Rearing conditions and life history influence the progress of gametogenesis and reproduction performances in pikeperch males and females

International audienc

Determination of reliability criteria for liver stiffness evaluation by transient elastography

UNLABELLED: Liver stiffness evaluation (LSE) is usually considered as reliable when it fulfills all the following criteria: ≥10 valid measurements, ≥60% success rate, and interquartile range / median ratio (IQR/M) ≤0.30. However, such reliable LSE have never been shown to be more accurate than unreliable LSE. Thus, we aimed to evaluate the relevance of the usual definition for LSE reliability, and to improve reliability by using diagnostic accuracy as a primary outcome in a large population. 1,165 patients with chronic liver disease from 19 French centers were included. All patients had liver biopsy and LSE. 75.7% of LSE were reliable according to the usual definition. However, these reliable LSE were not significantly more accurate than unreliable LSE with, respectively: 85.8% versus 81.5% well-classified patients for the diagnosis of cirrhosis (P = 0.082). In multivariate analyses with different diagnostic targets, LSE median and IQR/M were independent predictors of fibrosis staging, with no significant influence of ≥10 valid measurements or LSE success rate. These two reliability criteria determined three LSE groups: "very reliable" (IQR/M ≤0.10), "reliable" (0.10< IQR/M ≤0.30, or IQR/M >0.30 with LSE median <7.1 kPa), and "poorly reliable" (IQR/M >0.30 with LSE median ≥7.1 kPa). The rates of well-classified patients for the diagnosis of cirrhosis were, respectively: 90.4%, 85.8%, and 69.5% (P < 10(-3) ). According to these new reliability criteria, 9.1% of LSE were poorly reliable (versus 24.3% unreliable LSE with the usual definition, P < 10(-3) ), 74.3% were reliable, and 16.6% were very reliable. CONCLUSION: The usual definition for LSE reliability is not relevant. LSE reliability depends on IQR/M according to liver stiffness median level, defining thus three reliability categories: very reliable, reliable, and poorly reliable LSE. (HEPATOLOGY 2013)

Including osteoprotegerin and collagen IV in a score-based blood test for liver fibrosis increases diagnostic accuracy

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive methods for liver fibrosis evaluation in chronic liver diseases have been recently developed, i.e. transient elastography (Fibroscan™) and blood tests (Fibrometer®, Fibrotest®, and Hepascore®). In this study, we aimed to design a new score in chronic hepatitis C (CHC) by selecting blood markers in a large panel and we compared its diagnostic performance with those of other noninvasive methods. METHODS: Sixteen blood tests were performed in 306 untreated CHC patients included in a multicenter prospective study (ANRS HC EP 23 Fibrostar) using METAVIR histological fibrosis stage as reference. The new score was constructed by non linear regression using the most accurate biomarkers. RESULTS: Five markers (alpha-2-macroglobulin, apolipoprotein-A1, AST, collagen IV and osteoprotegerin) were included in the new function called Coopscore©. Using the Obuchowski Index, Coopscore© shows higher diagnostic performances than for Fibrometer®, Fibrotest®, Hepascore® and Fibroscan™ in CHC. Association between Fibroscan™ and Coopscore© might avoid 68% of liver biopsies for the diagnosis of significant fibrosis. CONCLUSION: Coopscore© provides higher accuracy than other noninvasive methods for the diagnosis of liver fibrosis in CHC. The association of Coopscore© with Fibroscan™ increases its predictive value

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

Fibrosis progression under maintenance interferon in hepatitis C is better detected by blood test than liver morphometry

Summary.  We evaluated whether quantitative measurements of liver fibrosis with recently developed diagnostics outperform histological staging in detecting natural or interferon-induced changes. We compared Metavir staging, morphometry (area and fractal dimension) and six blood tests in 157 patients with chronic hepatitis C from two trials testing maintenance interferon for 96 weeks. Paired liver biopsies and blood tests were available for 101 patients, and there was a significant improvement in Metavir activity and a significant increase in blood tests reflecting fibrosis quantity in patients treated with interferon when compared with controls – all per cent changes in histological fibrosis measures were significantly increased in F1 vs F2–4 stages only in the interferon group. For the whole population studied between weeks 0 and 96, there was significant progression only in the area of fibrosis (AOF) (P = 0.026), FibroMeter (P = 0.020) and CirrhoMeter (P = 0.003). With regards to dynamic reproducibility, agreement was good (ric ≥ 0.72) only for Metavir fibrosis score, FibroMeter and CirrhoMeter. The per cent change in AOF was significantly higher than that of fractal dimension (P = 0.003) or Metavir fibrosis score (P = 0.015). CirrhoMeter was the only blood test with a change significantly higher than that of AOF (P = 0.039). AOF and two blood tests, reflecting fibrosis quantity, have high sensitivity and/or reproducibility permitting the detection of a small progression in liver fibrosis over two years. A blood test reflecting fibrosis quantity is more sensitive and reproducible than morphometry. The study also shows that maintenance interferon does not improve fibrosis, whatever its stage

Development of a new ultra sensitive real-time PCR assay (ultra sensitive RTQ-PCR) for the quantification of HBV-DNA

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Improved sensitivity of HBV-DNA tests is of critical importance for the management of HBV infection. Our aim was to develop and assess a new ultra sensitive in-house real-time PCR assay for HBV-DNA quantification (ultra sensitive RTQ-PCR).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Previously used HBV-DNA standards were calibrated against the WHO 1^stInternational Standard for HBV-DNA (OptiQuant^®HBV-DNA Quantification Panel, Accrometrix Europe B.V.). The 95% and 50% HBV-DNA detection end-point of the assay were 22.2 and 8.4 IU/mL. According to the calibration results, 1 IU/mL equals 2.8 copies/mL. Importantly the clinical performance of the ultra sensitive real-time PCR was tested similar (67%) to the Procleix Ultrio discriminatory HBV test (dHBV) (70%) in low-titer samples from patients with occult Hepatitis B. Finally, in the comparison of ultra sensitive RTQ-PCR with the commercially available COBAS TaqMan HBV Test, the in-house assay identified 94.7% of the 94 specimens as positive versus 90.4% identified by TaqMan, while the quantitative results that were positive by both assay were strongly correlated (<it>r </it>= 0.979).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>We report a new ultra sensitive real time PCR molecular beacon based assay with remarkable analytical and clinical sensitivity, calibrated against the WHO 1^stInternational standard.</p

A New Combination of Blood Test and Fibroscan for Accurate Non-Invasive Diagnosis of Liver Fibrosis Stages in Chronic Hepatitis C

OBJECTIVES: Precise evaluation of the level of liver fibrosis is recommended in patients with chronic hepatitis C (CHC). Blood fibrosis tests and Fibroscan are now widely used for the non-invasive diagnosis of liver fibrosis. Detailed fibrosis stage classifications have been developed to provide an estimation of the liver fibrosis stage from the results of these non-invasive tests. Our aim was to develop a new and more accurate fibrosis stage classification by using new scores combining non-invasive fibrosis tests.METHODS: In all, 729 patients with CHC (exploratory set: 349; validation set: 380) had liver biopsy for Metavir fibrosis (F) staging, and 6 fibrosis tests: Fibroscan, Fibrotest, FibroMeter, Hepascore, FIB-4, APRI. RESULTS: Exploratory set: Fibroscan and FibroMeter were the independent predictors of different diagnostic targets of liver fibrosis. New fibrosis indexes combining FibroMeter and Fibroscan were thus developed for the diagnosis of clinically significant fibrosis (CSF-index) or severe fibrosis (SF-index). The association of CSF- and SF-indexes provided a new fibrosis stage classification (CSF/SF classification): F0/1, F1/2, F2±1, F2/3, F3±1, F4. Validation set: CSF/SF classification had a high diagnostic accuracy (85.8% well-classified patients), significantly higher than the diagnostic accuracies of FibroMeter (69.7%, P&lt;0.001), Fibroscan (63.3%, P&lt;0.001), or Fibrotest (43.9%, P&lt;0.001) classifications. CONCLUSIONS: The association of new fibrosis indexes combining FibroMeter and Fibroscan provides a new fibrosis stage classification. This classification is significantly more accurate than Fibrotest, FibroMeter, or Fibroscan classifications, and improves the accuracy of the non-invasive diagnosis of liver fibrosis stages to 86% without any liver biopsy

A comparison of hepatitis B viral markers of patients in different clinical stages of chronic infection

Hepatitis B viral markers may be useful for predicting outcomes such as liver-related deaths or development of hepatocellular carcinoma. We determined the frequency of these markers in different clinical stages of chronic hepatitis B infection. We compared baseline hepatitis B viral markers in 317 patients who were enrolled in a prospective study and identified the frequency of these tests in immune-tolerant (IT) patients, in inactive carriers , and in patients with either hepatitis B e antigen ( HBeAg)- positive or HBeAg-negative chronic hepatitis or cirrhosis. IT patients were youngest (median age 27 years) and HBeAg- negative patients with cirrhosis were oldest (median age 58 years) (p = 0.03 to < 0.0001). The male to female ratio was similar both in IT patients and in inactive carriers, but there was a male preponderance both in patients with chronic hepatitis and in patients with cirrhosis (p < 0.0001). The A1896 precore mutants were most prevalent in inactive carriers (36.4%) and HBeAg- negative patients with chronic hepatitis (38.8%; p < 0.0001), and the T 1762/A1764 basal core promoter mutants were most often detected in HBeAg- negative patients with cirrhosis (65.1%; p = 0.02). Genotype A was detected only in 5.3% of IT patients, and genotype B was least often detected in both HBeAg-Positive patients with chronic hepatitis and cirrhosis (p = 0.03). The hepatitis B viral DNA levels were lowest in inactive carriers (2.69 log(10) IU/mL) and highest in IT patients (6. 80 log(10) IU/mL; p = 0.02 to < 0.0001). At follow-up, HBeAg-positive and HBeAg-negative patients with cirrhosis accounted for 57 of 64 (89.1%) liver-related deaths (p < 0. 0001). Differences in baseline hepatitis B viral markers were detected in patients in various clinical stages of hepatitis B virus infection. HBeAg-positive and HBeAg- negative patients with cirrhosis accounted for the majority of the liver-related fatalities

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

BackgroundNon-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. Methods 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. Results In population #1 including 205 patients and comparing liver biopsy (reference: consensus reading by two experts) and blood tests, Metavir fibrosis (FM) stage accuracy was 64.4% in local pathologists vs. 82.2% (p &lt; 10-3) in single expert pathologist. Significant discrepancy (≥ 2FM vs reference histological result) rates were: Fibrotest: 17.2%, FibroMeter2G: 5.6%, local pathologists: 4.9%, FibroMeter3G: 0.5%, expert pathologist: 0% (p &lt; 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 FibroMeter2G (0.30 ± 0.55) and FibroMeter3G (0.14 ± 0.37, p &lt; 10-3) or Fibrotest (0.84 ± 0.80, p &lt; 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%), FibroMeter2G: 68.7% (68.2%), FibroMeter3G: 77.1% (83.4%), p &lt; 10-3 (p &lt; 10-3). Significant discrepancy (≥ 2 FM) rates were, respectively: Fibrotest: 21.3% (22.2%), Fibroscan: 12.9% (12.3%), FibroMeter2G: 5.7% (6.0%), FibroMeter3G: 0.9% (0.9%), p &lt; 10-3 (p &lt; 10-3). Conclusions 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 FibroMeter3G. 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

Trends in all cause and viral liver disease-related hospitalizations in people with hepatitis B or C: a population-based linkage study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Previous studies have reported an excess burden of cancer and mortality in populations with chronic hepatitis B (HBV) or C (HCV), but there are limited data comparing hospitalization rates. In this study, we compared hospitalization rates for all causes and viral liver disease in people notified with HBV or HCV in New South Wales (NSW), Australia.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>HBV and HCV notifications were linked to their hospital (July 2000-June 2006), HIV and death records. Standardized hospitalization ratios (SHRs) were calculated using rates for the NSW population. Random effects Poisson regression was used to examine temporal trends.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The SHR for all causes and non alcoholic liver disease was two-fold higher in the HCV cohort compared with the HBV cohort (SHRs 1.4 (95%CI: 1.4-1.4) v 0.6 (95%CI: 0.6-0.6) and 14.0 (95%CI: 12.7-15.4) v 5.4 (95%CI: 4.5-6.4), respectively), whilst the opposite was seen for primary liver cancer (SHRs 16.2 (95%CI: 13.8-19.1) v 29.1 (95%CI: 24.7-34.2)). HIV co-infection doubled the SHR except for primary liver cancer in the HCV/HIV cohort. In HBV and HCV mono-infected cohorts, all cause hospitalization rates declined and primary liver cancer rates increased, whilst rates for non alcoholic liver disease increased by 9% in the HCV cohort but decreased by 14% in the HBV cohort (<it>P </it>< 0.001).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Hospital-related morbidity overall and for non alcoholic liver disease was considerably higher for HCV than HBV. Improved treatment of advanced HBV-related liver disease may explain why HBV liver-related morbidity declined. In contrast, HCV liver-related morbidity increased and improved treatments, especially for advanced liver disease, and higher levels of treatment uptake are required to reverse this trend.</p