The dilemma of differentiating between acute hepatitis B and chronic hepatitis B with acute exacerbation: Is quantitative serology the answer?

Clinical Significance and Remaining Issues of Anti-HBc Antibody and HBV Core-Related Antigen

Currently, hepatitis B virus (HBV) core antibody (anti-HBc antibody) and HBV core-related antigen (HBcrAg) are widely used as serum markers for diagnosis based on the HBV core region. This review focused on anti-HBc antibodies and HBcrAg and aimed to summarize the clinical significance of currently used assay systems and the issues involved. While anti-HBc is very significant for clinical diagnosis, the clinical significance of quantitative assay of anti-HBc antibody has been reevaluated with improvements in diagnostic performance, including its association with clinical stage and prediction of carcinogenesis and reactivation. In addition, concerning the new HBcrAg, a high-sensitivity assay method has recently been established, and its diagnostic significance, including the prediction of reactivation, is being reevaluated. On the other hand, the quantitative level of anti-HBc antibody expressed in different units among assay systems complicates the interpretation of the results. However, it is difficult to standardize assay systems as they vary in advantages, and caution is needed in interpreting the assay results. In conclusion, with the development of highly sensitive HBcrAg and anti-HBc antibody, a rapid and sensitive detection assay system has been developed and used in clinical practice. In the future, it is hoped that a global standard will be created based on the many clinical findings.

Unusual serological profile in hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection associated with a probable clinical case of acute exacerbation of pre-existing chronic HBV infection

BACKGROUND

Acute or chronic HBV infection in an individual can be laboratory characterized according to the serological profile of the viral markers in the bloodstream, and the dynamics monitoring of these markers is necessary to assess the disorder course and the infection outcome. However, under certain circumstances unusual or atypical serological profiles may be observed in both acute and chronic HBV infection. They are considered as such because they do not properly characterize the form or infection clinical phase or because they seem inconsistent, considering the viral markers dynamics in both clinical contexts. This manuscript comprises the analysis of an unusual serological profile in HBV infection.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This clinical-laboratory study, had as reference a patient who presented clinical profile suggestive of acute HBV infection after recent exposure, whose laboratory data were initially compatible with this clinical presentation. However, the serological profile analysis and its monitoring demonstrated unusual pattern of viral markers expression, which has been observed in several clinical contexts, and is often associated a number of agent- or host-related factors.

CONCLUSION

The serological profile analyzed here, associated with the biochemical markers serum levels found, is indicative of active chronic infection, consequence of viral reactivation. This finding suggests that in the event of unusual serological profiles in HBV infection, if the influence of agent- or host-related factors is not properly considered and neither the viral markers dynamics properly analyzed, there may be mistake in the infection clinical diagnosis, especially when the patient's clinical and epidemiological history is unknown.

Clinical Utility of Quantitative HBV Core Antibodies for Solving Diagnostic Dilemmas

The present-day management of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection relies on constant and appropriate monitoring of viral activity, disease progression and treatment response. Traditional HBV infection biomarkers have many limitations in predicting clinical outcomes or therapy success. Quantitation of HBV core antibodies (qAnti-HBc) is a new non-invasive biomarker that can be used in solving multiple diagnostic problems. It was shown to correlate well with infection phases, level of hepatic inflammation and fibrosis, exacerbations during chronic infection and presence of occult infection. Further, the level of qAnti-HBc was recognised as predictive of spontaneous or therapy-induced HBeAg and HBsAg seroclearance, relapse after therapy discontinuation, re-infection after liver transplantation and viral reactivation upon immunosuppression. However, qAnti-HBc cannot be relied upon as a single diagnostic test to solve all dilemmas, and its diagnostic and prognostic power can be much improved when combined with other diagnostic biomarkers (HBV DNA, HBeAg, qHBsAg and anti-HBs antibodies). The availability of commercial qAnti-HBc diagnostic kits still needs to be improved. The comparison of results from different studies and definitions of universal cut-off values continue to be hindered because many methods are only semi-quantitative. The clinical utility of qAnti-HBc and the methods used for its measurement are the focus of this review.

Novel Liver Stiffness-Based Nomogram for Predicting Hepatocellular Carcinoma Risk in Patients with Chronic Hepatitis B Virus Infection Initiating Antiviral Therapy

Simple Summary

We developed a novel risk-scoring model for hepatocellular carcinoma development in treatment-naïve patients with chronic hepatitis B virus infection who are starting antiviral therapy with entecavir or tenofovir. The model reflects age, platelet count, hepatitis B e antigen positivity, serum albumin and total bilirubin levels, cirrhosis development, and liver stiffness values measured by transient elastography. Our new model showed better performance for predicting hepatocellular carcinoma development (Harrell’s c-index: 0.799) than the PAGE-B, modified PAGE-B, and modified REACH-B models in Asian patients with chronic hepatitis B receiving potent antiviral therapy.

Abstract

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) risk prediction is important to developing individualized surveillance approaches. We designed a novel HCC prediction model using liver stiffness on transient elastography for patients receiving antiviral therapy against hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. We recruited 2037 patients receiving entecavir or tenofovir as first-line antivirals and used the Cox regression analysis to determine key variables for model construction. Within 58.1 months (median), HCC developed in 182 (8.9%) patients. Patients with HCC showed a higher prevalence of cirrhosis (90.7% vs. 45.9%) and higher liver stiffness values (median 13.9 vs. 7.2 kPa) than those without. A novel nomogram (score 0–304) was established using age, platelet count, cirrhosis development, and liver stiffness values, which were independently associated with increased HCC risk, along with hepatitis B e antigen positivity and serum albumin and total bilirubin levels. Cumulative HCC probabilities were 0.7%, 5.0%, and 22.7% in the low- (score ≤87), intermediate- (88–222), and high-risk (≥223) groups, respectively. The c-index value was 0.799 (internal validity: 0.805), higher than that of the PAGE-B (0.726), modified PAGE-B (0.756), and modified REACH-B (0.761) models (all p < 0.05). Our nomogram showed acceptable performance in predicting HCC in Asian HBV-infected patients receiving potent antiviral therapy.

Effect of tenofovir alafenamide vs. tenofovir disoproxil fumarate on hepatocellular carcinoma risk in chronic hepatitis B

It is unclear whether tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) or tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) is more effective for preventing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) development in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB). In this study, we compared the effectiveness of these two antiviral agents for preventing HCC. We included treatment-naïve CHB patients undergoing antiviral therapy with TDF only (TDF group) or a TAF-based regimen (TAF group) at three academic teaching hospitals from 2012 to 2019. The TAF group included patients receiving TAF as first-line treatment and patients switching from TDF to TAF. Patients with decompensated cirrhosis or HCC at enrollment were excluded. Cumulative probabilities of HCC were assessed using Kaplan-Meier methodology. In total, 2,117 patients were included: 1,832 in the TDF group and 285 in the TAF group. The annual HCC incidence was not significantly different between TDF and TAF groups: 1.66 vs. 1.19 per 100 person-years [PY], respectively (multivariate analysis: adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.774 [reference: TDF group]; p = .438). Male, liver cirrhosis, hepatitis B e antigen negativity, Fibrosis-4 index>3.25 and low albumin were independently associated with a higher risk of HCC. Propensity score-matched and inverse probability of treatment weighting analyses yielded similar results: 1.56 vs. 1.19 per 100 PY, respectively (HR 1.175; p = .708) and 1.66 vs. 1.29 per 100 PY, respectively (HR 0.888; p = .446). The risk of HCC development was not significantly different between TDF and TAF groups of CHB patients. Further studies with a larger sample size and longer follow-up are required to validate our results.

Impact of tenofovir alafenamide vs. entecavir on hepatocellular carcinoma risk in patients with chronic hepatitis B

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Whether entecavir (ETV) or tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) is better at preventing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) development among patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) remains unclear. The present study was conducted to explore the ability of these two antivirals to prevent HCC.

METHODS

From 2012 to 2019, treatment-naïve CHB patients undergoing ETV or TAF therapy were recruited at three academic teaching hospitals. The TAF group comprised patients starting TAF as first-line antiviral and those switching antivirals from tenofovir disoproxil fumarate to TAF. Patients with decompensated cirrhosis or HCC at enrollment were excluded from the analysis. Cumulative probabilities of HCC were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

In total, 1810 patients (1525 and 285 in ETV and TAF groups, respectively) were recruited. The annual HCC incidence was statistically not different between the ETV and TAF groups (1.67 vs. 1.19 per 100 person-years, respectively) with an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0.681 (p = 0.255), as determined by multivariate analysis. Male, hypertension, liver cirrhosis, FIB-4 index, and albumin were independent prognostic factors for HCC development. Propensity score-matched and inverse probability of treatment weighting analyses yielded similar results, with non-statistically different HCC incidence between the ETV and TAF groups (1.07 vs. 1.19 per 100 person-years (HR = 0.973; p = 0.953) and 1.67 vs. 1.89 per 100 person-years, respectively (HR = 0.949; p = 0.743).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that ETV- and TAF-treated CHB patients have similar risk of developing HCC. Further studies with the larger sample size and longer follow-up are needed to validate these results.

External validation of CAGE-B and SAGE-B scores for Asian chronic hepatitis B patients with well-controlled viremia by antivirals

CAGE-B and SAGE-B scores, consisting of age and fibrotic burden as cirrhosis and/or liver stiffness, were recently proposed to predict hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) risk among Caucasian chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients undergoing long-term antiviral therapy. We externally validated their predictive performances among an independent cohort from Asia, compared to other conventional prediction models. We consecutively recruited CHB patients with well-controlled viremia (serum HBV DNA < 2000 IU/mL) receiving antiviral therapy. Patients with decompensated cirrhosis or HCC at baseline were excluded. Among 1763 patients, CAGE-B score provided the highest Heagerty's integrated area under the curve (iAUC) (0.820), followed by SAGE-B (0.804), mREACH-B (0.800), CAMD (0.786), mPAGE-B (0.748) and PAGE-B (0.721) scores. CAGE-B score showed a significantly better performance than SAGE-B, CAMD, PAGE-B and mPAGE-B scores, but was similar to mREACH-B. SAGE-B score also showed significantly better performance than mPAGE-B and PAGE-B, but was similar to CAMD and mREACH-B. According to CAGE-B score 0-5, 6-10 and ≥11, the annual HCC incidences were 0.18, 1.34 and 6.03 per 100 person-years, respectively (all p < 0.001 between each pair). Likewise, by SAGE-B score 0-5, 6-10 and ≥11, those were 0.31, 1.49 and 8.96 per 100 person-years, respectively (all p < 0.001 between each pair). Hence, CAGE-B and SAGE-B scores showed acceptable predictive performances for Asian CHB patients undergoing antiviral therapy, with the higher performance by CAGE-B score. They show a trend towards better prognostic capability to predict HCC risk than previous models.

The Prognostic Role of On-Treatment Liver Stiffness for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Development in Patients with Chronic Hepatitis B

Background

Dynamic changes in fibrosis markers occur under long-term antiviral treatment (AVT) for chronic hepatitis B. We evaluated prognostic values of on-treatment liver stiffness (LS) compared to ultrasonography findings and determined its optimal cutoff.

Methods

The cumulative probability of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) was assessed among 880 patients receiving entecavir or tenofovir for ≥2 years. LS was measured using transient elastography.

Results

After ≥2 years’ AVT, the proportion of patients with cirrhosis on ultrasonography decreased from 54.7% to 44.9% and the mean LS decreased from 13.6 to 8.2 kPa (both p<0.001). However, unlike cirrhosis on ultrasonography before AVT (p<0.001), that after ≥2 years’ AVT did not discriminate HCC risk (p=0.792). Using the Contal and O’Quigley’s method, pre-AVT and on-treatment LS of 12.0 and 6.4 kPa, respectively, were chosen as optimal cutoffs to successfully discriminate HCC risk (both p<0.001). However, through stratification using both pre-AVT and on-treatment LS, the prognosis was finally determined according to on-treatment LS of 6.4 kPa, regardless of pre-AVT LS of 12.0 kPa. Using on-treatment LS of 12 kPa suggested by Caucasians with CHB receiving long-term AVT, patients with higher LS were more likely to develop HCC than those with lower LS (p=0.017); however, there was no significant difference between those with on-treatment LS of 6.4–11.9 and ≥ 12.0 kPa (p=0.920).

Conclusion

For HCC risk stratification in patients receiving long-term AVT, on-treatment LS cutoff should be lowered to 6.4 kPa, which is more predictive than 12 kPa or cirrhosis on ultrasonography. Further studies are required for validation.

Treatment efficacy by hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy vs. sorafenib after liver-directed concurrent chemoradiotherapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

We compared the clinical efficacies of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) vs. sorafenib as sequential maintenance therapy following liver-directed concurrent chemoradiotherapy (LD-CCRT) for locally advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

Patients undergoing HAIC with 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin (HAIC-maintain group, n = 151) or sorafenib (Sorafenib-maintain group, n = 37) after LD-CCRT were consecutively enrolled. The study endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and treatment response rates.

RESULTS

The median OS among HAIC-maintain and Sorafenib-maintain groups were 15.9 and 24.3 months (p = 0.287), whereas the median PFS were 8.1 and 9.1 months (p = 0.651), respectively. During the planned treatments, the radiological objective response rate (54.3% vs. 64.9%; p = 0.246), and conversion rate to surgical resection or liver transplantation after successful down-staging (15.9% vs. 18.9%; p = 0.657) were comparable between the HAIC-maintain and Sorafenib-maintain groups. Similar results were found after the inverse probability of treatment weighting and propensity score-matching analyses. Regarding treatment-related adverse events, the HAIC-maintain group showed worse profiles in terms of leukopenia (all grades [p = 0.001] and grades 3 or 4 [p = 0.041]) and hypoalbuminemia (p = 0.001) than the Sorafenib-maintain group.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall clinical efficacies between the sequential treatment of HAIC vs. sorafenib after LD-CCRT were comparable for locally advanced HCC.