Low-dose peginterferon alfa-2a is safe and produces a sustained virologic response in patients with chronic hepatitis C and end-stage renal disease

Interventions for dialysis patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is common in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients on dialysis, causes chronic liver disease, may increase the risk of death, and impacts kidney transplant outcomes. Direct-acting antivirals have replaced interferons because of better efficacy and tolerability. This is an update of a review first published in 2015.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to look at the benefits and harms of interventions for HCV in CKD patients on dialysis: death, disease relapse, treatment response/discontinuation, time to recovery, quality of life (QoL), cost-effectiveness, and adverse events. We aimed to study comparisons of available interventions, compared with placebo, control, with each other and with newer treatments.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant's Specialised Register to 23 February 2023 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE, handsearching conference proceedings, and searching the International Clinical Trials Register Portal (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, first period of randomised cross-over studies on interventions for HCV in CKD on dialysis were considered.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Three studies were included in this update, therefore 13 studies (997 randomised participants) met our inclusion criteria. Overall, the risk of bias was judged low in seven studies, unclear in four, low to unclear in one, and high in one study. Interventions included standard interferon, pegylated (PEG) interferon, standard or PEG interferon plus ribavirin; direct-acting antivirals, and direct-acting antivirals plus PEG interferon plus ribavirin. Compared to placebo or control, standard interferon may make little or no difference to death (5 studies, 134 participants: RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.06 to 13.23) or relapse (low certainty evidence), probably improves end-of-treatment response (ETR) (5 studies, 132 participants: RR 8.62, 95% CI 3.03 to 24.55; I² = 0%) (moderate certainty evidence), and probably makes little or no difference to sustained virological response (SVR) (4 studies, 98 participants: RR 3.25, 95% CI 0.81 to 13.07; I² = 53%), treatment discontinuation (4 studies, 116 participants: RR 4.59, 95% CI 0.49 to 42.69; I² = 63%), and adverse events (5 studies, 143 participants: RR 3.56, 95% CI 0.98 to 13.01; I² = 25%) (moderate certainty evidence). In low certainty evidence, PEG interferon (1 study, 50 participants) may improve ETR (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.15) but may make little or no difference to death (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.81), SVR (RR 2.40, 95% CI 0.99 to 5.81), treatment discontinuation (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.96), adverse events (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.96) and relapses (21/38 relapsed) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.25) compared to standard interferon. In moderate certainty evidence, high-dose PEG interferon (alpha-2a and alpha-2b) may make little or no difference to death (2 studies, 97 participants: RR 4.30, 95% CI 0.76 to 24.33; I² = 0%), ETR (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.51 to 3.90; I² = 20%), SVR (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.07; I² = 0%), treatment discontinuation (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.28; I² = 0%) or adverse events (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.83; I² = 27%) compared to low-dose PEG interferon. High-dose PEG interferon may make little or no difference to relapses (1 study, 43 participants: RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.77; low certainty evidence). There were no significant subgroup differences. Standard interferon plus ribavirin may lead to higher treatment discontinuation (1 study, 52 participants: RR 2.97, 95% CI 1.19 to 7.36; low certainty evidence) compared to standard interferon alone.  In low certainty evidence, PEG interferon plus ribavirin (1 study, 377 participants) may improve SVR (RR 1.80, 95% CI 1.46 to 2.21), reduce relapses (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.48), slightly increase the number with adverse events (RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.19), and may make little or no difference to ETR (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.09) compared to PEG interferon alone. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of PEG interferon plus ribavirin on treatment discontinuation (RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.69 to 4.24) compared to PEG interferon alone. One study reported grazoprevir plus elbasvir improved ETR (173 participants: RR 174.99, 95% CI 11.03 to 2775.78; low certainty evidence) compared to placebo. It is uncertain whether telaprevir plus ribavirin (high versus low initial dose) plus PEG interferon for 24 versus 48 weeks (1 study, 35 participants) improves ETR (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.56) or SVR (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.56) because the certainty of the evidence is very low.  Data on QoL, cost-effectiveness, cardiovascular outcomes and peritoneal dialysis were not available.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In dialysis patients with HCV infection grazoprevir plus elbasvir probably improves ETR. There is no difference in ETR or SVR for combinations of telaprevir, ribavirin and PEG interferon given for different durations and doses. Though no longer in use, PEG interferon was more effective than standard interferon for ETR but not SVR. Increasing doses of PEG interferon did not improve responses. The addition of ribavirin to PEG interferon may result in fewer relapses, higher SVR, and higher numbers with adverse events.

Paritaprevir/Ritonavir/Ombitasvir Plus Dasabuvir Regimen in the Treatment of Genotype 1 Chronic Hepatitis C Infection in Patients with Severe Renal Impairment and End-Stage Renal Disease: a Real-Life Cohort

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Chronic hepatitis C (HCV) virus infection reactivates under immunosuppressive drugs and therefore has a negative impact on long-term survival of kidney transplant recipients. Treatment-induced clearance of hepatitis C virus (HCV) in kidney transplant candidates prevents virus reactivation after transplantation. Paritaprevir/Ritonavir/Ombitasvir with Dasabuvir (PrOD) represents a highly effective treatment regimen for HCV genotype 1 (GT1), also suitable for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Serious drug-drug interactions may represent a limiting factor of this regimen. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate safety, efficacy and drug-drug interactions management associated with PrOD treatment in the Czech real-world cohort.

METHODS

Emphasizing concomitant medication adjustment, we described the treatment course with PrOD regimen in 23 patients (4 with CKD4 and 19 on maintenance haemodialysis) infected with HCV GT1 (21 GT1b, 2 GT1a), 18 males and 5 females with an average age of 53.7 years. Six patients had compensated liver cirrhosis and 3 of them were liver transplant recipients.

RESULTS

All 23 patients completed the 12-week treatment and achieved sustained virological response 12 weeks after the treatment (SVR12 rate 100%). None of the patients presented with a significant decrease in haemoglobin level, white blood cell and platelet count during the treatment period. The most frequent adverse events were nausea, hypotension, diarrhoea, and hyperkalemia. Four patients presented with a serious adverse event unrelated to the antiviral drugs (salmonellosis, non-functional kidney graft rejection, early gastric cancer, renal cyst infection, initiation of haemodialysis). Concomitant medication had to be modified with the treatment initiation in 10 out of 23 (43.5%) patients (calcium channel blockers, ACE inhibitors, statins, diuretics, tacrolimus); four patients required further adjustment of antihypertensive drugs or tacrolimus dosage on-treatment.

CONCLUSION

PrOD regimen demonstrated an excellent efficacy and good tolerability. Both prospective adjustment of concomitant medication and further on-treatment adjustment allowed for a safe treatment course.

Pegylated interferon monotherapy for hepatitis C virus infection in patients on hemodialysis: A single center study

There is no published study from India on hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment in dialysis patients. Patients on dialysis with HCV infection treated with pegylated interferon (Peg-INF) monotherapy were studied. All patients were subjected to HCV-polymerase chain reaction, viral load, genotype, and liver biopsy. Quantitative HCV-RNA was performed monthly. Patients with genotype 1 and 4 were given 12 month therapy while those with genotypes 2 and 3 were given 6 months therapy. Response was classified as per standard criteria of rapid virological response (RVR), early virological response (EVR), end of treatment response (ETR), and sustained virological response (SVR). A total of 85 patients were treated. Mean age was 35.2 ± 10.5 (range 15-67) years, and 77.6% were males. HCV genotypes were 1 in 40.9%, 2 in 12%, 3 in 36.1%, 4 in 3.6%, and others in 7.2%. Mean viral load was 10(6) copies/mL. Mean liver biopsy grade was 4 ± 1.7 and stage 0.8 ± 0.8. Mean time from diagnosis of HCV infection and the treatment start was 10.7 ± 14.3 months. One patient died of unrelated illness, one was lost to follow-up, and three could not sustain treatment due to cost. Forty-three of the 80 (54%) patients had RVR while 49 (61%) patients had EVR and ETR. There was no difference in term of RVR related to genotype. Fifty -four percentage had SVR. Mild flu-like symptoms were seen in all patients. Sixty-four (80%) patients required increase in erythropoietin doses. Twenty-eight (35%) patients developed leukopenia (three treatment-limiting) and 16 (20%) developed thrombocytopenia (one treatment-limiting). Five patients developed tuberculosis, five bacterial pneumonia, and one bacterial knee monoarthritis. None of the patients developed depression. Our study concludes that Peg-INF monotherapy resulted in 54% RVR and SVR in dialysis patients with HCV infection. Therapy was well-tolerated with minimal side effects. There was no effect of viral genotype on response to therapy.

Sofosbuvir-based treatment is safe and effective in patients with chronic hepatitis C infection and end stage renal disease: a case series

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Interferon and ribavirin-free regimens to treat chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in patients with end stage renal disease are not approved and represent an area of unmet clinical need. We report our experience on the safety and efficacy of sofosbuvir/simeprevir and sofosbuvir/ledipasvir therapy in patients on haemodialysis.

METHODS

Patients with chronic HCV infection on haemodialysis were included in this study. Patients were started on either sofosbuvir/simeprevir or sofosbuvir/ledipasvir. Routine clinical and laboratory data were collected at baseline and during treatment. The primary outcome was sustained virological response at week 12 (SVR12).

RESULTS

Eight patients with mean age 56.8 ± 20 years were included in this study. Seven were treatment naïve and one was a priori null responder to interferon-based therapy. Four patients were started on sofosbuvir/simeprevir and four on sofosbuvir/ledipasvir for 12 weeks. Therapy was well tolerated overall with nausea/vomiting, pruritus, headache and a 2 g/dl drop in haemoglobin developing in one patient each. No patient discontinued therapy because of side effects. Comparison of labs at baseline and nadir levels during treatment revealed no significant change in haemoglobin (10.8 ± 2.4 g/dl vs 10.3 ± 1.6 g/dl), platelet count (198 ± 164 k/μl vs 184.5 ± 162/μl) and bilirubin (0.3 ± 0.4 mg/dl vs 0.25 ± 0.15 mg/dl). Eight of eight patients had undetectable HCV RNA at the end of treatment. One patient was lost to follow up and the remaining seven achieved SVR12.

CONCLUSION

Full dose sofosbuvir/simeprevir or sofosbuvir/ledipasvir therapy for HCV-infected patients with end stage renal disease was well tolerated with no discontinuation owing to side effects and no significant adverse events.

[Management of hepatitis B virus and hepatitis C virus infection in chronic kidney failure]

Chronic infections by hepatitis B (HBV) and C virus (HCV) result in diagnosis and therapeutic issues in dialysis and kidney recipients patients. The exposure to nosocomial, including blood transfusion, risk explains the high prevalence of HBV and HCV infection in this setting. Chronic infection reduces the survival of both patients and allografts, including a specific risk of de novo glomerulonephritis. Cirrhosis was considered as a contra-indication to renal transplantation given the high risk of decompensation and death, questionning the indication of a combined liver and kidney transplantation. Thus, it is mandatory to screen HBV and HCV markers in all dialysis patients, whether or not they are candidates to transplantation. Liver biopsy allows evaluating the severity of the liver disease since the noninvasive markers of fibrosis appear to be less accurate in "renal" patients than in the general population and to better define antiviral therapeutic indications. HCV treatment was mainly based on pegylated interferon α (and low doses of ribavirin), which is contra-indicated in kidney recipients given the risk of graft rejection; HCV treatment is now based on the use of oral direct acting antivirals, which are very potent and well tolerated. HBV replication is now easily suppressed by second-generation nucleos(t)tidic analogues (entecavir and tenofovir), which will be indicated in all the dialysis patients with significant fibrosis (F2,3 or 4 according to the Metavir scoring system) and in any candidate to renal transplantation and to any HBsAg-positive kidney recipients. The best treatment remains preventive by anti-HBV vaccination for HBV and by the respect of universal hygiene rules for HCV.

Interventions for dialysis patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is common in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients on dialysis, causes chronic liver disease, increases mortality and impacts kidney transplant outcomes. Sustained response to the preferred treatment with standard or pegylated (PEG) interferon is seen in 39% with side effects necessitating treatment discontinuation in 20%. We collated evidence for treatment response and harms of interventions for HCV infection in dialysis.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to look at the benefits and harms of various interventions for HCV infection in CKD patients on HD or peritoneal dialysis, specifically on mortality, disease relapse, response to treatment, treatment discontinuation, time to recovery, quality of life, cost effectiveness,adverse effects, and other outcomes. We aimed to study comparisons of available interventions with a placebo or control group, combinations of interventions with placebo or control group, interventions with each other singly and in combination, available standard interventions with newer treatment modalities.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Kidney and Transplant's Specialised Register to 24 March 2015 through contact with the Trials' Search Co-ordinator. We also checked references of reviews, studies and contacted study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, first period of randomised cross-over studies on interventions for HCV in CKD on dialysis were considered.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration and also collected adverse effects data listed in included RCTs.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten RCTs (361 participants) met our inclusion criteria. Five RCTs (152 participants, 134 analysed) with low to moderate quality of evidence compared standard recombinant interferon with placebo or control. There was no significant difference for mortality (5 studies (134 participants): RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.06 to 13.23), relapses (1 study (36 participants): RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.88), sustained virological response (4 studies (98 participants): RR 3.25, 95% CI 0.81 to 13.07), treatment discontinuation (4 studies (116 participants): RR 4.59, 95% CI 0.49 to 42.69) and number with adverse events (5 studies (143 participants): RR 3.56, 95% CI 0.98 to 13.01). End of treatment response was significantly more for standard interferon (5 studies (132 participants): RR 8.62, 95% CI 3.03 to 24.55). There was overall low to unclear risk of bias and no significant heterogeneity.One RCT (50 participants) with moderate quality of evidence compared PEG interferon and standard interferon. There was no significant difference in mortality (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.81), relapses (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.25), sustained virological response (RR 2.40, 95% CI 0.99 to 5.81), treatment discontinuation (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.96) and number with major adverse events (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.96). End of treatment response was significantly more for PEG interferon (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.15). There was overall low risk of bias.Two RCTs (97 participants) with moderate quality of evidence compared two doses of two different preparations of PEG interferon. Subgroup analysis comparing high and low doses of PEG interferon alpha-2a (135 µg/week versus 90 µg/week) and PEG interferon alpha-2b (1 µg/kg versus 0.5 µg/kg body weight/week) found no significant difference in mortality (2 studies (97 participants): RR 4.30, 95% CI 0.76 to 24.33), relapses (1 study (81 participants): RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.77), end of treatment response (2 studies (97 participants): RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.51 to 3.90), sustained virological response (2 studies (97 participants): RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.07), treatment discontinuation (2 studies (97 participants): RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.28), patients with adverse events (2 studies (97 participants): RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.83) or serious adverse events (2 studies (97 participants): RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.14). Both had overall low risk of bias and no significant subgroup differences.Two RCTs (62 participants) with moderate quality of evidence compared standard or PEG interferon alone or in combination with ribavirin. The only reported outcome in both was treatment discontinuation which was significantly more with ribavirin in the one study (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.84) and pooled 7/10 in the second.No RCTs had data on time to recovery, cost-effectiveness, quality of life, and other outcomes and in peritoneal dialysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review demonstrated that in CKD patients on haemodialysis with HCV infection treatment with standard interferon brings about an end of treatment but not a sustained virological response and is relatively well tolerated. PEG interferon is more effective than standard interferon for end of treatment response but not for sustained response; both were equally tolerated. Increasing doses of PEG interferon did not improve responses but high and low doses are equally tolerated. Addition of ribavirin results in more treatment discontinuation.

Use of sofosbuvir-based direct-acting antiviral therapy for hepatitis C viral infection in patients with severe renal insufficiency

Sofosbuvir-based direct-acting antiviral therapy revolutionized the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. However, sofosbuvir use is not approved for patients with severe renal insufficiency (estimated glomerular filtration (eGFR) rate below 30 ml/min) or end-stage renal disease (ESRD) based on concerns raised during premarket animal testing over hepatobiliary and cardiovascular toxicity in this population. We report the first published data on use of sofosbuvir-based regimens in patients with severe renal insufficiency and ESRD, focusing on clinical efficacy and safety. Six patients were treated with full dose sofosbuvir; three received sofosbuvir and simeprevir, two received sofosbuvir and ribavirin, and one received sofosbuvir, ribavirin, and interferon. Three of the patients had cirrhosis. On-treatment viral suppression was 100% and sustained virological response (SVR) rate at 12 weeks was 67%. One patient had to discontinue antiviral therapy early due to side effects. No hepatobiliary or cardiovascular toxicity was reported.

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.

Viral hepatitis in hemodialysis: An update

Hepatitis outbreaks in hemodialysis (HD) patients and staff were reported in the late 1960s, and a number of hepatotropic viruses transmitted by blood and other body fluids have been identified. Hepatitis B virus (HBV) was the first significant hepatotropic virus to be identified in HD centers. HBV infection has been effectively controlled by active vaccination, screening of blood donors, the use of erythropoietin and segregation of HBV carriers. Hepatitis delta virus is a defective virus that can only infect HBV-positive individuals. Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is the most significant cause of non-A, non-B hepatitis and is mainly transmitted by blood transfusion. The introduction in 1990 of routine screening of blood donors for HCV contributed significantly to the control of HCV transmission. An effective HCV vaccine remains an unsolved challenge; however, pegylation of interferon-alfa has made it possible to treat HCV-positive dialysis patients. Unexplained sporadic outbreaks of hepatitis by the mid-1990s prompted the discovery of hepatitis G virus, hepatitis GB virus C and the TT virus. The vigilant observation of guidelines on universal precaution and regular virologic testing are the cornerstones of the effective control of chronic hepatitis in the setting of HD. Major recent advances in the viral diagnosis technology and the development of new oral, direct-acting antiviral agents allow early diagnosis and better therapeutic response. The current update will review the recent developments, controversies and new treatment of viral hepatitis in HD patients.

Hepatitis C virus infection in end-stage renal disease and kidney transplantation

Liver disease secondary to chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is an important cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on renal replacement therapy and after kidney transplantation (KT). Hemodialytic treatment (HD) for ESRD constitutes a risk factor for bloodborne infections because of prolonged vascular access and the potential for exposure to infected patients and contaminated equipment. Evaluation of HCV-positive/ESRD and HCV-positive/KT patients is warranted to determine the stage of disease and the appropriateness of antiviral therapy, despite such treatment is challenging especially due to tolerability issues. Antiviral treatment with interferon (IFN) is contraindicated after transplantation due to the risk of rejection, and therefore, treatment is recommended before KT. Newer treatment strategies of direct-acting antiviral agents in combination are revolutionizing HCV therapy, as a result of encouraging outcomes streaming from recent studies which report increased sustained viral response, low or no resistance, and good safety profiles, including preservation of renal function. KT has been demonstrated to yield better outcomes with respect to remaining on HD although survival after KT is penalized by the presence of HCV infection with respect to HCV-negative transplant recipients. Therefore, an appropriate, comprehensive, easily applicable set of clinical practice management guidelines is necessary in both ESRD and KT patients with HCV infection and HCV-related liver disease.

Hepatitis C virus infection in hemodialysis patients

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is observed in around 20% of dialysis patients and in allograft recipients and results in a significant morbidity and mortality, especially after transplantation. Its prevalence has markedly decreased in patients who are candidates for transplantation since the introduction of screening, hygiene and prevention measures, including systematic screening of blood and organ donations, use of erythropoietin, and compliance with universal hygiene rules. A liver biopsy is preferable to non-invasive biochemical and/or morphological tests of fibrosis to evaluate liver fibrosis before and even after transplantation. In HCV-infected dialyzed patients who are not candidates for renal transplantation, the indication for antiviral therapy is limited to significant fibrosis (fibrosis ≥ 2 on the METAVIR scale). Antiviral treatment should be proposed to any HCV-infected candidate for renal transplantation, whatever the baseline histopathology. The recommendation is to use standard interferon-α as monotherapy, but pegylated interferon can be used, resulting in sustained virological response, while low doses of combined ribavirin may enhance the antiviral efficacy. After transplantation, interferon-α is contra-indicated but may be used in patients for whom the benefits of antiviral treatment clearly outweigh the risks, especially that of allograft rejection. All cirrhotic patients should be screened for hepatocellular carcinoma, whose risk is enhanced by immunosuppressive regimens. Sustained suppression of necro-inflammation may result in the reversal of cirrhosis, which reduces liver-related morbidity and improves patient and allograft survival. Finally, due to the high mortality after renal transplantation, active cirrhosis must be considered to be a contraindication to kidney transplantation, but an indication to combined liver-kidney transplantation; on the contrary, inactive compensated cirrhosis may permit renal transplantation alone.

Hepatitis C treatment in patients with kidney disease

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) remains the most common cause of liver damage in patients with kidney disease, including those on long-term dialysis. The natural history of HCV in patients on regular dialysis is not fully elucidated, but an adverse effect of HCV on survival has been noted; a novel meta-analysis of observational studies (14 studies including 145,608 unique patients) showed that the summary estimate for adjusted relative risk (all-cause mortality) was 1.35 with a 95% confidence interval of 1.25-1.47. The adjusted RR for liver disease-related death and cardiovascular mortality among maintenance dialysis patients was 3.82 (95% CI, 1.92-7.61) and 1.26 (95% CI, 1.10-1.45), respectively. It has been recommended that the decision to treat HCV in patients with chronic kidney disease be based on the potential benefits and risks of therapy, including life expectancy, candidacy for kidney transplant, and comorbidities. A pooled analysis including 494 dialysis patients on monotherapy with conventional interferon reported a summary estimate for sustained viral response and dropout rate of 39% (95% CI, 32-46) and 19% (95% CI, 13-26), respectively. All renal transplant candidates (dialysis dependent or not) with HCV should be assessed for antiviral treatment given the increased risk of progressive liver disease with immunosuppressive therapy, the increased life expectancy compared to other HCV-positive patients on dialysis, and the inability to receive interferon after transplant. Current guidelines support monotherapy with standard interferon in these patients, but modern antiviral approaches (that is, dual therapy with peg-IFN plus ribavirin) in a well-controlled setting may be an appropriate alternative.

Therapy for hepatitis C virus infection increases survival of patients with pretreatment anemia

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Individuals with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and pretreatment anemia are less likely to begin and complete a full course of treatment for HCV. However, among those who are treated for HCV infection, the effect of treatment on mortality is not clear.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of 200,139 HCV-infected veterans using data from the Electronically Retrieved Cohort of Hepatitis C-Infected veterans (2001-2008). The effects of treatment and treatment duration on survival were compared based on data from 1820 treated and 27,690 untreated anemic HCV-infected veterans. The association between HCV treatment and mortality was estimated using the Cox proportional hazard models, with adjustments for potential confounders. The main outcome was all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

In multivariable analysis, pretreatment anemia was associated significantly with African American race (odds ratio [OR], 2.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.95-2.11), chronic kidney disease (OR, 3.36; 95% CI, 3.23-3.51), and decompensated liver disease (OR, 3.69; 95% CI, 3.53-3.86). All-cause mortality for treated, anemic, HCV-infected veterans was lower (54.2 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 49.2-59.7 per 1000 person years) than for untreated, anemic HCV-infected veterans (146.8 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 144.2-149.4 per 1000 person-years). The adjusted hazard ratio for treatment of HCV in anemic veterans was 0.45 (95% CI, 0.39-0.51), which was reduced after exclusion of comorbidities (hazard ratio, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.22-0.37).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on a retrospective analysis of a veterans database, HCV therapy increases survival rates of individuals with pretreatment anemia. Additional studies are needed to determine strategies to increase rates of HCV therapy for this group.

Efficacy and safety of low-dose peginterferon alpha-2a plus ribavirin on chronic hepatitis C

Background. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of low-dose peg-IFN α-2a plus ribavirin on the treatment of patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. Patients and Methods. A total of 243 HCV patients treated with different doses of peg-IFN α-2a plus ribavirin were stratified into three groups. End-of-treatment response (ETR) and sustained viral response (SVR) were evaluated for efficacy. Adverse events and laboratory abnormalities were conducted for safety. Results. ETR and SVR in group I were obtained in 83.9% and 68.9% of the patients, separately, which was similar to groups II (84.1% and 68.3%) and III (81.7% and 66.7%). The received peg-IFN α-2a dose was not the independent factor-related SVR in our population (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.94–1.81; P = 0.106). The frequency of no adverse events reported in group III (24.7%) was significantly higher than that in group I (11.5%) and group II (12.7%) (P = 0.036). Conclusions. The peg-IFN α-2a 90 μg/week plus ribavirin is as effective as, and better tolerated than, peg-IFN α-2a standard dose with ribavirin in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C. This low-dose combination achieves high SVR rates and may be cost-saving.

Outcome of HCV genotype 1 treatment in HIV-coinfected patients with chronic kidney disease

Chronic renal insufficiency is a barrier for the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV), and yet virus clearance is desirable prior to kidney transplantation. Several reports document success of kidney transplantation in the setting of HIV infection. We analyzed the treatment outcome of patients with HIV and HCV genotype 1 infections and chronic kidney disease, who received pegylated interferon with or without ribavirin in our center. Of the 7 patients, 2 achieved sustained virological response. None of the responders had end-stage renal disease, suggesting that HCV treatment is most likely to be successful in earlier stages of renal disease.

Differences in clinical outcomes among hepatitis C genotype 1-infected patients treated with peginterferon alpha-2a or peginterferon alpha-2b plus ribavirin: a meta-analysis

Background

With the development of new direct acting antiviral (DAA) therapy for hepatitis C, the backbone peginterferon alpha used may be of importance in maximizing treatment outcomes. To this end, the rates of sustained virologic response (SVR), relapse, and treatment discontinuation among hepatitis C genotype 1-infected patients given peginterferon alpha-2a plus ribavirin or peginterferon alpha-2b plus ribavirin were determined using a meta-analysis.

Methods

Randomized trials examining peginterferon alpha-2a or peginterferon alpha-2b co-administered with ribavirin for 48 weeks were included. Data were extracted on SVR, relapse, and treatment discontinuations for treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced patients. Pooled proportions using fixed and random effects meta-analysis were calculated.

Results

Twenty-six trials provided data on patients treated with peginterferon alpha-2a plus ribavirin, and 19 trials provided data on patients treated with peginterferon alpha-2b plus ribavirin. Five trials were direct head-to-head evaluations. In the subset of trials that included head-to-head evaluations, no significant differences were observed between the two treatments for treatment-naïve (relative risk [RR]: 1.07, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.97–1.18) and treatment-experienced patients (RR: 1.27, 95% CI: 0.58–2.77). Using only active trial arms, a larger proportion of the treatment- naïve patients who were provided peginterferon alpha-2a plus ribavirin achieved a SVR (47%), which is greater than that of treatment-naïve patients who were provided peginterferon alpha- 2b plus ribavirin (40% SVR achievement); however, a larger proportion of treatment- experienced patients who were provided peginterferon alpha-2b plus ribavirin achieved a SVR (16%) when compared with treatment-experienced patients given peginterferon alpha-2a plus ribavirin (12% SVR achievement). A larger proportion of relapses occurred among both treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced patients given peginterferon alpha-2a plus ribavirin, when compared with treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced patients taking peginterferon alpha-2b plus ribavirin. The proportion of patients discontinuing treatment was greater among treatment-naïve patients taking peginterferon alpha-2a plus ribavirin, but smaller among treatment-experienced patients.

Conclusion

There are small differences in treatment outcomes for different types of peginterferon- alpha. Patient status and complexity of administration may differentiate clinical outcomes.

2011 European Association of the Study of the Liver hepatitis C virus clinical practice guidelines

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is the leading cause of liver transplantation in Europe and is associated with an increased risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Because of the chronic nature of the disease, estimates suggest that the burden on healthcare will increase dramatically for this entity. Clinical care of patients with HCV-related liver disease has advanced considerably in the last two decades, thanks to increasing knowledge about the mechanisms of the disease, development of diagnostic procedures, and advances in therapeutic and preventive approaches. HCV RNA testing, HCV genotyping and staging of liver disease are essential for the diagnosis and the management of HCV therapy. Furthermore, the important role of host polymorphisms of the IL28B gene on virological response to treatment with pegylated interferon (PEG-IFN) alpha and ribavirin (RBV) has recently been clearly demonstrated. In relation to treatment, although numerous drugs for HCV are in various stages of preclinical and clinical development, the current standard of care (SoC) is the combination of PEG-IFN-α and RBV for chronic hepatitis C. With SoC, a sustained viral response (SVR) is achieved in approximately 45% of patients infected with HCV genotype 1 and in approximately 80% of patients infected with HCV genotypes 2 and 3. The EASL HCV guidelines recommend treating all naïve patients with compensated disease from HCV without contraindications to treatment and strongly suggest initiating SoC promptly in patients with advanced fibrosis. Further recommendations on monitoring treatment efficacy, treatment duration, dose reduction indications and the role of co-factors are provided.

Viral hepatitis in solid organ transplantation other than liver

Transplantation is the best treatment for end-stage organ failure. Hepatitis virus infections, mainly hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections still constitute a major problem because they are common in allograft recipients and are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality after transplantation. Recently, hepatitis E virus infection has been added as an emergent cause of chronic hepatitis in organ transplantation. The prevalence of HBV and HCV infections has markedly decreased in patients who are candidates for transplantation since the introduction of screening, hygiene and prevention measures, including systematic screening of blood and organ donations, use of erythropoietin, compliance with universal hygiene rules, segregation of HBV-infected patients from non-infected patients and systematic vaccination against HBV. A liver biopsy is preferable to non-invasive biochemical and/or morphological tests of fibrosis to evaluate liver fibrosis before and even after transplantation. Treatment with entecavir or tenofovir is indicated in HBV-infected dialyzed patients who have moderate or severe disease (≥A2 or F2 on the Metavir scale) in preparation for renal transplantation. Due to the risks of severe reactivation, fibrosing cholestatic hepatitis or histological deterioration after transplantation, systematic use of nucleoside or nucleotide analogues shortly before or at the time of transplantation is recommended (tenofovir or entecavir are preferable to lamivudine) in all patients, whatever the baseline histological evaluation. In HCV-infected dialyzed patients who are not candidates for renal transplantation, the indication for antiviral therapy is limited to significant fibrosis (fibrosis ≥2 on the Metavir scale). Treatment must be proposed to all candidates for renal transplantation, whatever their baseline histopathology, and interferon-α should be used as monotherapy. After transplantation, interferon-α is contraindicated but may be used in patients for whom the benefits of antiviral treatment clearly outweigh the risks, especially that of allograft rejection. All cirrhotic patients, notably after solid organ transplantation, should be screened for hepatocellular carcinoma. Sustained suppression of necro-inflammation may result in regression of cirrhosis, which in turn may lead to decreased disease-related morbidity and improved survival. Finally, due to the high mortality after renal transplantation, active (namely without sustained viral suppression) cirrhosis should be considered a contraindication to kidney transplantation, but an indication to combined liver-kidney transplantation; on the contrary, inactive (namely with sustained viral suppression) compensated cirrhosis may permit renal transplantation alone. Organ transplantations other than kidney (cardiac or pulmonary transplantations) involve the same diagnosis and therapeutic issues.