Screening, Diagnosis, and Assessment of Liver Disease in CKD PatientsKDIGO with HCV
Tawesak Tanwandee, MD. Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok DISCLOSURES
• Grant/research support
• Merck, Roche, Arbutus, Janssen, Exact Science
• No disclosure relevantKDIGO to this talk TOPICS
• HCV problem in CKD
• Impact of advanced CKD on liver markers (ALT, AST)
• Non-invasive measures KDIGO (biochemical and elastography) vs biopsies
• Relevant KDIGO guideline recommendation statements Prevalence of HCV in dialysis and kidney transplantation Anti HCV positive after renal transplantation
Authors Reference Country Patients, n Anti-HCV year positive, n
Pereira B., et al. (study 1) 1997 USA 103 21 (22.8%) Country Anti-HCV Anti-HCV- Reference Pereira B., et al. (study 2) 1997 USA 103 23 (22.3%) Prevalence Positive (%) Patients (n) Legendre C., et al. 1998 France 499 112 (22.4%) Batty D., et al. 2001 USA 28 692 1624 (5.7%) Belgium 11.8 51/433 Jadoul et al. Breitenfeldt. M., et al. 2002 Germany 927 160 (17.2%) Netherlands 3.4 76/2286 Schneeberger Forman J., et al. 2004 USA 354 26 (7.3%) et al. Mahmond I.,et al. 2004 Egypt 133 80 (60.1%) Italy 22.5 2274/10097 Lombardi et al. Bruchfeld A., et al. 2004 Sweden 571 51 (8.9%) Aroldl A., et al. 2005 Italy 541 244 (45.1%) USA 22.3 88/394 Fabrizi et al. KDIGO Mitwalli A., et al. 2006 Saudi Arabia 448 286 (63.8%) France 16.3 216/1323 Salama et al. Einollahi B., et al. 2007 Iran 3028 NA Ingsathit A., et al 2007 Thailand 346 22 (3.6%) 0.85% % in the general population Luan F., et al. 2008 USA 79 337 3708 (4.7%) Gentil M., et al. 2009 Spain 3861 232 (6.7%)
Ridruejo E., et al 2010 Argentina 542 180 (33.2%) Poordad F et al. Semin Liver Dis 2004 Morales J., et al. 2010 Spain 4304 587 (13.6 %)
Scott D., et al. 2010 Australia, NZ 7572 140 (1.8%)
Singh N., et al. 2012 USA 2169 154 (7.1%) Fabrizi F et al. J Viral Hepat 2014 HCV infection is more frequent in patients with CKD but the prevalence is decreasing Number of incident hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections from outbreaks in the United States dialysis facilities reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2008-2017
35
30
25 20 KDIGO 15
10
5
0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Year Nguyen DB. et al. Seminar in Dialysis 2019 Prevalence of anti-HCV positive in advanced CKD not requiring dialysis
Authors Prevalence rate Year Country Fabrizi et al 44/221(20%) 1994 Italy Lopez-Alcorocho et al 6/35(17%) 2001 Spain Bergman et al 57/396(14.4%) 2005 USA De Los Rios et al 1/99(1%) 2006 Peru Sit et al 12/171(7%) KDIGO 2007 Turkey Lemos et al 41/1041(3.9%) 2008 Brazil Hammad et al 20/66(30.3%) 2009 Egypt Li Cavoli et al 24/320(7.5%) 2011 Italy Shafi et al 49/180(27.2%) 2017 Pakistan
Fabrizi et. al. Seminars in Dialysis 2019
Prevalence (%) of having anti-HCV antibodies amongst patients receiving PD (white bars) or HD (black bars) across different Asia-Pacific countries
KDIGO
Johnson DW. et al. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2009 Annual incidence of anti-HCV antibody amongst patients receiving PD (white bars) or HD (black bars) across different Asia-Pacific countries
KDIGO
Johnson DW. et al. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2009 Global estimates of HCV infection in HIV-infected individuals by global burden of disease region
KDIGO
Platt L. et al. Lancet Infect Dis 2016 More fibrosis progression in coinfected patients
KDIGO
Naggie S, Sulkowski MS. Gastroenterology 2012 Prevalence of cirrhosis in HIV-infected patients
KDIGO
Castellares C. Journal of Viral Hepatitis, 2008 Detection and evaluation of HCV in CKD
Anti-HCV Positive Negative
HCV Ag? NAT Monthly ALT
Positive Negative HBsAg Anti-HBs KDIGO Anti-HCV q 6 Current infection Resolved or low viremic months
Liver test and evaluation Monthly ALT for treatment
NAT q 6 months
Modified from KDIGO guideline 2018 Comparison between HCVcAg and PCR HCV-RNA test in dialysis patients
KDIGO
Cavoli GL. Hepatitis Research and Treatment 2012 Impact of advanced CKD on liver markersKDIGO (ALT, AST)
AST levels were significantly lower in both Group A (18.48 ± 4.14) and Group B (10.08 ± 3.49) as compared to controls in Group C (30.5 ± 10.75), (P < 0.001).
KDIGO
Ray L. Int J Appl Basic Med Res 2015 Impact of CKD on liver markers AST and ALT levels in Age-Matched Study and healthy groups
Concentrations of AST/ALT in both chronic dialysis and chronic kidney disease patients most commonly fall within the lower end of the range of normal values
Exact cause is unknown -Related to pyridoxine deficiency KDIGO (pyridoxal phosphate is a necessary coenzyme for ALT and AST) -Presence of an inhibitory substance in the uremic milieu which improves after dialysis 25-40% of HCV in CKD with normal AST/ALT have advanced liver fibrosis (Marcellin P. J Hepatol 1999)
Fabrizi F et al. Am J of kidney diseases, 2001 : 1009-1015 Liver Fibrosis Assessment Non-invasive tests vs Liver biopsy
• Liver biopsy is goal standard, especially to assess liver status before KT • Safe but considered invasive • Risk of bleeding (platelet dysfunction, recurrent anticoagulant) • Sampling error, intra-, inter-observer variability of histological reading KDIGO • Non-invasive tests have become available and validated in CKD • Liver biopsy only reserved for those with discordance result Liver biopsy
Liver biopsy is the current gold standard for the evaluation of hepatic fibrosis but has several limitations:
ü followed by complications requiring hospitalization in 1-3% patients • 20-30% pain • 0.3% morbidity (hemorrhages) • 0.03% mortality
è poor acceptance from both patients and prescribing physicians KDIGO
ü lacks reproducibility and accuracy • liver sample represents only 1/50,000 of the total liver • 10-20% of inter and intra observer variability to assess fibrosis
è 24% false negatives for the detection of cirrhosis Biomarker Groups Example of Individual Components Example of Panel Biomarkers
Direct
Collagen and HA,MMP 1 ELF, Fibrospect extracellular matrix MMP 8, PIII NP HA score, Hepascore components Laminin Leroy score Hepatic stellate cell and TIMP 1, TGF b ELF fibrogenic Angiotensin II, YKL 40 Fibrospect cell mediators Indirect
Portal hypertension Platelet count Fibrometer, Fibroindex Spleen size FIB-4, Pohl index Testa index, Wai score Synthetic parameters Albumin KDIGO PGAA index Platelet count Fibrometer Liver enzymes AST, ALT APRI, BAAT score and bilirubin AST/ALT ratio Fibrometer, Fibroindex GGT, Bilirubin Fibrotest, Forns Hepascore, HA score NAFLD simple index Pohl index, Wai score Miscellaneous Cholesterol NAFLD simple index Insulin resistance BAAT score Forns ROC curves of APRI* in predicting HD patients with CHC presenting significant hepatic fibrosis ( >F2)
KDIGO
*AST-to-platelet ratio index(AST/ULN)/Platelet x 100 Liu CH. Kidney Int 2010 APRI is more accurate than FIB-4
KDIGO
APRI (AUROC=0.97) FIB-4 (AUROC=0.74)
FIB-4, Age (year) x AST/platelet x √ALT Wadhva RK. J Transl Int Med 2018 Fibrotest
Logistic regression equation of 6 parameters
• Alpha-2-macroglobulin • Haptoglobin • apolipoproteinKDIGO A1 • GGT • total bilirubin • ALT Various tests and thresholds to evaluate liver fibrosis
Test Cut-off Interpretation APRIa <0.4 No fibrosis to mild fibrosis (F0-F2) >0.95 Advanced fibrosis (F3-F4) FIB-4a <1.45 No fibrosis to mild fibrosis (F0-F2) >3.25 Advanced fibrosis (F3-F4) Fibrotest/Fibrosure 0-0.58 No fibrosis to mild fibrosis (F0-F2) 0.59-1 KDIGO Advanced fibrosis (F3-F4)
HVPG 6-10 mmHg Compensated cirrhosis >12 mmHg Decompensated cirrhosis with significant PHT
aAPRI, AST-to-platelet ratio index (AST/ULN)/Platelet x 100) aFIB-4, Age (year) x AST/platelet x √ALT
Adapted from Cottone C. Seminars in Dialysis 2019 APRI vs Transient Elastography (TE)
ROC curves of Fibroscan® and APRI ≥F2, TE (0.96, 95% CI: 0.94 to 0.98) and APRI (0.84, 95% CI: 0.79 to 0.88; P < 0.001 ≥F3, TE (0.98, 95% CI: 0.97 to 1.00) and APRI (0.93, 95% CI: 0.90 to 0.97; P = 0.04) F4, AUCKDIGO of TE (0.99, 95% CI: 0.98 to 1.00) and APRI (0.92, 95% CI: 0.89 to 0.96; P = 0.13
Liu CH. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2011. Transient elastography and histologic correlation
KDIGO TE score (kPa METAVIR Stage Histological finding <7 F0-1 No fibrosis, periportal fibrosis without septa 7.1-9.5 F2 Portal fibrosis with septa 9.6-12.4 F3 Bridging fibrosis >12.5 F4 Cirrhosis
Adapted from Cottone C. Seminars in Dialysis 2019 Transient elastography
• Most reliable non-invasive test • Limitation • Level increases • After meal (return to baseline 120 min. after meal)$ • Elevated central venous pressure (CHF, hypervolemia) • Significant reductionKDIGO if done after net ultrafiltration >2.5 L post HD* • Difficult to perform in PD (fluid left in abdominal space may prevent propagation of shear wave)
$ Palazzo H et. Al. Inter J Hepatol 2015 * Taneja S. et. al. Dig Dis Sci 2017; Khunpakdee N et. al. Blood Purif 2015
Magnetic Resonance Elastography (MRE)
KDIGO
• MRE has high accuracy for diagnosis of significant or advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis, independent of BMI and etiology of CLD
Singh S et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015 Elastography Techniques Limitations
Technique Confounders Quality criteria Failure Units Range inflammation Obesity Other Well defined IQR/ TE ** **XL Steatosis? 3-27% kPa 2-75 M<30% SimilarKDIGO to pSWE/ARFI +? +? Not well defined 2% m/sec 0.5-4.4 TE? Similar to 2D SWE +? +? Not well defined 13% kPa 2-150 TE? MRE + - Iron Not well defined 0-2% kPa 2-12 Applicability of non-invasive tests
= reliability+ failure rate Fibrotest TE
90% KDIGO 80%
N=342,346 N=13,669 Poynard T, et al BMC Gastroenterol 2011 Castera L, et al Hepatol 2010 Evaluation of patients with CKD and HCV
Viremic HCV in CKD
Non-invasive evaluation of liver fibrosis
Non-conclusive/discordant KDIGO Advanced fibrosis (F3-F4)
Liver biopsy Assessment of PHT Endoscopy, non-invasive radiological or HVPG
Modified from KDIGO guideline 2018 Other testing of patients with HCV infection
• All patients with CKD at the time of HCV diagnosis • Urinalysis, eGFR • If no evidence of kidney disease, repeat screening for kidney disease if NAT still positive • All CKD with history KDIGO of HCV (NAT+ or -) • Follow-up for progression of kidney disease • Vaccination against HAV and HBV • Screening for HIV • Evaluation of portal hypertension in advanced fibrosis
Modified from KDIGO guideline 2018 Asia represents countries with wide range of economic incomes and healthcare spending
KDIGO
World Bank economic classification Low income of Asian countries Prasad N. Kidney Dis 2015 Features of dialysis registries in Asia
Registry name Patient-level (common abbreviation), Accessibility data Treatments Out-comes year of establishment availability Hong Kong Renal Registry + + +++ +++ (HKRR), 1995 Korean Renal Registry, 1985 ++ ++ +++ +++ Malaysian National Renal Registry ++ +++ +++ +++ (NRR), 1993 Shanghai Dialysis Registry, 1996 KDIGO + + ++ +++
Singapore Renal Registry, 2001 +++ ++ +++ +++
Taiwan Renal Registry Data + + +++ + System (TWRDS), 1987 Thailand Renal Replacement ++ + +++ + Therapy Registry (TRT), 1997
Prasad N. Kidney Dis 2015 Unique challenges in Asia
• No standard practices in CKD in many countries, even different centers in the same country • Diversity of clinical practice • Application of universal precaution • Application of HCVKDIGO tests and evaluation for fibrosis • Many countries cannot afford NAT, HCV Ag as alternative? • Fibrosis assessment? • Access to HCV treatment, especially where there is no SOF-free generic drug for CKD with eGFR < 30
Conclusion
• HCV infection in various stages of CKD is still common • New infection is now less frequent but still occurs • Standard practice for HCV prevention varies • Co-infection with HBV, HIV can have more progressive disease • Assessment of liver fibrosis is important, not only to guide treatment but also decision for KT KDIGO • Diferrent economic background in Asian countries can affect current standard practice • How should we optimize KDIGO guideline especially in countries with low income