Evaluation of Noninvasive Tools for Predicting Esophageal Varices in Patients With Cirrhosis at Tygerberg Hospital, Cape Town.

Background: In patients with cirrhosis, esophageal variceal hemorrhage (EVH) is a devastating consequence of portal hypertension (PH). Upper endoscopy is considered the gold standard for the detection and diagnosis of esophageal varices (EVs), despite being invasive and costly. This study was aimed at identifying and evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of noninvasive tools in predicting EVs in patients with compensated cirrhosis. Methods: This cross-sectional study included 50 patients with compensated cirrhosis at the Tygerberg Hospital Gastroenterology Clinic in Cape Town between November 2022 and May 2023. We collected clinical, anthropometric, and laboratory data from patients' physical and electronic charts. All patients underwent an abdominal ultrasound, vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE) to assess liver and splenic stiffness, and upper endoscopy. In this comparative study, we evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of different noninvasive tools in detecting EVs in patients with compensated cirrhosis. Results: Of the 50 patients included in the study, 30 (60%) were female and 20 (40%) were male. The patients' age ranged from 18 to 83, with a mean age of 46.6 years. Cirrhosis was mainly due to alcohol use (n = 11, 22%), hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection (n = 11, 22%), and autoimmune hepatitis (n = 10, 20%). The patients included in the study were divided into two subgroups: with (n = 34, 68%) or without (n = 16, 32%) EVs. Statistically significant differences were detected between groups in platelet count (PC), liver stiffness measurement (LSM), spleen stiffness measurement (SSM), portal vein diameter (PVD), bipolar spleen diameter (SBD), aspartate aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio index (APRI), fibrosis-4 index (FIB-4), platelet/bipolar spleen diameter ratio (PSR), liver stiffness-spleen size-platelet ratio (LSPS), liver stiffness-spleen stiffness-platelet ratio score (LS3PS), and spleen stiffness-spleen size-platelet ratio score (SSPS) (p < 0.001). The highest diagnostic precision was observed with SSM (96%), SSPS (96%), LS3PS (94%), LSPS (94%), PSR (94%), and PC (92%). SBD (88%), LSM (86%), APRI (82%), and FIB-4 (82%) had the lowest diagnostic accuracy. Conclusion: SSM and SSPS have the highest diagnostic accuracy for predicting the presence of EVs in patients with compensated cirrhosis. LSPS, LS3PS, and PSR come second at 94%. We recommend SSM and SSPS in institutions with transient elastography equipped with the software necessary to measure splenic stiffness. We introduce and propose LS3PS as a novel composite score for predicting the presence of EVs in patients with compensated cirrhosis. Large-sample-size studies are needed to validate these prediction scores and to allow direct comparison with Baveno VII. These prediction tools can help clinicians avoid unnecessary endoscopic procedures in patients with compensated cirrhosis, especially in developing countries with limited resources such as South Africa.

Evidence of tenofovir resistance in chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection: An observational case series of South African adults.

INTRODUCTION: Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) is widely recommended for treatment of chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection because it is safe, affordable and has a high genetic barrier to resistance. TDF resistance associated mutations (RAMs) have been reported, but data are limited, particularly for Africa. We set out to identify potential RAMs in individuals with detectable HBV viraemia on TDF treatment. METHODS: We recruited adults with chronic HBV infection from Cape Town, South Africa, identifying individuals with a TDF resistance phenotype, defined as persistent HBV vireamia despite >12 months of TDF treatment. We sequenced HBV DNA using MiSeq Illumina with whole genome target enrichment, and sought potential TDF RAMs, based on a pre-defined list of polymorphisms. RESULTS: Among 66 individuals with chronic HBV (genotypes A and D), three met our clinical definition for TDF resistance, of whom two were coinfected with HIV. In one participant, the consensus HBV sequence contained nine polymorphisms that have been described in association with TDF resistance. Significant treatment non-adherence in this individual was unlikely, as HIV RNA was suppressed. TDF RAMs were also present in HBV sequences from the other two participants, but other factors including treatment non-adherence may also have had a role in failure of HBV DNA suppression in these cases. DISCUSSION: Our findings add to the evidence that RAMs in HBV reverse transcriptase may underpin a TDF resistant phenotype. This is the first time these RAMs have been reported from Africa in association with clinical evidence of TDF resistance.

Treatment advantage in HBV/HIV coinfection compared to HBV monoinfection in a South African cohort.

OBJECTIVES: Prompted by international targets for elimination of hepatitis B virus (HBV), we set out to characterise individuals with HBV monoinfection vs. those coinfected with HBV/HIV, to evaluate the impact of therapy and to guide improvements in clinical care. METHODS: We report observational data from a real world cross-sectional cohort of 115 adults with chronic hepatitis B infection (CHB), at a university hospital in Cape Town, South Africa. HIV coinfection was present in 39 (34%) subjects. We recorded cross-sectional demographic, clinical and laboratory data. RESULTS: Compared to those with HIV coinfection, HBV monoinfected adults were less likely to be HBeAg-positive (p=0.01), less likely to have had assessment with elastography (p<0.0001), and less likely to be on antiviral treatment (p<0.0001); they were more likely to have detectable HBV viraemia (p=0.04), and more likely to have features of liver disease including moderate/severe thrombocytopaenia (p=0.007), elevated bilirubin (p=0.004), and elevated APRI score (p=0.02). Three cases of hepatocellular carcinoma all arose in HBV monoinfection. CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrate that individuals with HBV monoinfection may be disadvantaged compared to those with HIV coinfection, highlighting potential systematic inequities in referral, monitoring and treatment.