The utility of non-invasive tests to assess advanced fibrosis in Asian subjects with chronic hepatitis B and concomitant hepatic steatosis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic hepatitis B (CHB) is endemic to Asia and is a leading cause of liver-related morbidity. The prevalence of concomitant CHB and hepatic steatosis (HS) is increasing in Asia. Non-invasive tests (NITs) including FIB-4, NFS and APRI assess fibrosis in populations with a single aetiology, but not in subjects with concomitant CHB and HS. AIM: To explore the accuracy of NITs in predicting advanced fibrosis in patients with concomitant CHB and HS. METHODOLOGY: This multicentre study of CHB patients who underwent liver biopsy explored clinical characteristics of these subjects, stratified by presence of HS. Fibrosis scores from NITs were compared against histological fibrosis stage in CHB subjects with and without HS. RESULTS: 2262 subjects were enrolled, 74.5% were males, and the mean age was 39.5 years ±11.8 SD. 984 (44.4%) had HS, 824 (36.4%) had advanced fibrosis. In the CHB group, the AUROC for advanced fibrosis were 0.65 (95% CI 0.62-0.69) for FIB-4 and 0.63 (95% CI 0.60-0.66) for APRI. The specificities were 0.94 for FIB-4 greater than 3.25 and 0.81 for APRI greater than 1.5. In the CHBHS group, the AUROC for advanced fibrosis were 0.67 (95% CI 0.63-0.71) for FIB-4, 0.60 (95% CI 0.56-0.64) for APRI and 0.65 (95% CI 0.61-0.69) for NFS. The specificities were 0.95 for FIB-4 greater than 3.25, 0.88 for APRI greater than 1.5 and 0.99 for NFS greater than 0.675. CONCLUSION: The performance of NITs to exclude advanced fibrosis did not differ greatly regardless of HS. FIB-4 and NFS have the best negative predictive values of 0.80 and 0.78, respectively, to exclude advanced fibrosis in CHBHS subjects.

An Estimate of the US Rate of Overuse of Screening Colonoscopy: a Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to assess the rate at which screening colonoscopy is performed on patients younger or older than the age range specified in national guidelines, or at shorter intervals than recommended. Such non-indicated use of the procedure is considered low-value care, or overuse. This study is the first systematic review of the rate of non-indicated completed screening colonoscopy in the USA. METHODS: PubMed and Embase were queried for relevant studies on overuse of screening colonoscopy published from January 1, 2002, until January 23, 2019. English-language studies that were conducted for screening colonoscopy after 2001 for average-risk patients were included. Studies must have followed national guidelines for detecting rates of overuse. We followed methods outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and the reporting recommendations of the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology group (MOOSE). RESULTS: A total of 772 papers were reviewed for inclusion; 42 were reviewed in full text. Of those reviewed, six studies met eligibility criteria, including a total of 459,503 colonoscopies of which 242,756 were screening colonoscopies. The rate of overuse ranged credibly from 17 to 25.7%. DISCUSSION: This study demonstrates that screening colonoscopy is regularly performed in the USA more often, and in populations older or younger, than recommended by national guidelines. Such overuse wastes resources and places patients at unnecessary risk of harm. Efforts to reduce non-indicated screening colonoscopy are needed.

Public Health Surveillance for Zika Virus: Data Interpretation and Report Validity.

Zika virus provides an example for which public health surveillance is based primarily on health care provider notifications to health departments of potential cases. This case-based surveillance is commonly used to understand the spread of disease in a population. However, case-based surveillance is often biased-whether testing is done and which tests are used and the accuracy of the results depend on a variety of factors including test availability, patient demand, perceptions of transmission, and patient and provider awareness, leading to surveillance artifacts that can provide misleading information on the spread of a disease in a population and have significant public health practice implications. To better understand this challenge, we first summarize the process that health departments use to generate surveillance reports, then describe factors influencing testing and reporting patterns at the patient, provider, and contextual level. We then describe public health activities, including active surveillance, that influence both patient and provider behavior as well as surveillance reports, and conclude with a discussion about the interpretation of surveillance data and approaches that could improve the validity of surveillance reports.