What is the safe duration of therapy for patients infected with HCV genotype 6?

Meta-analysis: superior treatment response in Asian patients with hepatitis C virus genotype 6 versus genotype 1 with pegylated interferon and ribavirin

OBJECTIVE

Our goal was to systematically and quantitatively assess treatment response between Asian patients with hepatitis C virus genotype 6 (HCV-6) and hepatitis C virus genotype 1 (HCV-1) treated for 48 weeks with pegylated interferon and ribavirin.

METHODS

We performed a literature search in MEDLINE and EMBASE for 'genotype 6' in August 2013. Additional abstracts from major international scientific conferences from 2012 to 2013 were reviewed. Studies included were original articles with ≥10 treatment-naïve Asian HCV-6 patients. Exclusion criteria were coinfections with hepatitis B virus, HIV and/or other liver diseases. Heterogeneity was defined as a Cochrane Q test with a p value of 0.10 and an I(2) statistic of >50%. RESULTS of a random-effects model are reported.

RESULTS

A total of 1,046 (503 HCV-6; 543 HCV-1) patients from 12 studies were included in the analysis. The pooled sustained virologic response (SVR) rate was 80.2% (95% CI 74.3-85.0, Q statistic = 20.87, p < 0.035; I(2) = 47.3%) for HCV-6 and 62.5% (95% CI 41.9-79.4, Q statistic = 52.41, p < 0.001; I(2) = 92.37) for HCV-1 patients. HCV-6 patients had a significantly higher SVR rate compared to HCV-1 patients (odds ratio 2.73, 95% CI 1.69-4.41, p < 0.001). Approximately one fourth of patients without early virologic response (EVR) achieved SVR, regardless of genotype (HCV-1, n = 6/23; HCV-6, n = 4/21).

CONCLUSIONS

Asian patients with HCV-6 can expect higher SVR rates (∼80%) than HCV-1 patients (∼63%). EVR as a stopping rule is less clear in Asian patients with HCV-6 and HCV-1.

Meta-analysis of patients with hepatitis C virus genotype 6: 48 weeks with pegylated interferon and ribavirin is superior to 24 weeks

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis C virus genotype 6 (HCV-6) is common in patients from Southeast Asia and the surrounding regions. Optimal treatment duration for HCV-6 is unknown given the inconclusive evidence from studies with varying methodologies and small sample sizes.

METHODS

A literature search for 'genotype 6' in MEDLINE and EMBASE in October 2013 produced 161 and 251 articles, respectively. Additional abstracts were identified from four major international GI/liver conferences in 2012/2013. Inclusion criteria were original studies with ≥10 HCV-6 treatment-naïve patients treated with pegylated interferon + ribavirin (PEG IFN+RBV). Exclusion criteria were coinfections with HBV, HIV, other HCV genotypes, and/or other liver diseases. Primary outcome was pooled sustained virologic response (SVR). Heterogeneity was defined by Cochrane Q test (p value of 0.10) and I (2) statistic (≥50 %).

RESULTS

A total of 13 studies with 641 patients were included. The pooled SVR estimate was 77 % (CI 70-83 %) (Q value = 38.4, p value <0.001, I (2) = 68.7 %) overall, 79 % (CI 73-84 %) for the 48-week group and 59 % (CI 46-70 %) for 24-week group, respectively. In studies with direct comparison of the two groups, SVR was superior in patients treated for 48 versus 24 weeks, OR 1.9 (CI 1.08-3.2, p = 0.026). In studies with direct comparison of patients with rapid virologic response (RVR), there was no difference in SVR between 48 versus 24 weeks, OR 1.74 (CI 0.65-4.64, p = 0.27).

CONCLUSION

Hepatitis C virus genotype 6 patients should be treated for 48 weeks, and those who achieve RVR may receive the shorter 24-week treatment duration. The high SVR (~80 %) with 48 weeks of PEG IFN+RBV therapy may be a cost-effective option for HCV-6 patients from resource-poor regions.

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

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

Twenty-four weeks of pegylated interferon plus ribavirin effectively treat patients with HCV genotype 6a

The optimal duration of treatment and expected response rate for hepatitis C virus genotype (HCV-6)-infected patients have not been determined. Our aims were to determine the treatment outcome with pegylated interferon (PEG-IFN) plus ribavirin for HCV-6a-infected patients at Southwest Hospital and assess the association of the on-treatment virological response with the sustained virological response (SVR). Medical records were reviewed retrospectively. Twenty-two HCV-6a-infected patients were treated for 24 weeks, and 21 (95.5%) achieved an early virological response (EVR), 20 (90.9%) an end-of-treatment response (ETR) and 18 (81.8%) a SVR. However, only 18 of the 22 HCV-6a-infected patients were tested for serum HCV RNA level at week 4 of treatment and 15 (83.3%) achieved a rapid virological response (RVR). The rates of SVR, RVR, EVR and ETR in these patients were all similar to those in HCV-2/3 treated for 24 weeks and higher than those in HCV-1b-infected patients treated for 48 weeks. A lower relapse rate (10.0%) was seen in HCV-6a compared with HCV-2/3 (12.5%) or HCV-1b-infected patients (23.3%). The positive predictive values of RVR and EVR for HCV-6a were comparable with those for HCV-2/3-infected patients (86.7%vs 90.9%, P = 0.683 and 85.7%vs 86.8%, P = 0.904, respectively). Of the 3 HCV-6a-infected patients who did not achieve a RVR, 2 achieved an EVR and went on to achieve a SVR. The patient who did not achieve an EVR did not achieve a SVR. In summary, our results indicate that 24 weeks of PEG-IFN plus ribavirin can effectively treat patients with HCV-6a chronic infection.

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

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 6 is common among patients from Southeast Asia and the surrounding regions, where HCV prevalence is also high. HCV genotype 6 has great genetic diversity and different response to antiviral therapy compared with the more commonly known genotype 1.

AIM

Our goal was to provide a systematic review of the current literature on the epidemiology, classification and treatment of HCV genotype 6.

METHODS

A search using PubMed for 'hepatitis C' AND 'genotype 6' produced a total of 47 articles, of which 33 articles were found to be relevant and included in this review. Additional articles were identified using the reference lists of these 33 primary articles.

RESULTS

The prevalence of HCV genotype 6 is estimated to be as high as 50% in some regions of Southeast Asia with demonstrated significance among intravenous drug users and thalassemia major patients. Although previous line probe assays may have misclassified HCV genotype 6 as genotype 1, newer line probe assays can more accurately and reliably determine HCV genotype. Patients infected with HCV genotype 6 respond better to interferon-based therapy compared with those infected with genotype 1, although patient baseline clinical characteristics and side effect profiles are similar between HCV genotype 6 and other HCV genotypes.

CONCLUSIONS

Future studies should seek to clarify issues regarding early predictors for treatment response in patients with HCV genotype 6, and the impact of ethnic and genotypic factors to treatment response in HCV genotype 6 patients.