Search

Chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is a global public health issue, which is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality. The development of direct acting antivirals (DAAs) has transformed treatment: they offer us highly-effective therapy with superior tolerability compared to interferon-containing regimens. In 2016, the World Health Organization (WHO) therefore adopted several ambitious viral hepatitis elimination targets, aiming for a 90% reduction in new infections and a 65% reduction in mortality by 2030. The ultimate goal is to eliminate HCV completely. It is reasonable that these goals may be achieved in the Netherlands due to the low prevalence of chronic HCV, the availability of DAAs, and excellent healthcare infrastructure. This paper describes a national effort to curtail the HCV epidemic in the Netherlands through an HCV retrieval and linkage to care project (CELINE: Hepatitis C Elimination in the Netherlands).

Background: Criteria assessing biochemical response to ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) are established risk stratification tools in primary biliary cholangitis (PBC). We aimed to evaluate to what extent liver tests influenced patient management during a three decade period, and whether this changed over time., Methods: 851 Dutch PBC patients diagnosed between 1988 and 2012 were reviewed to assess patient management in relation to liver test results during UDCA treatment. To do so, biochemical response at one year was analysed retrospectively according to Paris-1 criteria., Results: Response was assessable for 687/851 (81%) patients; 157/687 non-responders. During a follow-up of 8.8 years (IQR 4.8-13.9), 141 died and 30 underwent liver transplantation. Transplant-free survival of non-responders (60%) was significantly worse compared with responders (87%) (p < 0.0001). Management was modified in 46/157 (29%) non-responders. The most frequent change observed, noted in 26/46 patients, was an increase in UDCA dosage. Subsequently, 9/26 (35%) non-responders became responders within the next two years. Steroid treatment was started in one patient; 19 patients were referred to a tertiary centre. No trend towards more frequent changes in management over time was observed (p = 0.10)., Conclusion: Changes in medical management occurred in a minority of non-responders. This can largely be explained by the lack of accepted response criteria and of established second-line treatments for PBC. Nevertheless, the observation that response-guided management did not increase over time suggests that awareness of the concept of biochemical response requires further attention,particularly since new treatment options for PBC will soon become available.

Background: A new era for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C is about to transpire. With the introduction of the first-generation protease inhibitors the efficacy of hepatitis C treatment improved significantly. Since then, the therapeutic agenda has moved further forward with the recent approval of sofosbuvir and the expected approval of agents such as simeprevir and daclatasvir. This paper, developed parallel to the approval of sofosbuvir, is to serve as a guidance for the therapeutic management of chronic hepatitis C., Methods: We performed a formal search through PubMed, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify all clinical trials that have been conducted with EMA-approved new agents in hepatitis C; for this version (April 2014) we focused on sofosbuvir. For each disease category, the evidence was reviewed and recommendations are based on GRADE., Results: We identified 11 clinical trials with sofosbuvir and for each disease category recommendations for treatment are made. Not all disease categories were studied extensively and therefore in some cases we were unable to provide recommendations., Conclusion: The recent approval of sofosbuvir will most likely change the therapeutic landscape of chronic hepatitis C. The use of sofosbuvir-containing regimens can shorten the duration of therapy, increase efficacy and result in less side effects, compared with standard of care. The efficacy relative to standard of care needs to be weighed against the increased costs of sofosbuvir. With future approval of the other direct-acting antivirals, the outcome of hepatitis C treatment will likely improve further and this guidance will be updated.

Unlabelled: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is rare in the Netherlands, even though the incidence has increased quite sharply in recent years. Standard treatment options consist of surgery, orthotopic liver transplantation, radiofrequency ablation, transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) and systemic therapy with sorafenib. The consensus-based Dutch HCC guideline, established in 2013, serves to guide surveillance, diagnosis and treatment options: Surveillance should be performed by ultrasound at six-month intervals in well-defined cirrhotic patients and in selected high-risk hepatitis B carriers; A nodule > 1 cm in cirrhotic patients with arterial hypervascularity and venous or delayed phase washout at four-phase CT or MRI scan establishes the diagnosis of HCC; In patients with HCC without underlying cirrhosis, resection should be considered regardless of tumour size; In cirrhotic HCC patients, tumour stage, severity of underlying cirrhosis, and performance status determine treatment options. The algorithm of the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system should be followed; Patients with Child-Pugh A-B cirrhosis (CP < 8 points) and performance status 0-2 are candidates for any active treatment other than transplantation; In early stage HCC (BCLC stage 0 or A, compensated cirrhosis without portal hypertension) surgical resection, liver transplantation, or radiofrequency ablation should be considered; In intermediate stage HCC (BCLC stage B) TACE and÷ or radiofrequency ablation should be considered; In advanced stage HCC (BCLC stage C) sorafenib should be considered., Conclusion: The Dutch HCC guideline offers advice for surveillance, diagnosis and treatment of HCC.

In 2008, the Netherlands Association of Gastroenterologists and Hepatologists (Nederlands Vereniging van Maag-Darm-Leverartsen) published the Dutch national guidelines for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B virus infection. New insights into the treatment of chronic hepatitis B with relevance for clinical practice have been adopted in these concise, revised guidelines. The most important changes include the choice of initial antiviral therapy, licensing of tenofovir for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B and the management of antiviral resistance.

Background: Hepatitis C virus infection is a serious health threat in today's society. Improved identification strategies have increased the number of patients undergoing the expensive treatment with ribavirin and peg-interferon, inducing a substantial economic burden., Methods: In a retrospective cohort study in three treatment centres in the Netherlands, files of patients treated between 2001 and 2010 were systematically searched for all cost-inducing treatment details. Costs of treatment resulting in sustained viral response (SVR), relapse, non-response and the costs per cured patient were specified for genotype and treatment setting. Determinants of costs were determined by multivariate linear regression., Results: The mean 'real-life' treatment costs excluding side effects for genotype 1/4 and genotype 2/3 were approximately € 12,900 and € 9900 for all patients, € 15,500 and € 10,100 for treatment resulting in SVR and € 16,800 and € 12,100 for relapse, respectively. Costs per cured patient were € 28,500 and € 15,400 respectively. The costs of non-response were approximately € 8000 for all genotypes. Costs of side effects can be high and are mainly caused by incidental treatment for neutropenia. Medication is the main component of treatment costs. Treatment costs were higher in the academic setting due to longer duration and higher costs of side effects. Regression analysis confirms duration as the main determinant of treatment costs excluding side effects., Conclusion: The 'real-life' costs of treatment are mainly determined by treatment duration, medication costs and costs of side effects. The costs of unsuccessful treatment are considerable as are the costs of side effects. Therefore, future research should aim at increasing SVR rates, reducing treatment duration and preventing side effects.

The development of this guideline was initiated and coordinated by the Netherlands Association of Gastroenterologists and Hepatologists (Nederlandse Vereniging van Maag-Darm-Leverartsen). The aim is the establishment of practical guidelines in the evaluation and antiviral treatment of patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. This includes recommendations for the initial evaluation of patients, the choice and duration of antiviral therapy and the follow-up after antiviral therapy. Hepatitis C is a slowly progressive disease. The initial evaluation of chronically HCV-infected patients should include liver biochemistry testing, virological testing and abdominal ultrasound imaging. Liver biopsy is no longer a routine procedure. Antiviral treatment should be considered for all HCV-infected patients. Current antiviral treatment is a long-term process and is associated with substantial side effects. When deciding whether to start treatment or not, the chance of successful treatment (80% with hepatitis C genotype 2 and 3 and 50% with hepatitis C genotype 1 and 4), the fibrosis stage, the expected side effects and the compliance of the patient should be taken into consideration. In the absence of significant fibrosis and necroinflammation in liver biopsy, postponing treatment is an option. Current antiviral treatment is contraindicated in patients with Child-Pugh-class B or C cirrhosis. The possibility of a liver transplantation should be investigated in these patients. Significant comorbidity with a limited life expectancy is an absolute contraindication for antiviral treatment Treatment of chronic hepatitis C consists of administration of peginterferon and ribavirin for 24 or 48 weeks. Patients with hepatitis C genotype 1 or 4 are treated for 48 weeks. Patients with hepatitis C genotype 2 or 3 are treated for 24 weeks. In patients with undetectable HCV RNA after four weeks (28 days) of treatment, a shorter treatment is equally effective (12 to 16 weeks for hepatitis C genotype 2 or 3; 24 weeks for hepatitis C genotype 1 or 4). Outpatient clinic visits are recommended at the start and after 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks of treatment, and thereafter every four to six weeks until the end of treatment. It is recommended to stop treatment if the HCV RNA level has not decreased by at least 2 log10 IU/ml (c/ml) after 12 weeks of treatment or when HCV RNA is still detectable after 24 weeks of treatment. The recommended frequency of outpatient clinic visits for patients who are not being treated is once every six months in patients with cirrhosis, otherwise every 12 months. It is expected that new anti-HCV-medication (STAT-C, specifically targeted antiviral therapy for HCV) will become available in the near future. Therefore treatment of chronic HCV infection will probably be more effective in the future.

The development of this guideline was initiated and coordinated by the Netherlands Association of Gastroenterologists and Hepatologists (Nederlandse Vereniging van Maag-Darm-Leverartsen). The aim is the establishment of national standards in the evaluation and antiviral treatment of patients with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. This includes recommendations on the initial evaluation of patients, choice and duration of antiviral therapy, follow-up after antiviral therapy and monitoring of patients not currently requiring antiviral therapy. The initial evaluation of chronic HBV-infected patients should include testing of liver biochemistry, virus serology and abdominal imaging. In patients without cirrhosis, antiviral treatment is recommended for those with a serum HBV DNA of at least 1.0 x 105 c/ml (>or=2.0 x 10(4) IU/ml) in combination with: a) elevation of serum alanine aminotransferase (ALAT) level above twice the upper limit of normal during at least three months, and/or b) histological evidence of porto-portal septa or interface hepatitis on liver histology. In patients with cirrhosis, antiviral treatment is recommended if serum HBV DNA is 1.0 x 10(4)c/ml (>or=2.0 x 10(3) IU/ml) or higher, independent of ALAT levels or histological findings. If the patient has decompensated cirrhosis, antiviral treatment is recommended if serum HBV DNA is 1000 c/ml (>or=200 IU/ml) or higher. Patients who do not have an indication for antiviral treatment should be monitored because there is a risk of (re)activation of disease activity. Monitoring every three to six months is recommended for HBeAg-positive and HBeAg-negative patients with high viraemia (HBV DNA >or=1.0 x 10(5) c/ml or >or=2.0 x 10(4) IU/ml) and normal ALAT levels. For patients with serum HBV DNA below 1.0 x 10(5) c/ml (<2.0 x 10(4) IU/ml) the recommended frequency of monitoring is every three to six months for HBeAg-positive patients and every six to 12 months for HBeAg-negative patients. Peginterferon (PEG-IF N) therapy should be considered as initial therapy in both HBeAg-positive and HBeAg-negative patients without contraindications for treatment with this drug because of the higher chance of achieving sustained response compared with nucleos(t)ide analogue therapy. In patients starting nucleos(t)ide analogue therapy, the use of lamivudine is not preferred if long-term antiviral treatment is expected due to the high risk of antiviral resistance against this drug. Of the currently licensed nucleos(t)ide analogues, entecavir has the lowest risk of antiviral resistance (compared with lamivudine, adefovir and telbivudine), while suppression of viral replication seems most profound with either entecavir or telbivudine. The recommended duration of treatment with PEG-IF N is one year for both HBeAg-positive and HBeAg-negative patients. In HBeAg-positive patents, nucleos(t)ide analogue therapy should at least be continued until HBeAg seroconversion and a decline in HBV DNA to below 400 c/ml (80 IU/ml) has been achieved and maintained for six months during therapy. Whether nucleos(t)ide analogue therapy can be safely discontinued in HBeAg-negative patients is unknown; usually prolonged or indefinite antiviral treatment is necessary. Patients receiving PEG-IF N should be monitored once a month, while three monthly monitoring suffices for those receiving nucleos(t)ide analogues. Genotypic analysis of the HBV polymerase is indicated if an increase in serum HBV DNA of at least 1 log(10) c/ml (IU/ml) compared with the nadir value is observed during nucleos(t)ide analogue therapy. Antiviral therapy should be changed as soon as possible in case of confirmed genotypic resistance. Adding a second antiviral agent seems beneficial over switching to another agent. With the availability of multiple new antiviral drugs for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B, effective treatment is now possible for more patients and for longer periods. However, the complexity of HBV therapy has also increased. Nowadays, virtually all chronic HBV-infected patients can be effectively managed, either by inducing sustained off-treatment response or by maintaining an on-treatment response.

Based on proceedings of the 75th Falk Symposium in Maastricht (The Netherlands) on cholestasis and gallstone disease, recent developments in this field are highlighted. New ideas on bile and gallstone formation as well as effect of cholestasis on the handling of bilirubin and bile salts are presented. Special attention is paid to the latest data concerning ductopenic liver diseases with emphasis on therapy with ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA).

Ursodeoxycholic acid is increasingly used in the treatment of a variety of cholestatic diseases such as primary biliary cirrhosis. The present article summarizes current understanding of the mechanism of action of ursodeoxycholic acid in these diseases. Apart from a direct hepatoprotective effect, ursodeoxycholic acid also influences the enterohepatic circulation with decreased ileal reabsorption and increased faecal excretion of potentially hepatotoxic endogenous bile salts. In addition, a cholehepatic shunt mechanism and immune modulating effects may also be important.

In the present article we report transitory severely impaired postprandial gallbladder emptying preceding biliary colic in a cholesterol gallstone patient. Gallbladder emptying 1 wk before and 3 wk after the biliary colic was normal. Treatment with ursodeoxycholic acid led to increased fasting gallbladder volumes, but the postprandial residual volume did not change. Postprandial cholecystokinin release appeared not to change during ursodeoxycholic acid treatment or during biliary colic.

Hepatobiliary abnormalities are among the most frequent extraintestinal manifestations of inflammatory bowel disease. Hepatic amyloidosis and granulomas may be found in patients with Crohn's ileitis. Clinical problems are generally absent. This also applies to fatty infiltration of the liver. The prevalence of gallstones is increased in patients with extensive ileitis. Primary sclerosing cholangitis occurs in about 5% of patients with ulcerative and Crohn's colitis. Serious complications such as bacterial cholangitis and bile duct carcinoma may develop. Because of increased awareness of primary sclerosing cholangitis complicating inflammatory bowel disease and widespread availability of endoscopic cholangiography, asymptomatic patients are now often detected Although controversial, the prognosis of these patients may be better than previously thought. Therefore, endoscopic cholangiography should probably be deferred until symptoms develop in order to avoid the risk of procedure-related cholangitis. Although a liver biopsy is not as diagnostic as cholangiography, it may have prognostic relevance. Recent preliminary results of immunosuppressive and anti-fibrogenic therapies and treatment with urodeoxycholic acid for primary sclerosing cholangitis are promising, but should be confirmed in prospective controlled trials.

Twenty-four patients with radiolucent gall stones were treated with cholelitholytic bile acids. Complete gall-stone dissolution was achieved in 8 patients (33%) and partial dissolution in 3 patients (13%). Therapy was never successful for large gall stones (greater than 15 mm). Even in the group of patients with very small stones (less than or equal to 5 mm) complete dissolution was obtained in only 47% of cases. Patients with atypical abdominal complaints or without symptoms never developed biliary pain or colic nor did their symptoms improve during therapy. On the contrary, 3 of 6 patients with previous biliary pain or colic had to be operated because of recurrence during therapy.