment response with PEG-IFN-α can be predicted by baseline factors in HBeAg positive disease. These include genotype A or B, low viral load, high alanine aminotransferase (ALT), older age and female gender. On the other hand, no pre-treatment factors have been identified that can reliably predict response in HBeAg negative disease. Using on-treatment quantitative HBsAg levels, failure of a long term response can be identified with high negative predictive value (NPV). However, no combination of on treatment parameters have been identified so far that can precisely forecast successful treatment. Up until recently, there was little evidence supporting the use of combining PEG-IFN with NAs. The addition of PEG-IFN in patients who already have viral suppression with NAs therapy appears superior to continuing NAs alone in achieving a sustained response. Also, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) in combination with PEG-IFN has been reported to enable significantly higher HBsAg loss than with either monotherapy alone. This occurred in both HBeAg positive and negative patients across all genotypes. In spite of recent developments, rates of HBsAg loss are still only in the order of 10% and so cure remains elusive. Further research is required to identify the optimal combination or sequential therapy regimen, and the subgroups with the highest rates of response so that they can be targeted.

Clostridiodes difficile infection (CDI) is one of the most common hospital‐acquired infections with high mortality rates. Optimal management of CDI depends on early recognition of severity. However, currently, there is no acceptable standard of prediction. We reviewed severe CDI predictors in published literature and its definition according to clinical guidelines. We systematically reviewed studies describing clinical predictors for severe CDI in medical databases (Cochrane, EMBASE, Global Health Library, and MEDLINE/PubMed). They were independently evaluated by two reviewers. Six hundred thirty‐three titles and abstracts were screened, and 31 studies were included. We excluded studies that were restricted to a specific patient population. There were 16 articles that examined mortality in CDI, as compared with 15 articles investigating non‐mortality outcomes of CDI. The commonest risk factors identified were comorbidities, white blood cell count, serum albumin level, age, serum creatinine level and intensive care unit admission. Generally, the studies had small patient populations, were retrospective in nature, and mostly from Western centers. The commonest severe CDI criteria in clinical guidelines were raised white blood cell count, followed by low serum albumin and raised serum creatinine levels. There was no commonly agreed upon definition of severe CDI severity in the literature. Current clinical guidelines' definitions for severe CDI are heterogeneous. Hence, there is a need for prospective multi‐center studies using standardized protocol for biospecimen investigation collection and shared data on outcomes of patients in order to devise a universally accepted definition for severe CDI.