Liver stiffness measurements by 2-dimensional shear wave elastography compared to histological and ultrasound parameters in primary biliary cholangitis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Liver stiffness measurements (LSMs) by 2-dimensional-shear-wave elastography (LSM2D-SWE) are now widely used in hepatology. However, relevant information for primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) is scant. We compare LSM2D-SWE with liver biopsy (LB) in a cohort of PBC patients in Greece. METHODS: Data of 68 LBs from 53 PBC patients were retrospectively analyzed and fibrosis stage was compared to LSM2D-SWE. Forty-six patients (86.8%) were females and at the time of LBx median (IQR) age was 62.6 (53.2-72.1). Demographic, UDCA treatment, histological and B-mode ultrasound data were tested for their influence on LSM2D-SWE estimates. RESULTS: Liver fibrosis stages F0-F4 were found in 4, 19, 19, 16 and 10 cases, respectively. Across stages F0-F4, the LSM2D-SWE was 5.6 (5.1-6.1), 7.0 (5.8-7.7), 9.1 (7.3-11.5), 10.8 (9.9-12.2) and 14.5 (11.9-25.7) kPa, respectively, with highly significant difference (p<.001). The LSM2D-SWE differed also significantly between F0 vs. F1 (p=.027), F1 vs. F2 (p=.005) and F3 vs. F4 (p=.017). The discriminatory ability of LSM2D-SWE for mild, significant, severe fibrosis and cirrhosis was highly significant in all comparisons (p<.001), with AUC2D-SWE 95.3%, 87.4%, 85.3% and 95.3% and accuracy 89.7%, 85.3%, 80.9% and 86.8%, respectively. Among 21 parameters tested, significant predictors of LSM2D-SWE by multiple linear regression were fibrosis stage, portal inflammation and parenchymal heterogeneity. The portal inflammation grade accounted for 32.2% of LSM variation with adjusted R2 0.428. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with PBC, LSM measurements by 2D-SWE can reliably discriminate between mild, significant, severe fibrosis and cirrhosis. Measurements are significantly affected by portal inflammation grade.

Hepatitis B in renal transplant patients.

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) poses a significant challenge for both dialysis patients and kidney transplant recipients despite its decreasing rates, especially in developed countries. The best preventive method is vaccination. Patients with chronic renal disease should ideally be vaccinated prior to dialysis, otherwise, reinforced vaccination practices and close antibody titer monitoring should be applied while on dialysis. HBV infected dialysis patients who are renal transplant candidates must be thoroughly examined by HBV-DNA, and liver enzyme testing and by liver biopsy. When needed, one must consider treating patients with tenofovir or entecavir rather than lamivudine. Depending on the cirrhosis stage, dialysis patients are eligible transplant recipients for either a combined kidney-liver procedure in the case of decompensated cirrhosis or a lone kidney transplantation since even compensated cirrhosis after sustained viral responders is no longer considered an absolute contraindication. Nucleoside analogues have led to improved transplantation outcomes with both long-term patient and graft survival rates nearing those of HBsAg(-) recipients. Moreover, in the cases of immunized HBsAg(-) potential recipients with concurrent prophylaxis, we are enabled today to safely use renal grafts from both HBsAg(+) and HBsAg(-)/anti-HBc(+) donors. In so doing, we avoid unnecessary organ discarding. Universal prophylaxis with entecavir is recommended in HBV kidney recipients and should start perioperatively. One of the most important issues in HBV(+) kidney transplantation is the duration of antiviral prophylaxis. In the absence of robust data, it seems that prophylactic treatment may be discontinued in selected stable, low-risk recipients during maintenance immunosuppression and should be reintroduced when the immune status is altered. All immunosuppressive agents in kidney transplantation can be used in HBV(+) recipients. Immunosuppression is intimately associated with increased viral replication; thus it is important to minimize the total immunosuppression burden long term.

Hepatitis C in hemodialysis patients.

Despite reduction of hepatitis C prevalence after recognition of the virus and testing of blood products, hemodialysis (HD) patients still comprise a high risk group. The natural history of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in dialysis is not fully understood while the clinical outcome differs from that of the general population. HD patients show a milder liver disease with lower aminotransferase and viral levels depicted by milder histological features on liver biopsy. Furthermore, the "silent" clinical course is consistent with a slower disease progression and a lower frequency of cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. Potential explanations for the "beneficial" impact of uremia and hemodialysis on chronic HCV infection are impaired immunosurveillance leading to a less aggressive host response to the virus and intradialytic release of "hepatoprotective" cytokines such as interferon (IFN)-α and hepatocyte growth factor. However, chronic hepatitis C is associated with a higher liver disease related cardiovascular and all-cause mortality of HD patients. Therapy is indicated in selected patients groups including younger patients with low comorbidity burden and especially renal transplant candidates, preferably after performance of a liver biopsy. According to current recommendations, choice of treatment is IFN or pegylated interferon with a reported sustained viral response at 30%-40% and a withdrawal rate ranging from 17% to 30%. New data regarding combination therapy with low doses of ribavirin which provide higher standard variable rates and good safety results, offer another therapeutic option. The new protease inhibitors may be the future for HCV infected HD patients, though data are still lacking.