Successful Treatment Using Simeprevir, Sofosbuvir and Rituximab of a Severe Form of Hepatitis C Virus-related Mixed Cryoglobulinemia with Cardiac Involvement

Numerous extrahepatic manifestations have been reported in hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, particularly mixed cryoglobulinemia (MC). MC generally responds to clearance of HCV under pegylated-interferon plus ribavirin treatment. New direct-acting antiviral agents have been licensed for HCV under different combinations but have not been studied in severe forms of MC. Here, we present a case report describing a life-threatening form of MC with multivisceral involvement, which was successfully treated with concomitant rituximab, sofosbuvir and simeprevir. In light of the rapid clinical remission associated with sustained virological response and the excellent side-effect profile, this treatment should be considered as a first-line therapy in severe forms of MC

Comparison of accuracy of fibrosis degree classifications by liver biopsy and non-invasive tests in chronic hepatitis C

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Non-invasive tests have been constructed and evaluated mainly for binary diagnoses such as significant fibrosis. Recently, detailed fibrosis classifications for several non-invasive tests have been developed, but their accuracy has not been thoroughly evaluated in comparison to liver biopsy, especially in clinical practice and for Fibroscan. Therefore, the main aim of the present study was to evaluate the accuracy of detailed fibrosis classifications available for non-invasive tests and liver biopsy. The secondary aim was to validate these accuracies in independent populations.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Four HCV populations provided 2,068 patients with liver biopsy, four different pathologist skill-levels and non-invasive tests. Results were expressed as percentages of correctly classified patients.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In population #1 including 205 patients and comparing liver biopsy (reference: consensus reading by two experts) and blood tests, Metavir fibrosis (F_M) stage accuracy was 64.4% in local pathologists vs. 82.2% (p < 10^-3) in single expert pathologist. Significant discrepancy (≥ 2F_Mvs reference histological result) rates were: Fibrotest: 17.2%, FibroMeter^2G: 5.6%, local pathologists: 4.9%, FibroMeter^3G: 0.5%, expert pathologist: 0% (p < 10^-3). In population #2 including 1,056 patients and comparing blood tests, the discrepancy scores, taking into account the error magnitude, of detailed fibrosis classification were significantly different between FibroMeter^2G(0.30 ± 0.55) and FibroMeter^3G(0.14 ± 0.37, p < 10^-3) or Fibrotest (0.84 ± 0.80, p < 10^-3). In population #3 (and #4) including 458 (359) patients and comparing blood tests and Fibroscan, accuracies of detailed fibrosis classification were, respectively: Fibrotest: 42.5% (33.5%), Fibroscan: 64.9% (50.7%), FibroMeter^2G: 68.7% (68.2%), FibroMeter^3G: 77.1% (83.4%), p < 10^-3(p < 10^-3). Significant discrepancy (≥ 2 F_M) rates were, respectively: Fibrotest: 21.3% (22.2%), Fibroscan: 12.9% (12.3%), FibroMeter^2G: 5.7% (6.0%), FibroMeter^3G: 0.9% (0.9%), p < 10^-3(p < 10^-3).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The accuracy in detailed fibrosis classification of the best-performing blood test outperforms liver biopsy read by a local pathologist, i.e., in clinical practice; however, the classification precision is apparently lesser. This detailed classification accuracy is much lower than that of significant fibrosis with Fibroscan and even Fibrotest but higher with FibroMeter^3G. FibroMeter classification accuracy was significantly higher than those of other non-invasive tests. Finally, for hepatitis C evaluation in clinical practice, fibrosis degree can be evaluated using an accurate blood test.</p

Prognostic durability of liver fibrosis tests and improvement in predictive performance for mortality by combining tests

International audienceBACKGROUND AND AIM: There is currently no recommended time interval between noninvasive fibrosis measurements for monitoring chronic liver diseases. We determined how long a single liver fibrosis evaluation may accurately predict mortality, and assessed whether combining tests improves prognostic performance.METHODS: We included 1559 patients with chronic liver disease and available baseline liver stiffness measurement (LSM) by Fibroscan, aspartate aminotransferase to platelet ratio index (APRI), FIB-4, Hepascore, and FibroMeterV2G .RESULTS: Median follow-up was 2.8 years during which 262 (16.8%) patients died, with 115 liver-related deaths. All fibrosis tests were able to predict mortality, although APRI (and FIB-4 for liver-related mortality) showed lower overall discriminative ability than the other tests (differences in Harrell's C-index: P < 0.050). According to time-dependent AUROCs, the time period with optimal predictive performance was 2-3 years in patients with no/mild fibrosis, 1 year in patients with significant fibrosis, and <6 months in cirrhotic patients even in those with a model of end-stage liver disease (MELD) score <15. Patients were then randomly split in training/testing sets. In the training set, blood tests and LSM were independent predictors of all-cause mortality. The best-fit multivariate model included age, sex, LSM, and FibroMeterV2G with C-index = 0.834 (95% confidence interval, 0.803-0.862). The prognostic model for liver-related mortality included the same covariates with C-index = 0.868 (0.831-0.902). In the testing set, the multivariate models had higher prognostic accuracy than FibroMeterV2G or LSM alone for all-cause mortality and FibroMeterV2G alone for liver-related mortality.CONCLUSIONS: The prognostic durability of a single baseline fibrosis evaluation depends on the liver fibrosis level. Combining LSM with a blood fibrosis test improves mortality risk assessment

Comparison of eight diagnostic algorithms for liver fibrosis in hepatitis C: new algorithms are more precise and entirely noninvasive.

International audienceUNLABELLED: The sequential algorithm for fibrosis evaluation (SAFE) and the Bordeaux algorithm (BA), which cross-check FibroTest with the aspartate aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio index (APRI) or FibroScan, are very accurate but provide only a binary diagnosis of significant fibrosis (SAFE or BA for Metavir F ≥ 2) or cirrhosis (SAFE or BA for F4). Therefore, in clinical practice, physicians have to apply the algorithm for F ≥ 2, and then, when needed, the algorithm for F4 ("successive algorithms"). We aimed to evaluate successive SAFE, successive BA, and a new, noninvasive, detailed classification of fibrosis. The study included 1785 patients with chronic hepatitis C, liver biopsy, blood fibrosis tests, and FibroScan (the latter in 729 patients). The most accurate synchronous combination of FibroScan with a blood test (FibroMeter) provided a new detailed (six classes) classification (FM+FS). Successive SAFE had a significantly (P < 10(-3) ) lower diagnostic accuracy (87.3%) than individual SAFE for F ≥ 2 (94.6%) or SAFE for F4 (89.5%), and required significantly more biopsies (70.8% versus 64.0% or 6.4%, respectively, P < 10(-3) ). Similarly, successive BA had significantly (P ≤ 10(-3) ) lower diagnostic accuracy (84.7%) than individual BA for F ≥ 2 (88.3%) or BA for F4 (94.2%), and required significantly more biopsies (49.8% versus 34.6% or 24.6%, respectively, P < 10(-3) ). The diagnostic accuracy of the FM+FS classification (86.7%) was not significantly different from those of successive SAFE or BA. However, this new classification required no biopsy. CONCLUSION: SAFE and BA for significant fibrosis or cirrhosis are very accurate. However, their successive use induces a significant decrease in diagnostic accuracy and a significant increase in required liver biopsy. A new fibrosis classification that synchronously combines two fibrosis tests was as accurate as successive SAFE or BA, while providing an entirely noninvasive (0% liver biopsy) and more precise (six versus two or three fibrosis classes) fibrosis diagnosis

Impact de l'Hépatite Delta sur la fibrose hépatique mesurée par élastométrie impulsionnelle

Date du colloque&nbsp;: 10/2008</p

Optimization and robustness of blood tests for liver fibrosis and cirrhosis.

International audienceOBJECTIVES: To optimize the performance and feasibility of fibrosis blood tests and evaluate their robustness. DESIGN AND METHODS: The derivation population included 1056 HCV patients with liver biopsy and blood markers. Validation populations included 984 patients with various viral hepatitis causes, and Fibroscan and/or liver biopsy and/or blood markers. RESULTS: The bootstrap method validated the markers of the original FibroMeter(2G), but not those of Fibrotest and Hepascore, and provided a hyaluronate-free FibroMeter(3G). AUROCs for significant fibrosis were: FibroMeter(2G): 0.853 vs. FibroMeter(3G): 0.851, p=0.489. Compared to FibroMeter(2G), FibroMeter(3G) had a significantly higher patient rate with predictive values ≥90% for significant fibrosis. Accuracy for fibrosis stage classification was: Fibrotest: 37.9%, FibroMeter(2G): 74.9%, and FibroMeter(3G): 86.9% (p<10(-3)). CONCLUSION: The bootstrap method validated FibroMeter(2G) and provided a cheaper and more feasible hyaluronate-free FibroMeter(3G) with comparable performance. Compared to binary diagnosis, fibrosis stage classification increased discrimination, with an increased accuracy to 87% for FibroMeter(3G)

Impact of co infection with B+Delta viruses on liver fibrosis measured by transient elastography or FibroMeter

Date du colloque&nbsp;: 03/2009</p

Impact of B+Delta viruses co infection on the liver stiffness measurement (LSM) by transient elastography

Date du colloque&nbsp;: 04/2008</p