Treatment and Outcome of Autoimmune Hepatitis (AIH): Audit of 28 UK centres.

BACKGROUND: With few data regarding treatment and outcome of patients with AIH outside of large centres we present such a study of patients with AIH in 28 UK hospitals of varying size and facilities. METHODS: Patients with AIH were identified in 14 University and 14 District General hospitals; incident cases during 2007-2015 and prevalent cases, presenting 2000-2015. Treatment and outcomes were analysed. RESULTS: In 1267 patients with AIH, followed-up for 3.8(0-15) years, 5- and 10-year death/transplant rates were 7.1+0.8% and 10.1+1.3% (all-cause) and 4.0+0.6% and 5.9+1% (liver-related) respectively. Baseline parameters independently associated with death/transplantation for all-causes were: older age, vascular/respiratory co-morbidity, cirrhosis, decompensation, platelet count, attending transplant centre and for liver-related: the last four of these and peak bilirubin All-cause and liver-related death/transplantation was independently associated with: non-treatment with corticosteroids, non-treatment with a steroid-sparing agent (SSA), non-treatment of asymptomatic or non-cirrhotic patients and initial dose of Prednisolone >35mg/0.5mg/kg/day (all-cause only), but not with type of steroid (Prednisolone versus Budesonide) or steroid duration beyond 12-months. Subsequent all-cause and liver-death/transplant rates showed independent associations with smaller percentage fall in serum ALT after 1 and 3-months, but not with failure to normalise levels over 12-months. CONCLUSIONS: We observed higher death/transplant rates in patients with AIH who were untreated with steroids (including asymptomatic or non-cirrhotic sub-groups), those receiving higher Prednisolone doses and those who did not receive an SSA. Similar death/transplant rates were seen in those receiving Prednisolone or Budesonide, those continuing steroids after 12-months and patients attaining normal ALT within 12-months versus not.

Provision and standards of care for treatment and follow-up of patients with Autoimmune Hepatitis (AIH).

Background: Autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) is a substantial UK health burden, but there is variation in care, facilities and in opinion regarding management. We conducted an audit of service provision and care of patients with AIH in 28 UK hospitals. Methods: Centres provided information about staffing, infrastructure and patient management (measured against predefined guideline-based standards) via a web-based data collection tool. Results: Hospitals (14 university hospitals (UHs), 14 district general hospitals (DGHs)) had median (range) of 8 (3-23) gastroenterologists; including 3 (0-10) hepatologists. Eight hospitals (29%, all DGHs) had no hepatologist. In individual hospital departments, there were 50% (18-100) of all consultants managing AIH: in DGH's 92% (20-100) vs 46% (17-100) in UHs. Specialist nurses managed AIH in only 18%. Seventeen (61%) hospitals had a histopathologist with a liver interest, these were more likely to find rosettes than those without (172/795 vs 50/368; p<0.001).Of 999 steroid-treated patients with ≥12 months follow-up, 25% received steroids for <12 months. After 1 year of treatment, 82% of patients achieved normal serum alanine aminotransaminase (ALT); this was higher in UHs than DGHs. Three-monthly liver blood tests were inadequately recorded in 26%. Of potentially eligible patients with liver decompensation, transplantation was apparently not considered in 5% (n=7). The same standards were attained in different types of hospital. Conclusion: Management of AIH in UK hospitals is often shared between most gastroenterologists. Blood test monitoring and treatment duration are not always in line with recommendations. Some eligible patients with decompensation are not discussed with transplant teams. Care might be improved by expanding specialist input and management by fewer designated consultants.

Case finding and therapy for chronic viral hepatitis in primary care (HepFREE): a cluster-randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of viral hepatitis (hepatitis B virus and hepatitis C virus) in migrants is higher than among the general population in many high-income countries. We aimed to determine whether incentivising and supporting primary-care physicians in areas with a high density of migrants increases the numbers of adult migrants screened for viral hepatitis. METHODS: HepFREE was a multicentre, open, cluster-randomised controlled trial in general practices in areas of the UK with a high density of migrants (Bradford, Yorkshire, and northeast and southeast London). Participants were adult patients (aged 18 years or older) in primary care, who had been identified as a first or second generation migrant from a high-risk country. General practices were randomly assigned (1:2:2:2:2) to an opportunistic screening (control) group or to one of four targeted screening (interventional) groups: standard (ie, hospital-based) care and a standard invitation letter; standard care and an enhanced invitation letter; community care and a standard invitation letter; or community care and an enhanced invitation letter. In control screening, general practitioners (GPs) were given a teaching session on viral hepatitis and were asked to test all registered migrants. In the intervention, GPs were paid a nominal sum for setting up searches of records, reimbursed for signed consent forms, and supported by a dedicated clinician. Patients who were eligible for testing and tested positive for viral hepatitis in the intervention groups were eligible to enrol in a second embedded trial of community versus hospital based care. The primary outcomes were the proportion of patients eligible for screening, the proportion of those eligible who were sent an invitation letter in the intervention groups, the uptake of viral hepatitis screening (in the intention-to-treat population), the proportion of patients who tested positive for viral hepatitis, the proportion who complied with treatment, and the cost-effectiveness of the intervention. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN54828633. FINDINGS: Recruitment and testing ran from Oct 31, 2013, to Feb 4, 2017, and each practice recruited for 18 consecutive calendar months. We approached 70 general practices in three areas with a high density of migrants, of which 63 general practices agreed to participate. Five practices withdrew and 58 practices were randomly assigned: eight to control and 50 to an intervention. In control practices, 26 046 (38·4%) of 67 820 patients who were initially registered were eligible for testing, as were 152 321 (43·3%) of 351 710 patients in the interventional groups in London and Bradford. Of 51 773 randomly selected eligible patients in the intervention groups in London and Bradford, letters were sent to 43 585 (84·2%) patients. In the eight control general practices, screening was taken up by 543 (1·7%) of 31 738 eligible participants, which included 5692 newly registered patients. However, in the 50 general practices that used the intervention, screening was taken up by 11 386 (19·5%) of 58 512 eligible participants (including 6739 newly registered patients; incidence rate ratio 3·70, 95% CI 1·30-10·51; p=0·014) and this intervention was cost-effective. 720 (4·5%) of 15 844 patients who received a standard letter versus 1032 (3·7%) of 28 095 patients who received the enhanced letter were tested (0·70, 0·38-1·31; p=0·26). In the control group, 17 patients tested positive for viral hepatitis, as did 220 patients (one with a co-infection) in the intervention groups. In the embedded study, 220 patients were randomly assigned to either hospital-based care or community care; 80 (87·9%) of 91 patients in the hospital setting complied with treatment versus 105 (81·4%) of 129 patients in the community setting. The intervention was cost-effective at willingness to pay thresholds in excess of £8540. One serious adverse event (thyroiditis) was noted. INTERPRETATION: Screening migrants for viral hepatitis in primary care is effective if doctors are incentivised and supported. Community care is expensive and there is no evidence that this offers benefits in this setting or that bespoke invitation letters add value. We suggest that bespoke invitation letters should not be used, and we suggest that outreach, community-based services for migrants should not be developed. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

Diagnosis, presentation and initial severity of Autoimmune Hepatitis (AIH) in patients attending 28 hospitals in the UK.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: There is limited information regarding patients with AIH outside relatively few large centres. We describe here the presenting features of patients with AIH, collected as part of an audit involving 28 UK hospitals. METHODS: Patients (incident since 1/1/2007 or prevalent since 1/1/2000) were ≥18 years and either met 1999 International AIH Group (IAIHG) diagnostic criteria (n = 1164), or received immunosuppressive therapy for clinically diagnosed AIH (n = 103). RESULTS: Of 1267 patients (80% women, 91% Caucasian, age (median(range)) 55(8-86) years, 0.5% had acute viral hepatitis (CMV/EBV/HEV); 2% were taking Nitrofurantoin and 0.7% Khat. Twenty-one percent had clinical decompensation and/or a MELD score of >15. Time from first abnormal liver tests to diagnosis was ≥1 year in 19% and was longer in jaundiced vs non-jaundiced patients. HBV and HCV serology were undocumented in 4%, serum immunoglobulins in 31% and autoantibodies in 11%-27%. When documented, ≥1 antibody was present in 83%. LKM-1-positive and autoantibody-negative patients had more severe disease. Histological cirrhosis was reported in 23%, interface hepatitis 88%, predominant lymphocytes/plasma cells 75%, rosettes 19% and emperipolesis 0.4%. Only 65% of those meeting 1999 IAIHG criteria also met simplified IAIHG criteria. University Hospitals compared to District General Hospitals, were more likely to report histological features of AIH. CONCLUSIONS: This cohort from across the UK is older than other multicentre AIH cohorts. One-fifth had decompensation or MELD >15. Diagnosis was delayed in 19%, diagnostic testing was incomplete in one-third and rosettes and emperipolesis were infrequently reported.

'Pre-endoscopy point of care test (Simtomax- IgA/IgG-Deamidated Gliadin Peptide) for coeliac disease in iron deficiency anaemia: diagnostic accuracy and a cost saving economic model'.

BACKGROUND: International guidelines recommend coeliac serology in iron deficiency anaemia, and duodenal biopsy for those tested positive to detect coeliac disease. However, pre-endoscopy serology is often unavailable, thus committing endoscopists to take routine duodenal biopsies. Some endoscopists consider duodenal biopsy mandatory in anaemia to exclude other pathologies. We hypothesise that using a point of care test at endoscopy could fill this gap, by providing rapid results to target anaemic patients who require biopsies, and save costs by biopsy avoidance. We therefore assessed three key aspects to this hypothesis: 1) the availability of pre-endoscopy serology in anaemia; 2) the sensitivities and cost effectiveness of pre-endoscopy coeliac screening with Simtomax in anaemia; 3) whether other anaemia-related pathologies could be missed by this targeted-biopsy approach. METHODS: Group 1: pre-endoscopy serology availability was retrospectively analysed in a multicentre cohort of 934 anaemic patients at 4 UK hospitals. Group 2: the sensitivities of Simtomax, endomysial and tissue-transglutaminase antibodies were compared in 133 prospectively recruited patients with iron deficiency anaemia attending for a gastroscopy. The sensitivities were measured against duodenal histology as the reference standard in all patients. The cost effectiveness of Simtomax was calculated based on the number of biopsies that could have been avoided compared to an all-biopsy approach. Group 3: the duodenal histology of 153 patients presenting to a separate iron deficiency anaemia clinic were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: In group 1, serology was available in 361 (33.8 %) patients. In group 2, the sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) were 100 % and 100 % for Simtomax, 96.2 % and 98.9 % for IgA-TTG, and 84.6 % and 96.4 % for EMA respectively. In group 3, the duodenal histology found no causes for anaemia other than coeliac disease. CONCLUSION: Simtomax had excellent diagnostic accuracy in iron deficiency anaemia and was comparable to conventional serology. Duodenal biopsy did not identify any causes other than coeliac disease for iron deficiency anaemia, suggesting that biopsy avoidance in Simtomax negative anaemic patients is unlikely to miss other anaemia-related pathologies. Due to its 100 % NPV, Simtomax could reduce unnecessary biopsies by 66 % if only those with a positive Simtomax were biopsied, potentially saving £3690/100 gastroscopies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The group 2 study was retrospectively registered with clinicaltrials.gov. Trial registration date: 13(th) July 2016; TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02834429 .