Systematic review: epidemiology of hepatitis C genotype 6 and its management

Hepatitis C genotype 6: A concise review and response-guided therapy proposal

Hepatitis C genotype 6 is endemic in Southeast Asia [prevalence varies between 10%-60% among all hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection], as well as also sporadically reported outside the area among immigrations. The diagnosis of HCV genotype can be inaccurate with earlier methods of genotyping due to identical 5’-UTR between genotype 6 and 1b, hence the newer genotyping methods with core sequencing are preferred. Risk factors and clinical course of HCV genotype 6 do not differ considerably from other genotypes. Treatment outcome of HCV genotype 6 with a combination of pegylated interferon and ribavirin is superior to genotype 1, and nearly comparable to genotype 3, with expected sustained virological response (SVR) rates of 60%-90%. Emerging data suggests that a shorter course 24-wk treatment is equally effective as a standard 48-wk treatment, particularly for those patients who attained undetectable HCV RNA at week 4 (RVR). In addition, baseline and on-treatment predictors of response used for other HCV genotypes appear effective with genotype 6. Although some pan-genotypic direct-acting antivirals have completed phase II/III studies (sofosbuvir and simeprevir) with clinical benefit demonstrated in small number of patients with genotype 6, broad availability of these agents in Southeast Asia may not be expected in the near future. While awaiting the newer therapy, response-guided therapy seems appropriate for patients with HCV genotype 6. Patients with RVR (representing > 70% of patients) are suitable for 24-wk treatment with expected SVR rates > 80%. Patients without RVR and/or those with poor response predictors may benefit from 48 wk of therapy, and a detectable HCV RNA at week 12 (with no early virological response) serves as a stopping rule. This treatment scheme is likely to have a major economic impact on HCV therapy, particularly in Southeast Asia, wherein treatment can be truncated securely in the majority of patients with HCV genotype 6.

Sequencing assays for failed genotyping with the versant hepatitis C virus genotype assay (LiPA), version 2.0

For optimal antiviral therapy, the hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype needs to be determined, as it remains a strong predictor of sustained viral response. In this study, we assessed the number of HCV genotyping results that could not be determined using the commercially available line probe assay (LiPA) (Versant hepatitis C virus genotype 2.0 assay) in a large international panel of samples from 9,874 HCV-positive patients. In-house sequencing assays targeting the 5' untranslated region (UTR), core region, NS3 region, and NS5B region of the HCV genome and phylogenetic analyses were used to resolve these LiPA failures. Among all cases, the genotypes of 51 samples (0.52%) could not be determined with the LiPA. These undetermined results were observed more frequently among samples from non-European regions (mainly the Arabian Peninsula). The use of sequencing assays coupled with phylogenetic analysis provided reliable genotype results for 86% of the LiPA failures, which exhibited higher rates of genotypes 4, 5, and 6 than did LiPA-resolved genotypes. As expected, the 5' UTR was not sufficiently variable for clear discrimination between genotypes 1 and 6, but it also resulted in errors in classification of some genotype 3 and 4 cases using well-known Web-based BLAST programs. This study demonstrates the low frequency of genotyping failures with the Versant hepatitis C virus genotype 2.0 assay (LiPA) and also underlines the need for a complex combination of sequences and phylogenetic analyses in order to genotype these particular HCV strains correctly.

Clinical and epidemiological characteristics of Korean patients with hepatitis C virus genotype 6

Background/Aims

The distribution of hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotypes varies geographically. In Korea, genotypes 1 and 2 comprise more than 90% of HCV infections, while genotype 6 is very rare. This study compared the clinical and epidemiological characteristics of patients with genotype 6 HCV infection with those infected with HCV genotypes 1 and 2.

Methods

This was a prospective, multicenter HCV cohort study that enrolled 1,173 adult patients, of which 930 underwent HCV genotype analysis, and only 9 (1.0%) were found to be infected with genotype 6 HCV. The clinical and epidemiological parameters of the genotypes were compared.

Results

The patients with genotype 6 HCV had a mean age of 41.5 years, 77.8% were male, and they had no distinct laboratory features. A sustained virologic response (SVR) was observed in four (67%) of six patients who received antiviral therapy. Risk factors such as the presence of a tattoo (n=6, 66.7%), more than three sexual partners (n=3, 33.3%), and injection drug use (n=3, 33.3%) were more common among genotype 6 patients than among genotypes 1 or 2.

Conclusions

The epidemiology and treatment response of patients infected with genotype 6 HCV differed significantly from those with genotypes 1 or 2, warranting continuous monitoring.

Molecular study of HCV detection, genotypes and their routes of transmission in North West Frontier Province, Pakistan

OBJECTIVE

To determine hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotypes and explore the associated risk factors in chronic HCV patients.

METHODS

A total of 116 patients with chronic hepatitis C were subjected to polymerase chain reaction (PCR) based detection out of which 112 chronic HCV patients [53 male (47.32%), 59 female (52.68%); mean age (43.76±16.40) years; mean BMI (23.8±3.9) kg] were enrolled in this study. The frequency of 6 HCV genotypes and associated risk factors were evaluated from five districts of North West Frontier Province (NWFP).

RESULTS

Genotype 3 was the most prevalent in 73 samples (65.17%) followed by genotype 1 in 24 (21.42%) and genotype 2 in 13 (11.60%) samples. Genotype 3 had significantly high prevalence (P=0.000 2). The results showed that 48 (42.85%) samples were infected with HCV 3a; 25 (22.32%) with 3b; 14 (12.50%) with 1a; 10 (8.92%) with 1b; 11 (9.82%) with 2a; 2 (1.78%) with 2b; and 2 were untypable. The distribution of HCV genotypes in Mardan, Charsadda, Peshawar, Sawabi and Nowshehra districts was different. Use of unsterile equipment for medication, barbers and previous history of hospitalization were the main risk factors for HCV transmission.

CONCLUSIONS

Genotype 3a and 3b, 1a, 1b and 2a are the common genotypes in NWFP. Genotype 4, 5, and 6 can not be found in a single sample. The level of awareness about various modes of transmission of HCV among the population is found to be very low.

Response-guided therapy for patients with hepatitis C virus genotype 6 infection: a pilot study

The optimal duration of treatment with pegylated interferon (PEG-IFN) plus ribavirin (RBV) in patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 6 is unknown. This study was aimed at determining treatment response on the basis of rapid virological response (RVR) of HCV genotype 6 in comparison with genotypes 1 and 3. Sixty-six treatment naïve patients were treated with PEG-IFN-α2a (180 μg/week) plus weight-based RBV (1000-1200 mg/day). Patients with genotype 1 n = 16) and genotype 3 (n = 16) were treated for a fixed duration of 48 and 24 weeks, respectively. Patients with genotype 6 (n = 34) who achieved RVR were treated for 24 weeks (response-guided therapy) and the remaining patients were treated for 48 weeks (standard therapy). The mean baseline HCV RNA levels were not statistically different between groups (6.4 ± 0.8, 6.0 ± 1.0 and 6.5 ± 0.8 Log(10) IU/mL for genotypes 1, 3 and 6, respectively). Patients with genotypes 1, 3 and 6 achieved RVR in 43.8%, 87.5% and 73.5% of cases, respectively. One patient with genotype 1 and 3 with genotype 6 were considered nonresponders and discontinued therapy. Sustained virological response (SVR) was achieved in 62.5%, 81.3% and 76.5% of patients with genotypes 1, 3 and 6, respectively. The SVR rate in patients with genotype 6 who underwent response-guided therapy was 88%. This pilot study suggested that the SVR rate of HCV genotype 6 was at an intermediate level between those of genotypes 3 and 1. Treatment with PEG-IFN plus RBV for 24 weeks may be sufficient for patients with genotype 6 who achieve RVR. Prospective randomized trials are required to evaluate this response-guided strategy in a larger number of patients with genotype 6.

Antiviral activity of TMC435 monotherapy in patients infected with HCV genotypes 2-6: TMC435-C202, a phase IIa, open-label study

BACKGROUND & AIMS

TMC435 is an investigational, once-daily, oral NS3/4A protease inhibitor currently in phase III development for the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. Phase I and II studies in patients infected with HCV genotype 1 have demonstrated that TMC435 is generally well tolerated, has a pharmacokinetic profile that supports once daily dosing, and demonstrates potent antiviral activity. This phase IIa study (TMC435-C202; NCT00812331) was conducted to investigate the antiviral activity, safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of TMC435 in treatment-naїve patients infected with HCV genotypes 2-6.

METHODS

The study consisted of 7 days of monotherapy with TMC435 (200mg once daily). Patients could begin treatment with pegylated interferon/ribavirin from day 8 with a follow-up period up to days 37-42.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven patients were enrolled in Germany, Belgium and Thailand. For the primary end point at day 8, the mean (± standard error) change in plasma HCV ribonucleic acid (log(10)IU/ml) from baseline was the greatest for genotypes 6 (-4.35 ± 0.29) and 4 (-3.52 ± 0.43), followed by genotypes 2 (-2.73 ± 0.71) and 5 (-2.19 ± 0.39). No antiviral activity was evident for genotype 3. Viral breakthrough occurred in six patients during the monotherapy phase and in six additional patients during PegIFN/RBV-only period. All adverse events were mild or moderate and there were no discontinuations during the TMC435 monotherapy period.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this phase IIa proof-of-concept trial provide evidence that TMC435 has a spectrum of activity against multiple HCV genotypes, except for genotype 3. In this study, TMC435 was generally safe and well tolerated.

A randomized trial of 48 versus 24 weeks of combination pegylated interferon and ribavirin therapy in genotype 6 chronic hepatitis C

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Genotype 6 chronic hepatitis C (HCV) is encountered predominantly in Southeast Asia and data on optimal treatment strategy is limited. This study was aimed at assessing the rate and predictors of sustained virological response (SVR) in genotype 6 chronic HCV following 48 and 24 weeks of pegylated interferon and ribavirin therapy.

METHODS

This investigator-initiated, open-label randomized trial was conducted in Vietnam between 2008 and 2010. One hundred and five treatment-naïve HCV genotype 6 patients were randomized to either 48-week (N=70) or 24-week (N=35) duration of pegylated interferon (PEG-IFN) alfa-2a 180 mcg/week and ribavirin (RBV) 15mg/kg/day; 92 patients completed the study (63 in the 48-week and 29 in the 24-week group, respectively). Primary outcome was sustained virological response (SVR) as intention-to-treat analysis.

RESULTS

There was no statistical difference in SVR between 48-week and 24-week treated groups (71% vs. 60%, respectively; p=0.24). In the 48-week and 24-week treatment groups, 81% and 80% of cases achieved rapid virological response (RVR) (p=0.86), and 86% and 80% achieved complete early virological response (p=0.45). Among those patients with RVR, SVR was in 86% (48-weeks), and 75% (24-weeks) of cases, whereas following non-RVR, only 8% of cases had an SVR with 48-week treatment duration.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, RVR was achieved in the majority of genotype 6 patients and, in those patients, similar and high rates of SVR were noted following 24-week and 48-week therapy. This observation, however, needs validation in a larger study to demonstrate non-inferiority of the shorter duration therapy. In non-RVR patients, even 48-week therapy achieved low SVR rates.