Noninvasive Risk Stratification After HCV Eradication in Patients With Advanced Chronic Liver Disease.
Adult
Aftercare
Aged
Chronic Disease
Disease Progression
Elasticity Imaging Techniques
Female
Hepacivirus
Hepatitis C
/ blood
Hepatitis C, Chronic
/ blood
Humans
Liver Diseases
/ blood
Male
Middle Aged
Platelet Count
Predictive Value of Tests
Prognosis
Risk Assessment
Sustained Virologic Response
von Willebrand Factor
/ analysis
Journal
Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.)
ISSN: 1527-3350
Titre abrégé: Hepatology
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8302946
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2021
04 2021
Historique:
revised:
08
06
2020
received:
24
02
2020
accepted:
17
06
2020
pubmed:
14
7
2020
medline:
13
10
2021
entrez:
14
7
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Risk stratification after cure from hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection remains a clinical challenge. We investigated the predictive value of noninvasive surrogates of portal hypertension (liver stiffness measurement [LSM] by vibration-controlled transient elastography and von Willebrand factor/platelet count ratio [VITRO]) for development of hepatic decompensation and hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with pretreatment advanced chronic liver disease (ACLD) who achieved HCV cure. A total of 276 patients with pretreatment ACLD and information on pretreatment and posttreatment follow-up (FU)-LSM and FU-VITRO were followed for a median of 36.6 months after the end of interferon-free therapy. FU-LSM (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC]: 0.875 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.796-0.954]) and FU-VITRO (AUROC: 0.925 [95% CI: 0.874-0.977]) showed an excellent predictive performance for hepatic decompensation. Both parameters provided incremental information and were significantly associated with hepatic decompensation in adjusted models. A previously proposed combined approach (FU-LSM < 12.4 kPa and/or FU-VITRO < 0.95) to rule out clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH, hepatic venous pressure gradient ≥10 mm Hg) at FU assigned most (57.3%) of the patients to the low-risk group; none of these patients developed hepatic decompensation. In contrast, in patients in whom FU-CSPH was ruled in (FU-LSM > 25.3 kPa and/or FU-VITRO > 3.3; 25.0% of patients), the risk of hepatic decompensation at 3 years following treatment was high (17.4%). Patients within the diagnostic gray-zone for FU-CSPH (17.8% of patients) had a very low risk of hepatic decompensation during FU (2.6%). The prognostic value of this algorithm was validated in an internal (n = 86) and external (n = 162) cohort. FU-LSM/FU-VITRO are strongly and independently predictive of posttreatment hepatic decompensation in HCV-induced ACLD. An algorithm combining these noninvasive markers not only rules in or rules out FU-CSPH, but also identifies populations at negligible versus high risk for hepatic decompensation. FU-LSM/FU-VITRO are readily accessible and enable risk stratification after sustained virological response, and thus facilitate personalized management.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Risk stratification after cure from hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection remains a clinical challenge. We investigated the predictive value of noninvasive surrogates of portal hypertension (liver stiffness measurement [LSM] by vibration-controlled transient elastography and von Willebrand factor/platelet count ratio [VITRO]) for development of hepatic decompensation and hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with pretreatment advanced chronic liver disease (ACLD) who achieved HCV cure.
APPROACH AND RESULTS
A total of 276 patients with pretreatment ACLD and information on pretreatment and posttreatment follow-up (FU)-LSM and FU-VITRO were followed for a median of 36.6 months after the end of interferon-free therapy. FU-LSM (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC]: 0.875 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.796-0.954]) and FU-VITRO (AUROC: 0.925 [95% CI: 0.874-0.977]) showed an excellent predictive performance for hepatic decompensation. Both parameters provided incremental information and were significantly associated with hepatic decompensation in adjusted models. A previously proposed combined approach (FU-LSM < 12.4 kPa and/or FU-VITRO < 0.95) to rule out clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH, hepatic venous pressure gradient ≥10 mm Hg) at FU assigned most (57.3%) of the patients to the low-risk group; none of these patients developed hepatic decompensation. In contrast, in patients in whom FU-CSPH was ruled in (FU-LSM > 25.3 kPa and/or FU-VITRO > 3.3; 25.0% of patients), the risk of hepatic decompensation at 3 years following treatment was high (17.4%). Patients within the diagnostic gray-zone for FU-CSPH (17.8% of patients) had a very low risk of hepatic decompensation during FU (2.6%). The prognostic value of this algorithm was validated in an internal (n = 86) and external (n = 162) cohort.
CONCLUSION
FU-LSM/FU-VITRO are strongly and independently predictive of posttreatment hepatic decompensation in HCV-induced ACLD. An algorithm combining these noninvasive markers not only rules in or rules out FU-CSPH, but also identifies populations at negligible versus high risk for hepatic decompensation. FU-LSM/FU-VITRO are readily accessible and enable risk stratification after sustained virological response, and thus facilitate personalized management.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32659847
doi: 10.1002/hep.31462
pmc: PMC8252110
doi:
Substances chimiques
von Willebrand Factor
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1275-1289Subventions
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR001863
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Authors. Hepatology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.
Références
Gastroenterology. 2017 Nov;153(5):1273-1283.e1
pubmed: 28734831
J Viral Hepat. 2020 Mar;27(3):270-280
pubmed: 31696575
J Hepatol. 2016 Oct;65(4):692-699
pubmed: 27242316
Hepatology. 2020 Mar;71(3):1023-1036
pubmed: 31365764
J Hepatol. 2017 Jan;66(1):153-194
pubmed: 27667367
J Hepatol. 2020 Mar;72(3):472-480
pubmed: 31629779
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2020 Feb;51(3):364-373
pubmed: 31773763
Lancet. 2019 Apr 20;393(10181):1597-1608
pubmed: 30910320
J Viral Hepat. 2017 Oct;24(10):823-831
pubmed: 28295923
J Hepatol. 2018 Aug;69(2):461-511
pubmed: 29650333
Dig Liver Dis. 2017 Jan;49(1):3-10
pubmed: 27717792
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2015 Sep;42(6):707-18
pubmed: 26179884
Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2018 Oct 1;315(4):G484-G494
pubmed: 29746172
Hepatology. 2007 May;45(5):1290-7
pubmed: 17464971
Gastroenterology. 2019 Mar;156(4):997-1009.e5
pubmed: 30768988
Lancet. 2019 Mar 30;393(10178):1319-1329
pubmed: 30704789
Liver Int. 2018 Dec;38(12):2210-2218
pubmed: 29738632
J Gastroenterol. 2020 May;55(5):533-542
pubmed: 31832759
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2014 Feb;39(3):331-8
pubmed: 24308724
United European Gastroenterol J. 2018 Nov;6(9):1401-1409
pubmed: 30386613
Z Gastroenterol. 2015 Apr;53(4):320-34
pubmed: 25867048
Gut. 2011 Aug;60(8):1133-8
pubmed: 21427197
J Hepatol. 2015 Jul;63(1):199-236
pubmed: 25911336
J Hepatol. 2019 Sep;71(3):473-485
pubmed: 31096005
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Dec 3;71(9):2354-2362
pubmed: 31754695
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2008 Jun;27(12):1261-8
pubmed: 18397389
Hepatology. 1996 Jun;23(6):1377-83
pubmed: 8675154
Z Gastroenterol. 2018 Jul;56(7):756-838
pubmed: 29945279
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2018 Apr;47(7):980-988
pubmed: 29377193
Hepatology. 2012 Oct;56(4):1439-47
pubmed: 22532296
J Vis Exp. 2020 Jun 18;(160):
pubmed: 32628153
J Hepatol. 2015 Sep;63(3):743-52
pubmed: 26047908
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Dec 17;71(10):2726-2729
pubmed: 32386053
Liver Int. 2020 Apr;40(4):988-989
pubmed: 31612610
J Hepatol. 2009 May;50(5):923-8
pubmed: 19303163
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2017 Jan;45(1):139-149
pubmed: 27910154
Semin Liver Dis. 2020 Aug;40(3):240-255
pubmed: 32557480