Performance of Hepatitis B Core-Related Antigen Versus Hepatitis B Surface Antigen and Hepatitis B Virus DNA in Predicting HBeAg-positive and HBeAg-negative Chronic Hepatitis

Can quantitative surface antigen levels and systemic immune-inflammation index be predictive as a new indicator for the initiation of treatment in chronic hepatitis b?

OBJECTIVES

The natural history of chronic HBV infection (CHB) is generally divided into four phases: HBeAg-positive chronic HBV infection (EPCI) and -hepatitis (EPCH), HBeAg-negative chronic HBV infection (ENCI) and -hepatitis (ENCH). This study aimed to investigate changes in serum quantitative surface antigen (qHBsAg), systemic immune-inflammation index (SII) and systemic inflammatory response index (SIRI) in a large number of CHB patients.

METHOD

Three hundred seventy-two CHB patients who underwent liver biopsy between January 2015 and February 2020 were evaluated.

RESULTS

The SII-values were strongly significant between EPCI-EPCH ( P = 0.002), however, there was significant difference between ENCI-ENCH ( P = 0.025). Considering the SIRI results, there was a significant difference between both EPCI-EPCH ( P = 0.009) and ENCI-ENCH ( P = 0.118). In HBeAg-positive patients HBV-DNA, qHBsAg, and SII were found to be predictive ( P = 0.029, P = 0.039, P = 0.027, respectively) while in HBeAg-negative patients, age, AST, HBV-DNA, qHBsAg, SII, and SIRI were found to be predictive ( P = 0.047, P = 0.084, P = <0.001, P = 0.001, P = 0.012, P = 0.002, respectively). In EPCH phase, whereby accuracy rate results of HBV-DNA, qHBsAg, and SII were 75.3%, 73.4%, and 60.4%, respectively, while in the ENCH phase the accuracy rates of age, AST, HBV-DNA, qHBsAg, SII, and SIRI values were 57.8%, 65.6%, 68.3%, 63.8%, 57.3% and 53.2%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

HBV-DNA, qHBsAg, and SII are predictive in EPCH patients. Age, AST, HBV-DNA, qHBsAg, SII and SIRI are all predictive in ENCH patients. In patients with CHB, we recommend using SII to distinguish between EPCI-EPCH and ENCI-ENCH. Based on its sensitivity and features, we believe that qHBsAg and SII are suitable measuring instruments in discrimination both of EPCI-EPCH and ENCI-ENCH.

Lateral Flow Assay for Hepatitis B Detection: A Review of Current and New Assays

From acute to chronic hepatitis, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular cancer, hepatitis B infection causes a broad spectrum of liver diseases. Molecular and serological tests have been used to diagnose hepatitis B-related illnesses. Due to technology limitations, it is challenging to identify hepatitis B infection cases at an early stage, particularly in a low- and middle-income country with constrained resources. Generally, the gold-standard methods to detect hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection requires dedicated personnel, bulky, expensive equipment and reagents, and long processing times which delay the diagnosis of HBV. Thus, lateral flow assay (LFA), which is inexpensive, straightforward, portable, and operates reliably, has dominated point-of-care diagnostics. LFA consists of four parts: a sample pad where samples are dropped; a conjugate pad where labeled tags and biomarker components are combined; a nitrocellulose membrane with test and control lines for target DNA-probe DNA hybridization or antigen-antibody interaction; and a wicking pad where waste is stored. By modifying the pre-treatment during the sample preparation process or enhancing the signal of the biomarker probes on the membrane pad, the accuracy of the LFA for qualitative and quantitative analysis can be improved. In this review, we assembled the most recent developments in LFA technologies for the progress of hepatitis B infection detection. Prospects for ongoing development in this area are also covered.

A critique and systematic review of the clinical utility of hepatitis B core-related antigen

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Hepatitis B core-related antigen (HBcrAg) is a new biomarker for chronic hepatitis B (CHB) whose performance has not been critically or systematically appraised. Herein, we performed a systematic review to determine its clinical utility.

METHODS

We evaluated the biological pathway of HBcrAg and performed a systematic review of PubMed for clinical trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies that evaluated the clinical utility of HBcrAg. The effectiveness of HBcrAg in predicting HBV-specific clinical events (e.g. HBeAg seroconversion, phases of CHB, HBsAg loss, treatment response, and relapse after stopping therapy) was examined using receiver-operating characteristic curves. The correlation coefficients of HBcrAg with HBV DNA, quantitative HBsAg (qHBsAg), HBV RNA, and cccDNA were summarised from published studies. Median values were used as estimates.

RESULTS

HBcrAg consists of three precore/core protein products: HBcAg, HBeAg, and a 22 kDa precore protein. HBcrAg assays have been associated with false-positive rates of 9.3% and false-negative rates of between 12-35% for CHB. The new iTACT-HBcrAg is more sensitive but does not reduce the false-positive rate. A PubMed search found 248 papers on HBcrAg, of which 59 were suitable for analysis. The clinical performance of HBcrAg was evaluated using AUROC analyses, with median AUROCs of 0.860 for HBeAg seroconversion, 0.867 for predicting HBeAg(-) hepatitis, 0.645 for HBsAg loss, 0.757 for treatment response, and 0.688 for relapse after stopping therapy. The median correlation coefficient (r) was 0.630 with HBV DNA, 0.414 with qHBsAg, 0.619 with HBV RNA and 0.550 with cccDNA. Correlation decreased during antiviral therapy, but combined biomarkers improved performance.

CONCLUSIONS

HBcrAg has a mixed performance and has a poor correlation with HBsAg loss and antiviral therapy, hence HBcrAg results should be interpreted with caution.

IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS

Hepatitis B core-related antigen (HBcrAg) has been used to assess management of patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) without a systematic and critical Sreview of its performance. Our finding that HBcrAg had a false-positive rate of 9% and a false-negative rate of 12-35% raises concerns, although larger studies are needed for validation. A systematic review showed that the performance of HBcrAg was variable depending on the CHB endpoint; it was excellent at predicting HBeAg seroconversion and HBeAg-negative chronic hepatitis (vs. chronic infection), which should be its main use, but it was poor for relapse after stopping antiviral therapy and for HBsAg loss. HBcrAg results should be interpreted with considerable caution, particularly by physicians, researchers, guideline committees and agencies that approve diagnostic tests.

[Natural history and disease progression of chronic hepatitis B virus infection]

OBJECTIVE

To better understand and revise the natural history and disease progression of chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection through analysis of a single-center large-scale cohort of indivi-duals with chronic HBV infection.

METHODS

Patients with chronic HBV infection who had undergone liver biopsy in the Fifth Medical Center of Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) General Hospital from January 2014 to October 2020 were retrospectively recruited. Based on patient's hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) states and pathologic diagnosis, they were categorized into four disease progression statuses (or phases according to the old-terminology in the updated guidelines of chronic hepatitis B (CHB), such as European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) 2017, Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Management of Hepatitis B Virus Infection: HBeAg-positive chronic HBV infection (immune tolerance), HBeAg-positive CHB (immune active HBeAg positive), HBeAg-negative chronic HBV infection (inactive carrier), and HBeAg-negative CHB (immune reactive HBeAg negative). Then the demographic, laboratory tests and liver histological results of the patients in different disease progression stages were compared. Age differences between the two groups were evaluated using Mann-Whitney U test.

RESULTS

A total of 760 eligible patients with a median age of 29 (interquartile range: 16-39) years were enrolled. Among them, 197 were underage individuals (age < 18 years) and 563 were adults; and 456 were males and 304 females. According to the pathological diagnosis, the patients were classified, and in each of the above four natural disease phases there were 173, 329, 95, and 163 individuals, respectively. Further comparison of the ages of the patients of the four disease progression statuses revealed that patients of HBeAg-negative CHB had a median age at 37 years, which was reasonably higher than those with HBeAg-positive CHB in immune active phase (37 vs. 24 years, P < 0.001), but was relatively younger than those with HBeAg-negative chronic HBV infection (37 vs. 39 years, P= 0.240).

CONCLUSION

According to this study, it could be speculated that HBeAg-negative CHB patients probably not all reactivate from individuals of HBeAg-negative chronic HBV infection. Instead, certain HBeAg-negative CHB patients may also come from HBeAg-positive CHB patients who have undergone HBeAg clearance or seroconversion and still remain in the immune active state.

Capabilities of hepatitis B surface antigen are divergent from hepatitis B virus DNA in delimiting natural history phases of chronic hepatitis B virus infection

Objective

Quantitative hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA in the natural history of chronic HBV infection have not been rationally evaluated. This study aimed to re-characterize quantitative HBsAg and HBV DNA in the natural history phases.

Methods

A total of 595 and 651 hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-positive patients and 485 and 705 HBeAg-negative patients were assigned to the early and late cohorts, respectively. Based on the ‘S-shape’ receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, the HBeAg-positive sub-cohorts with possibly high HBV replication (PHVR) and possibly low HBV replication (PLVR) and the HBeAg-negative sub-cohorts with possibly high HBsAg expression (PHSE) and possibly low HBsAg expression (PLSE) were designated.

Results

The areas under the ROC curve (AUCs) of HBsAg and HBV DNA in predicting HBeAg-positive significant hepatitis activity (SHA) in the early cohort, sub-cohort with PHVR, and sub-cohort with PLVR were 0.655 and 0.541, 0.720 and 0.606, and 0.553 and 0.725, respectively; those in the late cohort, sub-cohort with PHVR, and sub-cohort with PLVR were 0.646 and 0.501, 0.798 and 0.622, and 0.603 and 0.674, respectively. The AUCs of HBsAg and HBV DNA in predicting HBeAg-negative SHA in the early cohort, sub-cohort with PHSE, and sub-cohort with PLSE were 0.508 and 0.745, 0.573 and 0.780, and 0.577 and 0.729, respectively; those in the late cohort, sub-cohort with PHSE, and sub-cohort with PLSE were 0.503 and 0.761, 0.560 and 0.814, and 0.544 and 0.722, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of HBsAg ≤4.602 log10 IU/ml in predicting HBeAg-positive SHA in the early cohort were 82.6% and 45.8%, respectively; those in the late cohort were 87.0% and 44.1%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of HBV DNA &gt;3.301 log10 IU/ml in predicting HBeAg-negative SHA in the early cohort were 73.4% and 60.8%, respectively; those in the late cohort were 73.6% and 64.1%, respectively.

Conclusion

Quantitative HBsAg and HBV DNA are valuable, but their capabilities are divergent in delimiting the natural history phases.

Quantitative HBsAg versus HBV DNA in Predicting Significant Hepatitis Activity of HBeAg-Positive Chronic HBV Infection

(1) Background: As specialparameters in predicting significant hepatitis activity of hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-positive chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, the quantitative standard of HBV DNA has not been agreed and that of hepatitis B surface antigen(HBsAg) has not been formed. Our objective is to evaluate the validity of HBsAg and HBV DNA in predicting the significant hepatitis activity of HBeAg-positive patients. (2) Methods: A population of 516 patients with HBeAg-positive chronic HBV infection was enrolled. Serum ALT was measured using an Abbott Architect c16000 autoanalyzer; diagnoses of liver pathological grade and stage referred to the Scheuer standard. Three levels of significant hepatitis activity were preset, which were successively “ALT ≥ 20 IU/L or Grade > G1 or Stage > S1”, “ALT ≥ 30 IU/L or Grade > G1 or Stage > S1” and “ALT ≥ 40 IU/L or Grade > G1 or Stage > S1”. (3) Results: A subpopulation of 288 patients with possible high HBV replication was selected based on locally weighted scatterplot smoothing regression curves between ALT and HBsAg, HBeAg and HBV DNA. In the subpopulation with possible high HBV replication, areas under receiver operating characteristic curves of HBsAg for predicting the three levels of significant hepatitis activity were successively 0.868, 0.839 and 0.789, which were all significantly greater than those of HBV DNA, as those were successively 0.553, 0.550 and 0.574 (p = 0.0002, p < 0.0001 and p < 0.0001). With the standard of HBsAg ≤ 4.699 log₁₀ IU/mL, the sensitivity and specificity of HBsAg for predicting the three levels of significant hepatitis activity were successively 75.81% and 81.82%, 79.23% and 78.57% and 80.82% and 67.44%. (4) Conclusion: Quantitative HBsAg instead of HBV DNA is valuable in predicting significant hepatitis activity of HBeAg-positive chronic HBV infection.

Hepatitis B Core-Related Antigen is a Biomarker for off-Treatment Relapse After Long-Term Nucleos(t)ide Analog Therapy in Patients with Chronic Hepatitis B

Objective

It remains unknown how to stratify the risk of clinical relapse of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients after stopping nucleos(t)ide analogs (NAs) antiviral therapy.

Methods

The current post hoc analysis included 122 non-cirrhotic patients with chronic hepatitis B virus infection who were positive for hepatitis B envelope antigen (HBeAg) and discontinued long-term NA therapy after achieving HBeAg seroconversion for a median of 2.5 years. Post hoc analysis of end-of-treatment (EOT) hepatitis B core-related antigen (HBcrAg) levels was performed using a chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay.

Results

A total of 78/122 (63.9%) patients experienced sustained response after NAs cessation, and 44/122 (36.1%) patients experienced clinical relapse. In multivariate analysis, EOT HBcrAg (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.105 95% CI: 1.440–3.077, p < 0.001), hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) ≥100 IU/mL (HR = 4.406, 95% CI 1.567–12.389, p = 0.005) and age (HR = 1.051, 95% CI: 1.010–1.093, p = 0.049) were independently associated with clinical relapse. A cut-off value of 4.0 log₁₀ U/mL of HBcrAg was defined by maximized Youden’s index. An EOT HBcrAg level of ≥4.0 log₁₀ U/mL was associated with higher risks of clinical relapse (65.8% vs 23.2%, p<0.001) and HBeAg reversion (27.5% vs 1.6%, p < 0.001). In majority of patients (n = 91) who had a high EOT HBsAg level (≥100 IU/mL), serum HBcrAg level could further discriminate patients at low risk of clinical relapse. Patients with an HBcrAg level ≥4.0 log₁₀ U/mL had significantly higher cumulative incidence rates of clinical relapse (78.1% vs 29.4%, p < 0.001) and HBeAg reversion (29.4% vs 0%, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Serum EOT HBcrAg level can be a predictor of off-treatment relapse in patients with CHB. An HBcrAg level of 4.0 log₁₀ U/mL may identify patients at high risk of clinical relapse after treatment cessation.

Quantitative serum HBV markers in predicting phases of natural history of chronic HBV infection

BACKGROUND

Clinical importance of commercially available quantitative HBV markers has not been fully investigated.

OBJECTIVE

To choice and to evaluate clinically valuable HBV markers for predicting phases of natural history with chronic HBV infection.

METHODS

472 naïve patients with chronic HBV infection were enrolled, in which 21 and 220 were confirmed as HBeAg-positive inactive and active hepatitis (EPIH and EPAH), respectively, and 106 and 125 were confirmed as HBeAg-negative inactive and active hepatitis (ENIH and ENAH), respectively. HBsAg, HBcrAg and anti- HBc were measured using chemiluminescent immunoassay, and HBV DNA was measured using PCR-fluorescence probing assay.

RESULTS

There were all statistical differences in medians of HBsAg, anti-HBc, HBcrAg and HBV DNA between EPIH and EPAH and between ENIH and ENAH (all P < 0.01). According to binary logistic stepwise regressions, HBsAg and anti-HBc were preferred variables for predicting EPAH, and HBcrAg and HBV DNA were preferred variables for predicting ENAH. Based on normalization for coefficients of preferred variables entering regression equations, a handy model of MEPAH for predicting EPAH and of MENAH for predicting ENAH was constructed, respectively. Area under receiver operating characteristic curves of MEPAH and MENAH for predicting EPAH and ENAH were 0.882 and 0.931, respectively. With standard of MEPAH ≤ 5.997 and MENAH > 10.535, sensitivity or specificity of which for predicting EPAH and ENAH were about 81.0 % and 87.0 %, respectively.

CONCLUSION

HBsAg and anti-HBc for predicting EPAH and HBcrAg and HBV DNA for predicting ENAH are dependable markers; MEPAH for predicting EPAH and MENAH for predicting ENAH have very good performance.

Hepatitis B Core-Related Antigen to Indicate High Viral Load: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 10,397 Individual Participants

BACKGROUND & AIMS

To eliminate hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, scale-up of testing and treatment in resource-limited countries is crucial. However, access to nucleic acid testing to quantify HBV DNA, an essential test to examine treatment eligibility, remains severely limited. We assessed the performance of a novel immunoassay, HBV core-related antigen (HBcrAg), as a low-cost (less than US $15/assay) alternative to nucleic acid testing to indicate clinically important high viremia in chronic HBV patients infected with different genotypes.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases through June 27, 2018. Three reviewers independently selected studies measuring HBV DNA and HBcrAg in the same blood samples. We contacted authors to provide individual participant data (IPD). We randomly allocated each IPD to a derivation or validation cohort. We applied optimal HBcrAg cut-off values derived from the derivation set to the validation set to estimate sensitivity/specificity.

RESULTS

Of 74 eligible studies, IPD were obtained successfully for 60 studies (81%). Meta-analysis included 5591 IPD without antiviral therapy and 4806 treated with antivirals. In untreated patients, the pooled area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and optimal cut-off values were as follows: 0.88 (95% CI, 0.83-0.94) and 3.6 log U/mL to diagnose HBV DNA level of 2000 IU/mL or greater; and 0.96 (95% CI, 0.94-0.98) and 5.3 log U/mL for 200,000 IU/mL or greater, respectively. In the validation set, the sensitivity and specificity were 85.2% and 84.7% to diagnose HBV DNA level of 2000 IU/mL or greater, and 91.8% and 90.5% for 200,000 IU/mL or greater, respectively. The performance did not vary by HBV genotypes. In patients treated with anti-HBV therapy the correlation between HBcrAg and HBV DNA was poor.

CONCLUSIONS

HBcrAg might be a useful serologic marker to indicate clinically important high viremia in treatment-naïve, HBV-infected patients.

Moving towards core antigen for the management of patients with overt and occult HBV infection

Chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection encompasses a wide virologic and clinical spectrum with heterogeneous outcomes. The natural history of chronic HBV infection ranges from an inactive carrier state (hepatitis B e antigen-negative chronic infection) to progressive chronic hepatitis that may evolve in end-stage liver disease and hepatocellular carcinoma. The issue becomes even more complicated when we consider the unique biology of the virus; the HBV covalently-closed-circular DNA, that acts as virus transcription template, is the key factor responsible of the persistence of the infection even after hepatitis B surface antigen loss. In the last decade, novel serological and immunological biomarkers associated to the core protein of HBV have been approached in different clinical conditions. Remarkable results have been obtained both in the setting of overt and occult HBV infection. Here, we reviewed the meaning and the potential clinical applications of the measurement of core antigen and antibodies.

Prognosis of Untreated Minimally Active Chronic Hepatitis B Patients in Comparison With Virological Responders by Antivirals

Serum hepatitis B virus (HBV)-DNA > 2,000 IU/mL is associated with higher risk of disease progression. However, without hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) or cirrhosis, nucleos(t)ide analogs (NUCs) are recommended only for patients with elevated serum HBV-DNA and alanine aminotransferase ≥2 × upper normal limit.

Quantitative HBcrAg and HBcAb versus HBsAg and HBV DNA in predicting liver fibrosis levels of chronic hepatitis B patients

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the performance of the quantitative markers of hepatitis B core-related antigen (HBcrAg) and anti-hepatitis B core antigen antibodies HbcAb versus hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and hepatitis B virus DNA (HBV DNA) in predicting liver fibrosis levels in chronic hepatitis B patients.

METHODS

Two hundred and fifty hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-positive and 245 HBeAg-negative patients were enrolled. With reference to the Scheuer standard, stage 2 or higher and stage 4 liver disease were defined as significant fibrosis and cirrhosis, respectively. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to evaluate the performance of the HBV markers investigated.

RESULTS

The areas under the ROC curves (AUCs) of HBcrAg in predicting significant fibrosis and cirrhosis in HBeAg-positive patients (0.577 and 0.700) were both close to those of HBsAg (0.617 and 0.762) (both P> 0.05). In HBeAg-negative patients (0.797 and 0.837), they were both significantly greater than those of HBV DNA (0.723 and 0.738) (P=0.0090 and P=0.0079). The AUCs of HBcAb in predicting significant fibrosis and cirrhosis in HBeAg-positive patients (0.640 and 0.665) were both close to those of HBsAg. In HBeAg-negative patients (0.570 and 0.621), they were both significantly less than those of HBcrAg (P <0.0001 and P=0.0001). Specificity in predicting significant fibrosis and sensitivity in predicting cirrhosis in HBeAg-positive patients, using a single cut-off of HBsAg ≤5,000 IU/ml, were 76.5% and 72.7%, respectively. In HBeAg-negative patients, using a single cut-off of HBcrAg>80kU/ml, they were 85.9% and 81.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

HBsAg has good performance in predicting liver fibrosis levels in HBeAg-positive and HBeAg-negative patients, and HBcrAg has very good performance in predicting liver fibrosis levels in HBeAg-negative patients.