Efficacy of elbasvir/grazoprevir therapy in HCV genotype-1 with or without HIV infection: role of HCV core antigen monitoring and improvement of liver stiffness and steatosis

Diagnostic performance of hepatitis C core antigen assay to identify active infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) core antigen (HCVcAg) assay is an alternative for diagnosing HCV infection in a single step. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the Abbott ARCHITECT HCV Ag assay's diagnostic performance (validity and utility) for diagnosing active hepatitis C. PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched until 10 January 2023. The protocol was registered at the prospective international register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO: CRD42022337191). Abbott ARCHITECT HCV Ag assay was the test for evaluation, and nucleic acid amplification tests with a cut-off ≤50 IU/mL were the gold standard. Statistical analysis was performed using STATA with the MIDAS module and random-effects models. The bivariate analysis was conducted on 46 studies (18,116 samples). The pooled sensitivity was 0.96 (95% CI = 0.94-0.97), specificity 0.99 (95% CI = 0.99-1.00), positive likelihood ratio 141.81 (95% CI = 72.39-277.79), and negative likelihood ratio 0.04 (95% CI = 0.03-0.06). The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 1.00 (95% CI = 0.34-1.00). For active hepatitis C prevalence values of 0.1%-15%, the probability that a positive test was a true positive was 12%-96%, respectively, indicating that a confirmatory test should be necessary, particularly with a prevalence ≤5%. However, the probability that a negative test was a false negative was close to zero, indicating the absence of HCV infection. The validity (accuracy) of the Abbott ARCHITECT HCV Ag assay for screening active HCV infection in serum/plasma samples was excellent. Although the HCVcAg assay showed limited diagnostic utility in low prevalence settings (≤1%), it might help diagnose hepatitis C in high prevalence scenarios (≥5%).

Diagnostic Performance of the HCV Core Antigen Test To Identify Hepatitis C in HIV-Infected Patients: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The standard algorithm for diagnosing hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection has two steps, an HCV antibody test for screening and a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) for confirmation. However, the HCV core antigen (HCVcAg) detection assay is an alternative for one-step diagnosis. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the Abbott ARCHITECT HCV Ag assay to detect active hepatitis C in serum/plasma in people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA), through a systematic review and meta-analysis. PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched until 20 September 2022 (PROSPERO, CRD42022348351). We included studies evaluating Abbott ARCHITECT HCV Ag assay (index assay) versus NAATs (reference test) in PLWHA coinfected with HCV who did not receive antiviral treatment for HCV. Meta-analysis was performed with the MIDAS module using Stata and random-effects models. The QUADAS-2 tool evaluated the risk of bias. The bivariate analysis was conducted on 11 studies with 2,407 samples. Pooled sensitivity was 0.95 (95% CI = 0.92 to 0.97), specificity 0.97 (95% CI = 0.93 to 0.99), positive likelihood ratio 37.76 (95% CI = 12.84 to 111.02), and negative likelihood ratio 0.06 (95% CI = 0.04 to 0.09). The area under the curve was 0.97 (95% CI = 0.20 to 1.00). For low prevalence (≤5%), the posttest probability that an individual with a positive test was a true positive ranged from 4% to 67%, whereas, at high prevalence (≥10%), the posttest probability was between 81% and 87%, indicating that a confirmatory test should be necessary, particularly with prevalence values of ≤1%. Regardless of prevalence, the probability that an individual with a negative test was a false negative was close to zero, indicating that the individual was not infected with HCV. In conclusion, the accuracy of the Abbott ARCHITECT HCV Ag assay was very good for HCV screening in serum/plasma samples from PLWHA. The clinical utility to confirm HCV infection was acceptable in high-prevalence settings (≥10%) but poor in low-prevalence settings (≤1%). Furthermore, it was excellent in excluding active HCV infection.

Meta-analysis: diagnostic accuracy of hepatitis C core antigen detection during therapy with direct-acting antivirals

BACKGROUND

Treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection with direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) is monitored by assessing plasma HCV-RNA load. However, detection of HCV core antigen (HCVcAg) may be an alternative.

AIM

To evaluate the diagnostic performance of the HCVcAg assay to monitor the efficacy of DAAs in HCV-infected patients METHODS: We performed searches in multiple electronic databases until 6 July 2022, of studies evaluating the HCVcAg detection in plasma or serum compared with the HCV-RNA test (gold standard). We calculated pooled measurement at 2 and 4 weeks of treatment, and at end-of-treatment (EOT), as well as sustained virological response (SVR; 12 weeks after EOT).

RESULTS

We selected 16 studies from 2016 to 2022, with 3237 patients and 8958 samples. Overall, the diagnostic performance and clinical utility of the HCVcAg assay were poor at week 2 (sensitivity = 0.40, specificity = 0.96, positive likelihood ratio (PLR) = 9.16, negative likelihood ratio (NLR) = 0.63, and area under the summary receiver operating curve (SROC) = 0.57), fair at week 4 (sensitivity = 0.30, specificity = 0.90, PLR = 3.18, NLR = 0.77, and AUC = 0.79), acceptable at EOT (sensitivity = 0.40, specificity =0.98, PLR = 16.54, NLR = 0.62, and AUC = 0.97) and excellent for SVR (sensitivity = 0.94, specificity = 0.99, PLR = 107.54, NLR = 0.06, and AUC = 0.99).

CONCLUSIONS

The HCVcAg assay may be helpful for monitoring the efficacy of HCV treatment with DAAs in HCV-infected patients at EOT and for documenting SVR, but not at weeks 2 and 4 of treatment due to poor diagnostic performance.