Slow regression of liver fibrosis presumed by repeated biomarkers after virological cure in patients with chronic hepatitis C.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Chronic hepatitis C is both a virologic and fibrotic disease and complications can occur in patients with sustained virologic response (SVR) with residual fibrosis. Due to the limitations of repeated biopsies, no studies have assessed the dynamic of fibrosis before and after treatment. Using biopsy as reference, FibroTest™ has been validated as a biomarker of fibrosis progression and regression, with similar prognostic values. The aim was to estimate the impact of SVR on the dynamic of fibrosis presumed by FibroTest™. METHODS: In a prospective cohort, the main end point was the 10-year regression rate of fibrosis, defined as a minimum 0.20 decrease in FibroTest™, equivalent to one METAVIR stage. RESULTS: A total of 933 patients with both repeated FibroTest™ and transient elastography were included. At 10 years, among the 415 patients with baseline advanced fibrosis, 49% (95% CI 33-64%) of the 108 SVR had a regression, which was greater than in the 219 non-responders [23% (14-33%; p < 0.001 vs. SVR)] and not lower than in the 88 non-treated [45% (10-80%; p = 0.39 vs. SVR)] patients. In all 171 SVR, cirrhosis regressed in 24/43 patients, but 15 new cirrhosis cases occurred out of 128 patients, that is only a net reduction of 5.3% [(24-15) = 9/171); (2.4-9.8%)]. Four cases of primary liver cancer occurred in SVR [4.6% (0-9.8)], and 13 in non-responders [5.6% (1.5-9.8); p = 0.07]. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with chronic hepatitis C, and as presumed by FibroTest™, virological cure was associated with slow regression of fibrosis 10years later, a disappointing 5% decrease in cirrhosis cases, and a remaining 5% risk of primary liver cancer.

Prevalence of liver fibrosis and risk factors in a general population using non-invasive biomarkers (FibroTest).

BACKGROUND: FibroTest and elastography have been validated as biomarkers of liver fibrosis in the most frequent chronic liver diseases and in the fibrosis screening of patients with diabetes. One challenge was to use them for estimating the prevalence of fibrosis, identifying independent risk factors and to propose screening strategies in the general population. METHODS: We prospectively studied 7,463 consecutive subjects aged 40 years or older. Subjects with presumed advanced fibrosis (FibroTest greater than 0.48) were re-investigated in a tertiary center. RESULTS: The sample characteristics were similar to those of the French population. FibroTest was interpretable in 99.6%. The prevalence of presumed fibrosis was 2.8%, (209/7,463), including cirrhosis in 0.3% (25/7,463); 105/209 (50%) subjects with presumed fibrosis accepted re-investigation. Fibrosis was confirmed in 50, still suspected in 27, indeterminate in 25 and not confirmed with false positive FibroTest or false negative elastography in 3 subjects. False negative rate of FibroTest estimated using elastography was 0.4% (3/766). The attributable causes for confirmed fibrosis were both alcoholic and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in 66%, NAFLD in 13%, alcohol in 9%, HCV in 6%, and other in 6%. Factors independently associated (all P < 0.003) with confirmed fibrosis were age, male gender, waist circumference, HCV antibody and alcohol consumption estimated using carbohydrate-deficient transferrin, enabling efficient screening-oriented strategies to be compared and proposed. CONCLUSIONS: Biomarkers have permitted to estimate prevalence of advanced fibrosis around 2.8% in a general population aged 40 years or older, and several risk factors which may be used for the validation of selective or non-selective screening strategies.

Concordance in a world without a gold standard: a new non-invasive methodology for improving accuracy of fibrosis markers.

BACKGROUND: Assessing liver fibrosis is traditionally performed by biopsy, an imperfect gold standard. Non-invasive techniques, liver stiffness measurements (LSM) and biomarkers [FibroTest(R) (FT)], are widely used in countries where they are available. The aim was to identify factors associated with LSM accuracy using FT as a non-invasive endpoint and vice versa. METHODS: The proof of concept was taken using the manufacturers recommendations for excluding patients at high risk of false negative/positive. The hypothesis was that the concordance between LSM and FT, would be improved by excluding high-risk patients. Thereafter, the impact of potential variability factors was assessed by the same methods. Liver biopsy and independent endpoints were used to validate the results. RESULTS: Applying manufacturers' recommendations in 2,004 patients increased the strength of concordance between LSM and FT (P<0.00001). Among the 1,338 patients satisfying recommendations, the methodology identified a significant LSM operator effect (P = 0.001) and the following variability factors (all P<0.01), related to LSM: male gender, older age, and NAFLD as a cause of liver disease. Biopsy confirmed in 391 patients these results. CONCLUSION: This study has validated the concept of using the strength of concordance between non-invasive estimates of liver fibrosis for the identification of factors associated with variability and precautions of use.