Worldwide, some 240 million people have chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV), with the highest rates of infection in Africa and Asia. Our understanding of the natural history of HBV infection and the potential for therapy of the resultant disease is continuously improving. New data have become available since the previous APASL guidelines for management of HBV infection were published in 2012. The objective of this manuscript is to update the recommendations for the optimal management of chronic HBV infection. The 2015 guidelines were developed by a panel of Asian experts chosen by the APASL. The clinical practice guidelines are based on evidence from existing publications or, if evidence was unavailable, on the experts’ personal experience and opinion after deliberations. Manuscripts and abstracts of important meetings published through January 2015 have been evaluated. This guideline covers the full spectrum of care of patients infected with hepatitis B, including new terminology, natural history, screening, vaccination, counseling, diagnosis, assessment of the stage of liver disease, the indications, timing, choice and duration of single or combination of antiviral drugs, screening for HCC, management in special situations like childhood, pregnancy, coinfections, renal impairment and pre- and post-liver transplant, and policy guidelines. However, areas of uncertainty still exist, and clinicians, patients, and public health authorities must therefore continue to make choices on the basis of the evolving evidence. The final clinical practice guidelines and recommendations are presented here, along with the relevant background information.

There is great geographical variation in the distribution of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), with the majority of all cases worldwide found in the Asia–Pacific region, where HCC is one of the leading public health problems. Since the “Toward Revision of the Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL) HCC Guidelines” meeting held at the 25th annual conference of the APASL in Tokyo, the newest guidelines for the treatment of HCC published by the APASL has been discussed. This latest guidelines recommend evidence-based management of HCC and are considered suitable for universal use in the Asia–Pacific region, which has a diversity of medical environments.

SUMMARY. The disease burden of hepatitis C virus (HCV) is expected to increase as the infected population ages. A modelling approach was used to estimate the total number of viremic infections, diagnosed, treated and new infections in 2013. In addition, the model was used to estimate the change in the total number of HCV infections, the disease progression and mortality in 2013-2030. Finally, expert panel consensus was used to capture current treatment practices in each country. Using today's treatment paradigm, the total number of HCV infections is projected to decline or remain flat in all countries studied. However, in the same time period, the number of individuals with late-stage liver disease is projected to increase. This study concluded that the current treatment rate and efficacy are not sufficient to manage the disease burden of HCV. Thus, alternative strategies are required to keep the number of HCV individuals with advanced liver disease and liver-related deaths from increasing.

The Asian-Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL) convened an international working party on the “APASL consensus statements and recommendation on management of hepatitis C” in March, 2015, in order to revise “APASL consensus statements and management algorithms for hepatitis C virus infection (Hepatol Int 6:409–435, 2012)”. The working party consisted of expert hepatologists from the Asian-Pacific region gathered at Istanbul Congress Center, Istanbul, Turkey on 13 March 2015. New data were presented, discussed and debated to draft a revision. Participants of the consensus meeting assessed the quality of cited studies. Finalized recommendations on treatment of hepatitis C are presented in this review.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12072-016-9717-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Infection with hepatitis A virus (HAV) can cause severe illness in adult patients with chronic liver disease (CLD) caused by hepatitis C. In endemic areas such as South Asia, however, most adult patients already have been exposed to HAV but could still be susceptible to hepatitis E virus (HEV) infection. We document that HEV superinfection in 4 of our CLD patients caused severe liver decompensation. We then determined the seroprevalence of HAV and HEV in 233 patients with stable CLD, with the goal of defining the need for protection against these viruses in these patients. Overall, 41 ( T he hepatitis A virus (HAV) and the hepatitis E virus (HEV) are endemic in South Asia and are the most common causes of acute hepatitis in this region. 1,2 Both viruses have a number of common characteristics: they are transmitted by the fecal-oral route and generally cause an acute self-limiting illness followed by complete recovery. However, a number of clinical and epidemiologic differences exist between HAV and HEV. For example, HEV can cause a severe fulminant hepatitis in pregnant women if the infection occurs during late pregnancy, 3 whereas exposure to HAV infection during pregnancy does not impose a higher risk. 4,5 Exposure to HAV infection occurs at a very early age in endemic areas, so that by the age of 10 years almost 100% of children show evidence of exposure to HAV, as determined by a positive HAV immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody test result. 6 This early exposure to HAV is followed by longterm, possibly lifelong, immunity to the virus. 7 On the other hand, in the same community, exposure to HEV commonly takes place during adult life. The duration of HEV immunity is unclear, but it is possibly shorter term than is HAV immunity. 8 This could theoretically lead to recurrent episodes of HEV infection in the same patient. 9 Large-scale epidemics have been described in South Asia attributable to both HAV and HEV. Epidemics caused by HEV have occurred in Kashmir and Kanpur, as well as recently in Islamabad. [10][11][12] The common features of these epidemics were an incubation period of 2 to 9 weeks, highest clinical attack rates in adults between 15 and 40 years old, and low overall mortality of between 0.5% and 4% but high mortality (15%-25%) in pregnant women.Infection with HAV has been shown to cause a severe illness in adult patients with chronic liver disease (CLD), in particular in patients with hepatitis C, in areas where HAV is not endemic. 13 Because of the increased risk of an adverse outcome and low background exposure to HAV in these areas, vaccination against HAV is now routinely

No abstract

The Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL) convened an international working party on ''APASL consensus statements and recommendations for management of hepatitis C'' in March 2015 to revise the ''APASL consensus statements and management algorithms for hepatitis C virus infection'' (Hepatol Int 6:409-435, 2012). The working party consisted of expert hepatologists from the Asian-Pacific region gathered at the Istanbul Congress Center, Istanbul, Turkey on 13 March 2015. New data were presented, discussed, and debated during the course of drafting a revision. Participants of the consensus meeting assessed the quality of the cited studies. The finalized recommendations for hepatitis C prevention, epidemiology, and laboratory testing are presented in this review.

In the direct-acting antiviral (DAA) era for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, sustained virological response (SVR) is very high, but close attention must be paid to the possible occurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and reactivation of hepatitis B virus (HBV) in patients with co-infection who achieved SVR in short term. HCC occurrence was more often observed in patients with previous HCC history. We found occurrence of HCC in 178 (29.6%) of 602 patients with previous HCC history (15.4 months mean follow-up post-DAA initiation) but, in contrast, in only 604 (1.3%) of 45,870 patients without previous HCC history (18.2 months mean follow-up). Thus, in these guidelines, we recommend the following: in patients with previous HCC history, surveillance at 4-month intervals for HCC by ultrasonography (US) and tumor markers should be performed. In patients without previous HCC history, surveillance at 6- to 12-month intervals for HCC including US is recommended until the long-term DAA treatment effects, especially for the resolution of liver fibrosis, are confirmed. This guideline also includes recommendations on how to follow-up patients who have been infected with both HCV and HBV. When HCV was eradicated in these HBsAg-positive patients or patients with previous HBV infection (anti-HBc and/or anti-HBs-positive), it was shown that HBV reactivation or HBV DNA reappearance was observed in 67 (41.4%) of 162 or 12 (0.9%) of 1317, respectively. For these co-infected patients, careful attention should be paid to HBV reactivation for 24 weeks post-treatment.