Search

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Covert hepatic encephalopathy (CHE) affects cognition in a multidimensional fashion. Current guidelines recommend performing Psychometric Hepatic Encephalopathy Score (PHES) and a second test to diagnose CHE for multi-center trials. We aimed to determine if a two-test combination strategy improved CHE diagnosis agreement, and accuracy to predict overt hepatic encephalopathy (OHE), compared to single testing. METHODS: Cirrhotic outpatients without baseline OHE performed PHES, Inhibitory Control Test (ICT), and Stroop EncephAlapp (StE) at three centers. Patients were followed for OHE development. Areas under the receiver operation characteristic curve (AUROC) were calculated. RESULTS: We included 437 patients (399 with follow-up data). CHE prevalence varied with testing strategy: PHES+ICT 18%, ICT+StE 25%, PHES+StE 29%, ICT 35%, PHES 37%, and StE 54%. Combination with best test agreement was PHES+StE (k=0.34). Sixty patients (15%) developed OHE. Although CHE by StE showed the highest sensitivity to predict OHE, PHES and PHES+StE were more accurate at the expense of a lower sensitivity (55%, AUROC: 0.587; 36%, AUROC: 0.629; and 29%, AUROC: 0.623; respectively). PHES+ICT was the most specific (85%) but all strategies including ICT showed sensitivities in the 33–45% range. CHE diagnosis by PHES (HR=1.79, p=0.04), StE (HR=1.69, p=0.04), and PHES+StE (HR=1.72, p=0.04), were significant OHE predictors even when adjusted for prior OHE and MELD. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that combined testing decreases CHE prevalence without improving the accuracy of OHE prediction. Testing with PHES or StE alone, or a PHES+StE combination, is equivalent to diagnose CHE and predict OHE development in a multi-center setting.

Background & Aims Patients with cirrhosis are growing older. The overlap between minimal hepatic encephalopathy (MHE) and predementia mild cognitive impairment (MCI) could affect quality of life (QOL). We investigated the performance of elderly patients with cirrhosis on tests for MHE and MCI and their effects on QOL. Methods We recruited outpatients with cirrhosis (n = 109) and without cirrhosis (controls, n = 100), 65 years or older, at 4 centers (derivation cohort). All study participants were assessed for psychometric hepatic encephalopathy score (PHES), EncephalApp score, and QOL. MCI was tested in patients with cirrhosis using the repeatable battery for assessment of neuropsychological status and assigned to the following groups: unimpaired, MCI only, MHE only, and MCI+MHE. We created adjusted norms to detect MHE using PHES and EncephalApp scores from the controls. Findings were validated using data from a separate cohort of 77 patients with cirrhosis (mean age, 69.49 ± 4.36 y; 72% men) at the same study sites. Results Controls were older but were more educated, performed better cognitively, and had better QOL. Among patients with cirrhosis, age, education, model for end-stage liver disease score, EncephalApp score, and QOL were similar, but PHES and repeatable battery for assessment of neuropsychological status differed among sites. In the derivation cohort, the presence of MHE, with or without MCI, was associated with poor QOL, which was lowest in the MCI+MHE group. When we adjusted for age, sex, and education, 49% of patients with cirrhosis had MHE based on the EncephalApp and 8% had MHE based on the PHES. A similar pattern (49% MHE based on EncephalApp and 6% MHE based on PHES) was found in a validation cohort. Conclusions In a multicenter study of patients with cirrhosis (>65 y) and controls, the presence of MHE, regardless of MCI, was associated with poor cognition and QOL. We created adjusted norms that defined the high sensitivity of EncephalApp for the detection of MHE in older individuals and validated it in a separate cohort.

Diagnosing minimal hepatic encephalopathy (MHE) is challenging, and point-of-care tests are needed. Stroop EncephalApp has been validated for MHE diagnosis in single-center studies. The objective of the study was to validate EncephalApp for MHE diagnosis in a multicenter study.Outpatient cirrhotics (with/without prior overt hepatic encephalopathy (OHE)) and controls from three sites (Virginia (VA), Ohio (OH), and Arkansas (AR)) underwent EncephalApp and two gold standards, psychometric hepatic encephalopathy score (PHES) and inhibitory control test (ICT). Age-/gender-/education-adjusted values for EncephalApp based on direct norms, and based on ICT and PHES, were defined. Patients were followed, and EncephalApp cutoff points were used to determine OHE prediction. These cutoff points were then used in a separate VA-based validation cohort.A total of 437 cirrhotics (230 VA, 107 OH, 100 AR, 36% OHE, model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score 11) and 308 controls (103 VA, 100 OH, 105 AR) were included. Using adjusted variables, MHE was present using EncephalApp based on norms in 51%, EncephalApp based on PHES in 37% (sensitivity 80%), and EncephalApp based on ICT in 54% of patients (sensitivity 70%). There was modest/good agreement between sites on EncephalApp MHE diagnosis using the three methods. OHE developed in 13% of patients, which was predicted by EncephalApp independent of the MELD score. In the validation cohort of 121 VA cirrhotics, EncephalApp directly and based on gold standards remained consistent for MHE diagnosis with70% sensitivity.In this multicenter study, EncephalApp, using adjusted population norms or in the context of existing gold standard tests, had good sensitivity for MHE diagnosis and predictive capability for OHE development.

Direct-acting antivirals for chronic hepatitis C (HCV) infection have reduced the need for on-treatment HCV RNA monitoring. We assessed the accuracy and cost implications of using HCV core antigen testing to replace HCV RNA testing for confirmation of diagnosis, on-treatment monitoring, and determination of sustained virological response (SVR).In a retrospective screening cohort study, de-identified residual serum from unselected samples were obtained from commercial laboratories in Ontario, Canada. Samples from each 5-year age-sex band from birth years 1945-74 collected from Aug 1, 2014, to Feb 28, 2015, were included. All samples that tested positive for HCV antibodies, and 10% of samples that tested negative for HCV antibodies, were tested for HCV core antigen and HCV RNA. A retrospective clinical cohort study was also done using blood samples from patients with confirmed HCV infection collected at four tertiary academic centres: one in Canada, two in Germany, and one in the USA. For assessment of SVR, we included samples from patients who started direct-acting antiviral-based treatment (excluding telaprevir and boceprevir) with or without peginterferon, ribavirin, or both, from Jan 1, 2014, to March 31, 2015. To ensure inclusion of adequate numbers for analysis, patients who relapsed after any treatment regimen were included. Serum samples included in the study were from baseline, week 4 on-treatment (only for patients treated with direct-acting antivirals), end of treatment, and week 12 or 24 of follow-up. The sensitivity and specificity of core antigen testing as a diagnostic tool was assessed in the screening cohort, using HCV RNA as a reference. The sensitivity and specificity of core antigen testing as well as its concordance with HCV RNA testing in the clinical cohort was assessed at baseline, week 4 on-treatment, and at weeks 12 or 24 after the end of treatment in patients undergoing therapy with direct-acting antivirals. The cost-effectiveness of core antigen testing with and without confirmatory HCV RNA testing for negative samples was also assessed.From 10 006 samples in the screening cohort, 75 of 80 viraemic (HCV RNA-positive) samples tested positive for HCV core antigen (sensitivity 94%, 95% CI 86-98), and none of the 993 HCV RNA-negative samples tested positive for HCV core antigen (specificity 100%, 95% CI 94-100). The five viraemic samples that tested negative for HCV core antigen had low corresponding HCV RNA concentrations. In the clinical cohort, two (1%) of 202 baseline samples tested negative for HCV core antigen; one had a low HCV RNA concentration (468 IU/mL), the other had a high HCV RNA concentration (2 000 000 IU/mL). By week 4 of treatment, HCV core antigen concentrations decreased in all patients but were not predictive of SVR. Although there was good concordance between HCV RNA and HCV core antigen results at 12 weeks after the end of treatment (r=0·97; p0·0001), three of the 148 patients who achieved SVR at 12 weeks tested HCV core antigen positive. 12 weeks after the end of treatment, HCV core antigen was undetectable in one (1%) of 71 samples from patients who were identified as having relapsed according to HCV RNA detection. On-treatment and end-of-treatment testing of core antigen or HCV RNA provided little clinical value. The use of HCV core antigen testing as a confirmatory diagnostic strategy was cost saving relative to HCV RNA testing, with a reduction of CAD$0·29-3·70 per patient screened depending on whether HCV RNA testing was used to confirm HCV core antigen-negative results.These data support the use of HCV core antigen testing to document HCV viraemia in a cost-saving diagnostic algorithm. In a treatment setting, HCV core antigen testing can be used instead of HCV RNA testing for diagnosis and documentation of treatment adherence, but it might not be adequate to determine SVR. This approach might improve access to care, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries.Abbott Diagnostics and Toronto Centre for Liver Disease.