Although EASL guidelines recommend anti-HDV testing in all HBsAg-positive individuals, HDV infection remains an underdiagnosed condition. We describe the impact of an HDV screening program by reflex anti-HDV testing in all HBsAg-positive samples and compare the results before and after its implementation. In total, 2,236 HBsAg-positive determinations were included from January 2018 to December 2021. Only the first sample from each participant was evaluated: 1,492 samples before reflex anti-HDV testing (2018–2020) and 744 samples after (2021). Demographic and clinical characteristics of anti-HDV-positive patients were collected. Before reflex testing, anti-HDV had been tested in 7.6% (114/1492) of HBsAg-positive individuals: 23% (91/390) attended in an academic hospital and only 2% (23/1,102) in primary care centres. After reflex testing was established, 93% (691/744) of HBsAg-positive cases were evaluated for anti-HDV: 91% (533/586) in the academic hospital and 100% (158/158) in primary care. The anti-HDV-positive prevalence was similar before and after reflex testing: 9.6% (11/114) and 8.1% (56/691), respectively. However, the absolute number of anti-HDV-positive patients increased. Most anti-HDV-positive patients were young, HBeAg-negative, Caucasian males. HDV-RNA was detectable in 35 (65%) of 54 tested, HBV-DNA was undetectable in 64%, and alanine aminotransferase levels were normal in 48%. Anti-HDV reflex testing quintupled the absolute number of diagnoses of chronic hepatitis D infection. Before the reflex test, a large percentage of HBsAg-positive individuals had not undergone any anti-HDV determination. Implementation of reflex testing increases the diagnosis of patients with chronic hepatitis D. Chronic hepatitis delta (CHD) is a viral disease caused by HDV, which requires the presence of HBV to propagate. HDV infection can cause rapid progression to cirrhosis, among other severe complications. The prevalence of CHD worldwide is controversial, and the infection often goes unrecognised, mainly because of unawareness among physicians. Use of reflex testing in other viral hepatitis has proven to increase detection and linking-to-care of infected patients. Implementation of anti-HDV testing in all HBsAg-positive patients has led to a 5-fold increase in the number of HDV diagnoses in an academic hospital and primary care centres.

Liver disease is frequently asymptomatic, challenging early identification in the primary care setting. The fibrosis 4 (FIB4) index is a liver fibrosis biomarker that is a potential alternative to liver biopsy for diagnosing and managing liver disease. This study aimed to calculate the FIB4 index for screening individuals at high risk of liver disease at the community level. This was a retrospective real-world study analyzing blood and serum test results from a central laboratory. The primary outcome was the number of individuals within each risk category for hepatic fibrosis: high risk (FIB4 ≥ 3.25) and low risk (FIB4 < 1.3). The analysis included samples from 31,753 patients, of which 18,102 were aged 40 to 75 years. In these patients, the FIB4 index had been explicitly requested in 1852 (10.2%) cases and estimated ad hoc in the rest. Of the 263 (1.5%) cases with FIB4 ≥ 3.25, the FIB4 index was requested in 46 (17.5%), and 52 (19.8%) showed evidence of liver fibrosis in their medical records, while the rest did not report any data regarding liver fibrosis. FIB4 is a simple score that can play a role as a “red flag” for early identification of patients at high risk of advanced liver fibrosis and their referral to specialized care.

Summary: Background: Chronic hepatitis delta is a severe liver disease with rapid progression to cirrhosis. The impact of hepatitis delta virus (HDV)‐RNA on disease progression and interferon treatment in a real‐world cohort has been barely explored.Aim: To assess the development of clinical events in a cohort of chronic hepatitis delta patients according to the presence or absence of HDV‐RNAMethods: Multicentre study at four academic hospitals in Spain included anti‐HDV‐positive patients with compensated liver disease with a follow‐up ≥12 months.Results: Among 2888 HBsAg‐positive subjects, 151 (5.2%) tested positive for anti‐HDV, and 118 were included (58% men; median age, 49 years; 73% detectable HDV‐RNA and 30% cirrhosis, most often in subjects with HDV‐RNA). After a median follow‐up of 8 years, subjects with initially detectable HDV‐RNA were more prone to developing cirrhosis (31% vs 0%, P = .002) and/or liver decompensation (28% vs 3%, P = .019). Mortality rate was 0.44 per 1000 person‐months. The probability of a clinical event was 6%, 25%, and 80% according to initial baseline‐event‐anticipation score. HDV‐RNA became undetectable in 21 (24%) subjects either due to interferon or spontaneously (48% vs 52%, P = .29). Liver decompensation was reduced in interferon‐treated patients (13% vs 38%, P = .026).Conclusions: Subjects with persistently positive HDV‐RNA had a worse prognosis in terms of clinical events. Baseline‐event‐anticipation score is useful in predicting the risk of developing liver decompensation and hepatocellular carcinoma. Interferon was beneficial in reducing liver decompensation, even in the absence of virological response.

Background and Aims: In patients with non-severe acute or chronic autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) without cirrhosis, clinical practice guidelines recommend indistinct use of prednisone or budesonide. However, budesonide is infrequently used in clinical practice. We aimed to describe its use and compare its efficacy and safety with prednisone as first-line options. Approach and Results: This was a retrospective, multicenter study of 105 naive AIH patients treated with budesonide as the first-line drug. The control group included 276 patients treated with prednisone. Efficacy was assessed using logistic regression and validated using inverse probability of treatment weighting propensity score. The median time to biochemical response (BR) was 3.1 months in patients treated with budesonide and 4.9 months in those with prednisone. The BR rate was significantly higher in patients treated with prednisone (87% vs. 49% of patients with budesonide, p < 0.001). The probability of achieving BR, assessed using the inverse probability of treatment weighting propensity score, was significantly lower in the budesonide group (OR = 0.20; 95% CI: 0.11–0.38) at any time during follow-up, and at 6 (OR = 0.51; 95% CI: 0.29–0.89) and 12 months after starting treatment (0.41; 95% CI: 0.23–0.73). In patients with transaminases <2 × upper limit of normal, BR was similar in both treatment groups. Prednisone treatment was significantly associated with a higher risk of adverse events (24.2% vs. 15.9%, p = 0.047). Conclusions: In the real-life setting, the use of budesonide as first-line treatment is low, and it is generally prescribed to patients with perceived less disease activity. Budesonide was inferior to prednisone as a first-line drug but was associated with fewer side effects.