Non-invasive fibrosis algorithms are clinically useful for excluding cirrhosis in prisoners living with hepatitis C.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Prison-based HCV treatment rates remain low due to multiple barriers, including accessing transient elastography for cirrhosis determination. The AST-to-platelet ratio index (APRI) and FIB-4 scores have excellent negative predictive value (NPV) in hospital cohorts to exclude cirrhosis. We investigated their performance in a large cohort of prisoners with HCV infection.
METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of participants assessed by a prison-based hepatitis program. The sensitivity, specificity, NPV and positive predictive value (PPV) of APRI and FIB-4 for cirrhosis were then analysed, with transient elastography as the reference standard. The utility of age thresholds as a trigger for transient elastography was also explored.
RESULTS: Data from 1007 prisoners were included. The median age was 41, 89% were male, and 12% had cirrhosis. An APRI cut-off of 1.0 and FIB-4 cut-off of 1.45 had NPVs for cirrhosis of 96.1% and 96.6%, respectively, and if used to triage prisoners for transient elastography, could reduce the need for this investigation by 71%. The PPVs of APRI and FIB-4 for cirrhosis at these cut-offs were low. Age ≤35 years alone had a NPV for cirrhosis of 96.5%. In those >35 years, the APRI cut-off of 1.0 alone had a high NPV >95%.
CONCLUSION: APRI and FIB-4 scores can reliably exclude cirrhosis in prisoners and reduce requirement for transient elastography. This finding will simplify the cascade of care for prisoners living with hepatitis C.

Introduction

The advent of direct acting antivirals (DAAs) has revolutionised the treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. People living with HCV can now be treated with all oral, short duration, and well tolerated DAA regimens which achieve cure rates in excess of 95% [1,2]. In this context, the World Health Organization (WHO) has established targets for HCV elimination, including an 80% reduction in incident infections and a 65% reduction in HCV related mortality by 2030 [3]. Mathematical modelling has demonstrated that to achieve these targets, concerted efforts must be made to treat key populations with high risk for transmission including people who inject drugs (PWID) [4].

Prisons provide an excellent opportunity to identify and treat people living with HCV given the over-representation of people with injecting drug use histories and the associated high prevalence of chronic HCV [5]; HCV seroprevalence exceeds 15% in prisons globally, and in Australia is as high as 50% amongst incarcerated PWIDs [6,7]. Multiple data have now demonstrated that prison-based HCV treatment is safe and effective and can reach prisoners in large numbers [8-10]. Despite this, rates of HCV treatment in prisons worldwide remain low due to multiple barriers [11]. These include frequent prisoner transfer interrupting treatment, short sentence durations, the need for hospital transfer for specialist review and limited resourcing for HCV testing and treatment [12,13]. One important barrier is access to TE (e.g. FibroScan®) for cirrhosis determination in the correctional setting [14].

Cirrhosis determination prior to HCV DAA initiation is important for decision-making regarding treatment regimen and duration, and to identify those who require ongoing specialist referral for cirrhosis management and hepatocellular cancer (HCC) surveillance [15]. TE is the most accurate non-invasive tool for cirrhosis determination and has largely replaced liver biopsy in the community [16]. Access to TE within the correctional sector however is challenging and remains a significant barrier to care due to its high cost, limited availability of equipment within prison health services, frequent need for prisoner transfer and issues with security [10,17].

Based on routine blood tests, the AST-to-platelet ratio index (APRI) and the FIB-4 score were developed to predict advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis, using community recruited samples [18-21]. Both scores have subsequently been validated and demonstrate excellent negative predictive value for excluding advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis. Indeed, the WHO recommends both APRI and FIB-4 as cost-effective tools for the assessment of hepatic fibrosis in resource-limited settings [22]. Prisoner populations, however, are characterised by male gender, younger age, as well as multiple high-risk behaviours that differ considerably from the hospital populations used to validate these algorithms. Validation of simple serum-based fibrosis markers for use in the correctional setting to triage prisoners at risk of cirrhosis would be clinically useful and help improve the cascade of care by reducing treatment costs and the time delay and logistical challenges associated with TE.

We have therefore evaluated the accuracy of non-invasive fibrosis algorithm scores including APRI and FIB-4 as a practical triage tool for excluding cirrhosis in the correctional setting. This analysis was conducted using a large cohort of prisoners with HCV infection with a view to simplifying clinical pathways by reducing the number of prisoners requiring TE, therefore improving the HCV cascade of care.

Materials and methods

Participants

This was a retrospective cohort study investigating the performance of the APRI and FIB-4 in a prison setting. The cohort provided prospectively collected data from all prisoners with HCV infection evaluated through the Statewide Hepatitis Program in Victoria, Australia. Prisoners evaluated for HCV infection were consecutively recruited from November 2015. This model of care has been described in detail previously [8]. Prisoners who self-reported a prior HCV diagnosis or who were identified as HCV seropositive whilst incarcerated were referred to the Statewide Hepatitis Program for face-to-face protocol-driven assessments with a program nurse. Clinical assessments were conducted at all 16 adult prisons throughout Victoria, which are serviced by the program. Pathology testing was performed by the diagnostic laboratory affiliated with each correctional facility. A database was created containing participants’ baseline clinical characteristics, blood test results and liver stiffness measurement (LSM) median scores, interquartile ranges (IQR) and IQR:median ratios. Blood-based investigations that were recorded included haemoglobin, white blood cell count, platelet count, creatinine, urea, sodium, alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase (GGT), alkaline phosphatase (ALP), bilirubin, albumin, international normalised ratio (INR), hepatitis B/C serology, HIV serology, and HCV genotype and viral load.

Prisoners were excluded if they had insufficient blood test results to calculate the APRI or FIB-4 scores within 6 months of TE, if TE had not been performed, if IQR:median ratio exceeded 0.3 or the absence of current HCV infection, defined as detectable HCV RNA (Fig 1).

Fig 1

Consort diagram.

Legend IQR, interquartile range.

Liver cirrhosis determination

TE was used for cirrhosis determination at each prisoner’s initial clinical assessment to guide appropriate management. Cirrhosis was defined as a median LSM of ≥12.5kPa, in keeping with Australian HCV consensus guidelines [23,24]. Blood-based and radiologically investigations were also arranged at this review, where appropriate. TE was performed using FibroScan® (Echosens) with the ‘M’ or ‘XL’ probe, as determined by the participant’s body mass index (BMI) and body habitus. Measurements were collected in the mid-axillary line until ten valid readings were recorded. The LSM results was deemed valid only when the IQR/median ratio was less than 0.3 and when performed prior to HCV DAA initiation. All transient elastography was performed by three hepatology clinical nurse consultants who had performed at least 100 supervised examinations for credentialing. The APRI and FIB-4 scores were then determined for each prisoner. The APRI was calculated as [(AST/Upper limit of normal of AST) x 100]/[Platelets(109/L)] [18]. The FIB-4 score was calculated as [(age x AST)/(platelets(109/L) x ALT1/2)] [19].

Statistical methodology and analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using STATA 12.0 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA). Categorical data were described as number and percentage and interval data as median and IQR.

Data were used to determine the sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of the APRI and FIB-4 scores to diagnose or exclude cirrhosis using standard analytical approaches. Performance of APRI and FIB-4 were assessed against gold-standard TE assessments. Cut-offs of 1.0 and 2.0 for APRI, and 1.45 and 3.25 for FIB-4 were selected on the basis of having been previously validated in other data for the diagnosis of cirrhosis and advanced fibrosis (METAVIR F3/4), respectively [18-20]. Two analyses for FIB-4 at these thresholds were considered, including for advanced fibrosis (LSM ≥9.5kPa) (for which this algorithm was originally validated) and for cirrhosis (≥12.5kPa). The reduction in requirement for TE was also determined should prisoners be triaged for TE using these algorithms cut-offs.

In addition to APRI and FIB-4, given the young average age of prisoner populations globally and the slow natural history of HCV infection [25], the sensitivity, specificity, NPV and PPV of binary age thresholds alone to predict or exclude cirrhosis were also analysed, to determine if stratifying fibrosis assessment by age could minimise the need for TE while maintaining high NPV. The age thresholds were determined by the data and the quartile values (25th, 50th and 75th) were selected for analysis. The cohort was then separated by these age values and we determined the predictive value of APRI at a cut off of 1.0 in these groups separately to contribute to new clinical pathways for fibrosis assessment for the entire prison cohort incorporating age categories. This novel fibrosis assessment pathway was then validated using data from an additional cohort of prisoners.

Ethics statement

This study was approved by the St Vincent's Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee. The study was granted a waiver of consent as all data were analysed anonymously. The study conformed to the ethical guidelines of the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki, Good Clinical Practice Guidelines, and regulatory requirements.

Results

Prisoner characteristics

In total, data from 1300 was assessed. Two hundred and ninety three prisoners were excluded including 109 who were HCV PCR negative, 88 who had insufficient blood test results to calculate APRI and/or FIB-4 (n = 88), 76 who did not undergo TE (n = 76) and 20 who had LSM IQR:median >0.3 (n = 20) (Fig 1). As such, 1007 were included in the analysis. Baseline characteristics are described in Table 1. In short, prisoners were prominently male (89%), the median age was 41 [35-47] years, HCV GT3 infection was the most common genotype (46%), and there were low rates of HBV and HIV coinfection (1%). One hundred and twenty-four individuals (12%) were cirrhotic, as defined by TE (LSM ≥ 12.5kPa, n = 124/1007). The median APRI score was 0.66 [0.41–1.09] and median FIB-4 score was 1.02 [0.69–1.54] (Table 2). The median time between the collection of blood-based investigations and transient elastography was 34 days [IQR 13–86 days].

Table 1

Prisoner baseline characteristics.

Baseline characteristics	n = 1007
Age, median [IQR]	41 [35–47]
BMI, median [IQR]	28.4 [25.3–32.2]
Male sex, n (%)	899 (89)
Indigenous Australian, n (%)	133 (13)
HCV viral load IU/mL, median [IQR]	757,000 [193,250–3,130,750]
HCV Genotype, n, (%)
• GT1a	435 (43)
• GT1b	33 (3)
• GT2	26 (3)
• GT3	466 (46)
• GT4	2 (0.5)
• GT6	8 (0.5)
• NA	37 (4)
HBsAg positive, n (%)	14 (1)
HIV Ab positive, n (%)	12 (1)
ALT, median [IQR]	81 [53–132]
AST, median [IQR]	52 [36–79]
Platelets, median [IQR]	234 [192–276]
Cirrhotic, n (%)	124 (12)

Baseline characteristics of prisoner population at initial assessment. Legend, BMI, body mass index, GT, genotype.

Table 2

Results of cirrhosis determination using APRI, FIB-4 and elastography.

Cirrhosis determination	n = 1007
APRI score, n (%)
• < 1.0	718 (71)
• 1.01–2.0	196 (19)
• > 2.0	93 (9)
FIB-4 score, n (%)
• < 1.45	726 (72)
• 1.45–3.25	236 (23)
• >3.25	45 (45)
Liver Stiffness Measurements, n (%)
• < 6 kPa	356 (36)
• 6–9.4 kPa	435 (43)
• 9.5–12.4 kPa	92 (9)
• ≥ 12.5 kPa	124 (12)

Results of cirrhosis determination using APRI, FIB-4 and elastography.

Performance of APRI or FIB-4 scores for cirrhosis in prisoners

The performance of the APRI and FIB-4 scores for cirrhosis (LSM ≥ 12.5kPa) at previously validated thresholds are presented in Table 3. An APRI score cut-off of 1.0 had a sensitivity and specificity for cirrhosis of 77.4% and 78.1%, respectively. The NPV of APRI <1.0 to exclude cirrhosis was 96.1%. If this cut-off was incorporated into prison fibrosis assessment protocols where only prisoners with an APRI ≥1.0 were referred for TE, the need for FibroScan® would reduce by 71% (n = 718/1007). The PPV at this threshold was low (33.2%), meaning that these prisoners would still require TE for cirrhosis confirmation. At the higher APRI cut-off of 2.0, the PPV was higher (48.4%), but resulted in lower NPV (91.4%) and sensitivity (36.3%)–using an APRI cut-off of 2.0 alone to exclude cirrhosis would have meant that 64% (n = 79/124) cases of cirrhosis were missed (S1 Table).

Table 3

Accuracy of APRI and FIB4 in predicting cirrhosis as compared to transient elastography.

		Liver stiffness measurement
	All prisoners (n = 1007) n (%)	< 12.5kPa (n = 883) n (%)	≥ 12.5kPa (n = 124) n (%)	Sensitivity %	Specificity %	PPV %	NPV %
For prediction of cirrhosis
APRI
≤ 1.0	718 (71)	690 (78)	28 (23)	77	78	33	96
> 1.0	289 (29)	193 (22)	96 (77)
≤ 2.0	914 (91)	835 (95)	79 (64)	36	95	48	91
> 2.0	93 (9)	48 (5)	45 (36)
FIB4
≤ 1.45	713 (71)	688 (78)	25 (20)	80	78	34	97
> 1.45	294 (29)	195 (22)	99 (80)
≤ 3.25	960 (95)	871 (99)	89 (72)	28	99	75	91
> 3.25	47 (5)	12 (1)	35 (28)

Sensitivity, specificity, NPV and PPV of the APRI and FIB-4 scores to diagnose or exclude cirrhosis (LSM≥12.5kPa) represented as percentages. Legend, NPV, negative predictive value, PPV, positive predictive value.

Similar patterns were observed using different FIB-4 cut-offs, with the lower cut-off score of 1.45 associated with a high NPV for the exclusion of cirrhosis, and a low PPV (Table 3). At a higher cut-off score of 3.25, the specificity of the score was enhanced, however the sensitivity and NPV were significantly reduced (Table 3).

The performance of FIB-4 for diagnosing or excluding advanced fibrosis (LSM ≥9.5kPa) at previously validated threshold was also analysed (S1 Table).

Age thresholds for the exclusion of cirrhosis

The sensitivity, specificity, NPV and PPV of age thresholds alone for cirrhosis were determined. The binary age thresholds selected for analysis were 35, 41 and 47 years, representing the quartile values for the cohort. The binary variable of prisoner age ≤35 achieved a NPV for cirrhosis of 96.5%, due to the low prevalence in this group (3.5%, n = 9/258) (Table 4). If no formal fibrosis assessment was performed for prisoners aged ≤35, nine cases of cirrhosis would be missed, representing 1% of the total cohort. The NPV of the age thresholds 41 and 47 years alone to exclude cirrhosis decreased to 94.7% and 91.6%, respectively, due to the increasing prevalence of cirrhosis in these age groups (Table 4). Furthermore, as the age threshold increased, the number of prisoner with cirrhosis who were missed, increased. We also calculated the NPV using the combination of age and APRI (APRI cut-off of 1.0 for prisoners aged ≤35 and >35 to exclude cirrhosis (Table 4)). Amongst the age ≤35 years subgroup, an APRI cut-off of 1.0 was associated with a NPV of 99.0%, however would result in 26% of this age group requiring TE who had an APRI >1.0. In those >35 years old, the NPV of APRI 1.0 remained satisfactory and was >95%, which could reduce the need for TE by 70% in this age group (Table 5).

Table 4

Performance of age categories for predicting cirrhosis as compared to transient elastography.

		Liver stiffness measurement
	All prisoners (n = 1007) n (%)	< 12.5kPa (n = 883) n (%)	≥ 12.5kPa (n = 124) n (%)	Sensitivity %	Specificity %	PPV %	NPV %
For prediction of cirrhosis
Age
≤ 35	258 (26)	249 (28)	9 (7)	92	28	26	97
> 35	749 (74)	634 (72)	115 (93)
≤ 41	528 (52)	500 (57)	28 (23)	77	57	20	95
> 41	479 (48)	383 (43)	96 (77)
≤ 47	752 (75)	689 (78)	63 (51)	49	78	24	92
> 47	255 (25)	194 (22)	61 (49)

Ability of age alone to diagnose or exclude cirrhosis, with TE as the reference standard. Legend, NPV, negative predictive value, PPV, positive predictive value.

Table 5

Performance of APRI in different age categories for predicting cirrhosis as compared to transient elastography.

		Liver stiffness measurement
	All prisoners (n = 1007) n (%)	< 12.5kPa (n = 883) n (%)	≥ 12.5kPa (n = 124) n (%)	Sensitivity %	Specificity %	PPV %	NPV %
For prediction of cirrhosis
Age + APRI
≤ 35
APRI ≤ 1.0	192 (19)	190 (21)	2 (2)	78	76	11	99
APRI > 1.0	66 (7)	59 (7)	7 (6)
> 35
APRI ≤ 1.0	526 (52)	500 (57)	26 (21)	78	79	40	95
APRI > 1.0	223 (22)	134 (15)	89 (71)

The performance of APRI in age categories ≤ 35 and >35 to diagnose or exclude cirrhosis. Legend, NPV, negative predictive value, PPV, positive predictive value.

Finally, a novel fibrosis assessment algorithm of performing TE only in prisoners >35 years and only when APRI ≥1.0 would achieve a NPV of >95% for cirrhosis and reduce the need for TE by 78% of the entire cohort (Fig 2). The NPV for cirrhosis was sustained at 97% when this fibrosis assessment pathway was applied to a validation cohort of 189 prisoners, 11% (n = 20/189) of whom were cirrhotic, and referral for TE would be reduced by 83% (n = 156/189) (S2 Table).

Fig 2

A novel clinical pathway for fibrosis assessment prior to HCV treatment in prisons.

This pathway achieves a NPV for cirrhosis of >95% in all prisoners and minimises the need for FibroScan by 78%.

Discussion

HCV treatment within prisons is important for global viral elimination, however the requirement for TE for fibrosis assessment presents barriers to efficient HCV care in custodial settings. Our data demonstrate that the APRI and FIB-4 serum scores can be useful to stratify risk of cirrhosis in a prison population, using validated thresholds from hospital-based cohorts. When applied to our cohort of prisoners with HCV infection, APRI and FIB-4 thresholds of 1.0 and 1.45, respectively, were associated with NPVs for cirrhosis in excess of 96%. The sensitivity and PPV for both algorithms, however, was low. The data, therefore, demonstrate that the strength of these algorithms lies in the exclusion, rather than confirmation, of cirrhosis. The NPV of binary age thresholds for excluding cirrhosis were also investigated. The NPV of age ≤35 alone exceeded 96%, and could be incorporated into fibrosis assessment protocols to improve HCV treatment throughput. The use of APRI and FIB-4 have been prioritised by the WHO for cirrhosis determination in low- and middle-income countries due to their availability and low cost [18]. Similarly, prison health services provide complex care to prisoners in large numbers, including for HCV infection, yet operate under significant fiscal restrictions. Therefore, the use of these indices to minimise cost and streamline care should be expanded.

Both APRI (threshold of 1.0) and FIB-4 (threshold 1.45) had NPVs of >96% for cirrhosis. We believe that this NPV is such that a second test for fibrosis determination is not required. The use of these thresholds to determine need for TE would result in a 70% reduction in the number of prisoners being referred for TE. As such, these indices could help simplify pathways of care for HCV in prisons and promote increased treatment capacity. While mobile FibroScan® units are available, high equipment costs and mandatory training requirements mean that it is not feasible to have them routinely available in many prisons. As there are significant costs and logistics associated with transporting prisoners to tertiary hospitals or a central prison where a FibroScan® might be available, the reliance on TE for fibrosis assessment represents a significant challenge for expanding HCV treatment coverage in prisons. Using these algorithms to reduce the need for TE in the majority while maintaining a high NPV is significant, as delays in facilitating this investigation are at odds with the short average duration of incarceration, meaning some prisoners would be released without treatment. The NPV of APRI and FIB-4 are influenced by cirrhosis prevalence, and our cohort of predominately young male prisoners is well suited for their use.

Our data also demonstrate that age ≤35 years has a very high NPV for cirrhosis (96.5%), and that there is little clinical utility in applying blood-based algorithms or TE to this population. Evaluation of liver fibrosis in those ≤35 years might be restricted to people with clinical risk factors for cirrhosis, such as multiple spider naevi. In prisoners >35 years there is a higher prevalence of cirrhosis, and in this group formal fibrosis evaluation is important. APRI <1.0 had a NPV for cirrhosis of >95% in prisoners >35 years, reducing the need for TE by 70% in this age group. Therefore, LSM could be reserved for those prisoners >35 years who have APRI >1.0. Combined, this approach achieves a NPV of >95% across the entire cohort and minimised the need for TE by 78% (Fig 2). When applied to a validation cohort, the NPV of this approach was sustained and <20% would require referral for TE.

Despite the high NPV of the FIB4, APRI and age ≤ 35 to exclude cirrhosis, a small number of cirrhotic prisoners were miscategorised. Using a FIB-4 cut off of 1.45 for TE, 2% (n = 25/1007) of the overall cohort and 20% (n = 25/124) of cirrhotics were incorrectly identified as non-cirrhotic. This was similar for an APRI threshold of 1.0 (3% miscategorised, n = 28/1007). All miscategorised prisoners were Child-Turcotte-Pugh class A and had preserved platelet counts. As such, the main implication for those miscategorised is exclusion from HCC surveillance. Achieving cure for these prisoners however will lead to significant reductions in their HCC risk and more broadly, non-HCC liver related morbidity and mortality [26]. Therefore, the reduction in prison-based HCV treatment throughput if TE is required for all prisoners must be considered. By stratifying the need for TE using fibrosis algorithms, it is anticipated that program efficiencies would be streamlined and that a greater number of prisoners would be treated, preventing the progression to cirrhosis and HCC in many.

The data demonstrate that the strength of APRI and FIB-4 are for excluding, rather than diagnosing cirrhosis. The higher APRI and FIB4 scores at thresholds of 2.0 and 3.25, which are recommended in WHO guidelines, were analysed for their ability to diagnose cirrhosis. Whilst achieving high specificity at these thresholds (>95% for both APRI 2.0 and FIB4 3.25), their sensitivity was low and the majority of prisoners with cirrhosis were not diagnosed. As such, these algorithms perform poorly when used to diagnose cirrhosis within custodial settings and offer little clinical utility in prison HCV assessment pathways.

There is now increased focus on how best to utilise public health platforms to achieve the WHO elimination goals by 2030. Mathematical modelling has demonstrated to achieve this agenda, PWIDs must be prioritised as they contribute most to incident HCV infection [4]. The effectiveness of prison-based HCV care has now been widely described [8-10]. However, the propagation of similar programs worldwide requires simplification of HCV assessment algorithms to reduce cost, particularly for other countries operating within tight fiscal budgets. Our analysis demonstrates that APRI and FIB-4 maintain a high NPV for cirrhosis when used at their validated thresholds in the prison setting. Our new algorithm incorporating age as a categorical variable and only performing non-invasive blood test algorithms to exclude cirrhosis in those >35 years exclusively is a practical way to more aggressively reduce the number requiring LSM while maintaining a high NPV. Such strategies will expedite HCV assessment and minimise costs and therefore have an important role in the prison settings in the era of viral hepatitis elimination.

Accuracy of FIB4 in predicting significant fibrosis as compared to transient elastography.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Performance of novel fibrosis assessment pathway applied to a validation cohort.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

27 Aug 2020

PONE-D-20-24228

Non-invasive fibrosis algorithms are clinically useful for excluding cirrhosis in prisoners living with hepatitis C

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Thompson,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 11 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Chen-Hua Liu

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2.We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Papaluca et al investigated the performance of APRI and FIB-4 for excluding cirrhosis in a large cohort of 1007 prisoners with hepatitis C virus infection using a liver stiffness measurement (LSM) of ≥12.5 kPa through transient elastography (TE, e.g. FibroScan) as the reference standard for cirrhosis. They demonstrated that an APRI cutoff of 1.0 and FIB-4 cutoff of 1.45 had negative predictive values (NPVs) of 96.1% and 96.6% for cirrhosis, respectively. The implementation of this triage strategy would spare the need for TE by 71%. In those aged >35, an APRI cutoff of 1.0 had a NPV of 95.1%. They concluded that such strategy can simplify the cascade of care in prisoners with hepatitis C. While the finding of this study is of interest, there are several issues that need to be addressed to improve the scientific merit of this manuscript.

Major Comments:

1. The diagnosis of cirrhosis may be relevant to the decision of DAA regimen ± ribavirin/duration and referral for the ultrasonographic surveillance of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and endoscopic surveillance of gastroesophageal varices. In the setting of prisons, I am not sure how feasible is the immediate referral for surveillance of cirrhosis-related complications. Moreover, the identification of patients with advanced cirrhosis (METAVIR F3 and F4) is equally important because this subgroup of patients are at risk of HCC and therefore are recommended to continue their HCC surveillance despite achieving sustained virological response to DAA treatment. In the present cohort, there were 87 patients who were judged to have advanced fibrosis (METAVIR F3) according to LSM, which was a significant number of patients, compared with the number of patients with presumed cirrhosis (n = 124). The cutoffs of 1.45 and 3.25 for FIB-4 were originally selected to specifically rule out and maximize the positive predictive value (PPV) for diagnosing advanced fibrosis (METAVIR F3), respectively, in patients with HCV/HIV coinfection (Reference 19) and HCV monoinfection (Vallet-Pichard A et al, Hepatology 2007; 46: 32-36). Therefore, I would suggest the authors use these cutoffs to determine the sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of FIB-4 for diagnosing advanced fibrosis (METAVIR F3) in the present cohort, using an LSM of ≥9.5 kPa as the reference standard. This analysis may provide us a clue about how feasible is this strategy in reducing the need for TE in identifying patients with advanced fibrosis. Perhaps by combining the use of FIB-4 and APRI at cutoffs of 1.45 and 1.0, respectively, an effective and cost-saving algorithm can be proposed to identify hepatitis C patients with METAVIR F3 and F4 for improving the cascade of care in prisoners. Please also discuss this finding.

2. The authors did not follow the standard way of presentation in describing the performance of APRI, FIB-4 and age for predicting cirrhosis in Tables 3 and 4, and Supplementary Tables 1 and 2. Please refer to the Table 4 in Reference 18 (Wai CT et al, Hepatology 2003; 38: 518-526) and Table 5A in the paper by Vallet-Pichard A et al (Hepatology 2007; 46: 32-36) for a correct presentation to allow readers to keep track of the number of patients in each category.

3. The paper by Vallet-Pichard A et al (Hepatology 2007; 46: 32-36) is more relevant to patients with HCV monoinfection. Please cite this paper in addition to Reference 19.

Reviewer #2: This study describes the utility of APRI and FIB4 in categorizing liver fibrosis severity of 1007 prisoners with chronic HCV infection. Furthermore, the utility of age threshold as a trigger for transient elastography was also explored. They found that APRI and FIB-4 scores can exclude cirrhosis in prisoners. In addition, fibroscan could be reserved for those prisoners >35 years who have APRI >1.0. The data and analysis are generally well described, and the analysis and conclusions are reasonable. This article comes to a similar conclusion about the utility of APRI and FIB-4 in hospital cohort. The major limitations include the lack of validation cohort and the operator variability in transient elastography for liver fibrosis assessment.

Specific comments

1. In the study design, the authors need a validation cohort to confirm the utility of the combination of age and APRI for liver cirrhosis assessment.

2. As a retrospective study, APRI and FIB-4 were calculated based on the laboratory parameters from chart review. Although fibrosis staging should be rather static, biochemical parameters can change more rapidly. Thus, it is important to report the mean interval between the blood tests and liver stiffness measurement.

3. The issue of interoperator variability in transient elastography for liver fibrosis may be addressed.

4. Is there any reason why the authors choose APRI, not FIB4, for fibrosis assessment in the figure 2?

5. The causes of the discordance between APRI/FIB4 and liver stiffness measurement by fibroscan should be discussed.

Reviewer #3: General comments

The study by Papaluca et al evaluated the usefulness of APRI and FIB-4 as simple markers in detecting hepatic cirrhosis in a cohort of prisoners with chronic hepatitis C. Using transient elastography (TE) as a reference, this retrospective study enrolled 1,007 patients including 124 (12%) cirrhotic patients. With cutoff 1.0 and 1.45 for APRI and FIB-4, the negative predictive value (NPV) were >96% in cirrhosis diagnosis. With the cutoff of 35 years for age, the NPV was also 96.5%. The authors proposed a simple fibrosis assessment algorithm to reduce the need of TE by 78%. For this special group of chronic hepatitis C patients, this study provided a simple and useful algorithm for cirrhosis evaluation to minimize the use of TE and barrier of HCV treatment in clinical practice. However, some points needed to be clarified.

Major comments

1. For HCV treatment with current DAA, the diagnosis of compensated cirrhosis seemed not so important in general. The authors might mention the rationale to diagnose cirrhosis for this special group of prisoners?

2. Active or previous alcohol consumption might be a problem for this special group of prisoners. Using 12.5 kPa by TE as cutoff in cirrhosis diagnosis might overestimate the patient numbers. How many patients with alcohol in this group of patients?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

13 Oct 2020

Reviewer #1: Papaluca et al investigated the performance of APRI and FIB-4 for excluding cirrhosis in a large cohort of 1007 prisoners with hepatitis C virus infection using a liver stiffness measurement (LSM) of ≥12.5 kPa through transient elastography (TE, e.g. FibroScan) as the reference standard for cirrhosis. They demonstrated that an APRI cutoff of 1.0 and FIB-4 cutoff of 1.45 had negative predictive values (NPVs) of 96.1% and 96.6% for cirrhosis, respectively. The implementation of this triage strategy would spare the need for TE by 71%. In those aged >35, an APRI cutoff of 1.0 had a NPV of 95.1%. They concluded that such strategy can simplify the cascade of care in prisoners with hepatitis C. While the finding of this study is of interest, there are several issues that need to be addressed to improve the scientific merit of this manuscript.

Major Comments:

1. The diagnosis of cirrhosis may be relevant to the decision of DAA regimen ± ribavirin/duration and referral for the ultrasonographic surveillance of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and endoscopic surveillance of gastroesophageal varices. In the setting of prisons, I am not sure how feasible is the immediate referral for surveillance of cirrhosis-related complications. Moreover, the identification of patients with advanced cirrhosis (METAVIR F3 and F4) is equally important because this subgroup of patients are at risk of HCC and therefore are recommended to continue their HCC surveillance despite achieving sustained virological response to DAA treatment. In the present cohort, there were 87 patients who were judged to have advanced fibrosis (METAVIR F3) according to LSM, which was a significant number of patients, compared with the number of patients with presumed cirrhosis (n = 124). The cutoffs of 1.45 and 3.25 for FIB-4 were originally selected to specifically rule out and maximize the positive predictive value (PPV) for diagnosing advanced fibrosis (METAVIR F3), respectively, in patients with HCV/HIV coinfection (Reference 19) and HCV monoinfection (Vallet-Pichard A et al, Hepatology 2007; 46: 32-36). Therefore, I would suggest the authors use these cutoffs to determine the sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of FIB-4 for diagnosing advanced fibrosis (METAVIR F3) in the present cohort, using an LSM of ≥9.5 kPa as the reference standard. This analysis may provide us a clue about how feasible is this strategy in reducing the need for TE in identifying patients with advanced fibrosis. Perhaps by combining the use of FIB-4 and APRI at cutoffs of 1.45 and 1.0, respectively, an effective and cost-saving algorithm can be proposed to identify hepatitis C patients with METAVIR F3 and F4 for improving the cascade of care in prisoners. Please also discuss this finding.

- Thank you for your suggestions.

- We are fortunate to be able to enrol our cirrhotic prisoners in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and variceal surveillance whilst they remain incarcerated, and therefore it is important to identify those with cirrhosis at baseline. While alternate prison-based HCV programs may be unable to provide this surveillance, pre-treatment fibrosis determination also allows those identified as cirrhotic an opportunity to be linked to community-based surveillance following release.

- The cost effectiveness of HCC screening among patients with F3 fibrosis (LSM 9.5-12.4kPa) after effective DAA therapy remains controversial and is not current practice in Australia. This is consistent with current AASLD and Australian guidelines that recommend that only those with METAVIR F4 cirrhosis be enrolled in HCC surveillance (1, 2).

- Therefore, whilst the FIB4 cut-offs of 1.45 and 3.25 were originally validated for the diagnosis or exclusion of advanced fibrosis (METAVIR F3/F4), we specifically evaluated the performance of these cut-offs for cirrhosis (F4), as a diagnosis of advanced fibrosis (METAVIR F3 equivalent) would not influence clinical management of the prisoners. The primary focus of the analysis was evaluation of the lower threshold for excluding cirrhosis and we believe that the analysis showing that the threshold of 1.45 has a high NPV for cirrhosis is clinically useful. We included the analysis of the 3.25 threshold as it is widely published in the literature, but consistent with previous studies, it is less accurate for “ruling in” advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis

- However, we agree with the reviewer that the performance of FIB-4 for ruling in /out advanced fibrosis (LSM > 9.5 kPa) is is a relevant question that the field will be interested in, and we therefore have included two analysis for FIB-4 in the revised manuscript. This includes the accuracy of FIB-4 at thresholds of 1.45 and 3.25 for the diagnosis or exclusion of both advanced fibrosis (LSM �9.5kPa) and cirrhosis (LSM �12.5kPa)

- In our initial analysis we attempting to enhance the performance of the current fibrosis algorithms via the introduction of other variables. Ultimately, however, we identified greater utility in the incorporation of age thresholds in fibrosis assessment pathways, which were associated with high NPVs for cirrhosis, whilst more greatly reducing the need for transient elastography.

2. The authors did not follow the standard way of presentation in describing the performance of APRI, FIB-4 and age for predicting cirrhosis in Tables 3 and 4, and Supplementary Tables 1 and 2. Please refer to the Table 4 in Reference 18 (Wai CT et al, Hepatology 2003; 38: 518-526) and Table 5A in the paper by Vallet-Pichard A et al (Hepatology 2007; 46: 32-36) for a correct presentation to allow readers to keep track of the number of patients in each category.

- Thank you for your suggestion regarding the presentation of the data.

- Tables 3 and 4 have been updated to reflect the suggested style and have been included in the revised manuscript. As this style more accurately describes the data, including the miscategorisation of prisoners at different APRI or FIB-4 thresholds, we have removed Supplemental Tables 1 and 2.

3. The paper by Vallet-Pichard A et al (Hepatology 2007; 46: 32-36) is more relevant to patients with HCV monoinfection. Please cite this paper in addition to Reference 19.

- Thank you for your suggestion. This has now been updated.

Reviewer #2: This study describes the utility of APRI and FIB4 in categorizing liver fibrosis severity of 1007 prisoners with chronic HCV infection. Furthermore, the utility of age threshold as a trigger for transient elastography was also explored. They found that APRI and FIB-4 scores can exclude cirrhosis in prisoners. In addition, fibroscan could be reserved for those prisoners >35 years who have APRI >1.0. The data and analysis are generally well described, and the analysis and conclusions are reasonable. This article comes to a similar conclusion about the utility of APRI and FIB-4 in hospital cohort. The major limitations include the lack of validation cohort and the operator variability in transient elastography for liver fibrosis assessment.

Specific comments

1. In the study design, the authors need a validation cohort to confirm the utility of the combination of age and APRI for liver cirrhosis assessment.

- Thank you for your suggestion to validate our novel fibrosis assessment pathway, which incorporates age and APRI thresholds. This pathway was determined by analysing our original cohort of 1007 prisoners as a practical way of minimising barriers to prison-based HCV care, and achieved a NPV of >95% for cirrhosis and minimised referral for transient elastography by 78%.

- Since our original analysis, an additional 189 prisoners have been assessed and their data was available to contribute to a validation cohort. The prevalence of cirrhosis in this validation cohort was 11% (n=20/189). When our novel algorithm was applied to these 189 prisoners, the NPV for cirrhosis was maintained at 97% and the need for transient elastography was reduced by 83%, if only those prisoners aged 36 years or greater and who had an APRI of �1.0 were referred for this investigation.

- These results have been included in our revised manuscript.

2. As a retrospective study, APRI and FIB-4 were calculated based on the laboratory parameters from chart review. Although fibrosis staging should be rather static, biochemical parameters can change more rapidly. Thus, it is important to report the mean interval between the blood tests and liver stiffness measurement.

- Whilst minimal changes in blood-based parameters are anticipated for people living with HCV in the short- or intermediate term, our analysis excluded prisoners with an interval of greater than 6 months between bloods and TE to ensure that these results were comparable.

- The median timeframe between bloods and transient elastography was well within this timeframe at 34 days [IQR 13-86 days], over which duration minimal changes in biochemical parameters are anticipated.

- The manuscript has been updated to include this data.

3. The issue of interoperator variability in transient elastography for liver fibrosis may be addressed.

- Interobserver variability was identified as a potential limitation of TE during the validation of this technology. The impact of interobserver variability was minimised in this study in two key ways. Firstly, all TE examinations for prisoners included in this study were completed by one of only three hepatology clinical nurse consultants. Each nurse had undergone extensive training in TE and had performed over 100 supervised examinations. Secondly, only prisoners who had a LSM IQR/median ratio less than 0.3 were included in the analysis to minimise the inclusion of inaccurate results.

- The manuscript has been updated to include the clinical nurse consultants TE training requirements.

4. Is there any reason why the authors choose APRI, not FIB4, for fibrosis assessment in the figure 2?

- As our proposed fibrosis assessment pathway for prisoners displayed in figure 2 includes categorical age thresholds, the APRI was selected as FIB-4 already includes age as a variable in its calculation.

5. The causes of the discordance between APRI/FIB4 and liver stiffness measurement by fibroscan should be discussed.

- Thank you for your question.

- In all cases of cirrhosis (diagnosed by TE) where there was discordance between fibrosis algorithms and LSM, the prisoners had well compensated Child-Turcotte-Pugh class A cirrhosis, minimal transaminitis and a preserved platelet counts. For these prisoners, the most significant consideration is the missed opportunity for enrolment in HCC screening.

- The risk of HCC for these prisoners, however, will be significantly reduced with successful viral eradication (3). Therefore, the reduction in treatment throughput if TE is required for all must be considered against the reduction in liver related morbidity and mortality more broadly if processes which support prisoners being treated in large numbers are supported.

- As such, the benefit of using fibrosis algorithms in the prison is significant as they both identify the majority of cirrhotics while minimising referral for TE, improving treatment throughput.

- We have updated the manuscript to include this consideration.

Reviewer #3: General comments

The study by Papaluca et al evaluated the usefulness of APRI and FIB-4 as simple markers in detecting hepatic cirrhosis in a cohort of prisoners with chronic hepatitis C. Using transient elastography (TE) as a reference, this retrospective study enrolled 1,007 patients including 124 (12%) cirrhotic patients. With cutoff 1.0 and 1.45 for APRI and FIB-4, the negative predictive value (NPV) were >96% in cirrhosis diagnosis. With the cutoff of 35 years for age, the NPV was also 96.5%. The authors proposed a simple fibrosis assessment algorithm to reduce the need of TE by 78%. For this special group of chronic hepatitis C patients, this study provided a simple and useful algorithm for cirrhosis evaluation to minimize the use of TE and barrier of HCV treatment in clinical practice. However, some points needed to be clarified.

Major comments

1. For HCV treatment with current DAA, the diagnosis of compensated cirrhosis seemed not so important in general. The authors might mention the rationale to diagnose cirrhosis for this special group of prisoners?

- Thank you for your question.

- Progression to cirrhosis in those with HCV infection is associated a risk of developing HCC and other complications of cirrhosis. Prisoners identified as cirrhotic within the Victorian prison system as enrolled in 6 monthly HCC surveillance, and where appropriate, variceal surveillance. It is therefore important to identify these prisoners prior to DAA treatment.

- Whilst the risk of HCC is reduced amongst those who achieve SVR12 (4), Australian guidelines recommend that those with cirrhosis are retained in HCC surveillance.

- The diagnosis of cirrhosis may also impact DAA selection as EASL guidelines no longer recommend sofosbuvir/velpatasvir for first-line treatment in those with cirrhosis and GT3 infection due to poorer SVR12 rates in this group (4).

2. Active or previous alcohol consumption might be a problem for this special group of prisoners. Using 12.5 kPa by TE as cutoff in cirrhosis diagnosis might overestimate the patient numbers. How many patients with alcohol in this group of patients?

- Thank you for your question regarding comorbid alcohol misuse in this group.

- The degree of prior alcohol intake in this cohort is highly varied and challenging to accurately capture during our prison-based assessments.

- We have considered however if recent alcohol misuse could impact on TE and the biochemical indices included in FIB-4 and APRI. Further analysis of our data identified a median time of 105 days [IQR 46-272 days] between incarceration and collection of blood-based investigations. As such, as prisoners had no access to alcohol for 3 months on average, the impact of alcohol related steatohepatitis on their liver biochemistry or TE results are anticipated to be minimal.

References:

1. Marrero JA, Kulik LM, Sirlin CB, Zhu AX, Finn RS, Abecassis MM, et al. Diagnosis, staging, and management of hepatocellular carcinoma: 2018 practice guidance by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Hepatology. 2018;68(2):723-50.

2. Hepatitis C Virus Infection Consensus Statement Working Group. Australian recommendations for the management of hepatitis C virus infection: a consensus statement (June 2020). Melbourne: Gastroenterological Society of Australia, 2020.

3. Ioannou GN, Green PK, Berry K. HCV eradication induced by direct-acting antiviral agents reduces the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol. 2018;68(1):25-32.

4. European Association for the study of Liver. EASL recommendations on treatment of hepatitis C 2018. J Hepatol. 2018;69(2):461-511.

27 Oct 2020

Non-invasive fibrosis algorithms are clinically useful for excluding cirrhosis in prisoners living with hepatitis C

PONE-D-20-24228R1

Dear Dr. Thompson,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Chen-Hua Liu

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: This revised manuscript is much improved and all previous comments were responded on point-to-point basis. I have no additional comments.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

3 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-24228R1

Non-invasive fibrosis algorithms are clinically useful for excluding cirrhosis in prisoners living with hepatitis C

Dear Dr. Thompson:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Chen-Hua Liu

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE