Back

Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) treatment eligibility in the UK: retrospective longitudinal cohort data to explore the impact of changes in clinical guidelines

Campbell, C.; Wang, T.; Stockdale, A. J.; Todd, S.; Jaworski, J.; Glampson, B.; Papadimitriou, D.; Mayer, E.; Salih, H.; Roadknight, G.; Little, S.; Varnai, K.; Davis, C.; Heinson, A. I.; George, M.; Borca, F.; Roberts, T.; Ribeyre, B. B.; English, L.; Zhu, L.; NIHR HIC Viral Hepatitis and Liver Disease Consortium, ; Woods, K.; Davies, J.; Cooke, G.; Nastouli, E.; Khakoo, S. I.; Gelson, W.; Elsharkawy, A.; Barnes, E.; Matthews, P. C.

2024-12-03 epidemiology
10.1101/2024.12.02.24318329 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectiveNucleos/tide analogue (NA) drugs are used for the long-term treatment of chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. In a landscape of changing clinical recommendations, we set out to quantify the prescription of NA drugs to date, and to determine the impact of relaxing treatment eligibility criteria in a unique large real-world dataset. DesignWe assimilated longitudinal data from adults with chronic HBV infection from six centres in England through the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Informatics Collaborative (HIC) viral hepatitis framework. We describe factors currently associated with receipt of NA treatment, and determine the proportion of the population who would become treatment eligible as thresholds change. ResultsWe reviewed data for 7558 adults, with mean follow up of 4.0 years (SD 3.9 years). NA treatment was prescribed in 2014/7558 (26.6%), and in line with existing guidelines was associated with HBeAg positivity and ALT above the upper limit of normal (ULN). Treatment was significantly more likely in males, older adults, in Asian and Other ethnicities (as compared to White), and significantly less likely in socioeconomically deprived individuals. The proportion of individuals who were treatment eligible was 32.3% based on 2 records of ALT>ULN over 6-12 months; 41.7% based on ALT>ULN and VL > 2000 IU/ml; and 95.1% based on detectable VL and either ALT>ULN or age>30 years. ConclusionWe quantify the proportion of the population living with HBV who may become treatment eligible as guidelines change, providing insights to support the implementation of clinical services. KEY MESSAGES (3-5 sentences required by Gut) * What is already known on this topicTo date, only a minority of adults living with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) infection have been eligible for treatment with nucleos/tide analogue (NA) therapy. However, worldwide guidelines are changing, with recommendations for treatment of an increasing proportion of the population. There is a need for evidence to inform the design of services to meet the needs of people living with CHB as more of the population becomes treatment eligible. * What this study addsWe have determined the proportion of the UK population of people living with HBV infection who are currently treated, and determined the increasing proportion who would become eligible as treatment criteria change, with this proportion reaching 95% based on the least stringent treatment thresholds. * How this study might affect research, practice or policyOur study provides crucial real-world evidence that can inform planning of service delivery and resource allocation for people living with HBV, in a landscape of changing clinical guidelines.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Wellcome Open Research
57 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
39.2%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 21%
8.7%
3
Hepatology Communications
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.0%
50% of probability mass above
4
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 4%
5.0%
5
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
4.5%
6
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.1%
7
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.8%
8
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.2%
9
Journal of Clinical Virology
62 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.8%
10
The Lancet
16 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.5%
11
Microbial Genomics
204 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.4%
12
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
134 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
13
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
14
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
15
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
378 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
16
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
126 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
17
BMJ Global Health
98 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
18
IJID Regions
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.8%
19
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 14%
0.8%
20
Journal of Global Health
18 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
21
Journal of General Virology
46 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.7%
22
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
71 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
23
International Journal of Epidemiology
74 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
24
Emerging Infectious Diseases
103 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.5%
25
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%
26
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.5%
27
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
28
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%