Main baseline epidemiological and virological characteristics of the patients with and without cirrhosis.

<p>Main baseline epidemiological and virological characteristics of the patients with and without cirrhosis.</p

Results of univariate and multivariate analyses according to clinical outcomes in the 193 patients.

<p>Multivariate models included HDV-RNA, HBV-DNA, HBsAg, age, sex, alcohol consumption, HBeAg and IFN.</p><p>*Seven patients with missing values.</p

Comparison of the main epidemiological and virological characteristics of the 193 patients (current cohort) and 299 patients (general cohort [8]) at study entry.

<p>nd = not done. In the general cohort <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0092062#pone.0092062-Romeo1" target="_blank">[8]</a> HBsAg, HDV RNA and HBV DNA were not quantified.</p><p>na = not applicable. In the original cohort <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0092062#pone.0092062-Romeo1" target="_blank">[8]</a>, mean age and median follow-up were calculated from the first evidence of chronic liver disease. In the current cohort, mean age and follow-up were calculated at entry into the current study, corresponding to first access to our unit as well as time of collection of the first serum sample available for testing.</p><p>*The proportion of cirrhosis was slightly higher in the current cohort because we are a referral centre for both HBV infection and advanced liver diseases. Therefore, we often received from other Italian institutions patients with HBV related cirrhosis before the diagnosis of HDV coinfection was made.</p

Results of univariate and multivariate analyses of serological parameters by clinical outcomes in 105 patients with chronic hepatitis.

<p>Multivariate models included HDV-RNA, HBV-DNA, HBsAg, age, sex, alcohol consumption, HBeAg and IFN.</p><p>*Four patients with missing values.</p

ROC analysis of HDV RNA levels.

<p>With a view to identifying levels of HDV viremia correlated to a higher propensity of disease progression, the ROC analysis identified 5.78 logHDV RNA (i.e. approximately 600,000 copies/mL) as the best cut-off value for predicting the development of cirrhosis (AUC = 0.73) in patients with chronic hepatitis.</p

Bleeding Risk during Treatment of Acute Thrombotic Events with Subcutaneous LMWH Compared to Intravenous Unfractionated Heparin; A Systematic Review

<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Low Molecular Weight Heparins (LMWH) are at least as effective antithrombotic drugs as Unfractionated Heparin (UFH). However, it is still unclear whether the safety profiles of LMWH and UFH differ. We performed a systematic review to compare the bleeding risk of fixed dose subcutaneous LMWH and adjusted dose UFH for treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) or acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Major bleeding was the primary end point.</p> <h3>Methods</h3><p>Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library) were searched up to May 2010 with no language restrictions. Randomized controlled trials in which subcutaneous LMWH were compared to intravenous UFH for the treatment of acute thrombotic events were selected. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data on study design, study quality, incidence of major bleeding, patients’ characteristics, type, dose and number of daily administrations of LMWH, co-treatments, study end points and efficacy outcome. Pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using the random effects model.</p> <h3>Results</h3><p>Twenty-seven studies were included. A total of 14,002 patients received UFH and 14,635 patients LMWH. Overall, no difference in major bleeding was observed between LMWH patients and UFH (OR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.60–1.04). In patients with VTE LMWH appeared safer than UFH, (OR = 0.68, 95% CI 0.47–1.00).</p> <h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The results of our systematic review suggest that the use of LMWH in the treatment of VTE might be associated with a reduction in major bleeding compared with UFH. The choice of which heparin to use to minimize bleeding risk must be based on the single patient, taking into account the bleeding profile of different heparins in different settings.</p> </div

Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, areas under the curve (AUROC), and cut-off values in the different scenarios for significant fibrosis (Panel A) and severe fibrosis (Panel B).

<p>Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, areas under the curve (AUROC), and cut-off values in the different scenarios for significant fibrosis (Panel A) and severe fibrosis (Panel B).</p

Pooled estimates of OR for major bleedings of LMWH versus UFH in all patients.

<p>Pooled estimates of OR for major bleedings of LMWH versus UFH in all patients.</p

Characteristics of included studies.

<p><b>n</b>: numbers; <b>LMWH</b>: low molecular weight heparin; <b>UFH</b>: unfractioned heparin; <b>VTE</b>: venous thromboembolism; <b>ACS</b>: acute coronary syndrome; <b>qd</b>: once daily; <b>bid</b>: twice daily; <b>tid</b>: three times a day; <b>UK</b>: urochinasi; <b>TFB</b>: tirofiban; <b>EPF</b>: eptifibatide; <b>antiIIb/IIIa</b>: GPIIb/IIIa inhibitors; <b>ASA</b>: acetylsalicylic acid.</p

Estimates benefit/harm ratios for the six scenarios estimated by 10 Italian hepatology centers.

<p>Estimates benefit/harm ratios for the six scenarios estimated by 10 Italian hepatology centers.</p