Published online Mar 14, 2015. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i10.3013
Peer-review started: September 5, 2014
First decision: September 27, 2014
Revised: October 14, 2014
Accepted: December 5, 2014
Article in press: December 8, 2014
Published online: March 14, 2015
Processing time: 192 Days and 23.2 Hours
AIM: To evaluate the association between liver stiffness (LS) prior to the initiation of dual/triple therapy and viral response.
METHODS: LS was measured in all patients before treatment was administered. The therapeutic approach was based on hepatic, virological, and immunological evaluations and considered the fact that patients with severe fibrosis (F3) or compensated cirrhosis (F4) in Child-Pugh class A are the primary candidates for triple therapy. In total, 65 hepatitis C virus (HCV) patients were treated with Peg-interferon/ribavirin (Peg-IFN/RBV); 24 patients were classified as genotypes 1/4 (36.92%), and 41 patients were classified as genotypes 2/3 (63.08%) (dual therapy). In addition, 20 HCV treatment-experienced genotype 1 patients were treated with PegIFN-RBV and boceprevir (triple therapy). Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to compare the groups.
RESULTS: LS significantly differed between dual therapy and triple therapy (P = 0.002). The mean LS value before dual therapy treatment was 8.61 ± 5.79 kPa and was significantly different between patients achieving a sustained virologic response (SVR) 24 weeks after therapy and those who did not (7.23 ± 5.18 kPa vs 11.72 ± 5.99 kPa, respectively, P = 0.0003). The relative risk of non-response to therapy was 4.45 (95%CI: 2.32-8.55). The attributable risk of non-response to therapy was 49%. The mean LS value before triple therapy treatment was 13.29 ± 8.57 kPa and was significantly different between patients achieving and not achieving SVR24 (9.41 ± 5.05 vs 19.11 ± 9.74, respectively; P = 0.008). The relative risk of non-response to therapy was 5.57% (95%CI: 1.50-20.65). The attributable risk of non-response to therapy (70%) was increased compared with dual therapy patients. Pre-treatment stiffness > 12 kPa was significantly associated with non-SVR (P < 0.025) in both groups.
CONCLUSION: Pre-treatment liver stiffness may be useful for predicting the response to treatment in patients treated with either dual or triple anti-HCV therapy.
Core tip: Transient elastography is a non-invasive, easy, reproducible technique that is well tolerated for staging non-significant fibrosis or severe fibrosis/cirrhosis. The assessment of liver fibrosis using transient elastography may be useful to reduce the need for a liver biopsy. In this prospective study, liver stiffness values can also be used as a predictor of response to therapy. A liver stiffness value greater than 12 kPa is a negative predictor of response to both dual and triple therapy. Therefore, transient elastography could be used in clinical practice to improve the selection of patient treatment.