Abstract
Background
Steatosis contributes to liver fibrosis in hepatitis C virus (HCV) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/HCV coinfection. Liver biopsy (LB) is the reference standard for grading steatosis and staging fibrosis, yet recent advances in noninvasive modalities have largely supplanted LB, which may limit recognition of steatosis. We evaluated steatosis rates by LB and transient elastography (TE) with controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) among HCV-infected and HIV/HCV-coinfected patients in a US clinic.
Methods
Patients with chronic HCV infection during pretreatment evaluation by LB (n = 421; December 2001 through May 2014) and TE with CAP (n = 1157; May 2016 through May 2017) were included. Fibrosis and steatosis rates by LB and TE with CAP were stratified by HCV versus HIV/HCV coinfection status.
Results
Steatosis was not reported in 26.1% of LBs. Moderate to severe steatosis (grade ≥S2) was detected more often with CAP than with LB (in 24.0% vs 11.4% of patients, respectively). Median CAP values were higher in patients with HCV monoinfection than in those with coinfection (230 vs 215.5 dB/m, respectively; P < .001). With TE, the rate of advanced fibrosis (values F3–F4) was higher in HCV monoinfection than in coinfection (25.9% vs 14.8%, respectively; P <.001). With both LB and TE, advanced fibrosis (F3–F4) was significantly associated with moderate to severe steatosis (S2–S3) in HCV monoinfection compared with HIV/HCV coinfection (33.3% vs 4.4%, respectively for LB [P = 0.003] and 36.0% vs 29.0% for TE [P = 0.008]).
Conclusions
In patients with chronic HCV undergoing liver fibrosis staging, steatosis was detected more often with CAP than LB, with median CAP values higher in HCV monoinfection than HIV/HCV coinfection. Steatosis severity may be increasing in the modern HCV treatment era.
Keywords: HIV, Hepatitis C, steatosis, fibrosis, controlled attenuation parameter
With both liver biopsy (LB) and transient elastography (TE) with controlled attenuation parameter (CAP), advanced fibrosis was more associated with moderate-severe steatosis in patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) monoinfection than in those with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/HCV coinfection. In patients with chronic hepatitis C undergoing liver fibrosis staging, steatosis was detected more often with CAP than with LB, with median CAP scores higher in HCV monoinfection than in HIV/HCV coinfection. A histopathologic finding of steatosis was not reported in >25% of LBs in this clinical setting. The severity of steatosis may be increasing in the modern HCV treatment era.
Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a common cause of liver disease in Western adult populations and an increasingly important cause of disease and death [1, 2]. High prevalence of NAFLD has been recorded in both human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)– and hepatitis C virus (HCV)–infected populations, including those with coinfection [3–5]. NAFLD is one of the leading causes of progressive liver disease and comprises a wide spectrum of presentations, including hepatic steatosis (HS), nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), and cirrhosis. There are few indicated treatments for NAFLD, with weight loss as the foundation of current recommendations [6]. Metabolic factors are important considerations for development, most notably obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and dyslipidemia. Ethnicity and sex are also important considerations, with the highest prevalence seen in men and Hispanic populations [1, 2, 7]. Patients with advanced fibrosis from NAFLD have an increased likelihood of death, mostly attributed to decompensated liver disease and cardiovascular disease [8, 9]. With HCV cure initiatives currently underway, NAFLD will probably cause the greatest burden of chronic liver disease within the next decade.
For persons living with HIV (PLWH) the mortality rate from HIV/AIDS has substantially decreased with effective antiretroviral therapy, thus elevating the importance of identifying chronic comorbid conditions, such as HCV infection and NAFLD. The progression to liver fibrosis is common and appears to be similar in HCV monoinfected and HIV/HCV coinfected patients [10–12]. Despite this, HCV coinfection, compared with HIV monoinfection, has been associated with an increased risk of death in large cohort studies [13–15].
PLWH may have more severe steatosis, with the reported prevalence of NAFLD ranging from 15% to 54% [4, 16]. Factors associated with NAFLD in HIV and HIV/HCV coinfection include male sex, increased body mass index (BMI), metabolic syndrome, diabetes, abnormal cholesterol levels, and lipodystrophy [3, 5, 17, 18]. Interestingly, HIV-related factors have not been consistently demonstrated as risk factors for development of NAFLD [3]. Outcomes data are mostly limited to treatment of HCV coinfection, because historically PLWH have been excluded from NAFLD studies [5]. The prevalence and natural history of NAFLD in PLWH are not currently well defined.
HCV is a common coinfection in PLWH owing to shared transmission routes, which can also contribute to HS. Previous estimates suggest a coinfection rate of 15%–30% [19, 20]. Patients with HIV/HCV coinfection have been reported to have high prevalence of steatosis associated with more advanced fibrosis, especially in older age groups [5, 21, 22]. Coinfected patients with underlying NASH were also at increased risk of fibrosis progression that was not influenced by HIV viral suppression [12]. More advanced fibrosis is associated with increased risk of end-stage liver disease, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), or death [23]. Steatosis rates vary based on study population, ranging from 46.3% to 59% for HCV monoinfection and from 47% to 72.1% for HIV/HCV coinfection [17, 18, 21].
Diagnosis of NAFLD requires imaging or histologic evidence of HS. Liver biopsy (LB) is considered the reference standard in diagnosis. This allows concomitant evaluation of fibrosis, steatosis, and inflammation [8]. However, biopsy is an invasive procedure that may have limited availability and potential adverse outcomes. Thus, there has been a significant effort to develop noninvasive testing to follow progression of disease over time and to diagnose HS. Currently, no serum biomarkers are approved for clinical use to detect HS or NASH [24].
Useful imaging techniques to quantify HS and fibrosis include ultrasonography- and magnetic resonance imaging–based modalities, with ultrasonography the most widely available. Transient elastography (TE) with controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) has increasingly been used as a noninvasive means of assessing the steatosis grade. TE with CAP simultaneously measures the degree of ultrasound attenuation by hepatic fat and liver stiffness as an indication of fibrosis [25]. CAP has also been validated by cross-sectional studies in patients with HIV, HCV, and HIV/HCV infection [26], although cross-sectional trends in steatosis over time remain poorly studied in patients with chronic HCV and HIV infection.
Because most previous data for steatosis rates in liver fibrosis staging were collected and analyzed based on LB results, our study aimed to evaluate TE-CAP as a noninvasive method of evaluation in these patients. The objective of the current study was to evaluate steatosis and fibrosis rates by LB and TE-CAP in HCV-monoinfected and HIV/HCV-coinfected patients in 2 cross-sectional eras at a large US hepatitis clinic.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study Population
This single-center retrospective study selected patients from HCV-monoinfected and HIV/HCV-coinfected populations engaged in care at the Cook County CORE Center hepatitis clinic in Chicago, Illinois. Unique patients with chronic HCV infection (either monoinfected or coinfected) during pretreatment evaluation were analyzed. All patients were >18 years of age and had positive HCV RNA results by commercial assay. TE replaced LB for fibrosis staging in June 2014 in our clinic, and CAP was added to TE in May 2016.
The analysis included patients engaged in care from December 2001 to May 2014 (n = 421) who had an LB result. For patients with multiple available biopsy results, only the last collected result was included. This report probably represents the most recent HCV pretreatment staging procedure, because LBs were not typically performed after HCV therapy. Also included in the analysis were patients engaged in care from May 2016 to May 2017 with documented TE-CAP (n = 1157). For those with multiple TE-CAP results, only the initial measurement was analyzed, because treatment of HCV infection was more easily offered after initial staging, and follow-up TE is commonly performed in our clinic after sustained virologic response (SVR) to determine fibrosis regression. Patients were excluded from analysis if they had a history of autoimmune hepatitis or hepatitis B coinfection.
Demographic data were extracted for each patient including age, sex, race, ethnicity, and HIV status. Before LB or TE-CAP evaluation, each patient underwent standard biochemical testing. For the LB population, the variables included aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), platelets, albumin, α-fetoprotein (AFP), international normalized ratio (INR), cholesterol, creatinine, total bilirubin, and in patients with HIV coinfection CD4 cell count nadir and at the time of LB. For the TE-CAP population, variables included probe size, AST and ALT, and, when available for nonreferred patients receiving care at the Cook County Health & Hospital System (CCHHS), platelets, albumin, AFP, INR, cholesterol, creatinine, total bilirubin, CD4 cell count nadir, and last CD4 cell count before TE-CAP. The study was approved by the CCHHS Institutional Review Board.
Liver Histopathology
LB specimens were obtained in the usual fashion and were scored by local pathologists at CCHHS according to the METAVIR fibrosis stage (F0–F4) [27]; the scale used to classify fibrosis was as follows: F0 represents no fibrosis; F1, perisinusoidal/pericellular fibrosis only; F2, perisinusoidal/pericellular fibrosis with periportal fibrosis; F3, perisinusoidal/pericellular fibrosis with periportal fibrosis and bridging fibrosis; and F4, cirrhosis. Steatosis was scored based on the necroinflammatory grading system, with assignment of a steatosis grade (S0–S3). The scale used to classify steatosis grade was as follows: S0, no steatosis; S1, mild (<10% hepatocytes); S2, moderate (10%–30% hepatocytes); and S3, severe (>30% hepatocytes). Reports that did not comment on steatosis were documented as “not reported.”
TE-CAP Protocol
All TE was performed in our clinic by certified operators according to manufacturer instructions (FibroScan, Echosens, Paris), using either the medium-sized (3.5-Hz frequency) or extra-large (XL) (2.5-Hz frequency) probe. The XL probe was used when the distance from skin to liver capsule exceeded 2.5 cm, as measured by sonographic imaging, and/or when BMI was >30. Cutoff values were assigned according to manufacturer recommendations. For HCV monoinfection and HIV/HCV coinfection, fibrosis stages are assigned as follows: F0–F1 indicates no to mild scarring (2–7 kPa); F2, mild fibrosis (7.1–9.4 kPa); F3, severe fibrosis (9.5–12.4 kPa); and F4, cirrhosis (≥12.5 kPa). Patients were also assigned a steatosis grade (S0–S3) (based on CAP scores in decibels per meter, which is a calculation of the attenuation of ultrasonic signals used for TE) as described elsewhere by Sasso et al [28]. The grades are assigned as follows: S0, no steatosis (0%–10% fat; 0–237 dB/m); S1, mild steatosis (11%–33% fat; 238–259 dB/m); S2, moderate steatosis (34%–66% fat; 260–292 dB/m); and S3, severe steatosis (>67% fat; ≥293 dB/m).
Statistical Analysis
Two binary logistical regression analyses were performed. The first analysis considered steatosis determined by LB. A dichotomous variable was derived by coding those patients with S3 results as 1, and those with S1–S2 results as 0. The second dependent variable in the analysis was fibrosis as determined by TE-CAP. This variable was similarly coded, with TE-CAP results of F3–F4 coded as 1, and F0–F2 results coded as 0. For LB, independent variables in the analysis are included in Table 1. For TE-CAP, the demographics considered are included in Table 2. When applicable, health-related indicators were categorized into clinical reference ranges, as follows: ALT ≥1.5 the upper limit of normal (≥52 U/L), AST ≥1.5 the upper limit of normal (≥60 U/L), platelets ≤130 000/μL, AFP ≥10 ng/mL, and INR ≥1.2.
Table 1.
Steatosis and Fibrosis Rates Associated With Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) Monoinfection and Human Immunodeficiency Virus/HCV Coinfection by Liver Biopsy
| Variable | All Patients, No. (%) (n = 421)a | P Value | HIV/HCV-Coinfected Patients, No. (%)a (n = 243) | HCV-Monoinfected Patients, No. (%)a (n = 178) | P Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, median, y | 50.0 | … | 50.0 | 51.0 | … |
| Sex | |||||
| Male | 310 (73.6) | … | 196 (80.7) | 114 (64.0) | <.001 |
| Female | 111 (26.4) | 47 (19.3) | 64 (36.0) | ||
| Race and ethnicityb | |||||
| African American | 270 (64.0) | … | 168 (69.1) | 102 (57.3) | .45 |
| White | 116 (27.5) | … | 65 (26.7) | 51 (28.7) | .26 |
| Asian | 10 (2.4) | … | 10 (4.1) | 0 (0.0) | .008 |
| Hispanic or Latino | 73 (17.3) | … | 47 (19.3) | 26 (14.6) | .24 |
| Other/unknown | 12 (2.9) | … | 5 (5.7) | 7 (4.0) | .33 |
| Fibrosis stagec | |||||
| F0 | 35 (8.3) | … | 22 (9.1) | 13 (7.3) | .31 |
| F1 | 136 (32.3) | … | 85 (35.0) | 51 (28.7) | .09 |
| F2 | 136 (32.3) | … | 73 (30.0) | 63 (35.4) | .16 |
| F3 | 77 (18.2) | … | 43 (17.7) | 34 (19.1) | .42 |
| F4 | 35 (8.3) | … | 18 (7.4) | 17 (9.6) | .28 |
| Steatosis grade (hepatocytes)c | |||||
| S0 (0%) | 125 (29.7) | … | 87(35.8) | 38 (22.2) | .002 |
| S1 (<10%) | 138 (32.7) | … | 77 (31.7) | 61 (34.2) | .17 |
| S2 (11%–30%) | 32 (7.6) | … | 13 (5.3) | 19 (10.7) | .02 |
| S3 (>30%) | 16 (3.8) | … | 7 (2.9) | 9 (5.1) | .14 |
| Not reported | 110 (26.1) | … | 59 (24.3) | 51 (28.7) | .18 |
| S2–S3 | 48 (11.4) | … | 21 (8.6) | 28 (15.7) | .02 |
| F0–F1 (n = 127) | <.001 | ||||
| S0–S1 | 118 (93.7) | 79 (96.3) | 39 (86.7) | .02 | |
| S2–S3 | 9 (7.1) | … | 3 (3.7) | 6 (1.3) | .18 |
| F2–F4 (n = 184) | <.001 | ||||
| S0–S1 | 145 (78.8) | 85 (79.4) | 60 (77.9) | .68 | |
| S2–S3 | 39 (21.2) | … | 22 (20.6) | 17 (22.1) | .19 |
| F3–F4 (n = 78) | .72 | ||||
| S0–S1 | 65 (83.3) | … | 43 (95.6) | 22 (66.7) | .13 |
| S2–S3 | 13 (16.7) | 2 (4.4) | 11 (33.3) | .003 |
Numbers in this section (F0–F1, F2–F4 and F3–F4) represent the totals for available steatosis reports.
Abbreviations: HCV, hepatitis C virus; HIV, human immunodeficiency virus.
aData represent no. (%) of patients unless otherwise specified.
bNote: 52 patients identified as both Latino and white, and 7 as both Latino and other.
cSee Liver Histopathology for explanation of fibrosis staging and steatosis grading systems.
Table 2.
Steatosis and Fibrosis Rates Associated With Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) Monoinfection and Human Immunodeficiency Virus/HCV Coinfection by Transient Elastography With Controlled Attenuation Parameter
| All Patients, No. (%)a (n = 1157) | P Value | HIV/HCV-Coinfected Patients, No. (%)a (n = 237) | HCV-Monoinfected Patients, No. (%) (n = 919)a (%) | P Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, median, y | 57 | … | 57 | 59 | … |
| Sex | |||||
| Male | 771 (66.6) | … | 184 (77.6) | 585 (63.7) | <.001 |
| Female | 379 (32.7) | 48 (20.3) | 331 (36.0) | ||
| Probe size | |||||
| Medium | 997 (86.1) | … | 217 (91.6) | 778 (84.7) | … |
| XL (BMI ≥30) | 125 (10.8) | … | 13 (5.5) | 112 (12.2) | .002 |
| Race and ethnicity | |||||
| African American | 817 (70.6) | … | 171 (72.2) | 646 (70.3) | .63 |
| White | 174 (15.0) | … | 25 (10.5) | 149 (16.2) | .03 |
| Asian | 31 (2.7) | … | 1 (0.4) | 31 (3.4) | .01 |
| Hispanic or Latino | 132 (11.4) | … | 40 (16.9) | 92 (10.0) | .004 |
| Other/unknown | 3 (0.19) | … | 1 (0.4) | 2 (0.22) | >.99 |
| Fibrosis stageb | |||||
| F0–F1 (<7.1 kPa) | 463 (40.1) | … | 110 (46.4) | 353 (38.4) | .03 |
| F2 (7.1–9.4 kPa) | 277 (23.9) | … | 65 (27.4) | 212 (23.1) | .17 |
| F3 (9.5–12.4 kPa) | 142 (12.3) | … | 27 (11.4) | 115 (12.5) | .03 |
| F4 (≥12.5 kPa) | 273 (23.7) | … | 35 (14.8) | 238 (25.9) | <.001 |
| CAP score, median, dB/m | 226 | … | 215.5 | 230 | <.001 |
| Steatosis grade (CAP score)b | |||||
| S0 (0–237 dB/m) | 692 (59.8) | … | 167 (70.5) | 525 (57.1) | <.001 |
| S1 (238–259 dB/m) | 187 (16.2) | … | 33 (13.9) | 154 (16.8) | .32 |
| S2 (260–292 dB/m) | 158 (13.7) | … | 26 (11.0) | 132 (14.4) | .20 |
| S3 (≥293 dB/m) | 119 (10.3) | … | 11 (4.6) | 108 (11.8) | <.001 |
| F0–F1 (n = 463) | <.01 | ||||
| S0–S1 | 385 | 99 (90.0) | 286 (81.0) | .002 | |
| S2–S3 | 78 | … | 11 (10.0) | 67 (19.0) | .19 |
| F2–F4 (n = 692) | .02 | ||||
| S0–S1 | 494 | … | 101 (79.5) | 393 (69.6) | <.001 |
| S2–S3 | 198 | 26 (20.5) | 172 (30.4) | .005 | |
| F3–F4 (n = 415) | <.001 | ||||
| S0–S1 | 270 | … | 44 (71.0) | 226 (64.0) | .058 |
| S2–S3 | 145 | 18 (29.0) | 127 (36.0) | .008 |
Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; CAP, controlled attenuation parameter; HCV, hepatitis C virus; HIV, human immunodeficiency virus; TE, transient elastography; XL, extra large.
aData represent no. (%) of patients unless otherwise specified.
bSee TE-CAP Protocol for explanation of fibrosis stages and steatosis grades (CAP scores).
RESULTS
Baseline Characteristics
A total of 1578 unique patients were included in this study, 13 of whom had both LB and TE-CAP performed within the respective time periods. There were 421 patients in the LB group, 73.6% male, with a median age of 50 years; 57.6% (n = 243) were coinfected, and 42.4% (n = 178) were HCV monoinfected. There was a slight predominance of males in the coinfection subgroup (80.7% vs 64% in the monoinfection subgroup) (Table 1). There were 1157 patients in the TE-CAP group, 66.6% male, with a median age of 57 years; 20.5% (n = 237) were coinfected, and 79.5% (n = 919) were HCV monoinfected (Table 2). The median age increased by 7 years from the LB era to the era of TE-CAP assessment. With TE-CAP, the XL probe (BMI >30) was used significantly more often in HCV-monoinfected patients than in coinfected patients (12.2% vs 5.5%, respectively; P = .002).
Steatosis
In 26.1% of LB reports, steatosis histopathology was not recorded. Moderate-severe steatosis (≥S2) was detected more often with CAP than with LB (24.0% vs 11.4%, respectively) among recorded results, and with LB this rate of S2–S3 steatosis was higher in HCV monoinfection than in HIV/HCV coinfection (15.7% vs 8.6%; P = .002) (Table 1). Similar steatosis rates were seen in coinfected and monoinfected populations for S0–S1 steatosis by LB and S1 steatosis by CAP. With CAP, the rate for “no steatosis” (S0) was slightly higher for HIV/HCV coinfection than for HCV monoinfection (70.5% vs 57.1%; P = .002). Median CAP scores were significantly higher in HCV monoinfection than in HIV/HCV coinfection (230 vs 215.5 dB/m; P < .001), with higher CAP scores (S3) associated with HCV monoinfection (11.8% vs 4.6% for coinfection; P < .001) (Table 2).
Fibrosis
Fibrosis rates with LB were similar in HCV-monoinfected and HIV/HCV-coinfected patients for all stages (F0–F4) (Table 1). With TE, rates of advanced fibrosis (F3–F4) (38.4%) were significantly higher in HCV monoinfection (for F4, 25.9% vs 14.8% in coinfection; P < .001). With TE, HIV/HCV coinfection was associated with lower fibrosis stage (F0–F1) (46.4% vs 38.4% for HCV monoinfection; P = .03) (Table 2). With both LB and TE, advanced fibrosis (F3–F4) was significantly associated with moderate-severe steatosis (S2–S3) in HCV monoinfection, compared with HIV/HCV coinfection (33.3% vs 4.4%, respectively, for LB [P = .003] and 36.0% vs 29.0% for TE [P = .008]). With LB and TE, lower stages of fibrosis (F0–F1) were significantly more associated with lower grades of steatosis (S0–S1) in coinfection than in HCV monoinfection (96.3% vs 86.7% for LB [P = .02] and 90.0% vs 81.0% for TE [P = .002], respectively) (Tables 1 and 2).
Logistic Regression Analysis
With LB, lower ALT levels (odds ratio [OR], 0.067; P = .03) and age 40–49 years (OR, 0.058; P = .03) were correlated with moderate-severe steatosis (grade S1–S2). For fibrosis a correlation was found between lower ALT levels (OR, 0.080; P = .01) and lower levels of fibrosis (score F0–F1). For TE-CAP, higher AST levels were associated with F3–F4 fibrosis (OR, 1.033; P < .001), and lower ALT levels with F1–F2 fibrosis (OR, 0.986; P < .001). Medium probe size was associated with F1–F2 fibrosis (OR, 0.020; P = .51). With TE, HCV monoinfection was correlated with F3–F4 fibrosis (OR, 1.787; P = .02).
DISCUSSION
In patients with chronic hepatitis C undergoing liver fibrosis staging, we identified steatosis more often with CAP than with LB, with higher median CAP scores in HCV monoinfection than in HIV/HCV coinfection. We also found that rates of advanced fibrosis and severe steatosis were significantly higher in HCV monoinfection than in coinfection in our population. With both LB and TE, HIV/HCV coinfection with advanced fibrosis was associated with moderate-severe steatosis. Importantly, no histopathologic record of steatosis was reported in >25% of LBs in this clinical setting.
Several previous studies have shown increased prevalence and severity of steatosis and fibrosis in HIV/HCV-coinfected patients than in those with either HIV or HCV monoinfection. It is postulated that HIV may act in synergy with HCV to cause steatosis by disrupting lipid metabolism, resulting in more severe disease in coinfected patients [21]. However, other researchers have also previously shown lower disease severity in coinfected patients. Comparison of liver fibrosis progression using TE-CAP in HIV monoinfection or HCV monoinfection versus coinfection in a Canadian prospective cohort found that HS and liver fibrosis progressed faster in HIV monoinfection than in those with HIV/HCV coinfection. In that study HCV coinfection was an independent negative predictor of HS progression [29].
We suspect that the lower rates of severe steatosis in our coinfected patients reflects increased long-term engagement in healthcare that may mitigate contributory metabolic factors for steatosis, together with higher rates of obesity in HCV-monoinfected patients. Many monoinfected patients came into care during our TE-CAP study period owing to new availability of healthcare access through the Affordable Care Act. A high proportion of patients at our facility are part of undeserved and low-income communities with disparities in healthcare access. In contrast, many coinfected patients in this study were already engaged in care at our facility and thus internally referred for viral hepatitis therapy. It is plausible that patients already engaged in care may have had better control of chronic health conditions, including obesity.
As LBs have become less desirable, assessment for NAFLD and HS with reliable noninvasive modalities has been an area of extensive development. Repeating CAP measurements longitudinally may detect worsening steatosis in subgroups of patients in whom it is associated with progressive fibrosis [29]. Scoring tools using proprietary algorithms such as the enhanced liver fibrosis (ELF) score, investigational biomarkers such as pro-pepticed of type III collagen (Pro-C3) and routine serum markers of liver function, including ALT, AST, platelets, and γ-glutamyltransferase (for the AST-to-platelet ratio index and fibrosis-4 (FIB-4)) have been evaluated to estimate HS but have generally lacked validation owing to frequently normal levels in HS and poor correlation with histopathologic findings [30–33]. Identification of factors associated with HS or fibrosis progression after treatment of HCV infection in monoinfected and coinfected patients may be helpful in monitoring the clinical course after SVR.
The advance of direct-acting antiviral therapy has revolutionized the treatment of HCV infection. Risk of liver failure, HCC, and death dramatically decrease with SVR [34–37]. As markers of inflammation and fibrosis, transaminase levels often normalize with SVR in both HCV monoinfection and HIV/HCV coinfection, and elevated transaminase levels after SVR may signal persistent homeostatic abnormalities in hepatic inflammation and architecture, including steatosis. Cirrhosis and baseline elevated TE-CAP results have been associated with persistent transaminase elevation and slower decrease in TE values that was independent of HIV status [38]. Certain patient populations require ongoing surveillance after SVR; patients with baseline advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis before direct-acting antiviral treatment still require periodic imaging to detect HCC after SVR, because HCC emergence is not completely eliminated with cure of HCV infection [37]. However, these imaging techniques, usually liver ultrasonography or magnetic resonance imaging, do not demonstrate steatosis if not equipped with specialized probes or software. In HCV-infected patients with hepatosteatosis, better understanding of the natural history of NAFLD and improved noninvasive diagnostics will help guide monitoring and treatment of these patients after curative therapy for HCV infection.
Our study had several limitations. First, a large proportion of biopsy reports did not record steatosis findings, potentially underestimating the burden of steatosis before the availability of TE-CAP. For the LB cohort, the original intent of biopsy was for staging of fibrosis, not assessment of steatosis. For the LB cohort, BMI was not ascertained, because a proportion of LBs predated the implementation of our electronic medical record for BMI data abstraction. Comorbidity information was also not universally collected in our database, so was not available for analysis. In addition, patients referred for LB were often carefully selected and may not be representative of the overall population. It is possible that using the noninvasive TE-CAP method invited more comprehensive representation of the population being evaluated.
Finally, the steatosis grading system for LB was based on that of the French METAVIR Groupe, rather than the current internationally used algorithm for steatosis and NAFLD activity score introduced in 2005, which postdated our LB specimens collected in 2001–2004 [39]. However, there were advantages to using these criteria for our study: The French cutoffs were widely used in previous HIV/HCV coinfection cohorts [40], our pathologists were not uniformly recording other histologic features (eg, ballooning and intralobular inflammation) that factor into the NAFLD activity score, and sensitivity for steatosis severity detection may have increased, given the degree of pathologists’ underreporting for any presence of steatosis.
In conclusion, steatosis contributes to liver fibrosis in both HCV and HIV/HCV coinfection. Recent advances in noninvasive imaging for staging have largely supplanted LB in HCV infection, which may limit recognition of underlying steatosis. In this study, any histopathologic record of steatosis was not reported in >25% of LBs. Steatosis in this study was more often detected with CAP than with LB. Median CAP scores were significantly higher in HCV-monoinfected than in coinfected patients. The severity of NAFLD may be increasing in the modern HCV treatment era, particularly in HCV monoinfection. With both LB and TE, advanced fibrosis was associated with moderate to severe steatosis, with stronger associations in the HCV-monoinfected population. In clinical settings that may not have access to elastographic techniques validated for steatosis, improved biomarkers are needed to serially assess HCV-infected patients with significant steatosis after curative therapy for HCV infection.
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge Isela Alvarez for assistance with chart abstraction and data entry.
Potential conflicts of interest. G. H. discloses prior relationships with Gilead Sciences, ViiV, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Theratechnologies, Proteus, and Trio health. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed.
References
- 1. Chalasani N, Younossi Z, Lavine JE, et al. The diagnosis and management of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: practice guidance from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Hepatology 2018; 67:328–57. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Younossi Z, Tacke F, Arrese M, et al. Global perspectives on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. Hepatology 2018. doi: 10.1002/hep.30251. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Crum-Cianflone N, Dilay A, Collins G, et al. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease among HIV-infected persons. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2009; 50:464–73. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Price JC, Seaberg EC, Latanich R, et al. Risk factors for fatty liver in the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study. Am J Gastroenterol 2014; 109:695–704. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Marks KM, Petrovic LM, Talal AH, et al. Histological findings and clinical characteristics associated with hepatic steatosis in patients coinfected with HIV and hepatitis C virus. J Infect Dis 2005; 192:1943–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Chalasani N, Younossi Z, Lavine JE, et al. ; American Gastroenterological Association; American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases; American College of Gastroenterology The diagnosis and management of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: practice guideline by the American Gastroenterological Association, American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, and American College of Gastroenterology. Gastroenterology 2012; 142:1592–609. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Vernon G, Baranova A, Younossi ZM. Systematic review: the epidemiology and natural history of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis in adults. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2011; 34:274–85. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Demir M, Lang S, Steffen HM. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease–current status and future directions. J Dig Dis 2015; 16:541–57. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Down C, Mehta N, Marks K. The risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, liver-related outcomes, and death over 10 years in HIV/HCV-coinfected patients with and without steatosis. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 2016; 32:868–71. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Konerman MA, Mehta SH, Sutcliffe CG, et al. Fibrosis progression in human immunodeficiency virus/hepatitis C virus coinfected adults: prospective analysis of 435 liver biopsy pairs. Hepatology 2014; 59:767–75. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Sterling RK, Wegelin JA, Smith PG, et al. Similar progression of fibrosis between HIV/HCV-infected and HCV-infected patients: analysis of paired liver biopsy samples. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 8:1070–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Macías J, Berenguer J, Japón MA, et al. Hepatic steatosis and steatohepatitis in human immunodeficiency virus/hepatitis C virus-coinfected patients. Hepatology 2012; 56:1261–70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Kitahata MM, Gange SJ, Abraham AG, et al. ; NA-ACCORD Investigators Effect of early versus deferred antiretroviral therapy for HIV on survival. N Engl J Med 2009; 360:1815–26. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. van der Helm J, Geskus R, Sabin C, et al. Effect of HCV infection on cause-specific mortality after HIV seroconversion, before and after 1997. Gastroenterology 2013; 144:751–60.e2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Thornton AC, Jose S, Bhagani S, et al. ; UK Collaborative HIV cohort (UK CHIC) steering committee Hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and mortality among HIV-positive individuals. AIDS 2017; 31:2525–32. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Li Vecchi V, Soresi M, Giannitrapani L, et al. Prospective evaluation of hepatic steatosis in HIV-infected patients with or without hepatitis C virus co-infection. Int J Infect Dis 2012; 16:e397–402. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Li Vecchi V, Giannitrapani L, Di Carlo P, et al. Non-invasive assessment of liver steatosis and fibrosis in HIV/HCV- and HCV- infected patients. Ann Hepatol 2013; 12:740–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Monto A, Dove LM, Bostrom A, et al. Hepatic steatosis in HIV/hepatitis C coinfection: prevalence and significance compared with hepatitis C monoinfection. Hepatology 2005; 42:310–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Sulkowski MS, Thomas DL. Hepatitis C in the HIV-infected patient. Clin Liver Dis 2003; 7:179–94. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Sherman KE, Rouster SD, Chung RT, Rajicic N. Hepatitis C virus prevalence among patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus: a cross-sectional analysis of the US adult AIDS Clinical Trials Group. Clin Infect Dis 2002; 34:831–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Gaslightwala I, Bini EJ. Impact of human immunodeficiency virus infection on the prevalence and severity of steatosis in patients with chronic hepatitis C virus infection. J Hepatol 2006; 44:1026–32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Sagnelli C, Uberti-Foppa C, Pasquale G, et al. Factors influencing liver fibrosis and necroinflammation in HIV/HCV coinfection and HCV monoinfection. Infection 2013; 41:959–67. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Limketkai BN, Mehta SH, Sutcliffe CG, et al. Relationship of liver disease stage and antiviral therapy with liver-related events and death in adults coinfected with HIV/HCV. JAMA 2012; 308:370–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Macías J, Pineda JA, Real LM. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in HIV infection. AIDS Rev 2017; 19:35–46. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Myers RP, Pollett A, Kirsch R, et al. Controlled attenuation parameter (CAP): a noninvasive method for the detection of hepatic steatosis based on transient elastography. Liver Int 2012; 32:902–10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Price JC, Dodge JL, Ma Y, et al. Controlled attenuation parameter and magnetic resonance spectroscopy-measured liver steatosis are discordant in obese HIV-infected adults. AIDS 2017; 31:2119–25. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. The French METAVIR Cooperative Study Group. Intraobserver and interobserver variations in liver biopsy interpretation in patients with chronic hepatitis C. Hepatology 1994; 20:15–20. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Sasso M, Miette V, Sandrin L, Beaugrand M. The controlled attenuation parameter (CAP): a novel tool for the non-invasive evaluation of steatosis using FibroScan. Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol 2012; 36:13–20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Pembroke T, Deschenes M, Lebouché B, et al. Hepatic steatosis progresses faster in HIV mono-infected than HIV/HCV co-infected patients and is associated with liver fibrosis. J Hepatol 2017; 67:801–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Vilar-Gomez E, Chalasani N. Non-invasive assessment of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: Clinical prediction rules and blood-based biomarkers. J Hepatol 2018; 68:305–15. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Wai CT, Greenson JK, Fontana RJ, et al. A simple noninvasive index can predict both significant fibrosis and cirrhosis in patients with chronic hepatitis C. Hepatology 2003; 38:518–26. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Sterling RK, Lissen E, Clumeck N, et al. ; APRICOT Clinical Investigators Development of a simple noninvasive index to predict significant fibrosis in patients with HIV/HCV coinfection. Hepatology 2006; 43:1317–25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Angulo P, Hui JM, Marchesini G, et al. The NAFLD fibrosis score: a noninvasive system that identifies liver fibrosis in patients with NAFLD. Hepatology 2007; 45:846–54. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Bang CS, Song IH. Impact of antiviral therapy on hepatocellular carcinoma and mortality in patients with chronic hepatitis C: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Gastroenterol 2017; 17:46. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. El-Serag HB, Kanwal F, Richardson P, Kramer J. Risk of hepatocellular carcinoma after sustained virological response in veterans with hepatitis C virus infection. Hepatology 2016; 64:130–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Simmons B, Saleem J, Heath K, et al. Long-term treatment outcomes of patients infected with hepatitis C virus: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the survival benefit of achieving a sustained virological response. Clin Infect Dis 2015; 61:730–40. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. George SL, Bacon BR, Brunt EM, et al. Clinical, virologic, histologic, and biochemical outcomes after successful HCV therapy: a 5-year follow-up of 150 patients. Hepatology 2009; 49:729–38. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Olveira A, Domínguez L, Troya J, et al. ; PALT-M-Study Group Investigators Persistently altered liver test results in hepatitis C patients after sustained virological response with direct-acting antivirals. J Viral Hepat 2018; 25:818–24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Brunt EM, Janney CG, Di Bisceglie AM, et al. Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: a proposal for grading and staging the histological lesions. Am J Gastroenterol 1999; 94:2467–74. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40. Castéra L, Hézode C, Roudot-Thoraval F, et al. Worsening of steatosis is an independent factor of fibrosis progression in untreated patients with chronic hepatitis C and paired liver biopsies. Gut 2003; 52:288–92. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]