RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Liver disease severity must be determined before treatment of chronic hepatitis C (CHC). We evaluated the diagnostic performance of the APRI and FIB-4 scores compared to transient elastography liver stiffness (TE-LS) in detecting significant fibrosis (F3) or cirrhosis (F4). METHODS: We retrospectively enrolled 575 patients with CHC who underwent TE-LS between May 2014 and September 2018: 365 (63.5%) male, mean age 51.54±12.4 years. APRI and FIB-4 scores were compared to TE-LS. RESULTS: One hundred patients (17.5%) had TE-LS values between 9 and 11.9 kPa, and were classified as F3, while 265 (46%) were classified as F4 (TE-LS ≥12 kPa). APRI and FIB-4 scores predicted F4 patients adequately using cutoff values of 0.65 (sensitivity 85.5%, specificity 77%) and 1.63 (sensitivity 91%, specificity 77%), respectively. Cutoff values of 0.64 for APRI and 1.46 for FIB-4 predicted F3/F4 patients (sensitivity 72% and 81.5%; specificity 83% and 79%, respectively). The use of these cutoff values with APRI and FIB-4 in combination adequately predicted patients with significant fibrosis or cirrhosis (positive predictive value 91.5%), while cutoff values of 0.3 and 0.98, respectively, predicted F1/F2 patients with specificity 94.5% and sensitivity 26.5%, suggesting that in 58.5% of patients TE-LS could possibly be avoided. CONCLUSIONS: The APRI/FIB-4 combination performed well in predicting significant fibrosis, while FIB-4 performed well in predicting cirrhosis. These noninvasive biochemical markers could be used as screening tools instead of LS measurement, which is not widely available. Further prospective validation studies are required to confirm this finding.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is still common among dialysis patients, but the natural history of HCV in this group is not completely understood. The KDIGO HCV guidelines of 2009 recommend that chronic haemodialysis patients be screened for HCV antibody upon admission to the dialysis clinic and every 6 months thereafter if susceptible to HCV infection. However, previous studies have shown the presence of HCV viraemia in anti-HCV-negative haemodialysis patients as up to 22%. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the presence of HCV viraemia, using HCV RNA detection, among anti-HCV-negative haemodialysis patients from a tertiary dialysis unit in Athens. METHODS: We enrolled 41 anti-HCV-negative haemodialysis patients diagnosed with third-generation enzyme immunoassay. HCV viraemia was evaluated using a sensitive (cut-off: 12 IU/mL) reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (COBAS AmpliPrep/TaqMan system) for HCV RNA. RESULTS: None of the 41 anti-HCV-negative haemodialysis patients were shown to be viraemic. CONCLUSIONS: Routine HCV RNA testing appears not to be necessary in anti-HCV-negative haemodialysis patients.
