Hepatitis A virus (HAV) and hepatitis E virus (HEV) infections often present as acute hepatitis with prodromal symptoms. These infections, transmitted via the oral–enteral route, constitute significant public health challenges, particularly in developing countries with subpar sanitary systems. The aim of the study was to describe the clinical manifestations, laboratory findings, and outcomes of hepatitis A and hepatitis E infections in Thailand. We conducted a retrospective chart review and analysis of 152 patients diagnosed with acute hepatitis A or hepatitis E from January 2007 to August 2018 at Siriraj Hospital. The hepatitis E cohort was older with a greater prevalence of comorbidities (hypertension, diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, chronic hepatitis B, and post-kidney transplantation status) than the hepatitis A cohort. While the majority of hepatitis A patients presented with fever (98%) and jaundice (96%), these symptoms were less pronounced in hepatitis E patients. Furthermore, hepatitis A patients exhibited significantly higher aminotransferase and total bilirubin levels. However, clinical outcomes, such as hospitalization rates, progression to acute liver failure, and mortality, were comparable across both groups. In conclusion, although the clinical manifestations of hepatitis A and hepatitis E were similar, fever and jaundice were more prevalent and aminotransferase and bilirubin levels were higher in the HAV-infected group.

Background: International guidelines for hepatitis B infection (HBV) recommend initiating antiviral treatment based on viral replication with inflammation or fibrosis. HBV viral loads and liver fibrosis measurements are not widely available in resource-limited countries. Aim: To develop a novel scoring system for the initiation of antiviral treatment in HBV-infected patients. Methods: We examined 602 and 420 treatment-naïve, HBV mono-infected patients for derivation and validation cohorts. We performed regression analysis to identify parameters associated with the initiation of antiviral treatment based on the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) guidelines. The novel score was developed based on these parameters. Results: The novel score (HePAA) was based on HBeAg (hepatitis B e-antigen), the platelet count, alanine transaminase, and albumin. The HePAA score showed excellent performance, with AUROC values of 0.926 (95% CI, 0.901–0.950) for the derivation cohort and 0.872 (95% CI, 0.833–0.910) for the validation cohort. The optimal cutoff was ≥3 points (sensitivity, 84.9%; specificity, 92.6%). The HePAA score performed better than the World Health Organization (WHO) criteria and the Risk Estimation for HCC in Chronic Hepatitis B (REACH-B) score, and it performed similarly to the Treatment Eligibility in Africa for HBV (TREAT-B) score. Conclusions: The HePAA scoring system is simple and accurate for chronic hepatitis B treatment eligibility in resource-limited countries.