Treatment options for Hepatitis C infection have greatly improved with direct-acting antiviral (DAA) combinations achieving high cure rates. Nevertheless, the cost of this treatment is still high and access to treatment in many countries has been preferentially reserved for patients with more severe fibrosis (F3 and F4). In this French nationwide study, we investigated the epidemiological characteristics and genotype distribution of hepatitis C virus (HCV) in treatment-naive patients with METAVIR fibrosis stages between F0 and F2 in order to identify patient profiles that became eligible for unrestricted treatment in a second period. Between 2015 and 2016 we collected data from nine French university hospitals on a total of 584 HCV positive patients with absent, mild or moderate liver fibrosis. The most represented genotypes were genotype 1b (159/584; 27.2%), followed by genotype 1a (150/584; 25.7%); genotype 3 (87/584: 14.9%); genotype 4 (80/584; 13.7%). Among genotype 4: 4a was predominantly encountered with 22 patients (27.5% of genotype 4). Genotypes 1b and 1a are currently the most frequent virus types present in treatment-naive patients with mild fibrosis in France. They can be readily cured using the available DAA. Nevertheless, non-a/non-d genotype 4 is also frequent in this population and clinical data on the efficacy of DAA on these subtypes is missing. The GEMHEP is the French group for study and evaluation of viral hepatitis on a national scale. Data collection on epidemiological and molecular aspects of viral hepatitis is performed on a regular basis in all main French teaching hospitals and serves as a basis for surveillance of these infections. Analysis and trends are regularly published on behalf of the GEMHEP group. Data collection was performed retrospectively over the 2015-2016 period, covering nine main university hospitals in France. A total of 584 hepatitis C positive patients were included in this study. Genotyping of the circulating viruses showed a high prevalence of genotypes 1b and 1a in our population. The epidemiology of hepatitis C is slowly changing in France, particularly as a consequence of the rise of 'non-a non-d' genotype 4 viruses mainly originating from African populations. More data concerning treatment efficacy of these genotypes is needed in order to guide clinical care.

BACKGROUND:Liver fibrosis is often accompanied by steatosis, particularly in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), and its non-invasive characterisation is of utmost importance. Vibration-controlled transient elastography is the non-invasive method of choice; however, recent research suggests that steatosis may influence its diagnostic performance. Controlled Attenuation Parameter (CAP) added to transient elastography enables simultaneous assessment of steatosis and fibrosis.AIM:To determine how to use CAP in interpreting liver stiffness measurements.METHODS:This is a secondary analysis of data from an individual patient data meta-analysis on CAP. The main exclusion criteria for the current analysis were unknown aetiology, unreliable elastography measurement and data already used for the same research question. Aetiology-specific liver stiffness measurement cut-offs were determined and used to estimate positive and negative predictive values (PPV/NPV) with logistic regression as functions of CAP.RESULTS:Two thousand and fifty eight patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria (37% women, 18% NAFLD/NASH, 42% HBV, 40% HCV, 51% significant fibrosis ≥ F2). Youden optimised cut-offs were only sufficient for ruling out cirrhosis (NPV of 98%). With sensitivity and specificity-optimised cut-offs, NPV for ruling out significant fibrosis was moderate (70%) and could be improved slightly through consideration of CAP. PPV for significant fibrosis and cirrhosis were 68% and 55% respectively, despite specificity-optimised cut-offs for cirrhosis.CONCLUSIONS:Liver stiffness measurement values below aetiology-specific cut-offs are very useful for ruling out cirrhosis, and to a lesser extent for ruling out significant fibrosis. In the case of the latter, Controlled Attenuation Parameter can improve interpretation slightly. Even if cut-offs are very high, liver stiffness measurements are not very reliable for ruling in fibrosis or cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND:Hepatitis B virus (HBV)/hepatitis C virus (HCV) confection has been rarely studied in nonasian series.AIM:To compare the characteristics of HBV/HCV coinfected patients to those of HBV- or HCV-monoinfected patients in the ANRS CO22 HEPATHER cohort study.PATIENTS AND METHODS:Of the 20 936 included patients, 95 had HBV/HCV coinfection (hepatitis B surface antigen, anti-HCV antibody and HCV RNA positive) and were matched with 375 HBV- and 380 HCV-monoinfected patients on age, gender and time since HBV or HCV diagnosis.RESULTS:F3-F4 fibrosis was more frequent in coinfected patients (58%) than in HBV- (32%, P < .0001), but similar in HCV-monoinfected patients (52%, P = .3142). Decompensated cirrhosis was more frequent in coinfected patients (11%) than in HBV- (2%, P = .0002) or HCV- (4%, P = .0275) monoinfected patients. Past excessive alcohol use was more frequent in coinfected patients (26%) than in HBV (12%, P = .0011), but similar in HCV monoinfected patients (32%, P = .2868). Coinfected patients had a higher proportion with arterial hypertension (42%) than HBV- (26%) or HCV-monoinfected patients (25%) (P < .003). Multivariable analysis confirmed the association between F3-F4 fibrosis and HCV infection in HBV-infected patients (OR = 3.84, 95% CI 1.99-7.43) and the association between decompensated cirrhosis and coinfection in HBV infected (OR = 5.58, 95% CI 1.42-22.0) or HCV infected patients (OR = 3.02, 95% CI 1.22-7.44).CONCLUSIONS:HCV coinfection harmfully affects liver fibrosis in HBV patients, while decompensated cirrhosis is increased in coinfected patients compared with HBV- or HCV-monoinfected patients. HCV treatment is as safe and effective in coinfected as monoinfected patients and should be considered following the same rules as HCV monoinfected patients.

Quantitative hepatitis B core-related antigen (qHBcrAg) has been proposed as an additional marker to quantitative HBsAg (qHBsAg), for management of chronic hepatitis B. Evaluate baseline combination of qHBsAg and qHBcrAg for identification of patients that could benefit from pegylated interferon-alpha-2a (PegIFN)-based therapy. Sixty-two HBeAg-negative patients treated with PegIFN or PegIFN plus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (PegIFN+TDF). HBsAg and HBcrAg titres were evaluated at baseline. Thirty patients received PegIFN and 32 PegIFN+TDF. SR was 10 of 30 and 17 of 32 in PegIFN and PegIFN+TDF patients, respectively. Cut-offs determined by maximized Youden's index for identifying patients likely to respond to therapy were as follows: 3.141 log(10) IU/mL and 3.450 log(10) U/mL for HBsAg and HBcrAg, respectively. At the end of 3 years post-treatment follow-up, HBsAg loss was observed in 7 of 30 and 6 of 32 in PegIFN and PegIFN+TDF patients, respectively. The AUC was estimated to be 0.716 (95% CI [0.578, 0.855]) for HBsAg and 0.668 (95% CI [0.524, 0.811]) for HBcrAg (P=.5541). PPVs for AUCs(95%CI) were 0.762(0.590-0.947), 0.714(0.533-1.000) and 0.800(0.611-1.000), and NPVs for AUCs(95%CI) were 0.756(0.660-0.899), 0.718(0.630-0.857) and 0.765(0.675-0.889) for qHBsAg, qHBcrAg and the combination of both markers, respectively. Baseline qHBsAg 3.141 log(10) IU/mL and qHBcrAg 3.450 log(10)U/mL thresholds used separately or in combination allow prediction of response, prior to PegIFN-based therapy, with a PPV of 80.3% and NPV of 76.5%. Baseline qHBsAg is predictive of HBsAg loss. Both markers could be used, separately or in combination, for PegIFN-based precision therapy'. Our results emphasize that the combination of PegIFN alpha-2a plus TDF with 53% of SR might be an alternative to finite therapy.