Asian consensus recommendations on optimizing the diagnosis and initiation of treatment of hepatitis B virus infection in resource-limited settings.

Asia has an intermediate-to-high prevalence of and high morbidity and mortality from hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. Optimization of diagnosis and initiation of treatment is one of the crucial strategies for lowering disease burden in this region. Therefore, a panel of 24 experts from 10 Asian countries convened, and reviewed the literature, to develop consensus guidance on diagnosis and initiation of treatment of HBV infection in resource-limited Asian settings. The panel proposed 11 recommendations related to diagnosis, pre-treatment assessment, and indications of therapy of HBV infection, and management of HBV-infected patients with co-infections. In resource-limited Asian settings, testing for hepatitis B surface antigen may be considered as the primary test for diagnosis of HBV infection. Pre-treatment assessments should include tests for complete blood count, liver and renal function, hepatitis B e-antigen (HBeAg), anti-HBe, HBV DNA, co-infection markers and assessment of severity of liver disease. Noninvasive tests such as AST-to-platelet ratio index, fibrosis score 4 or transient elastography may be used as alternatives to liver biopsy for assessing disease severity. Considering the high burden of HBV infection in Asia, the panel adopted an aggressive approach, and recommended initiation of antiviral therapy in all HBV-infected, compensated or decompensated cirrhotic individuals with detectable HBV DNA levels, regardless of HBeAg status or alanine transaminase levels. The panel also developed a simple algorithm for guiding the initiation of treatment in noncirrhotic, HBV-infected individuals. The recommendations proposed herein, may help guide clinicians, to optimize the diagnosis and improvise the treatment rates for HBV infection in Asia.

Findings from a large Asian chronic hepatitis C real-life study.

There is a paucity of information on chronic hepatitis C (CHC) patients treated with direct antiviral agents (DAAs) in Asia. We invited Asia-Pacific physicians to collate databases of patients enrolled for CHC treatment, recording baseline clinical, virologic and biochemical characteristics, sustained virologic response at week 12 (SVR12) and virologic failure. SVR12 outcome was based on intention to treat (ITT). Multivariate analysis was used to assess independent risk factors for SVR12 using SPSS version 20. A total of 2171 patients from India (n = 977), Myanmar (n = 552), Pakistan (n = 406), Thailand (n = 139), Singapore (n = 72) and Malaysia (n = 25) were collected. At baseline, mean age was 49 years, 50.2% were males, and 41.8% had cirrhosis. Overall, SVR12 was 89.5% and by genotype (GT) based on ITT and treatment completion, respectively, was 91% and 92% for GT1, 100% and 100% for GT2, 91% and 97% for GT3, 64% and 95% for GT4, 87% and 87% for GT6 and 79% and 91% for GT untested. Patients with cirrhosis had SVR12 of 85% vs 93% for noncirrhosis (P < 0.001) (RR 2.1, 95% CI 1.4-3.1, P = 0.0002). Patients with GT1 and GT3 treated with sofosbuvir/ribavirin (SR) had 88% and 89% SVR12, respectively, but those GT6 treated with sofosbuvir/ledipasvir (SL) had only 77.6% SVR12. Multivariate analysis showed absence of cirrhosis was associated with higher SVR12 (OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.3-3.1, P = 0.002). In conclusion, patients with GT1 and GT3 with/without cirrhosis had surprisingly high efficacy using SR, suggesting that Asians may respond better to some DAAs. However, poor GT6 response to SL suggests this regimen is suboptimal for this genotype.

The role of appendicectomy in the subsequent development of inflammatory bowel disease: a UK-based study.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have shown an inverse relationship between appendicectomy and subsequent development of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), although these findings remain contentious. This study aims to further elucidate the role appendicitis/appendicectomy has in the development of IBD. METHOD: All patients undergoing appendicectomy at Hereford County Hospital between 1986 and 2005 were identified from pathology records. Those already diagnosed with IBD were excluded. Age- and sex-matched controls were randomly selected from a database of orthopaedic clinic attendees. Those with prior history of IBD or appendicectomy were excluded. The incidence of IBD was determined by cross-referencing with the histology database, colonoscopy database and IBD register. RESULTS: Three thousand eight hundred twenty-nine patients were included in each group, with mean follow-up of 12 +/- 5.9 years. Twelve patients in the appendicectomy group developed IBD. Mean age at diagnosis was 30.3 years, and mean interval from appendicectomy of 3.7 years. Age at appendicectomy and appendicectomy for appendicitis conferred no benefit (Mann-Whitney test, p = 0.991). Eleven patients in the control group developed IBD, with no significant differences in any of the measured outcomes. CONCLUSION: This study has shown no relationship between appendicitis/appendicectomy and development of IBD.