Hepatitis C in HIV-infected patients: impact of direct-acting antivirals

Blood-borne viral co-infections among human immunodeficiency virus-infected inmates

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the prevalence of HBV and/or HCV co-infection among HIV-infected inmates entering the correctional facility. Design/methodology/approach - Prospective collection of data of HIV-infected inmates entered the institution over a ten-year period. Findings - During study period 365 consecutive different inmates were evaluated. HCV co-infection was observed in more than 80 per cent of the tested HIV-infected inmates, past HBV infection in 71.6 per cent and active HBV co-infection was detected in 7.1 per cent; triple coinfection (HIV, HCV and HBs-Ag positivity) was present in 6 per cent of the total. Originality/value - This study confirms high prevalence of co-infections among HIV-infected inmates. Testing for HBV and HCV in all HIV-infected inmates at entry in any correctional system is recommended to identify those in need of specific care and/or preventing interventions.

Lower Ribavirin Plasma Concentrations in HCV/HIV-Coinfected Patients Than in HCV-Monoinfected Patients Despite Similar Dosage

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis C virus (HCV)/HIV-coinfected patients respond worse to dual therapy with ribavirin (RBV)/peginterferon compared with HCV-monoinfected patients. Several trials found that lower RBV plasma concentrations are associated with impaired virological response rates. The aim of this study was to determine RBV plasma concentrations in a cohort of HCV-monoinfected and HCV/HIV-coinfected patients. Our hypothesis is that HCV/HIV-coinfected patients have lower RBV plasma concentrations, which may in part explain their inferior response to dual therapy.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed in chronic HCV-monoinfected and HCV/HIV-coinfected patients who received peginterferon and weight-based RBV. Plasma RBV concentrations were determined at weeks 4 and 12 by a validated high-performance liquid chromatography assay. RBV concentrations were compared between monoinfected and coinfected patients. We calculated the proportion of patients with a subtherapeutic RBV plasma concentration defined as <2.0 mg/L.

RESULTS

A total of 61 HCV-infected patients were included, of whom 21 (34%) were coinfected with HIV. Although there was no difference in the weight-based dose of RBV between monoinfected and coinfected patients, RBV exposure was significantly lower in HCV/HIV-coinfected patients than in HCV-monoinfected patients: the mean ± SD RBV plasma concentrations were 1.82 ± 0.63 mg/L versus 2.25 ± 0.80 mg/L (P = 0.04) at week 4 and 2.14 ± 0.65 mg/L versus 2.62 ± 0.81 mg/L (P = 0.05) at week 12, respectively. The percentage of patients with subtherapeutic plasma concentrations of RBV in coinfected patients versus monoinfected patients was 62% versus 46% (P = 0.240) at week 4 and 50% versus 16% (P = 0.01) at week 12 of treatment, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

HIV/HCV-coinfected patients yield significantly lower plasma concentrations of RBV than HCV-monoinfected patients. This puts them at an increased risk of not achieving sustained virological response.

Spontaneous and post-treatment HCV clearance: relationships with health-related quality of life in HIV infection (ANRS-VESPA2 study)

BACKGROUND

Post-treatment clearance of HCV is associated with improved health-related quality of life (HRQL) in HIV-HCV co-infection. However, the potential differences in HRQL between post-treatment and spontaneous clearers remain poorly documented.

METHODS

Linear regression models were used to assess the relationships between HCV status and HRQL (PROQOL-HIV scale) in 411 co-infected adults followed-up in French hospitals in 2011 (ANRS-VESPA2 survey).

RESULTS

After adjustment for socio-economic and clinical factors, patients previously exposed to HCV treatment showed better physical HRQL and better experience of HIV treatment than treatment-naive HCV-chronic patients. Post-treatment clearers showed better mental HRQL. Spontaneous clearers showed better experience of HIV treatment.

CONCLUSION

Spontaneous and post-treatment HCV clearance may influence different dimensions of HRQL of HIV-HCV co-infected patients. Further studies in real-life settings are needed to document patient-reported outcomes in the era of direct-acting antiviral agents for HCV treatment.

Hepatitis C and HIV Coinfection for Social Workers in Public Health, Medical and Substance Use Treatment Settings

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is a leading cause of liver disease and liver-related deaths among those living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. Due to recent pharmacologic advancements with direct acting antivirals, if detected and treated, HCV antiviral therapy can prevent liver disease progression and permanently cure coinfected patients of HCV. The objectives of this article are to inform public health social workers and social workers in medical and substance use treatment settings of the public health burden of HCV/HIV coinfection and to highlight state-of-the art pharmacologic advancements in HCV antiviral therapy.

Pharmacokinetic interactions between telaprevir and antiretroviral drugs in HIV/HCV-coinfected patients with advanced liver fibrosis and prior HCV non-responders

Complex drug-drug interactions have been reported with concurrent administration of telaprevir (TVR) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) protease inhibitors (PIs), leading to relevant limitations of the therapeutic options for patients coinfected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) and HIV. However, little is known about the pharmacokinetics and drug interactions between TVR and antiretrovirals in HIV/HCV-coinfected patients with advanced liver fibrosis. Here we report the pharmacokinetics of TVR and antiretrovirals in a cohort of HIV/HCV genotype 1-coinfected patients with advanced liver fibrosis treated with TVR-based triple anti-HCV therapy. No significant differences were observed in the pharmacokinetics of atazanavir, amprenavir or tenofovir at baseline and at Day 15 of TVR, whereas the AUC0-4h of darunavir was 36% lower in the presence of TVR (AUC0-4h 15007ngh/mL and 9563ngh/mL at baseline and at Day 15 of TVR administration, respectively). Noteworthy, the AUC0-4h, Cmin and Cmax of raltegravir were reduced by 61%, 50% and 64%, respectively. However, none of the patient's plasma levels of tenofovir, atazanavir, amprenavir or raltegravir declined below their minimum effective concentrations even in association with TVR, and no HIV treatment failure occurred. A non-significant trend for lower TVR exposure was seen in patients concomitantly given amprenavir versus those given atazanavir (AUC0-4h, 9840ngh/mL and 13345ngh/mL, respectively). In conclusion, this study highlighted the feasibility of maintaining the current antiretroviral regimen in HIV/HCV-coinfected patients, even when significant interactions with TVR are predictable, whenever a change of HIV PIs is not deemed appropriate.

Influence of treatment complexity on adherence and incidence of blips in HIV/HCV coinfected patients

BACKGROUND

The addition of antihepatitis C therapy to highly active antiretroviral treatment (HAART) in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/hepatitis C virus (HCV) coinfected patients leads to an increase in the treatment complexity that may result in decreased adherence. Blips, defined as intermittent episodes of detectable low-level HIV viremia, may be an indication of poor adherence to HAART.

OBJECTIVES

To (a) determine the influence of adding anti-HCV therapy to HAART on complexity index, adherence, and incidence of blips and (b) determine complexity index and adherence in patient subgroups based on anti-HCV therapy.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective 2-center observational study. HIV/HCV coinfected patients under antiretroviral treatment who started anti-HCV bi-therapy or triple therapy between January 2011 and December 2013 were included. Patients were excluded if they were virologically uncontrolled (HIV viral load greater than 50 copies RNA/mL) or if they had changed antiretroviral treatment in the 6 months prior to the introduction of anti-HCV therapy. Data were collected before and after the addition of anti-HCV therapy to HAART. The main variables were complexity index, incidence of blips, and adherence. The complexity index was based on a score that utilized the number of pills per day, dosing schedule, dosage form, and any specific instructions linked to use of the drug. Blips were defined as a detectable HIV-RNA level ( greater than 50 copies/mL but no more than 1,000 copies/mL) occurring between 2 negative assays. Medication adherence was assessed using electronic pharmacy refill records. The threshold for optimal adherence was defined at 95% and above. Differences in the variables collected were assessed before and after the addition of anti-HCV therapy to HAART.R ESULTS: A total of 66 patients were included in the study. Based on the complexity index, the median value before and after the addition of anti-HCV therapy to HAART was 4.2 (interquartile range [IQR] = 3.5-5.5) and 11.5 (IQR = 10.4-13.4), respectively. The median difference between both complexity indices was 6.9 (95% CI = 6.9-7, P  less than  0.001). After introducing the anti-HCV therapy into HAART, the number of adherent patients decreased from 50 (75.8%) to 45 (68.2%, P  greater than 0.05), and 12 (18.2%) patients presented blips (P  less than  0.001). Subgroup analysis based on anti-HCV therapy showed that patients on boceprevir or telaprevir therapy had a higher complexity index, 16.8 (IQR = 6.0-18.4), compared with patients on bi-therapy anti-HCV, 11.3 (IQR = 10.3-12). The median difference was 6.0 (95% CI = 5.0-7.2, P  less than  0.001). The number of adherent patients decreased only in patients on bi-therapy from 42 (79.2%) to 37 (69.8%, P  greater than 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Adding anti-HCV therapy to antiretroviral treatment significantly increases treatment complexity and the incidence of blips. The introduction of anti-HCV therapy is also associated with a decrease in the number of adherent patients. The regimen complexity calculation may be useful for identifying patients who need more care from health care professionals or are at risk for failure to comply with treatment regimens.