Haffar, S

AbstractBackground & AimsGlycogenic hepatopathy (GH) in type 1 diabetes‐mellitus (T1DM) is characterized by hepatomegaly and perturbations of liver chemistries (LC) that have not been well studied. Furthermore, misdiagnosis with other hepatic complications of T1DM, such as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, has been described. We perform a systematic review of biopsy‐proven GH reports in T1DM patients to identify LC patterns.MethodsA systematic review identified reports of biopsy‐proven GH in patients with T1DM. We excluded GH with other liver diseases, Mauriac syndrome, or GH without T1DM. Two reviewers screened and extracted studies and assessed their methodological quality. LC elevation magnitude, AST‐to‐ALT ratio, R‐ratio to designate hepatocellular, cholestatic or mixed pattern of hepatic injury, and evolution of transaminases after glycemic control were analyzed.ResultsA total of 192 patients were included, with median age of 20 years, 73% adults, 66% females, median duration of T1DM before diagnosis 10 years, median adult body mass index 21 kg/m2, median HbA1c 12%, at least one episode of diabetic ketoacidosis 70%, and hepatomegaly 92%. ALT and AST showed moderate‐to‐severe elevation in 78% and 76%, respectively, AST/ALT >1 in 71% and hepatocellular to mixed pattern of hepatic injury in 81%. Transaminase improvement with glycemic control was the rule, regardless of other factors in multilinear regression analysis.ConclusionGH tends to have AST‐predominant elevation with a median of 13 times the upper normal limit and R‐ratio >2, which may distinguish it from other etiologies of AST‐predominant LC elevation, and in the appropriate clinical context, may obviate invasive tests.

AbstractBackground & AimsAcute liver failure caused by hepatitis E virus genotype 3 and 4 has been rarely described. Because of the presence of a short golden therapeutic window in patients with viral acute liver failure from other causes, it is possible that early recognition and treatment might reduce the morbidity and mortality. We performed a systematic review and pooled analysis of acute liver failure caused by hepatitis E virus genotype 3 and 4.MethodsTwo reviewers appraised studies after searching multiple databases on June 12th, 2017. Appropriate tests were used to compare hepatitis E virus genotype 3 vs 4, suspected vs confirmed genotypes, hepatitis E virus‐RNA positive vs negative, and to discern important mortality risk factors.ResultsWe identified 65 patients, with median age 58 years (range: 3‐79), and a male to female ratio of 1.2:1. The median bilirubin, ALT, AST and alkaline phosphatase (expressed by multiplication of the upper limit of normal) levels were 14.8, 45.3, 34.8 and 1.63 respectively. Antihepatitis E virus IgG, antihepatitis E virus IgM and hepatitis E virus‐RNA were positive in 84%, 91% and 86% of patients respectively. The median interval from symptoms onset to acute liver failure was 23 days, and 16 patients underwent liver transplantation. Final outcome was reported in 58 patients and mortality was 46%. Age was a predictor of poor prognosis in multivariate analysis. No important differences were found between patients infected with genotype 3 vs 4, patients with confirmed vs suspected genotypes, or patients with positive vs negative RNA.ConclusionAcute liver failure caused by hepatitis E virus genotype 3 and 4 is rare, similar between genotypes, occurs commonly in middle‐aged/elderly patients and has a very high mortality. Age is predictive of poor prognosis in multivariate analysis.

SummaryBackgroundHepatitis E virus (HEV) infection appears to be more common than previously thought. HEV seroprevalence in patients on maintenance haemodialysis (HD) is unclear with a range from 0% to 44%. In addition, risk factors of transmission of HEV in patients on haemodialysis are unknown.AimTo perform a systematic review and meta‐analysis of HEV seroprevalence in HD patients compared with controls.MethodsA systematic search of several databases identified all observational studies with comparative arms. Two reviewers extracted data and assessed the methodological quality. A random‐effects model was used for pooled odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of positive anti‐HEV IgG in both groups. Heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed with appropriate tests.ResultsWe identified 31 studies from 17 countries between 1994 and 2016. Sixteen studies were judged to have adequate quality and 15 to have moderate limitations. HEV infection was more prevalent in patients on haemodialysis compared with controls (OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.79‐3.40, I2 = 75.2%, P < .01). We conducted several subgroup analyses without difference in results. Egger regression test did not suggest publication bias (P = .83). Specific risk factors of HEV transmission in patients on haemodialysis were not clearly identified.ConclusionsHepatitis E virus infection is more prevalent in patients on haemodialysis compared with non‐haemodialysis control groups. Further studies are needed to determine risk factors of acquisition, impact on health, and risk for chronic HEV especially among those patients going to receive organ transplantation.