The advent of highly effective and well‐tolerated direct antiviral antivirals (DAAs) has dramatically changed the landscape of chronic hepatitis C. The effect of DAAs in older adults is difficult to determine since patients aged ≥ 65 years were too few in most clinical trials and data mainly come from observational studies. We performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DAAs in patients aged 65 and older. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, HCV‐Trials.com databases were searched for literature published until 1 December 2017. English language articles reporting results of phase 2 or 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), single‐arm clinical trials (SATs) and observational studies were included in the final analysis. All studies included subgroups of older patients and compared their outcomes with younger individuals. By using a random‐effects or fixed‐effects model, odds ratio (OR) was calculated for the efficacy and safety. Heterogeneity was tested using I2 statistics. Thirty‐seven studies reported data on the DAA efficacy. The OR was 1.66 (95%CI: 1.00‐2.75; P = 0.06) in meta‐analysis of RCTs, and similar results were found in SATs and observational studies. HCV genotype, stage of fibrosis or HIV co‐infection did not affect the rate of SVR in older persons. Prevalence of anaemia (OR 0.26 95%CI: 0.09‐0.69; P = 0.007) (OR 0.25 95%CI: 0.09‐0.69; P = 0.007) and skin complaints (OR 0.61 95%CI: 0.45‐0.83; P = 0.001) was higher in older adults. Finally, geriatric patients affected by chronic HCV infection can be safely treated with DAAs with the same efficacy reported in younger adults.

No abstract

Background Transcatheter Arterial chemoembolization (TACE) is the first‐line option for the intermediate‐stage hepatocellular carcinoma. Guidelines do not define the number of TACE sessions to be repeated before stopping treatment and switching to sorafenib. Methods We retrospectively analysed 76 patients aged ≥65 years who were treated by multiple TACE sessions (re‐TACE group; N = 36 patients) or one TACE session followed by sorafenib (TACE/Sorafenib group; N = 40 patients). The primary outcome was the overall survival (Kaplan‐Meier analysis and log‐rank test). Results Median overall survival was 320 days (range: 70‐420 days) in re‐TACE subgroup and 285 days (range: 50‐368 days) in TACE/Sorafenib subgroup without significant differences between the two groups (log‐rank test P = .72; HR = 0.87; 95% IC 0.41‐1.87). The survival rate at one year was 43.6% and 32% in the re‐TACE and in the TACE/sorafenib groups (P = .12), respectively. Subgroup analysis by gender, number of nodules at baseline and etiology of liver cirrhosis was performed but no differences were found. No statistical difference was observed in the frequency of side effects, but sorafenib was associated with severe diarrhoea in most patients requiring dose reduction. Conclusion In our study including HCC patients aged ≥65 years, no differences in survival rate and side effects were found between patients Retreated with further TACE sessions and patients with treatment stage migration to sorafenib after first TACE failure. We included in our analysis a small study population; therefore, larger prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.

No abstract

non disponibile