Diagnostic and interventional circulating biomarkers in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis

IntroductionIn the setting of the obesity epidemic, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) has become one of the most prevalent forms of chronic liver disease worldwide. Approximately 25% of adults globally have NAFLD which includes those with NAFL, or simple steatosis, and individuals with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) where inflammation, hepatocyte injury and potentially hepatic fibrosis are found in conjunction with steatosis. Individuals with NASH, particularly those with hepatic fibrosis, have higher rates of liver‐related and overall mortality, making this distinction of significant clinical importance. One of the core challenges in current clinical practice is identifying this subset of individuals with NASH without the use of liver biopsy, the gold standard for both diagnostics and staging disease severity. Identifying noninvasive biomarkers, an accurately measured and reproducible parameter, would aide in identifying patients eligible for NASH pharmacotherapy clinical trials and to help tailor intensity of monitoring required.Methods, Results and ConclusionsIn this review, we highlight both the currently available and novel diagnostic and interventional circulating biomarkers under investigation for NASH, underscoring their accuracy and limitations relevant to our patient population and current clinical practice.One of the core challenges in NASH is the ability to accurately diagnose and stage individuals using non‐invasive methods. In this review, we highlight both the currently available and novel diagnostic and interventional circulating biomarkers under investigation for NASH, underscoring their accuracy and limitations relevant to our patient population and current clinical practice.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/163493/2/edm2177.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/163493/1/edm2177_am.pd

Pedestrian Road Traffic Injuries in Urban Peruvian Children and Adolescents: Case Control Analyses of Personal and Environmental Risk Factors

BACKGROUND: Child pedestrian road traffic injuries (RTIs) are an important cause of death and disability in poorer nations, however RTI prevention strategies in those countries largely draw upon studies conducted in wealthier countries. This research investigated personal and environmental risk factors for child pedestrian RTIs relevant to an urban, developing world setting. METHODS: This is a case control study of personal and environmental risk factors for child pedestrian RTIs in San Juan de Miraflores, Lima, Perú. The analysis of personal risk factors included 100 cases of serious pedestrian RTIs and 200 age and gender matched controls. Demographic, socioeconomic, and injury data were collected. The environmental risk factor study evaluated vehicle and pedestrian movement and infrastructure at the sites in which 40 of the above case RTIs occurred and 80 control sites. FINDINGS: After adjustment, factors associated with increased risk of child pedestrian RTIs included high vehicle volume (OR 7.88, 95%CI 1.97-31.52), absent lane demarcations (OR 6.59, 95% CI 1.65-26.26), high vehicle speed (OR 5.35, 95%CI 1.55-18.54), high street vendor density (OR 1.25, 95%CI 1.01-1.55), and more children living in the home (OR 1.25, 95%CI 1.00-1.56). Protective factors included more hours/day spent in school (OR 0.52, 95%CI 0.33-0.82) and years of family residence in the same home (OR 0.97, 95%CI 0.95-0.99). CONCLUSION: Reducing traffic volumes and speeds, limiting the number of street vendors on a given stretch of road, and improving lane demarcation should be evaluated as components of child pedestrian RTI interventions in poorer countries

What Does the Future Hold for Patients With Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis: Diagnostic Strategies and Treatment Options in 2021 and Beyond?

Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) can progress to cirrhosis and its complications, including hepatocellular carcinoma. Given that the majority of patients with NASH are asymptomatic, developing screening strategies to identify those individuals at risk for progressive NASH remains a highly unmet need. Furthermore, noninvasive tests that accurately predict disease progression as part of the natural history of NASH or regression in response to treatment are urgently needed to decrease the reliance on repeat liver biopsies. To date, there are no US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved medications for NASH that can resolve steatohepatitis and lead to fibrosis regression. The lack of FDA-approved therapy has led to apathy in diagnosis and referral for specialty care. However, several therapeutic agents are rapidly progressing through the different phases of clinical trials with several already in phase 3 programs. In this review, we provide a summary of recent developments in NASH diagnostics and therapeutics that are likely to shape the future management of this underdiagnosed and undertreated disease

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Screening for Hepatitis B Virus Infection in Patients With Solid Tumors Before Initiating Chemotherapy.

Background & aimsPatients with solid tumors who undergo chemotherapy have an increased risk of hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation, but a low proportion of these patients are screened for HBV infection and guidelines make conflicting recommendations. Further, the cost-effectiveness of newer treatments for HBV prophylaxis has not been examined for this population. We aimed to analyze the cost-effectiveness of HBV screening before chemotherapy for patients with solid tumors.MethodsWe compared 3 HBV screening strategies (screen all, screen only high-risk patients, or screen none) using a Markov model of a population of adults in the United States who initiated chemotherapy for a solid tumor. We modeled use of entecavir prophylaxis for HB surface antigen (HBsAg)-positive patients and surveillance for HBsAg-negative patients who are positive for HBV core antibody. The Markov cycle length was 1 year, with model simulation for up to 5 years.ResultsThe screen all strategy was the most cost effective, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $42,761 compared to screening only high-risk patients. The screen none strategy was less effective and less costly than screening all patients or only high-risk patients. The screen-all strategy was the most cost effective for all estimates of prevalence of HBsAg-positive patients and estimates of HBV reactivation in HBsAg-positive patients. Screening only high-risk patients was the most cost-effective strategy when more than 25% of high-risk patients were screened for HBV infection.ConclusionsIn a Markov model analysis, we found screening all patients with solid tumors for HBV infection before chemotherapy to be the most cost-effective strategy. Guidelines should consider recommending HBV tests for patients initiating chemotherapy

Antiviral therapy use and related outcomes in patients with cancer and viral infections: results from SWOG S1204

PurposeInformation is limited about adherence to practice guidelines in patients with hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), or HIV infection receiving anticancer treatment.MethodsNewly diagnosed adult cancer patients were enrolled in a multicenter, prospective cohort study (SWOG S1204) during 2013-2017 to evaluate the prevalence of HBV, HCV, or HIV in patients initiating anticancer treatment. At 6 months, records of virus-positive patients were reviewed for antiviral therapy use; anticancer treatment dose reduction; and HBV reactivation (elevated viral load). Categorical variables were compared using chi-square or Fisher's exact test.ResultsOf 3055 enrolled patients with viral testing, 230 had chronic or past HBV, HCV, or HIV with 6-month follow-up data (chronic HBV, 15 patients; past HBV, 158; HCV, 49; HIV, 30). Twenty percent (3/15) of chronic HBV and 11% (17/158) of past HBV patients were co-infected with HCV and/or HIV. Rates of antiviral therapy use by 6 months were as follows: chronic HBV, 85% (11/13); past HBV receiving anti-B cell therapy, 60% (3/5); past HBV receiving systemic anticancer therapy without anti-B cell therapy, 8% (8/105); HCV, 6% (2/35); and HIV, 90% (19/21). Among patients with available data, anticancer treatment dose was reduced in 1 of 145 patients with past HBV and 1 of 42 with HCV. HBV reactivation occurred in 1 of 15 patients with chronic HBV; this patient was not receiving antiviral therapy.ConclusionMany patients with cancer and viral infections either do not receive guideline-recommended antiviral treatment or receive antiviral treatment that is not recommended in guidelines. Further education is needed to improve adherence to guidelines

Universal Viral Screening of Newly Diagnosed Cancer Patients in the United States: A Cost Efficiency Evaluation

Recommendations for universal screening of patients with cancer for hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) are inconsistent. A recent multisite screening study (S1204) from the SWOG Cancer Research Network found that a substantial number of patients with newly diagnosed cancer had previously unknown viral infections. The objective of this study was to determine the cost-efficiency of universal screening of patients with newly diagnosed cancer. We estimated the cost-efficiency of universal screening of new cancer cases for HBV, HCV, or HIV, expressed as cost per virus detected, from the health care payer perspective. The prevalence of each virus among this cohort was derived from S1204. Direct medical expenditures included costs associated with laboratory screening tests. Costs per case detected were estimated for each screening strategy. Secondary analysis examined the cost-efficiency of screening patients whose viral status at cancer diagnosis was unknown. Among the possible options for universal screening, screening for HBV alone ($581), HCV alone ($782), HBV and HCV ($631) and HBV, HCV, and HIV ($841) were most efficient in terms of cost per case detected. When screening was restricted to patients with unknown viral status, screening for HBV alone ($684), HBV and HCV ($872), HBV and HIV ($1,157), and all three viruses ($1,291) were most efficient in terms of cost per newly detected case. Efficient viral testing strategies represent a relatively modest addition to the overall cost of managing a patient with cancer. Screening for HBV, HCV, and HIV infections may be reasonable from both a budget and clinical standpoint.SignificanceScreening patients with cancer for HBV, HCV, and HIV is inconsistent in clinical practice despite national recommendations and known risks of complications from viral infection. Our study shows that while costs of viral screening strategies vary by choice of tests, they present a modest addition to the cost of managing a patient with cancer

Adapted time-varying covariates Cox model for predicting future cirrhosis development performs well in a large hepatitis C cohort

Abstract Background Patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) frequently remain at risk for cirrhosis after sustained virologic response (SVR). Existing cirrhosis predictive models for HCV do not account for dynamic antiviral treatment status and are limited by fixed laboratory covariates and short follow up time. Advanced fibrosis assessment modalities, such as transient elastography, remain inaccessible in many settings. Improved cirrhosis predictive models are needed. Methods We developed a laboratory-based model to predict progression of liver disease after SVR. This prediction model used a time-varying covariates Cox model adapted to utilize longitudinal laboratory data and to account for antiretroviral treatment. Individuals were included if they had a history of detectable HCV RNA and at least 2 AST-to-platelet ratio index (APRI) scores available in the national Veterans Health Administration from 2000 to 2015, Observation time extended through January 2019. We excluded individuals with preexisting cirrhosis. Covariates included baseline patient characteristics and 16 time-varying laboratory predictors. SVR, defined as permanently undetectable HCV RNA after antiviral treatment, was modeled as a step function of time. Cirrhosis development was defined as two consecutive APRI scores > 2. We predicted cirrhosis development at 1-, 3-, and 5-years follow-up. Results In a national sample of HCV patients (n = 182,772) with a mean follow-up of 6.32 years, 42% (n = 76,854) achieved SVR before 2016 and 16.2% (n = 29,566) subsequently developed cirrhosis. The model demonstrated good discrimination for predicting cirrhosis across all combinations of laboratory data windows and cirrhosis prediction intervals. AUROCs ranged from 0.781 to 0.815, with moderate sensitivity 0.703–0.749 and specificity 0.723–0.767. Conclusion A novel adaptation of time-varying covariates Cox modeling technique using longitudinal laboratory values and dynamic antiviral treatment status accurately predicts cirrhosis development at 1-, 3-, and 5-years among patients with HCV, with and without SVR. It improves upon earlier cirrhosis predictive models and has many potential population-based applications, especially in settings without transient elastography available.http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/173607/1/12911_2021_Article_1711.pd

Eliciting patient views on the allocation of limited healthcare resources: a deliberation on hepatitis C treatment in the Veterans Health Administration

Abstract Background In response to the development of highly effective but expensive new medications, policymakers, payors, and health systems are considering novel and pragmatic ways to provide these medications to patients. One approach is to target these treatments to those most likely to benefit. However, to maximize the fairness of these policies, and the acceptance of their implementation, the values and beliefs of patients should be considered. The provision of treatments for chronic hepatitis C (CHC) in the resource-constrained context of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) offered a real-world example of this situation, providing the opportunity to test the value of using Democratic Deliberation (DD) methods to solicit the informed opinions of laypeople on this complex issue. Methods We recruited Veterans (n = 30) from the VHA to attend a DD session. Following educational presentations from content experts, participants engaged in facilitated small group discussions to: 1) identify strategies to overcome CHC treatment barriers and 2) evaluate, vote on, and modify/improve two CHC treatment policies – “first come, first served” (FCFS) and “sickest first” (SF). We used transcripts and facilitators’ notes to identify key themes from the small group discussions. Additionally, participants completed pre- and post-DD surveys. Results Most participants endorsed the SF policy over the FCFS policy, emphasizing the ethical and medical appropriateness of treating the sickest first. Concerns about SF centered on the difficulty of implementation (e.g., how is “sickest” determined?) and unfairness to other Veterans. Proposed modifications focused on: 1) the need to consider additional health factors, 2) taking behavior and lifestyle into account, 3) offering education and support, 4) improving access, and 5) facilitating better decision-making. Conclusions DD offered a robust and useful method for addressing the allocation of the scarce resource of CHC treatment. Participants were able to develop a modified version of the SF policy and offered diverse recommendations to promote fairness and improve quality of care for Veterans. DD is an effective approach for incorporating patient preferences and gaining valuable insights for critical healthcare policy decisions in resource-limited environments.http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/173770/1/12913_2020_Article_5211.pd

FIGURE 1 from Universal Viral Screening of Patients with Newly Diagnosed Cancer in the United States: A Cost-efficiency Evaluation

Tornado diagram of most influential inputs for cost per case detected of screening for HCV alone (A), HBV alone (B), HBV and HCV (C), and HBV, HCV, and HIV together (D). For each of the four most efficient screening strategies, the figure displays the results from a one-way sensitivity analysis that examines the impact of changing the value of one input at a time on the cost per case detected for the screening strategy. The vertical axis indicates the cost per case detected in the base case scenario for each strategy.</p