Acute liver failure (ALF) is an infrequent, unpredictable, potentially fatal complication of acute liver injury (ALI) consequent to varied etiologies. Etiologies of ALF as reported in the literature have regional differences, which affects the clinical presentation and natural course. In this part of the consensus article designed to reflect the clinical practices in India, disease burden, epidemiology, clinical presentation, monitoring, and prognostication have been discussed. In India, viral hepatitis is the most frequent cause of ALF, with drug-induced hepatitis due to antituberculosis drugs being the second most frequent cause. The clinical presentation of ALF is characterized by jaundice, coagulopathy, and encephalopathy. It is important to differentiate ALF from other causes of liver failure, including acute on chronic liver failure, subacute liver failure, as well as certain tropical infections which can mimic this presentation. The disease often has a fulminant clinical course with high short-term mortality. Death is usually attributable to cerebral complications, infections, and resultant multiorgan failure. Timely liver transplantation (LT) can change the outcome, and hence, it is vital to provide intensive care to patients until LT can be arranged. It is equally important to assess prognosis to select patients who are suitable for LT. Several prognostic scores have been proposed, and their comparisons show that indigenously developed dynamic scores have an edge over scores described from the Western world. Management of ALF will be described in part 2 of this document.

In 2015, the World Health Organization (WHO) issued guidelines for the management of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) in low- and middle-income countries, but little is known about the applicability of the WHO treatment criteria in sub-Saharan Africa. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the WHO guidelines in a large CHB cohort in Ethiopia.
Treatment-naïve adults who attended a public CHB clinic in Addis Ababa were included in this analysis. All patients underwent a standardized evaluation at recruitment, including blood tests and transient elastography (Fibroscan®). A Fibroscan result >7.9 kPa was used to define significant fibrosis and >9.9 kPa to define cirrhosis. Treatment eligibility was assessed using the most recent guidelines from the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) as the \'gold standard\'.
Out of 1,190 patients with CHB, 300 (25.2%) were eligible for treatment based on the EASL 2017 guidelines and 182 (15.3%) based on the WHO 2015 guidelines. The sensitivity and specificity of the WHO criteria were 49.0 and 96.1%, respectively. Most patients (94 of 182; 51.6%) who fulfilled the WHO criteria had decompensated cirrhosis and might have a dismal prognosis even with therapy. Only 41 of 115 patients (35.7%) with compensated cirrhosis, who are likely to benefit the most from therapy, were eligible for treatment based on the WHO criteria.
The WHO guidelines for CHB failed to detect half of the patients in need of treatment in Ethiopia, implying the need for a revision of the WHO treatment criteria.
Antiviral therapy prevents disease progression and death in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB), but the identification of patients in need of treatment is a challenge in low- and middle-income countries. The World Health Organization (WHO) has suggested treatment eligibility criteria for use in such settings, but in our study the WHO criteria detected less than half of those in need of therapy in a large Ethiopian cohort of 1,190 patients with CHB. Our findings suggest that the WHO criteria might be unsuitable in sub-Saharan Africa.
NCT02344498 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier). Registered 16 January 2015.

Diagnosis and treatment of hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis D virus infection mean for the patient to be able to maintain working capacity, to increase quality of life, to prevent cancer, and to prolong life expectancy, while the society benefits from eliminating the chances of further transmission of the viruses, and decreasing the overall costs of serious complications. The guideline delineates the treatment algorithms from 22 September 2017 set by a consensus meeting of physicians involved in the treatment of these diseases. The prevalence of HBV infection in the Hungarian general population is 0,5-0,7%. The indications of treatment are based upon viral examinations (including viral nucleic acid determination), determinations of disease activity and stage (including biochemical, pathologic, and/or non-invasive methods), and excluding contraindications. To avoid unnecessary side effects and for a cost-effective approach, the guideline stresses the importance of quick and detailed virologic evaluations, the applicability of transient elastography as an acceptable alternative of liver biopsy in this regard as well as the relevance of appropriate consistent follow-up schedule for viral response during therapy. The first choice of therapy in chronic HBV infection can be pegylated interferon for 48 weeks or continuous entecavir or tenofovir therapy. The latter two must be continued for at least 12 months after hepatitis B surface antigen seroconversion. Lamivudine is no longer the first choice; patients currently taking lamivudine must switch if the response is inadequate. Appropriate treatment of patients taking immunosuppressive medications is highly recommended. Pegylated interferon based therapy is recommended for the treatment of concomitant hepatitis D infection. Orv Hetil. 2018; 159(Suppl 1): 24-37.

The treatment of hepatitis C is based on a national consensus guideline updated six-monthly according to local availability and affordability of approved therapies through a transparent allocation system in Hungary. This updated guideline incorporates some special new aspects, including recommendations for screening, diagnostics, use and allocation of novel direct acting antiviral agents. The indication of therapy in patients with no contraindication is based on the demonstration of viral replication with consequent inflammation and/or fibrosis in the liver. Non-invasive methods (elastographies and biochemical methods) are preferred for liver fibrosis staging. The budget allocated for these patients is limited. Interferon-based or interferon-free therapies are available for the treatment. Due to their limited success rate as well as to their (sometimes severe) side-effects, the mandatory use of interferon-based therapies as first line treatment can not be accepted from the professional point of view. However, they can be used as optional therapy in treatment-naïve patients with mild disease. As of interferon-free therapies, priority is given to those with urgent need based on a pre-defined scoring system reflecting mainly the stage of the liver disease, but considering also additional factors, i.e., hepatic decompensation, other complications, activity and progression of liver disease, risk of transmission and other special issues. Approved treatments are restricted to the most cost-effective combinations based on the cost per sustained virological response value in different patient categories with consensus amongst treating physicians, the National Health Insurance Fund of Hungary and patients\' organizations. Interferon-free treatments and shorter therapy durations are preferred. Orv Hetil. 2018; 159(Suppl 1): 3-23.

暂无摘要。

We present two consensus definitions of advanced and late stage liver disease being used as epidemiological tools. These definitions can be applied to assess the morbidity caused by liver diseases in different health care systems. We focus is on hepatitis B and C virus infections, because effective and well tolerated treatments for both of these infections have greatly improved our ability to successfully treat and prevent advanced and late stage disease, especially if diagnosed early. A consensus definition of late presentation with viral hepatitis is important to create a homogenous, easy-to-use reference for public health authorities in Europe and elsewhere to better assess the clinical situation on a population basis.
A working group including viral hepatitis experts from the European Association for the Study of the Liver, experts from the HIV in Europe Initiative, and relevant stakeholders including patient advocacy groups, health policy-makers, international health organisations and surveillance experts, met in 2014 and 2015 to develop a draft consensus definition of late presentation with viral hepatitis for medical care. This was refined through subsequent consultations among the group.
Two definitions were agreed upon. Presentation with advanced liver disease caused by chronic viral hepatitis for medical care is defined as a patient with chronic hepatitis B and C and significant fibrosis (≥ F3 assessed by either APRI score > 1.5, FIB-4 > 3.25, Fibrotest > 0.59 or alternatively transient elastography (FibroScan) > 9.5 kPa or liver biopsy ≥ METAVIR stage F3) with no previous antiviral treatment. Late stage liver disease caused by chronic viral hepatitis is clinically defined by the presence of decompensated cirrhosis (at least one symptom of the following: jaundice, hepatic encephalopathy, clinically detectable ascites, variceal bleeding) and/or hepatocellular carcinoma.
These consensus definitions will help to improve epidemiological understanding of viral hepatitis and possibly other liver diseases, as well as testing policies and strategies.

Diagnosis and treatment of HBV/HDV infection means for the patient to be able to maintain working capacity, to increase quality of life, to prevent cancer, and to prolong life expectancy, while society benefits from eliminating the chances of further transmission of the viruses, and decreasing the overall costs of serious complications. The guideline delineates the treatment algorithms for 2017 set by a consensus meeting of physicians involved in the treatment of these diseases. The prevalence of HBV infection in the Hungarian general population is 0.5-0.7%. The indications of treatment is based upon viral examinations (including viral nucleic acid determination), determinations of disease activity and stage (including biochemical, pathologic, and/or non-invasive methods), and excluding contraindications. To avoid unnecessary side effects and for cost-effective approach the guideline stresses the importance of quick and detailed virologic evaluations, the applicability of elastography as an acceptable alternative of liver biopsy in this regard, as well as the relevance of appropriate consistent follow up schedule for viral response during therapy. The first choice of therapy in chronic hepatitis B infection can be pegylated interferon for 48 weeks or continuous entecavir or tenofovir therapy. The latter two must be continued for at least 12 months after hepatitis B surface antigen seroconversion. Adefovir dipivoxil is recommended mainly in combination therapy. Lamivudine is no longer a first choice; patients currently taking lamivudine must switch if response is inadequate. Appropriate treatment of patients taking immunosuppressive medications is highly recommended. Pegylated interferon based therapy is recommended for the treatment of concomitant hepatitis D infection. Orv. Hetil., 2017, 158(Suppl. 1) 23-35.

Treatment of hepatitis C is based on a national consensus guideline updated six-monthly according to local availability and affordability of approved therapies through a transparent allocation system in Hungary. This updated guideline incorporates some special new aspects, including recommendations for screening, diagnostics, use and allocation of novel direct acting antiviral agents. Indication of therapy in patients with no contraindication is based on demonstration of viral replication with consequent inflammation and/or fibrosis in the liver. Non-invasive methods (elastographies and biochemical methods) are preferred for liver fibrosis staging. The budget allocated for these patients is limited. Therefore, expensive novel direct acting antiviral combinations as first line treatment are reimbursed only, if the freely available, but less effective and more toxic pegylated interferon plus ribavirin dual therapy deemed to prone high chance of adverse events and/or low chance of cure. Priority is given to those with urgent need based on a pre-defined scoring system reflecting mainly the stage of the liver disease, but considering also additional factors, i.e., hepatic decompensation, other complications, activity and progression of liver disease, risk of transmission and other special issues. Approved treatments are restricted to the most cost-effective combinations based on the cost per sustained virological response value in different patient categories with consensus amongst treating physicians, the National Health Insurance Fund and patient\'s organizations. Interferon-free treatments and shorter therapy durations are preferred. Orv. Hetil., 2017, 158(Suppl. 1), 3-22.

Biological drugs (tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, rituximab, tocilizumab, abatacept, and tofacitinib) are important treatment alternatives in rheumatology, particularly for resistant patients. However, they may cause hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) reactivation; for instance, HBV reactivation may occur in a patient who is an inactive hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) carrier or who has resolved HBV infection. Therefore, the screening of patients before biological treatment and the application of a prophylactic treatment, particularly with respect to latent HBV infections, are recommended when necessary. This guideline covers pre-treatment screening and follow-up recommendations, if required, with respect to viral hepatitides in rheumatology patients who are planned to be given biological drugs. Although this guideline is prepared for biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), it is recommended to be used also for target-oriented DMARDS and medium-high dose corticosteroids (>7.5 mg prednisolone/day equivalent). It should be considered that the reactivation risk is higher when more than one immunosuppressive drug is used.

Approximately 70,000 people are infected with hepatitis C virus in Hungary, and more than half of them are not aware of their infection. From the point of infected individuals early recognition and effective treatment of related liver injury may prevent consequent advanced liver diseases and complications (liver cirrhosis, liver failure and liver cancer) and can increase work productivity and life expectancy. Furthermore, these could from prevent further spread of the virus as well as reduce substantially long term financial burden of related morbidity, as a socioeconomic aspect. Pegylated interferon + ribavirin dual therapy, which is available in Hungary since 2003, can clear the virus in 40-45% of previously not treated (naïve), and in 5-21% of previous treatment-failure patients. Addition of a direct acting first generation protease inhibitor drug (boceprevir or telaprevir) to the dual therapy increases the chance of sustained viral response to 63-75% and 59-66%, respectively. These two protease inhibitors are available and financed for a segment of Hungarian patients since May 2013. Between 2013 and February 2015, other direct acting antivirals and interferon-free combination therapies have been registered for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C with a potential efficacy over 90% and typically with a short duration of 8-12 weeks. Indication of therapy includes exclusion of contraindications to the drugs and demonstration of viral replication with consequent liver injury, i.e., inflammation and/or fibrosis in the liver. Non-invasive methods (elastography and biochemical methods) are accepted and preferred for staging liver damage (fibrosis). For initiation of treatment accurate and timely molecular biology tests are mandatory. Eligibility for treatment is a subject of individual central medical review. Due to budget limitations therapy is covered only for a proportion of patients by the National Health Insurance Fund. Priority is given to those with urgent need based on a Hungarian Priority Index system reflecting primarily the stage of liver disease, and considering also additional factors, i.e., activity and progression of liver disease, predictive factors of treatment and other special issues. Approved treatments are restricted to the most cost-effective combinations based on the cost per sustained viral response value in different patient categories with consensus between professional organizations, National Health Insurance Fund and patient organizations. More expensive therapies might be available upon co-financing by the patient or a third party. Interferon-free treatments and shorter therapy durations preferred as much as financially feasible. A separate budget is allocated to cover interferon-free treatments for the most-in-need interferon ineligible/intolerant patients, and for those who have no more interferon-based therapy option.
Magyarországon 70000 egyén lehet fertőzött hepatitis C-vírussal, nagyobbik részük nem tud a fertőzöttségéről. A fertőzés időben történő felfedezése és meggyógyítása a beteg szempontjából a munkaképesség megőrzését, az életminőség javulását, a májzsugor és a májrák megelőzését, valamint a betegségmentes várható élettartam meghosszabbodását, míg a beteg környezete és a társadalom szempontjából a továbbfertőzés veszélyének megállítását, a későbbi súlyos májbetegségekből adódó egészségügyi ráfordításigény jelentős csökkenését eredményezi. A 2003 óta alkalmazott pegilált interferon+ribavirin kettős kezeléssel a hazánkban dominálóan 1-es genotípussal fertőzött, korábban terápiában nem részesült betegek 40–45%-a, a korábban sikertelenül kezeltek 5–21%-a gyógyítható meg. 2011-ben a korábbiaknál lényegesen hatékonyabb, két új, direkt antivirális hatású proteázgátló szer került forgalomba (boceprevir és telaprevir). A készítmények – az előrehaladott stádiumban lévő májbeteg számára – 2013 májusa óta hazánkban is finanszírozottá váltak. 2013 és 2015. február között újabb direkt ható antivirális szerek kerültek törzskönyvezésre. Ezek kombinációival rövidebb időtartamú (8–24 hetes), 90% feletti gyógyulási arányt biztosító interferonmentes kezelés válik lehetővé. A kezelés indikációja – az ellenjavallatok kizárása után – a vírusnukleinsav és a májbetegség kimutatása. Utóbbit a gyulladásos aktivitás és/vagy a májfibrosis mértéke (stádium) határozza meg. A stádium meghatározására az invazív májbiopszia mellett a nem invazív elasztográfiás és validált biokémiai fibrosistesztmódszerek alkalmazhatók. A kivizsgálás és a kezelés során fontos a virológiai vizsgálatok gyors és megbízható elvégzése. Hazánkban az Egészségügyi Alapból történő kezelés engedélyezéshez kötött. A szakmailag indokolt kezelés finanszírozási korlátok miatt csak a betegek egy részénél kerül engedélyezésre. A sorrend alapja az úgynevezett Prioritási Index. Ez a májbetegség stádiuma mellett figyelembe veszi a betegség aktivitását, progresszióját, a kezelés sikerességének várható esélyét és további meghatározott speciális szempontokat is. Az egyes betegcsoportokban használható készítményeket az egy beteg meggyógyításához szükséges átlagos kezelési költség alapján a finanszírozóval egyeztetett, időszakosan aktualizált finanszírozási algoritmus határozza meg. A lehetőségek határai között előnyt élveznek a nagy hatékonyságú és biztonságos interferonmentes, illetve a rövidebb időtartamú kezelések. Az interferonalapú terápiára alkalmatlan betegek interferonmentes kezelése külön keretből, külön Prioritási Index alapján történik, a szóba jövő gyógyszerek költséghatékonyságának figyelembevételével. Orv. Hetil., 2015, 156(9), 343–351.