4.7 Article

Treatment advantage in HBV/HIV coinfection compared to HBV monoinfection in a South African cohort

Journal

JOURNAL OF INFECTION
Volume 81, Issue 1, Pages 121-130

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jinf.2020.04.037

Keywords

Hepatitis B virus; HBV; HIV; Treatment; Elimination; Viral load; Tenofovir; Dolutegravir; Hepatocellular carcinoma; South Africa; Coinfection; Sustainable development goals

Funding

  1. Wellcome [110110/Z/15/Z]
  2. Wellcome Trust [110110/Z/15/Z] Funding Source: Wellcome Trust

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: Prompted by international targets for elimination of hepatitis B virus (HBV), we set out to characterise individuals with HBV monoinfection vs. those coinfected with HBV/HIV, to evaluate the impact of therapy and to guide improvements in clinical care. Methods: We report observational data from a real world cross-sectional cohort of 115 adults with chronic hepatitis B infection (CHB), at a university hospital in Cape Town, South Africa. HIV coinfection was present in 39 (34%) subjects. We recorded cross-sectional demographic, clinical and laboratory data. Results: Compared to those with HIV coinfection, HBV monoinfected adults were less likely to be HBeAg-positive (p=0.01), less likely to have had assessment with elastography (p<0.0001), and less likely to be on antiviral treatment (p<0.0001); they were more likely to have detectable HBV viraemia (p=0.04), and more likely to have features of liver disease including moderate/severe thrombocytopaenia (p=0.007), elevated bilirubin (p=0.004), and elevated APRI score (p=0.02). Three cases of hepatocellular carcinoma all arose in HBV monoinfection. Conclusions: Our data demonstrate that individuals with HBV monoinfection may be disadvantaged compared to those with HIV coinfection, highlighting potential systematic inequities in referral, monitoring and treatment. (C) 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The British Infection Association.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available