Short statement of the first European Consensus Conference on the treatment of chronic hepatitis B and C in HIV co-infected patients.

Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Saint-Pierre, Bruxelles, Brussels Capital, Belgium
Journal of Hepatology (Impact Factor: 10.4). 06/2005; 42(5):615-24. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2005.03.003
Source: PubMed


Available from: Ola Weiland, Jun 15, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Molecular assays are instrumental in the clinical management of viral hepatitis. During the past years, a wide variety of molecular assays have been developed and implemented. This considerably improved the understanding of the natural history and pathogenesis of Hepatitis B virus (HBV), Hepatitis C virus (HCV) or Hepatitis delta virus (HDV) hepatitis, but also caused uncertainties in the selection of the most appropriate assays for clinical requirements. Indeed, a rational choice and application of these assays requires adequate knowledge of the performance of the single test. Moreover, the choice of the most accurate assay for patients' needs and physicians' objectives, needs to be oriented to specific contexts, such as diagnosis, management or treatment. In the past, a hurdle in the routine use of assays for hepatitis viruses nucleic acid quantification was represented by the availability of only "home brew" methods which lacked standardization. Major improvement in addressing the use of molecular assays for viral hepatitis has been derived from recent standardization procedures that allowed a comparison between different tests after results were given as International Units. In addition, it should be reminded that, before getting into the market, molecular assays should be approved by European regulation authorities and validated using internationally recognized standards. A subsequent clinical validation should address the diagnostic accuracy of the assay. These proceedings have the aim of identifying which molecular tests, among those currently available, meet clinical requirements for each specific application.
    Digestive and Liver Disease 07/2008; 40(6):395-404. DOI:10.1016/j.dld.2007.12.016 · 2.89 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: ISSUES: HIV/hepatitis coinfection in Europe; WHO European clinical protocols on the management of people coinfected with HIV/AIDS and hepatitis B or C (HBV or HCV); stakeholder recommendations for better HCV services. INTRODUCTION: The increasing availability of highly active antiretroviral therapy throughout Europe and central Asia has changed comorbidity and mortality patterns among people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) as liver disease has increasingly replaced AIDS as the cause of death in PLWHA in western European countries. The average prevalence of HCV among PLWHA is 40 per cent, and much higher in countries where the HIV epidemic is driven by injecting drug use. Access to hepatitis treatment for PLWHA and IDUs is still very limited in Europe due to a lack of clear clinical management guidelines for HIV/hepatitis coinfections, high costs and a national failure to recognise hepatitis as a critical health issue. DESCRIPTION: In October 2006, the WHO Regional Office for Europe issued protocols for the clinical management of HIV/HCV and HIV/HBV coinfections. They include diagnostic algorithms adjusted for resource availability, and guidelines for the management of patients who do not yet need treatment, those who need only hepatitis or only HIV/AIDS treatment, and those who need both. Though the protocols should provide practical guidelines for physicians and assist in the development of national treatment standards, there is still a need for targeted prevention, treatment and care interventions. To expand access to hepatitis prevention and treatment, public awareness needs to be raised and national political leaders need to address hepatitis as a public health issue. Effective public health measures include price reductions for anti-hepatitis drugs; targeted testing, counselling and prevention activities; increased access to hepatitis B and C treatment and to HBV vaccination for the populations most at risk.
    The International journal on drug policy 11/2007; 18(5):426-32. DOI:10.1016/j.drugpo.2007.01.011 · 2.54 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Treatment experiences with patients co-infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis B virus (HBV) in resource-limited settings remain poorly documented. This study aimed to evaluate the treatment outcomes in a cohort of HIV/HBV co-infected individuals receiving tenofovir/lamivudine (TDF/3TC)-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) in a programmatic setting in Mumbai, India. Additionally, a cross-sectional laboratory study was carried out measuring serologic and virologic parameters. A total of 57 patients who received TDF/3TC were included in the study. Of these, 52 (91%) were male and the mean age was 38.7 years. The median follow-up period was 16.8 months (IQR:7.9-37.9). Forty-three patients were included in the cross-sectional laboratory study, of whom 38 (67%) were HBeAg(+) positive. Four patients had serum HBsAg conversion to negative and had developed anti-HBs-antibodies. HBV-DNA became undetectable (<1.3 log10 copies/ml or <20 IU/ml) in 35.5% and 75% of the HBeAg(+) and HBeAg(-) patients, respectively. Overall, 46.5% of patients had undetectable HBV-DNA and 90.7% had adequately suppressed HBV-DNA (<3.3 log10 copies/ml or <2000 IU/ml). The median reduction in serum HBV-DNA was 6 log10 copies/ml. In 29 patients (63%) HIV viral load was undetectable. Outcomes included seven (12%) deaths, four (7%) lost to follow-up, one (2%) transferred out and 45 (79%) alive and on treatment. In conclusion, good treatment outcomes were achieved in a cohort of HIV/HBV co-infected patients in India. In regions with a high HIV/HBV burden, all HIV-infected individuals should be tested for chronic hepatitis B. A TDF/3TC-backbone could be considered as first-line standardized ART regimen in these settings.
    International Health 12/2012; 4(4):239-45. DOI:10.1016/j.inhe.2012.04.002 · 1.13 Impact Factor