The regimen consisting of ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir and dasabuvir is highly efficacious in the treatment of HCV genotype 1 infection, with minimal adverse events. It is expected to play an important role in the armamentarium of novel agents that have a high chance of curing HCV infection.

No abstract

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) are known to be at an increased risk for macrovascular complications, and cardiovascular disease (CVD) is one of the greatest drivers of morbidity and mortality in this patient population. Over the past decade, the number of treatment options for type 2 DM has increased. In 2008, the United States Food and Drug Administration mandated an evaluation of cardiovascular (CV) outcomes associated with antihyperglycemic agents. Since that time, the CV risk-benefit profile of many antihyperglycemic treatment modalities have been evaluated; however, results have remained inconsistent. This article will review the literature on the use of pharmacologic therapies in patients with type 2 DM and associated CVD risk, as well as provide recommendations for appropriate treatment selection in this population. Current evidence has demonstrated CV benefits with metformin, select glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (liraglutide), and sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (canagliflozin and empagliflozin).

No abstract

Background. Sensitization remains a barrier to heart transplantation (HT). Perioperative desensitization strategies have been described; however, a paucity of evidence exists to demonstrate efficacy and safety in HT. Methods. This single-center, retrospective study consisted of adults who received an HT. Perioperative desensitization was initiated if virtual crossmatch or flow-cytometry crossmatch was positive. Therapy consisted of plasmapheresis, intravenous immunoglobulin, and rabbit antithymocyte globulin. Historical controls received standard immunosuppression or induction. The primary endpoint was survival at 12 mo. Secondary endpoints included freedom from acute rejection, cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV), and infectious complications. Results. Of the 104 patients included, 48 received no induction, 46 received induction, and 10 underwent perioperative desensitization. No differences were observed in the primary endpoint at 12 mo (90.0% versus 97.9%, P = 0.25 for desensitization versus no-induction; 90.0% versus 100%, P = 0.72 for desensitization versus induction). Rates of acute rejection were lower with induction and desensitization compared with no-induction. There were no significant differences in CAV between the groups. Infectious complications were also similar among the groups (10.0% versus 16.7%, P = 0.62 for desensitization versus no-induction; 10.0% versus 30.4%, P = 0.34 for desensitization versus induction). Conclusions. This study suggests that a perioperative desensitization strategy triggered by positive virtual crossmatch or flow-cytometry crossmatch allows for successful transplantation of sensitized HT recipients and results in acceptable rates of survival, rejection, CAV, and infection at 12 mo.