Pegylated interferon monotherapy of chronic hepatitis C in dialysis patients: Meta-analysis of clinical trials

Cost-effectiveness analysis of elbasvir-grazoprevir regimen for treating hepatitis C virus genotype 1 infection in stage 4-5 chronic kidney disease patients in France

Objective

To assess the cost-effectiveness of the elbasvir/grazoprevir (EBR/GZR) regimen in patients with genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection with severe and end-stage renal disease compared to no treatment.

Design

This study uses a health economic model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of treating previously untreated and treatment experienced chronic hepatitis C patients who have severe and end stage renal disease with the elbasvir-grazoprevir regimen versus no treatment in the French context. The lifetime homogeneous markovian model comprises of forty combined health states including hepatitis C virus and chronic kidney disease. The model parameters were from a multicentre randomized controlled trial, ANRS CO22 HEPATHER French cohort and literature. 1000 Monte Carlo simulations of patient health states for each treatment strategy are used for probabilistic sensitivity analysis and 95% confidence intervals calculations. The results were expressed in cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained.

Patients

The mean age of patients in the HEPATHER French cohort was 59.6 years and 56% of them were men. 22.3% of patients had a F0 fibrosis stage (no fibrosis), 24.1% a F1 stage (portal fibrosis without septa), 7.1% a F2 stage (portal fibrosis with few septa), 21.4% a F3 stage (numerous septa without fibrosis) and 25% a F4 fibrosis stage (compensated cirrhosis). Among these HCV genotype 1 patients, 30% had severe renal impairment stage 4, 33% had a severe renal insufficiency stage 5 and 37% had terminal severe renal impairment stage 5 treated by dialysis.

Intervention

Fixed-dose combination of direct-acting antiviral agents elbasvir and grazoprevir compared to no-treatment.

Results

EBR/GZR increased the number of life years (6.3 years) compared to no treatment (5.1 years) on a lifetime horizon. The total number of QALYs was higher for the new treatment because of better utility on health conditions (6.2 versus 3.7 QALYs). The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was of €15,212 per QALY gained for the base case analysis.

Conclusions

This cost-utility model is an innovative approach that simultaneously looks at the disease evolution of chronic hepatitis C and chronic kidney disease. EBR/GZR without interferon and ribavirin, produced the greatest benefit in terms of life expectancy and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) in treatment-naïve or experienced patients with chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 and stage 4–5 chronic kidney disease including dialysis patients. Based on shape of the acceptability curve, EBR/GZR can be considered cost-effective at a willingness to pay of €20,000 /QALY for patients with renal insufficiency with severe and end-stage renal disease compared to no treatment.

Asunaprevir and daclatasvir in hemodialysis patients with chronic hepatitis C virus genotype 1b infection

Background and Aim

Patients requiring hemodialysis show high morbidity with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, but there are difficulties associated with interferon‐based therapies. Asunaprevir and daclatasvir could help patients with HCV genotype 1b because the drugs have a nonrenal metabolism and show good viral eradication. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of combined asunaprevir and daclatasvir therapy.

Methods

This was a multicenter prospective trial of patients with chronic hepatitis or compensated cirrhosis from HCV genotype 1b who had end‐stage renal disease requiring chronic hemodialysis. Asunaprevir and daclatasvir were administered orally (100 mg twice daily and 60 mg once daily, respectively) for 24 weeks. The primary end‐point was the proportion of patients achieving sustained virological response 12, defined as HCV RNA <15 IU/mL undetectable at 12 weeks after completion of asunaprevir and daclatasvir treatment.

Results

Between December 2014 and December 2015, 23 dialysis patients were enrolled, and 22 patients completed the protocol therapy. Sustained virological response 12 rates were 91.3% (95% confidence interval: 72.0–98.9) in the intention‐to‐treat and 95.5% (95% confidence interval: 77.2–99.9) in the per‐protocol populations. Serum aminotransferase significantly decreased after initiation of asunaprevir and daclatasvir (P < 0.01), although the level was low at baseline. Asunaprevir and daclatasvir were well tolerated; however, one patient could not continue because of infective endocarditis and cerebral infarction.

Conclusions

Asunaprevir and daclatasvir could help patients with chronic hepatitis C receiving hemodialysis. Close collaboration with dialysis physicians is important when treating these patients because hemodialysis carries life‐threatening risks.

Hepatitis C infection in renal transplantation: pathogenesis, current impact and emerging trends

Prevalence of hepatitis C infection, which is associated with mortality and morbidity, is higher in chronic kidney disease patients on hemodialysis and transplant recipients when compared to non HCV infected patients. In addition to the conventional risk factors, HCV infection maybe an additional risk factor in the development of chronic kidney disease. HCV causes adverse effects leading to the poor long term outcome in renal transplant recipients; hepatitis C infection can cause both hepatic as well as extra hepatic complications. Prior evaluation and management of HCV infection is recommended for better long term outcome as there are chances of higher rejection rates with HCV treatment. However transplantation is not contraindicated in those patients who cannot be treated prior to the transplantation as patient survival is better when compared to dialysis patients. Kidney Disease Outcome Quality Initiative Clinical Practice Guidelines recommend interferon based therapy only when there is a rapid worsening of HCV related hepatic injury in transplant recipients. HCV treatment has been improved by the addition of direct acting antiviral, protease inhibitors and polymerase inhibitors. Combination therapies are showing improved sustained virological response rates. NS3-4A protease inhibitors, nucleotidic/nucleosidic NS5A and NS5B polymerase inhibitors are promising treatments which are under trials with different combinations. The focus of this review is to evaluate and optimize the treatment options of co-existing HCV infection in renal transplant recipients and discuss more promising alternative treatment regimen.

Dual daclatasvir and sofosbuvir for treatment of genotype 3 chronic hepatitis C virus infection

Chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is one of the most common etiologies of liver-related mortality throughout the world. Traditionally, therapy has been focused on pegylated interferon in combination with ribavirin, with clinical trials demonstrating that HCV genotype 1 had the lowest response rate (40-50%), while genotype 3 had an intermediate response rate (60-70%). Recently, significant advances have been made with all-oral direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy, which have significantly improved cure rates for HCV genotype 1. Accordingly, HCV genotype 3 is now potentially the most difficult to treat. One of the most potent DAA medications is sofosbuvir, a pan-genotypic nucleotide analogue that inhibits the NS5B polymerase of HCV. Daclatasvir, a pan-genotypic inhibitor of the HCV NS5A replication complex, was recently approved in the United States for treatment of HCV genotype 3 in conjunction with sofosbuvir. This combination may provide a powerful tool in the treatment of HCV genotype 3.

Evaluation of the Pharmacokinetics and Renal Excretion of Simeprevir in Subjects with Renal Impairment

BACKGROUND

Simeprevir is a N3/4 protease inhibitor approved for the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. HCV prevalence is higher in patients with chronic kidney disease compared with the general population; safe and efficacious therapies in renal impairment are needed.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate simeprevir renal excretion in healthy subjects and to compare the simeprevir steady-state pharmacokinetics between subjects with severe renal impairment and healthy subjects.

METHODS

In the mass balance study, healthy adults received a single 200-mg dose of (14)C-simeprevir; radioactivity in the urine and feces was quantified until concentrations were <2% of the administered dose and seven or more stools were produced. In the pharmacokinetic study, non-HCV-infected adults with severe renal impairment (estimated glomerular filtration rate ≤29 mL/min/1.73 m(2)) and matched healthy subjects (estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥80 mL/min/1.73 m(2)) received 150 mg simeprevir for 7 days. Pharmacokinetic analysis was performed post-dose on Day 7.

RESULTS

(14)C-simeprevir recovery from the urine was low (0.009-0.138% of total dose). The minimum plasma concentration, maximum plasma concentration, and area under the plasma concentration-time curve at 24 h were 71, 34, and 62% higher, respectively, in subjects with severe renal impairment compared with healthy subjects. The mean fraction of simeprevir unbound to protein was <0.0001 (all subjects). Most adverse events were grade I or II; one subject with renal impairment who was receiving fenofibrate presented with grade 3 rhabdomyolysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Simeprevir plasma concentrations were mildly elevated in subjects with severe renal impairment. The results suggest that simeprevir may be administered without dose adjustment in patients with renal impairment.

Pegylated Interferon Mono-Therapy of Chronic Hepatitis C in the Dialysis Population: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The medical literature on mono-therapy with pegylated interferon for chronic hepatitis C in dialysis patients is mostly based on small clinical studies and the efficacy and safety of such approach is still unclear. A systematic review of the literature with a meta-analysis of clinical studies was performed in order to evaluate the efficacy and safety of mono-therapy with pegylated interferon of chronic hepatitis C in patients on regular dialysis. The primary outcome was sustained viral response (as a measure of efficacy); the secondary outcome was drop-out rate (as a measure of tolerability). The random-effects model of Der Simonian and Laird was used, with heterogeneity and sensitivity analyses. Twenty-four clinical studies (N = 744 unique patients) were retrieved; five (21%) being randomized controlled trials. The summary estimate for sustained viral response and drop-out rate was 0.40 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35; 0.46) and 0.14 (95% CI, 0.09; 0.20), respectively. The most frequent side-effects requiring discontinuation of treatment were hematological (31/83 = 37%) and gastrointestinal (9/31 = 10.8%). Meta-regression analysis showed a detrimental role of ageing on the frequency of sustained virological response (P = 0.01); drop-out rate was greater in diabetics (P < 0.005). Important heterogeneity was seen with regard to drop-out rate only. In summary, pegylated interferon monotherapy of hepatitis C in dialysis patients resulted unsatisfactory in terms of efficacy and safety. Studies with novel direct-acting antiviral agents in combination with pegylated interferon and ribavirin for the treatment of hepatitis C virus in dialysis population are under way.

Kidney transplantation threshold in patients with hepatitis C: a decision analysis model

BACKGROUND

There are no standard guidelines for the permissible degree of liver fibrosis in patients with chronic hepatitis C virus prohibiting cadaveric renal transplantation (CRT).

METHODS

A decision analysis model was constructed to compare 5-year patient survival using three strategies for patients on hemodialysis. The probabilities of pretransplant and posttransplant survival, progression of liver fibrosis, CRT, and sustained viral response were obtained from a systematic review of the literature. Sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Kidney transplantation was associated with improved 5-year survival for patients with fibrosis stages 1 to 3, but not stage 4 (cirrhosis). Antiviral therapy was associated with improvement in survival in patients with stage 3 fibrosis. The 5-year survival was similar for patients with stage 4 irrespective of the option of antiviral therapy. The model was sensitive to varying the probability of both pretransplant and posttransplant survival.

CONCLUSION

There appears to be no overall 5-year survival benefit in treating S1 and S2 fibrosis patients with hepatitis C virus antiviral therapy before CRT. There is no benefit in overall 5-year survival in patients with cirrhosis and thus should not be candidates for CRT.

Does hepatitis B virus coinfection have any impact on treatment outcome in hepatitis C patients on hemodialysis?

BACKGROUND

HBV/HCV coinfection is a common finding among hemodialysis patients. However, there is scarce information concerning the impact of HBV coinfection on the response to treatment of HCV-infected patients on hemodialysis.

AIM

We aimed to compare the rate of sustained virologic response (SVR) to treatment with interferon-alfa (IFN) between hemodialysis patients with HBV/HCV coinfection and those with HCV-monoinfection.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

HCV-infected patients on hemodialysis treated with IFN were included. Patients coinfected by HBV/HCV were compared to HCV-monoinfected patients, regarding clinical and biochemical features and rates of SVR.

RESULTS

One hundred and eleven patients were treated. HBV/HCV coinfection was observed in 18/111 patients (16%). Coinfected patients were younger (p = 002), had more time on dialysis (p = 0.05) and showed a tendency to present a higher prevalence of septal fibrosis (p = 0.06). The analysis by intention to treat showed SVR of 56% among coinfected patients and 18% in HCV-monoinfected patients (p = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, end-stage renal disease patients with HBV/HCV coinfection exhibit higher rate of SVR to HCV treatment than HCV-monoinfected patients. It is possible that factors related to the host immune response and viral interaction could explain the better response observed among coinfected patients.

Hepatitis C in hemodialysis patients

Despite reduction of hepatitis C prevalence after recognition of the virus and testing of blood products, hemodialysis (HD) patients still comprise a high risk group. The natural history of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in dialysis is not fully understood while the clinical outcome differs from that of the general population. HD patients show a milder liver disease with lower aminotransferase and viral levels depicted by milder histological features on liver biopsy. Furthermore, the “silent” clinical course is consistent with a slower disease progression and a lower frequency of cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. Potential explanations for the “beneficial” impact of uremia and hemodialysis on chronic HCV infection are impaired immunosurveillance leading to a less aggressive host response to the virus and intradialytic release of “hepatoprotective” cytokines such as interferon (IFN)-α and hepatocyte growth factor. However, chronic hepatitis C is associated with a higher liver disease related cardiovascular and all-cause mortality of HD patients. Therapy is indicated in selected patients groups including younger patients with low comorbidity burden and especially renal transplant candidates, preferably after performance of a liver biopsy. According to current recommendations, choice of treatment is IFN or pegylated interferon with a reported sustained viral response at 30%-40% and a withdrawal rate ranging from 17% to 30%. New data regarding combination therapy with low doses of ribavirin which provide higher standard variable rates and good safety results, offer another therapeutic option. The new protease inhibitors may be the future for HCV infected HD patients, though data are still lacking.

Faldaprevir for the treatment of genotype-1 hepatitis C virus

Historically, pegylated interferon in combination with ribavirin was the standard of care in hepatitis C virus; however, this combination is often poorly tolerated, has a significant side-effect profile and is of limited efficacy in hepatitis C virus genotype-1. More recently, pegylated interferon/ribavirin has been combined with direct acting antiviral agents such as the first generation NS3/4A protease inhibitors. Faldaprevir, a first generation, second-wave protease inhibitor, when used with a pegylated interferon/ribavirin regimen, has also been shown to increase treatmentsuccess while shortening treatment duration; however, second generation direct acting antiviral agents offer even betterefficacy and tolerability. Various direct acting antiviral agent combinations in interferon-free regimens have been effective in over 95% of patients and are now in licensed use. While faldaprevir was a pioneering drug, by the time it reached late phase development it was superseded by newer agents.

Peginterferon alfa-2a with or without low-dose ribavirin for treatment-naive patients with hepatitis C virus genotype 2 receiving haemodialysis: a randomised trial

OBJECTIVE

Data comparing the efficacy and safety of combination therapy with peginterferon plus low-dose ribavirin and peginterferon monotherapy in treatment-naive haemodialysis patients with hepatitis C virus genotype 2 (HCV-2) infection are limited.

DESIGN

In this randomised trial, 172 patients received 24 weeks of peginterferon alfa-2a 135 μg/week plus ribavirin 200 mg/day (n=86) or peginterferon alfa-2a 135 μg/week (n=86). The efficacy and safety endpoints were sustained virological response (SVR) rate and adverse event (AE)-related withdrawal rate.

RESULTS

Compared with monotherapy, combination therapy had a greater SVR rate (74% vs 44%, relative risk (RR): 1.68 [95% CI 1.29 to 2.20]; p<0.001). The beneficial effect of combination therapy was more pronounced in patients with baseline viral load ≥800,000 IU/mL than those with baseline viral load <800,000 IU/mL (RR: 3.08 [95% CI 1.80 to 5.29] vs. RR: 1.11 [95% CI 0.83 to 1.45]; interaction p=0.001). Patients receiving combination therapy were more likely to have a haemoglobin level of <8.5 g/dL (70% vs. 8%, risk difference (RD): 62% [95% CI 50% to 73%]; p<0.001) and required a higher dosage [mean: 13,417 vs. 6667 IU/week, p=0.027] of epoetin β to manage anaemia than those receiving monotherapy. The AE-related withdrawal rates were 6% and 3% in combination therapy and monotherapy groups, respectively (RD: 2% [95% CI -4% to 9%]).

CONCLUSIONS

In treatment-naive haemodialysis patients with HCV-2 infection, combination therapy with peginterferon plus low-dose ribavirin achieved a greater SVR rate than peginterferon monotherapy. Most haemodialysis patients can tolerate combination therapy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrial.gov number, NCT00491244.

Hepatitis C and kidney disease: An overview and approach to management

Hepatitis C infection and chronic kidney disease are major health burden worldwide. Hepatitis C infection is associated with a wide range of extra-hepatic manifestations in various organs including the kidneys. A strong association between hepatitis C and chronic kidney disease has come to light. Hemodialysis in supporting the end stage renal disease patients unfortunately carries a risk for hepatitis C infection. Despite much improvement in the care of this group of patients, the prevalence of hepatitis C infection in hemodialysis patients is still higher than the general population. Hepatitis C infection has a negative effect on the survival of hemodialysis and renal transplant patients. Treatment of hepatitis C in end stage renal disease patients using conventional or pegylated interferon with or without ribavirin remains a clinical challenge with low response rate, high dropout rate due to poor tolerability and many unmet needs. The approval of new direct acting antiviral agents for hepatitis C may dramatically change the treatment approach in hepatitis C infected patients with mild to moderate renal impairment. However it remains to be confirmed if the newer Hepatitis C therapies are safe in individuals with severe renal impairment. This review article discusses the relationship between hepatitis C and chronic kidney disease, describe the various types of renal diseases associated with hepatitis C and the newer as well as the existing treatments for hepatitis C in the context of this subpopulation of hepatitis C patients.

Management of hepatitis C in patients with chronic kidney disease

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is highly prevalent among chronic kidney disease (CKD) subjects under hemodialysis and in kidney transplantation (KT) recipients, being an important cause of morbidity and mortality in these patients. The vast majority of HCV chronic infections in the hemodialysis setting are currently attributable to nosocomial transmission. Acute and chronic hepatitis C exhibits distinct clinical and laboratorial features, which can impact on management and treatment decisions. In hemodialysis subjects, acute infections are usually asymptomatic and anicteric; since spontaneous viral clearance is very uncommon in this context, acute infections should be treated as soon as possible. In KT recipients, the occurrence of acute hepatitis C can have a more severe course, with a rapid progression of liver fibrosis. In these patients, it is recommended to use pegylated interferon (PEG-IFN) in combination with ribavirin, with doses adjusted according to estimated glomerular filtration rate. There is no evidence suggesting that chronic hepatitis C exhibits a more aggressive course in CKD subjects under conservative management. In these subjects, indication of treatment with PEG-IFN plus ribavirin relies on the CKD stage, rate of progression of renal dysfunction and the possibility of a preemptive transplant. HCV infection has been associated with both liver disease-related deaths and cardiovascular mortality in hemodialysis patients. Among those individuals, low HCV viral loads and the phenomenon of intermittent HCV viremia are often observed, and sequential HCV RNA monitoring is needed. Despite the poor tolerability and suboptimal efficacy of antiviral therapy in CKD patients, many patients can achieve sustained virological response, which improve patient and graft outcomes. Hepatitis C eradication before KT theoretically improves survival and reduces the occurrence of chronic graft nephropathy, de novo glomerulonephritis and post-transplant diabetes mellitus.

Hepatitis C virus infection and kidney transplantation in 2014: what's new?

Chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection remains an important health problem, which is associated with deleterious consequences in kidney transplant recipients. Besides hepatic complications, several extrahepatic complications contribute to reduced patient and allograft survival in HCV-infected kidney recipients. However, HCV infection should not be considered as a contraindication for kidney transplantation because patient survival is better with transplantation than on dialysis. Treatment of HCV infection is currently interferon-alpha (IFN-α) based, which has been associated with higher renal allograft rejection rates. Therefore, antiviral treatment before transplantation is preferable. As in the nontransplant setting, IFN-free treatment regimens, because of their greater efficacy and reduced toxicity, currently represent promising and attractive therapeutic options after kidney transplantation as well. However, clinical trials will be required to closely evaluate these regimens in kidney recipients. There is also a need for prospective controlled studies to determine the optimal immunosuppressive regimens after transplantation in HCV-infected recipients. Combined kidney and liver transplantation is required in patients with advanced liver cirrhosis. However, in patients with cleared HCV infection and early cirrhosis without portal hypertension, kidney transplantation alone may be considered. There is some agreement about the use of HCV-positive donors in HCV-infected recipients, although data regarding posttransplant survival rates are controversial.

Consensus Statement of HCV Task Force of the Indian National Association for Study of the Liver (INASL). Part II: INASL Recommendations for Management of HCV in India

The estimated prevalence of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in India is between 0.5 and 1.5% with hotspots showing much higher prevalence in some areas of northeast India, in some tribal populations and in certain parts of Punjab. Genotype 3 is the most prevalent type of infection. Recent years have seen development of a large number of new molecules that are revolutionizing the treatment of hepatitis C. Some of the new directly acting agents (DAAs) like sofosbuvir have been called game-changers because they offer the prospect of interferon-free regimens for the treatment of HCV infection. These new drugs have not yet been approved in India and their cost and availability is uncertain at present. Till these drugs become available at an affordable cost, the treatment that was standard of care for the whole world before these newer drugs were approved should continue to be recommended. For India, cheaper options, which are as effective as the standard-of-care (SOC) in carefully selected patients, are also explored to bring treatment within reach of poorer patients. It may be prudent to withhold treatment at present for selected patients with genotype 1 or 4 infection and low levels of fibrosis (F1 or F2), and for patients who are non-responders to initial therapy, interferon intolerant, those with decompensated liver disease, and patients in special populations such as stable patients after liver and kidney transplantation, HIV co-infected patients and those with cirrhosis of liver.

Nanomedicines in the treatment of hepatitis C virus infection in Asian patients: optimizing use of peginterferon alfa

Asia is endemic for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, which is the leading cause of cirrhosis, hepatic decompensation, hepatocellular carcinoma, and liver transplantation worldwide. HCV has six major genotypes and each HCV genotype has its specific geographic distribution. HCV genotypes 1, 2, 3, and 6 are common in Asia. The aim of HCV treatment is to eradicate the virus by effective therapeutic agents; viral clearance is durable after long-term post-treatment follow-up. In most Asian countries, peginterferon alfa (PEG-IFN α) in combination with ribavirin remains the standard of care, and the overall sustained viral response (SVR) rate in Asian HCV patients is higher than that in Western patients. The differences are most significant in patients with HCV genotype 1 (HCV-1) infection, which is attributed to the higher frequency of IFN-responsive or favorable interleukin-28B (IL-28B) genotype in Asian populations than in other ethnic populations. In addition, the introduction of response-guided therapy, where the optimized treatment duration is based on the early viral kinetics during the first 12 weeks of treatment, increases the SVR rate. Recently, telaprevir or boceprevir-based triple therapy was found to further improve the SVR rate in treated and untreated HCV-1 patients and has become the new standard of care in Western and some Asian countries. Many novel direct-acting antiviral agents, either in combination with PEG-IFN α plus ribavirin or used as IFN-free regimens are under active investigation. At the time of this writing, simeprevir and sofosbuvir have been approved in the US. Because the SVR rates in Asian HCV patients receiving PEG-IFN α plus ribavirin therapy are high, health care providers should judiciously determine the clinical usefulness of these novel agents on the basis of treatment duration, anticipated viral responses, patient tolerance, financial burdens, and drug accessibility.

Efficacy and safety of pegylated interferon alfa-2b and ribavirin combination therapy versus pegylated interferon monotherapy in hemodialysis patients: a comparison of 2 sequentially treated cohorts

BACKGROUND

Pegylated interferon (peginterferon; interferon with an attached polyethylene glycol molecule) monotherapy is the recommended treatment for chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in hemodialysis patients. Limited data concerning peginterferon alfa-2b and ribavirin treatment in this population are available.

STUDY DESIGN

2 prospective observational cohort studies.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

From 2007-2009, a total of 26 patients received peginterferon alfa-2b monotherapy. From 2009-2012, an additional 26 patients were treated with peginterferon alfa-2b and ribavirin.

PREDICTORS

Peginterferon alfa-2b monotherapy, 1.0 μg/kg/wk, versus peginterferon alfa-2b, 1.0 μg/kg/wk, and ribavirin, 200 mg, 3 times per week. Treatment durations were 24 and 48 weeks for HCV genotypes non-1 and 1, respectively.

OUTCOMES & MEASUREMENTS

End-of-treatment virologic response and sustained virologic response (SVR) were undetectable HCV RNA at the end of treatment and 24 weeks after treatment ended, respectively. SVR and treatment-related withdrawal rate were evaluated by intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses. Severe anemia was defined as nadir hemoglobin level <8 g/dL.

RESULTS

Patients who received combination therapy had a higher end-of-treatment virologic response than patients who received monotherapy (85% vs 62% in ITT [P = 0.03] and 100% vs 80% in PP [P = 0.03]). The SVR rate was higher in the combination-treatment cohort than in the monotherapy cohort (62% vs 27% in ITT [P = 0.01] and 73% vs 35% in PP [P = 0.01]). Patients who received combination therapy had a significantly higher rate of severe anemia than those who received monotherapy (58% vs 27%; P = 0.03). However, treatment withdrawal rates were similar between the combination (15%) and monotherapy (23%) groups.

LIMITATIONS

Comparison of 2 sequential cohorts rather than a randomized control study.

CONCLUSIONS

Peginterferon alfa-2b and ribavirin combination therapy provided a higher SVR rate than peginterferon alfa-2b monotherapy for treatment-naive dialysis patients with chronic HCV infection through careful monitoring of hematologic parameters and ribavirin dose modification. Severe anemia was significantly higher in patients receiving combination therapy than patients treated with monotherapy.

Interferon therapy of acute hepatitis C in dialysis patients: meta-analysis

The efficacy and safety of antiviral therapy in patients with acute hepatitis C on long-term dialysis remains unclear, although a number of small clinical studies have been published addressing this issue. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of interferon therapy in chronic dialysis patients with acute hepatitis C by performing a systematic review of the literature with a meta-analysis of clinical studies. The primary outcome was sustained virological response (SVR, as a measure of efficacy); the secondary outcome was dropout rate (as a measure of tolerability). We used the random effects model of DerSimonian and Laird, with heterogeneity and sensitivity analyses. We identified eight clinical studies (173 unique patients), three (37.5%) being controlled clinical trials (CCTs). Among CCTs, the viral response was much more common in study (patients on antiviral therapy) than control (patients who did not receive therapy) groups; the pooled odds ratio of SVR being 27.06, 95% Confidence Intervals (95% CI), 9.26; 79.1 (P = 0.00001). No difference in the dropout rate between study and control patients was shown, odds ratio = 0.920 (95% CI, 0.367; 1.92), NS. Pooling all study results (n = 8 studies) demonstrated that the summary estimate for SVR and dropout rate was 58% (95% CI, 38; 77) and 9% (95% CI, 4; 14), respectively. The most frequent side-effects requiring interruption of the treatment were flu-like symptoms (n = 4, 18%), followed by haematological changes and loss to follow-up. A strong relationship between increasing age and reported dropout rate was recognized (P = 0.001). The studies were heterogeneous with regard to SVR but not to dropout rate. Our meta-analysis of CCTs showed that the viral response after antiviral therapy was more common than the spontaneous viral clearance in dialysis patients with acute hepatitis C. Pooled analysis demonstrated that IFN-based therapy of acute hepatitis C in dialysis populations gives SVR in around one half of patients. These results support IFN-based therapy for acute hepatitis C in patients on maintenance dialysis.

Is early virological response as predictive of the hepatitis C treatment response in dialysis patients as in non-uremic patients?

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present study was to determine whether hepatitis C virus (HCV) RNA present at week 12 is a good predictor of the response to interferon (IFN) monotherapy in hemodialysis patients with hepatitis C.

METHODS

Hemodialysis patients with hepatitis C who were treated between 1997 and 2008 with IFN monotherapy for 48 weeks without dose reduction were included. The predictive value of HCV RNA at week 12 for achieving a sustained virological response (SVR) was determined.

RESULTS

Forty patients (mean age 47±9 years; 75% males and 80% with genotype 1) were included. Septal fibrosis or cirrhosis was observed in 38% of these patients. Twelve (30%) of the 40 patients achieved SVR. HCV RNA was undetectable at week 12 in 68%. The positive predictive value of HCV RNA at week 12 was 45% and the negative predictive value was 100%.

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of HCV RNA at week 12 had a high negative predictive value for SVR in hemodialysis patients with chronic hepatitis C treated with IFN for 48 weeks. Therefore, if HCV RNA is detected at week 12, treatment should be discontinued due to the low probability of a sustained response.

Management of hepatitis C in patients with chronic kidney disease

Chronic kidney disease represents a global health problem. Chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is prevalent in patients with end stage renal disease (ESRD) on hemodialysis (HD) and in renal transplant recipients with significant impact on morbidity and mortality. Furthermore, HCV can cause various forms of glomerulopathy with the predominant type being cryglobulinemia associated membranoproliferative glomerulonephritis. Liver enzymes are traditionally used as markers of liver injury; however, there is wide variation in aminotransferase levels in patients with ESRD. Therefore, diagnosis of chronic hepatitis C (CHC) in patients with ESRD is based on HCV antibody testing and further confirmation with polymerase chain reaction testing. Current standard therapy for CHC is composed of pegylated interferon and ribavirin. However, this combination is challenging in patients with ESRD due to its tolerability. We describe in this review relevant issues in epidemiology, diagnosis and management of CHC in ESRD, HD and renal transplant recipients.

Treatment of hepatitis C virus infection in patients on maintenance hemodialysis: a single United Arab Emirates center experience

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis C is prevalent among hemodialysis patients. In patients with normal kidney function, treatment with pegylated interferon and ribavirin can lead to eradication of HCV (hepatitis C virus). But the treatment is more problematic in patients with impaired kidney function, in part due to the altered pharmacokinetics of these medications. Despite recent guidelines, the optimal strategy in this group of patients is not well defined.

METHOD

In a retrospective study, we reviewed all patients with chronic hepatitis C on hemodialysis treated at Sheikh Khalifa Medical City, in the United Arab Emirates between 2003 and 2009. The aim of our study was to determine the rate of sustained viral response (SVR) and to establish the safety and rate of dropouts in the different treatment regimens used (patients treated with peginterferon only and patients treated with peginterferon and low dose ribavirin).

RESULTS

22 patients were treated during this period. 5 patients received monotherapy with a reduced dose of peginterferon alfa 2b s.c. once weekly while 17 patients were treated with a combination of reduced dose of peginterferon alfa 2a or 2b s.c. once weekly and a low dose ribavirin (200mg/day). A SVR was achieved in 73% (16/22 patients) of the total patient population and in 76% (13/17 patients) in the sub-group of patients treated with a combination therapy. The tolerability was high. No patients had to discontinue their treatment. The use of ESA (erythropoietin stimulating agents) and G-CSF was common in the combination therapy (94% and 53% respectively).

CONCLUSION

In our study of patients on hemodialysis with chronic hepatitis C, the use of peginterferon or a combination of peginterferon with a low daily dose of ribavirin achieved a high rate of SVR and the rate of dropout was low after pursuing an aggressive management of side effects.

Treatment of hepatitis C-mediated glomerular disease

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is becoming a major public health issue worldwide, mainly due to the increasing prevalence of hypertension, diabetes and aging population. Chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection commonly involves the kidneys, can be a cause of CKD, and significantly impacts morbidity and mortality in these patients. Prompt recognition and knowledge of how to best manage these patients are essential in order to have a successful renal outcome. Patients with HCV and kidney involvement can often be managed with a specific combination of antiviral drugs, immunosuppressants, plasmapheresis, and newer monoclonal antibodies. However, no large randomized controlled trials have been conducted in this patient population, optimal management of HCV-mediated kidney diseases is not well defined, and treatment itself can be associated with significant toxicity in patients with CKD. This article reviews the recent literature, discusses the limitations of current therapies, as well as toxicity associated with treatment, and suggests future areas for research.

Combined antiviral therapy of hepatitis C virus in dialysis patients: meta-analysis of clinical trials

The efficacy and safety of combined interferon (IFN) plus ribavirin in patients on long-term dialysis and chronic hepatitis C remains unclear, although a number of small clinical trials have addressed this issue. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of combination antiviral therapy (conventional or pegylated interferon plus ribavirin) in dialysis patients with chronic hepatitis C by performing a systematic review of the literature with a meta-analysis of clinical trials. The primary outcome was sustained virological response (SVR) (as a measure of efficacy); the secondary outcome was drop-out rate (as a measure of tolerability). We used the random effects model of Der Simonian and Laird, with heterogeneity and sensitivity analyses. We identified 10 clinical studies (151 unique patients), one (10%) of which was a controlled clinical trial. Most (97.4%) patients were on long-term haemodialysis. The summary estimate for SVR and drop-out rate was 56% [95% Confidence Intervals (95% CI) 28-84] and 25% (95% CI, 10-40), respectively. The most frequent side effects requiring interruption of treatment were anaemia (26%) and heart failure (9%). These results occurred irrespective of type of interferon (conventional or peg-IFN, peg-IFNalfa-2a or alfa-2b), trial design (controlled or cohort study), or clinical characteristics of patients (naïve, nonresponders or relapsers). The studies were heterogeneous with regard to SVR and drop-out rate. Combination antiviral therapy (interferon plus ribavirin) gives encouraging results in terms of efficacy and safety among dialysis patients even if the limited number of patients enrolled in our meta-analysis hampers definitive conclusions.

Hepatitis C and kidney transplantation

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is relatively common among patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) on dialysis and kidney transplant recipients. HCV infection in hemodialysis patients is associated with an increased mortality due to liver cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. The severity of hepatitis C-related liver disease in kidney transplant candidates may predict patient and graft survival after transplant. Liver biopsy remains the gold standard in the assessment of liver fibrosis in this setting. Kidney transplantation, not haemodialysis, seems to be the best treatment for HCV+ve patients with ESKD. Transplantation of kidneys from HCV+ve donors restricted to HCV+ve recipients is safe and associated with a reduction in the waiting time. Simultaneous kidney/liver transplantation (SKL) should be considered for kidney transplant candidates with HCV-related decompensated cirrhosis. Treatment of HCV is more complex in hemodialysis patients, whereas treatment of HCV recurrence in SLK recipients appears effective and safe.

Treatment of hepatitis C virus infection in patients with end-stage renal disease

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is a major health problem in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). The incidence of acute HCV infection during maintenance dialysis is much higher than that in the general population because of the risk of nosocomial transmission. Following acute HCV infection, most patients develop chronic HCV infection, and a significant proportion develop chronic hepatitis, cirrhosis, and even hepatocellular carcinoma. Overall, chronic hepatitis C patients on hemodialysis bear an increased risk of liver-related morbidity and mortality, either during dialysis or after renal transplantation. Interferon (IFN) therapy is modestly effective for the treatment of HCV infection in ESRD patients. Conventional or pegylated IFN monotherapy has been used to treat acute hepatitis C in ESRD patients with excellent safety and efficacy. Regarding chronic hepatitis C, approximately one-third of patients can achieve a sustained virological response (SVR) after conventional or pegylated IFN monotherapy. The combination of low-dose ribavirin and conventional or pegylated IFN has further improved the SVR rate in treatment-naïve or retreated ESRD patients in clinical trials. Similar to the treatment of patients with normal renal function, baseline and on-treatment HCV virokinetics are useful to guide optimized therapy in ESRD patients. Of particular note, IFN-based therapy is not recommended at the post-renal transplantation stage because of the low SVR rate and risk of acute graft rejection. In conclusion, ESRD patients with HCV infection should be encouraged to receive antiviral therapy, and those who achieve an SVR usually have long-term, durable, virological, biochemical, and histological responses.

Therapy with nucleos(t)ide analogues: current role in dialysis patients

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection persists among patients undergoing maintenance dialysis in the industrialized world. Knowledge of the epidemiology and the natural history of HBV infection in dialysis patients has markedly improved but antiviral therapy for hepatitis B remains a significant challenge in this population. A variety of therapeutic options are now available for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B, including potent new nucleos(t)ide analogues, along with standard and pegylated interferon. The most extensive experience in the dialysis population has been with lamivudine. Although several questions about lamivudine use in dialysis patients remain unanswered, it has shown potent antiviral activity: the range of clearance of HBV viremia (HBV DNA) from serum is between 56% and 100% in dialysis patients with chronic hepatitis B. Its major limitation is emergence of resistance. Tolerance to conventional or pegylated interferon monotherapy is poor in the dialysis population. There is limited data regarding adefovir dipivoxil (ADV) therapy in the dialysis population, while very little information is available about the use of the newer agents, tenofovir and entecavir, in patients with renal failure. It is recommended that dialysis patients with persistent HBsAg seropositive status be evaluated for antiviral treatment and that the decision to treat be based on the potential benefits and risks of therapy including life expectancy, candidacy for kidney transplantation, and comorbidities. Hepatitis B is relatively uncommon among patients undergoing dialysis in developed countries and this clearly hampers prospective clinical trials aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of therapy with nucleos(t)ide analogues for chronic hepatitis B in this population.

Hepatic disorders in chronic kidney disease

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection are the most common and serious causes of liver damage in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). The natural histories of HBV and HCV infections in patients with CKD are not fully understood; however, recent evidence has emphasized the adverse effect of HBV and/or HCV infection on survival in this population. Chronic liver disease is the fourth most important cause of death after renal transplantation. The negative effect of HCV infection on survival among renal transplant recipients has been linked to liver dysfunction and extrahepatic complications, such as chronic glomerulonephritis, post-transplantation diabetes mellitus, chronic allograft nephropathy, and sepsis. The transmission of HCV by solid organ transplantation has been unequivocally demonstrated. Renal transplant recipients who receive kidneys from HCV-positive donors are at increased risk of death. Although several studies have shown that in patients with HCV infection and chronic renal failure renal transplantation is associated with better survival than is dialysis, recent clinical guidelines recommend that kidneys from HCV-infected donors should not be used in HCV-seropositive recipients without detectable HCV viremia. Monotherapy with conventional interferon has been suggested to be a useful treatment for hepatitis C infection in patients on dialysis. Although no evidence suggests that patients with CKD are more prone to suffer from hepatic toxic effects than individuals with normal kidney function, patients with CKD usually receive multiple medications; and drug interactions may, therefore, have a role in the pathogenesis of drug-induced liver disease in this population.