HIV-infected patient are about six times more likely to get HCV infection than HIV-negative counterparts (OR 5.8, 95% CI 4.5-7.4). It is well known that HIV infected patient is less likely to spontaneously clear HCV infection. In our previous regional study, 85.8% of HCV seropositive had detectable HCV RNA. This indicated that high proportion of HIV/HCV co-infected patients had chronic HCV infection. In addition, HIV/HCV co-infected patients had higher HCV RNA and more rapid progression of end-stage liver disease despite their successful ART. The new drugs DAA showed similar success rate in achieving sustained virological response (SVR), both in HIV co-infected or HCV mono-infected patient.
To achieve elimination goal, there is an urgent need to limit the cost for diagnostic procedure before starting HCV therapy, especially in resource-limited setting. Previous report from Indonesia, an average cost before starting HCV therapy was USD 191, including USD 74 for TE examination. Simple and accurate liver fibrosis assessment other than TE examination that can be done in remote area is essential.[16,17] Two studies, both in Italy, had contradictory results. Mazzola, et al demonstrate the unreliability of APRI and FIB-4 for the assessment of cirrhosis while Merli, et al. conclude that these tests may be regularly used in HIV/HCV co-infected patients to exclude liver cirrhosis.[18,19] Therefore, we need to evaluate the performance of APRI and FIB-4 for diagnosing cirrhosis in our HIV/HCV co-infected population.
In our study, low threshold of APRI (1) demonstrate moderate performance [AUROC 0.72 (95% CI 0.63-0.80)]. This cut-off was lower than cut-off use in Mazzola, et al study (cut-off 2) with moderate performance (AUROC 0,77) but almost similar with Merli, et al study (cut off 0.97) with better performance [AUROC 0.84 (95% 0.81-0.880)]. One third of population in the Merli, et al study had cirrhosis as in our study, while prevalence of cirrhosis in Mazzola, et al study was 49.6%.[18,19] Low APRI threshold appeared to be better in diagnosis rather than detecting cirrhosis since the positive predictive value was good (79.5%), specificity was excellent (95%), and positive likelihood ratio was good (9.6). Using this threshold, 81.6% of the patients were correctly classified.
The optimal cut-off of FIB-4 in our population 1.66 was much lower than other studies. Merli, et al used FIB-4 cut-off 2.02 and Mazzola, et al used 5.88 for confirming cirrhosis.[18,19] Our new cut-off shown a moderate performance with AUROC 0.73 (95% CI 0.65-0.81). This new FIB-4 -cut-off was also better in diagnosis cirrhosis with the positive predictive value, specificity and positive likelihood ratio were good (73.9%, 92.5%, 7.0, respectively). Using this new cut-off, we accurately classified cirrhosis and non-cirrhosis 81.1% of our population.
In Indonesia only few TE machines are available, mainly located in big cities, and the cost is still high. Since the Indonesian government planned to expand free DAA program for HCV, the result our study could be implemented in many places, as WHO also recommends to use APRI and FIB-4 in resource-constraint countries.[2,19]
This study has several limitations. First, the number of end-stage liver diseases were small. This may be caused by the recruited patients came from outpatient clinic where we rarely found end-stage liver disease stage. Therefore, recruiting inpatient strongly recommended in the future study. Because of this condition, we assuming statistical bias were occurred. Quang Li, et al demonstrated similar limitation among chronic infection of hepatitis B virus (HBV), the sample proportion were inappropriate, merely 7.2% cirrhotic-patient were cirrhosis. Second, we did not use liver biopsy as gold standard in defining liver cirrhosis. However, our study actually shown a real-world data of TE comparison with these indirect biochemical markers, especially in Asia. Although TE is good validated in HCV infected patients, TE result could be interfered by confounding factors such as hepatic inflammation or obesity. Moreover, we did not investigate performance of biochemical markers against liver biopsy. Third, we need to carefully interpret this result in female patients, since men represent majority of the study population (91.5%), as observed in other studies.
Fourth, the use of cut off of APRI and FIB-4 from this study could only be applied among compensated cirrhosis patients. Perez-Latorre, et al mentioned decompensated cirrhosis patients have several activation of neurohormonal mechanism, leading to organ inflammatory damage, and decrease accuracy of TE. Therefore, using TE in liver decompensated must be done carefully.
Fifth, we assessed the diagnostic performances of biochemical markers of fibrosis using TE as a gold standard although we could not validate its performances against liver biopsy in our study population. We recommend further cohort study and larger sample to get new optimal and valid cut-off of APRI and FIB-4.