Digital Pathology Enables Automated and Quantitative Assessment of Inflammatory Activity in Patients with Chronic Liver Disease.

Traditional histological evaluation for grading liver disease severity is based on subjective and semi-quantitative scores. We examined the relationship between digital pathology analysis and corresponding scoring systems for the assessment of hepatic necroinflammatory activity. A prospective, multicenter study including 156 patients with chronic liver disease (74% nonalcoholic fatty liver disease-NAFLD, 26% chronic hepatitis-CH etiologies) was performed. Inflammation was graded according to the Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis (NASH) Clinical Research Network system and METAVIR score. Whole-slide digital image analysis based on quantitative (I-score: inflammation ratio) and morphometric (C-score: proportionate area of staining intensities clusters) measurements were independently performed. Our data show that I-scores and C-scores increase with inflammation grades (p < 0.001). High correlation was seen for CH (ρ = 0.85-0.88), but only moderate for NAFLD (ρ = 0.5-0.53). I-score (p = 0.008) and C-score (p = 0.002) were higher for CH than NAFLD. Our MATLAB algorithm performed better than QuPath software for the diagnosis of low-moderate inflammation (p < 0.05). C-score AUC for classifying NASH was 0.75 (95%CI, 0.65-0.84) and for moderate/severe CH was 0.99 (95%CI, 0.97-1.00). Digital pathology measurements increased with fibrosis stages (p < 0.001). In conclusion, quantitative and morphometric metrics of inflammatory burden obtained by digital pathology correlate well with pathologists' scores, showing a higher accuracy for the evaluation of CH than NAFLD.

Epidemiology of hepatitis C virus infection in a country with universal access to direct-acting antiviral agents: Data for designing a cost-effective elimination policy in Spain.

Accurate HCV prevalence estimates are necessary for guiding elimination policies. Our aim was to determine the HCV prevalence and assess the cost-effectiveness of a screen-and-treat strategy in the Spanish population. A population-based, cross-sectional study (PREVHEP-ETHON Cohort, Epidemiological sTudy of Hepatic infectiONs; NCT02749864) was performed from July 2015-April 2017. Participants from three Spanish regions were selected using two-stage conglomerate sampling, and stratified by age, with randomized subject selection. Anthropometric and demographic data were collected, and blood samples were taken to detect anti-HCV antibodies/quantify HCV RNA. The cost-effectiveness of the screening strategies and treatment were analysed using a Markov model. Among 12 246 participants aged 20-74 (58.4% females), the overall anti-HCV prevalence was 1.2% (95% CI 1.0-1.4), whereas the detectable HCV-RNA prevalence was 0.3% (0.2-0.4). Infection rates were highest in subjects aged 50-74 years [anti-HCV 1.6% (1.3-1.9), HCV RNA 0.4% (0.3-0.6]. Among the 147 anti-HCV + subjects, 38 (25.9%) had active infections while 109 (74.1%) had been cleared of infection; 44 (40.4%) had cleared after antiviral treatment, whereas 65 (59.6%) had cleared spontaneously. Overall, 59.8% of the anti-HCV + participants were aware of their serological status. Considering a cost of treatment of €7000/patient, implementing screening programmes is cost-effective across all age cohorts, particularly in patients aged 50-54 (negative incremental cost-effectiveness ratio which indicates a cost-saving strategy). The current HCV burden is lower than previously estimated, with approximately 25% of anti-HCV + individuals having an active infection. A strategy of screening and treatment at current treatment prices in Spain is cost-effective across all age cohorts.

[Cost-utility analysis of triple therapy with telaprevir in treatment-naïve hepatitis C patients]. / Análisis coste-utilidad de la triple terapia con telaprevir en pacientes con hepatitis C no tratados previamente.

INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of Hepatitis C (HCV) in Spain is 2,5%, with a high morbimortality rate. Triple therapy based on telaprevir plus peginterferon/ribavirin ([T/PR]) has demonstrated to be an effective approach in treatment-naïve G1-HCV patients. This analysis evaluated, through a Markov model, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of triple therapy compared to peginterferon/ ribavirin ([PR]) alone in naïve patients depending on fibrosis stage, from the Spanish Healthcare Authorities perspective. METHODS: Efficacy results and adverse events incidence were based on the combined results of ADVANCE and OPTIMIZE studies. Adverse events and disease-related costs (€, 2014) were built up from panel expert opinion except from transplant and post-transplant costs, taken from published data. Drug costs were obtained from national databases and adjusted for the mandatory deduction. Outcomes and costs were both discounted at 3%/year. RESULTS: The analysis shows higher costs and improved outcomes associated with [TR/PR] relative to [PR] alone, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €18,288/ QALY for all the cohort, €14,152QALY for moderate fibrosis, €11,364QALY for bridging fibrosis, €15,929/QALY for cirrhosis. Over a lifetime period, the use of [T/PR] could avoid 12 cirrhosis and 4 liver transplants per 1,000 patients compared to [PR] alone. The probabilistic analysis, following 10,000 Montecarlo simulations, demonstrated the probability of an ICER below a €30,000/QALY gained threshold of 69%. At a willingness- to-pay of €30,000/QALY, [T/PR] could be considered as an efficient option compared with [PR] alone for treatment-naïve genotype 1 HCV patients, over a lifetime horizon.

Introduccion: En España, con una prevalencia del 2,5%, la hepatitis C (VHC) se asocia a una elevada morbi-mortalidad. El tratamiento combinado de telaprevir y peginterferon/ribavirina ([T/PR]) es eficaz en pacientes con VHC-G1. El objetivo primario de este estudio fue evaluar la relación coste-utilidad (RCUI) de [T/PR] versus peginterferon alfa 2a/ribavirina ([PR]) en pacientes naïve VHC-G1, según el grado de fibrosis y bajo la perspectiva del sistema sanitario español. Metodología: La eficacia y la incidencia de efectos adversos (EAs) se obtuvieron de los estudios ADVANCE y OPTIMIZE. La estimación de los costes de monitorización, de manejo de EAs y de la enfermedad por estados de salud (€, 2014) fueron proporcionados por el panel de expertos, según bases de costes nacionales, excepto el coste de trasplante y post-trasplante obtenido de publicaciones. Se aplicó la deducción obligatoria a los costes farmacológicos (precio de venta del laboratorio). La tasa de descuento considerada para los costes y beneficios fue 3% anual. Resultados: [T/PR] proporcionó mejores resultados en salud (0,96 Años de Vida Ajustados por Calidad, AVAC) y mayor coste (17.495€) comparado con [PR], resultando una RCUI de [T/PR] versus [PR] de 18.288€/AVAC para toda la cohorte, 14.152€/AVAC para fibrosis moderada, 11.364€/AVAC para fibrosis en puentes y 15.929€/AVAC para cirrosis. Considerando toda la vida del paciente, [T/PR] podría evitar 12 cirrosis y 4 trasplantes cada 1.000 pacientes. Con una RCUI inferior a 30.000€/AVAC en el 69% de las simulaciones del análisis probabilístico [T/PR] sería eficiente versus [PR] en pacientes naïve, independientemente del grado de fibrosis.