Distinct features in natural history and outcomes of acute hepatitis C

Sofosbuvir plus velpatasvir for 8 weeks in patients with acute hepatitis C: The HepNet acute HCV-V study

Background & Aims

EASL guidelines recommend 8 weeks of treatment with sofosbuvir plus velpatasvir (SOF/VEL) for the treatment of acute or recently acquired HCV infection, but only 6- and 12-week data are available. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a shortened 8-week SOF/VEL treatment for acute HCV monoinfection.

Methods

In this investigator-initiated, prospective, multicentre, single-arm study, we recruited 20 adult patients with acute HCV monoinfection from nine centers in Germany. Patients received SOF/VEL (400/100 mg) as a fixed-dose combination tablet once daily for 8 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients with sustained virological response 12 weeks after the end of treatment (SVR12).

Results

The median HCV RNA viral load at baseline was 104,307 IU/ml; the distribution of HCV genotypes was as follows: GT1a/1b/2/3/4: n = 12/1/1/3/3. Thirteen (65%) of the 20 patients were taking medication for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis. SVR12 was achieved in all patients who complied with the study protocol (n = 18/18 [100%], per protocol analysis), but the primary endpoint was not met in the intention-to-treat analysis (n = 18/20 [90%]) because two patients were lost to follow-up. One serious adverse event (unrelated to study drug) occurred during 12 weeks of post-treatment follow-up.

Conclusions

The 8-week treatment with SOF/VEL was well tolerated and highly effective in all adherent patients with acute HCV monoinfection. Early treatment of hepatitis C might effectively prevent the spread of HCV in high-risk groups.

Clinical Trial Number

NCT03818308.

Impact and implications

The HepNet acute HCV-V study (NCT03818308), an investigator-initiated, single-arm, multicenter pilot study, demonstrates the efficacy and safety of 8 weeks of daily treatment with the fixed-dose combination sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (400/100 mg) in patients with acute hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. All patients who completed therapy and were followed-up achieved sustained virologic response. Thus, early treatment with SOF/VEL which might effectively prevent the spread of HCV in high-risk groups can be recommended for patients with acute HCV monoinfection.

Hepatitis C in 2020: A North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition Position Paper

In 1989, a collaboration between the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and a California biotechnology company identified the hepatitis C virus (HCV, formerly known as non-A, non-B hepatitis virus) as the causative agent in the epidemic of silent posttransfusion hepatitis resulting in cirrhosis. We now know that, the HCV genome is a 9.6 kb positive, single-stranded RNA. A single open reading frame encodes a 3011 amino acid residue polyprotein that undergoes proteolysis to yield 10 individual gene products, consisting of 3 structural proteins (core and envelope glycoproteins E1 and E2) and 7 nonstructural (NS) proteins (p7, NS2, NS3, NS4A, NS4B, NS5A, and NS5B), which participate in posttranslational proteolytic processing and replication of HCV genetic material. Less than 25 years later, a new class of medications, known as direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) which target these proteins, were introduced to treat HCV infection. These highly effective antiviral agents are now approved for use in children as young as 3 years of age and have demonstrated sustained virologic responses exceeding 90% in most genotypes. Although tremendous scientific progress has been made, the incidence of acute HCV infections has increased by 4-fold since 2005, compounded in the last decade by a surge in opioid and intravenous drug use. Unfortunately, awareness of this deadly hepatotropic virus among members of the lay public remains limited. Patient education, advocacy, and counseling must, therefore, complement the availability of curative treatments against HCV infection if this virus is to be eradicated.

Testing and Clinical Management of Health Care Personnel Potentially Exposed to Hepatitis C Virus - CDC Guidance, United States, 2020

Exposure to hepatitis viruses is a recognized occupational risk for health care personnel (HCP). This report establishes new CDC guidance that includes recommendations for a testing algorithm and clinical management for HCP with potential occupational exposure to hepatitis C virus (HCV). Baseline testing of the source patient and HCP should be performed as soon as possible (preferably within 48 hours) after the exposure. A source patient refers to any person receiving health care services whose blood or other potentially infectious material is the source of the HCP's exposure. Two options are recommended for testing the source patient. The first option is to test the source patient with a nucleic acid test (NAT) for HCV RNA. This option is preferred, particularly if the source patient is known or suspected to have recent behaviors that increase risk for HCV acquisition (e.g., injection drug use within the previous 4 months) or if risk cannot be reliably assessed. The second option is to test the source patient for antibodies to hepatitis C virus (anti-HCV), then if positive, test for HCV RNA. For HCP, baseline testing for anti-HCV with reflex to a NAT for HCV RNA if positive should be conducted as soon as possible (preferably within 48 hours) after the exposure and may be simultaneous with source-patient testing. If follow-up testing is recommended based on the source patient's status (e.g., HCV RNA positive or anti-HCV positive with unavailable HCV RNA or if the HCV infection status is unknown), HCP should be tested with a NAT for HCV RNA at 3-6 weeks postexposure. If HCV RNA is negative at 3-6 weeks postexposure, a final test for anti-HCV at 4-6 months postexposure is recommended. A source patient or HCP found to be positive for HCV RNA should be referred to care. Postexposure prophylaxis of hepatitis C is not recommended for HCP who have occupational exposure to blood and other body fluids. This guidance was developed based on expert opinion (CDC. Updated U.S. Public Health Service guidelines for the management of occupational exposures to HBV, HCV, and HIV and recommendations for postexposure prophylaxis. MMWR Recommend Rep 2001;50[No. RR-11]; Supplementary Figure, https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/90288) and reflects updated guidance from professional organizations that recommend treatment for acute HCV infection. Health care providers can use this guidance to update their procedures for postexposure testing and clinical management of HCP potentially exposed to hepatitis C virus.

Pharmacological interventions for acute hepatitis C infection

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is a single-stranded RNA (ribonucleic acid) virus that has the potential to cause inflammation of the liver. The traditional definition of acute HCV infection is the first six months following infection with the virus. Another commonly used definition of acute HCV infection is the absence of HCV antibody and subsequent seroconversion (presence of HCV antibody in a person who was previously negative for HCV antibody). Approximately 40% to 95% of people with acute HCV infection develop chronic HCV infection, that is, have persistent HCV RNA in their blood. In 2010, an estimated 160 million people worldwide (2% to 3% of the world's population) had chronic HCV infection. The optimal pharmacological treatment of acute HCV remains controversial. Chronic HCV infection can damage the liver.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative benefits and harms of different pharmacological interventions in the treatment of acute HCV infection through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the available pharmacological treatments according to their safety and efficacy. However, it was not possible to assess whether the potential effect modifiers were similar across different comparisons. Therefore, we did not perform the network meta-analysis and instead we assessed the comparative benefits and harms of different interventions versus each other or versus no intervention using standard Cochrane methodology.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and randomised controlled trials registers to April 2016 to identify randomised clinical trials on pharmacological interventions for acute HCV infection.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) in participants with acute HCV infection. We excluded trials which included previously liver transplanted participants and those with other coexisting viral diseases. We considered any of the various pharmacological interventions compared with placebo or each other.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) and rate ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models based on the available-participant analysis with Review Manager 5. We assessed risk of bias according to Cochrane, controlled risk of random errors with Trial Sequential Analysis, and assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 10 randomised clinical trials with 488 randomised participants that met our inclusion criteria. All the trials were at high risk of bias in one or more domains. Overall, the evidence for all the outcomes was very low quality evidence. Nine trials (467 participants) provided information for one or more outcomes. Three trials (99 participants) compared interferon-alpha versus no intervention. Three trials (90 participants) compared interferon-beta versus no intervention. One trial (21 participants) compared pegylated interferon-alpha versus no intervention, but it did not provide any data for analysis. One trial (41 participants) compared MTH-68/B vaccine versus no intervention. Two trials (237 participants) compared pegylated interferon-alpha versus pegylated interferon-alpha plus ribavirin. None of the trials compared direct-acting antivirals versus placebo or other interventions. The mean or median follow-up period in the trials ranged from six to 36 months.There was no short-term mortality (less than one year) in any group in any trial except for one trial where one participant died in the pegylated interferon-alpha plus ribavirin group (1/95: 1.1%). In the trials that reported follow-up beyond one year, there were no further deaths. The number of serious adverse events was higher with pegylated interferon-alpha plus ribavirin than with pegylated interferon-alpha (rate ratio 2.74, 95% CI 1.40 to 5.33; participants = 237; trials = 2; I² = 0%). The proportion of people with any adverse events was higher with interferon-alpha and interferon-beta compared with no intervention (OR 203.00, 95% CI 9.01 to 4574.81; participants = 33; trials = 1 and OR 27.88, 95% CI 1.48 to 526.12; participants = 40; trials = 1). None of the trials reported health-related quality of life, liver transplantation, decompensated liver disease, cirrhosis, or hepatocellular carcinoma. The proportion of people with chronic HCV infection as indicated by the lack of sustained virological response was lower in the interferon-alpha group versus no intervention (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.76; participants = 99; trials = 3; I² = 0%). The differences between the groups were imprecise or not estimable (because neither group had any events) for all the remaining comparisons.Four of the 10 trials (40%) received financial or other assistance from pharmaceutical companies who would benefit from the findings of the research; the source of funding was not available in five trials (50%), and one trial (10%) was funded by a hospital.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Very low quality evidence suggests that interferon-alpha may decrease the incidence of chronic HCV infection as measured by sustained virological response. However, the clinical impact such as improvement in health-related quality of life, reduction in cirrhosis, decompensated liver disease, and liver transplantation has not been reported. It is also not clear whether this finding is applicable in the current clinical setting dominated by the use of pegylated interferons and direct-acting antivirals, although we found no evidence to support that pegylated interferons or ribavirin or both are effective in people with acute HCV infection. We could find no randomised trials comparing direct-acting antivirals with placebo or other interventions for acute HCV infection. There is significant uncertainty in the benefits and harms of the interventions, and high-quality randomised clinical trials are required.

Hepatitis C virus transmission in a Dutch haemodialysis unit: detailed outbreak investigation using NS5A gene sequencing

BACKGROUND

Haemodialysis is a risk factor for hepatitis C virus (HCV) transmission. Two patients receiving haemodialysis in a Dutch dialysis unit in The Hague were found to seroconvert to HCV in December 2016 after the yearly routine control for blood-borne viruses. Following the presumed time of infection, three chronically infected HCV patients were identified as possible index cases.

AIM

To confirm inter-patient transmission and to identify the source.

METHODS

Molecular investigation and review of medical records were performed.

FINDINGS

Both of the incident cases and one of the three possible index cases were demonstrated to be infected with HCV genotype 2b based on 5'UTR sequencing. Epidemiological relatedness between these viruses was further investigated by sequencing of the NS5A region. Phylogenetic analysis clearly identified the incident cases and the index case to represent a cluster distinct from unrelated controls with HCV genotype 2b. Detailed review of the medical records identified two possible incidents that might have resulted in the HCV transmission cases: contamination of the venous pressure-sensing port due to high venous pressures or incomplete compliance with infection control precautions of the unit staff during handling of two incidents, that occurred at the same time in a single haemodialysis session with the index patient as well as both incident cases present.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that detailed incident recording in combination with state-of-the-art molecular investigations such as sequencing of the NS5A region resulted in unravelling a set of two HCV transmissions that occurred at a haemodialysis unit.

HCV Ag quantification as a one-step procedure in diagnosing chronic hepatitis C infection in Cameroon: the ANRS 12336 study

INTRODUCTION

The diagnostic procedure for chronic hepatitis C infection (CHC) usually combines anti-HCV antibody (HCV-Ab) and HCV-RNA measurement. Quantifying HCV core antigen (cAg) as a one-step procedure could shorten the diagnostic process. We aimed to assess the performance of cAg quantification in diagnosing CHC and how it is influenced by concomitant HIV or HBV infections.

METHODS

The cAg was quantified by an automated assay (Abbott Diagnostics) in 465 HCV-Ab negative serum samples and 544 HCV-RNA positive serum samples (n = 1009) collected in patients from the Pasteur Center in Cameroon, some of whom were infected by HBV or HIV. Its performance was evaluated in comparison to the gold standard (ELISA or PCR) by estimating its sensitivity (Se) and specificity (Sp), and by comparing the area under ROC (AUROC) curves in each patient population: HCV mono-infected, HCV-HBV and HIV-HCV co-infected.

RESULTS

Among the 465 HCV-Ab negative patients, 51 and 79 were HIV- and HBV-infected, respectively, whereas among the 544 patients with CHC, 27 and 28 were HIV- and HBV-infected, respectively. The Spearman ρ correlation coefficient between cAg and HCV-RNA was 0.75 (p < 0.00001). The assay had a sensitivity of 95.7% (95% CI: 93.2-97.5) and a specificity of 99.7% (95% CI: 98.1-10) in diagnosing CHC, corresponding to an AUROC of 0.99 (95% CI: 0.98-1.0). Being HIV- or HBV-infected did not impact the performance of cAg (Se = 96.4%, Sp = 96.2% and AUROC = 0.98 (95% CI: 0.95-1.0) in the HBV group, Se = 100%, Sp = 88.2% and AUROC = 0.99 (95% CI: 0.97-1.0) in the HIV group, p between AUROC = 0.69).

CONCLUSIONS

The cAg quantification displayed a high specificity and sensitivity for the diagnosis of CHC in Cameroon, and its performance was not significantly modified by a concomitant HIV or HBV infection. In the context of CHC elimination on a global scale, using cAg quantification as a screening tool to directly identify CHC could be a reliable tool in a "test and treat" strategy.

Pharmacological interventions for acute hepatitis C infection: an attempted network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is a single-stranded RNA (ribonucleic acid) virus that has the potential to cause inflammation of the liver. The traditional definition of acute HCV infection is the first six months following infection with the virus. Another commonly used definition of acute HCV infection is the absence of HCV antibody and subsequent seroconversion (presence of HCV antibody in a person who was previously negative for HCV antibody). Approximately 40% to 95% of people with acute HCV infection develop chronic HCV infection, that is, have persistent HCV RNA in their blood. In 2010, an estimated 160 million people worldwide (2% to 3% of the world's population) had chronic HCV infection. The optimal pharmacological treatment of acute HCV remains controversial. Chronic HCV infection can damage the liver.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative benefits and harms of different pharmacological interventions in the treatment of acute HCV infection through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the available pharmacological treatments according to their safety and efficacy. However, it was not possible to assess whether the potential effect modifiers were similar across different comparisons. Therefore, we did not perform the network meta-analysis, and instead, we assessed the comparative benefits and harms of different interventions versus each other or versus no intervention using standard Cochrane methodology.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and randomised controlled trials registers to April 2016 to identify randomised clinical trials on pharmacological interventions for acute HCV infection.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) in participants with acute HCV infection. We excluded trials which included previously liver transplanted participants and those with other coexisting viral diseases. We considered any of the various pharmacological interventions compared with placebo or each other.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) and rate ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models based on the available-participant analysis with Review Manager 5. We assessed risk of bias according to Cochrane, controlled risk of random errors with Trial Sequential Analysis, and assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 10 randomised clinical trials with 488 randomised participants that met our inclusion criteria. All the trials were at high risk of bias in one or more domains. Overall, the evidence for all the outcomes was very low quality evidence. Nine trials (467 participants) provided information for one or more outcomes. Three trials (99 participants) compared interferon-alpha versus no intervention. Three trials (90 participants) compared interferon-beta versus no intervention. One trial (21 participants) compared pegylated interferon-alpha versus no intervention, but it did not provide any data for analysis. One trial (41 participants) compared MTH-68/B vaccine versus no intervention. Two trials (237 participants) compared pegylated interferon-alpha versus pegylated interferon-alpha plus ribavirin. None of the trials compared direct-acting antivirals versus placebo or other interventions. The mean or median follow-up period in the trials ranged from six to 36 months.There was no short-term mortality (less than one year) in any group in any trial except for one trial where one participant died in the pegylated interferon-alpha plus ribavirin group (1/95: 1.1%). In the trials that reported follow-up beyond one year, there were no further deaths. The number of serious adverse events was higher with pegylated interferon-alpha plus ribavirin than with pegylated interferon-alpha (rate ratio 2.74, 95% CI 1.40 to 5.33; participants = 237; trials = 2; I2 = 0%). The proportion of people with any adverse events was higher with interferon-alpha and interferon-beta compared with no intervention (OR 203.00, 95% CI 9.01 to 4574.81; participants = 33; trials = 1 and OR 27.88, 95% CI 1.48 to 526.12; participants = 40; trials = 1). None of the trials reported health-related quality of life, liver transplantation, decompensated liver disease, cirrhosis, or hepatocellular carcinoma. The proportion of people with chronic HCV infection as indicated by the lack of sustained virological response was lower in the interferon-alpha group versus no intervention (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.76; participants = 99; trials = 3; I2 = 0%). The differences between the groups were imprecise or not estimable (because neither group had any events) for all the remaining comparisons.Four of the 10 trials (40%) received financial or other assistance from pharmaceutical companies who would benefit from the findings of the research; the source of funding was not available in five trials (50%), and one trial (10%) was funded by a hospital.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Very low quality evidence suggests that interferon-alpha may decrease the incidence of chronic HCV infection as measured by sustained virological response. However, the clinical impact such as improvement in health-related quality of life, reduction in cirrhosis, decompensated liver disease, and liver transplantation has not been reported. It is also not clear whether this finding is applicable in the current clinical setting dominated by the use of pegylated interferons and direct-acting antivirals, although we found no evidence to support that pegylated interferons or ribavirin or both are effective in people with acute HCV infection. We could find no randomised trials comparing direct-acting antivirals with placebo or other interventions for acute HCV infection. There is significant uncertainty in the benefits and harms of the interventions, and high-quality randomised clinical trials are required.

Clinical epidemiology of acute hepatitis C in South America

There is scarce data pertaining to acute hepatitis C (aHC) infection in South America. We aimed to describe clinical characteristics and evolution of aHC in a South American cohort. A retrospective survey was conducted at 13 hepatology units. All patients ≥16 years old with aHC diagnosis were included. Demographic, clinical and outcome information were registered in a standardized ad hoc questionnaire. Sixty-four patients were included. The majority were middle-aged (median age: 46 years) and female (65.6%); most of them were symptomatic at diagnosis (79.6%). HCV-1 was the most prevalent genotype (69.2%). Five patients had liver failure: three cases of severe acute hepatitis, one case of fulminant hepatitis and one case of acute-on-chronic liver failure. Nosocomial exposure was the most prevalent risk factor. Evolution was assessed in 46 patients. In the untreated cohort, spontaneous resolution occurred in 45.8% and was associated with higher values of AST/ALT and with the absence of intermittent HCV RNA viremia (P = 0.01, 0.05, and 0.01, respectively). In the treated cohort, sustained virological response was associated with nosocomial transmission and early treatment initiation (P = 0.04 each). The prevalence of nosocomial transmission in this South-American cohort of aHC stresses the importance of following universal precautions to prevent HCV infection. J. Med. Virol. 89:276-283, 2017. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Current knowledge and future perspectives on acute hepatitis C infection

Acute hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections are frequently seen worldwide in certain risk groups, with an annual incidence rate varying between 0.08% and 66%. Although this incidence is substantial, a delayed diagnosis during chronic infection is most often made in the absence of clinical symptoms in the acute phase of the infection. Currently used methods to diagnose acute HCV infection are IgG antibody seroconversion and repeated HCV RNA measurements, although no definitive diagnostic test is currently available. Progress in the field of adaptive and innate immune responses has aided both advances in the field of HCV vaccine development and a more basic understanding of viral persistence. The rapid changes in the treatment of chronic HCV infection will affect therapeutic regimens for acute HCV infection in the coming years, leading to shorter treatment courses and pegylated interferon-free modalities. This review gives an overview of the current knowledge and uncertainties, together with some future perspectives on acute hepatitis C epidemiology, virology, immunology, and treatment.

[Impact of antiviral therapy on the natural history of hepatitis C virus]

Chronic hepatitis C virus infection affects around 150 million persons, and 350,000 persons worldwide die of this disease each year. Although the data on its natural history are incomplete, after the acute infection, most patients develop chronic forms of hepatitis C with variable stages of fibrosis. In these patients, continual inflammatory activity can cause significant fibrosis, cirrhosis, decompensation of the liver disease, or hepatocarcinoma. In the next few years, it is expected that hepatitis C virus infection and its complications will significantly increase, as will the incidence of hepatocarcinoma in Spain. This review presents the data on the natural history of hepatitis C virus infection and discusses the potential impact of antiviral therapy on the distinct stages of the disease.

CD8(+) T-Cell Responses in Acute Hepatitis C Virus Infection

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infects approximately 170 million people worldwide and is a major cause of life-threatening liver diseases such as liver cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. Acute HCV infection often progresses to chronic persistent infection, although some patients recover spontaneously. The divergent outcomes of acute HCV infection are known to be determined by differences in virus-specific T-cell responses among patients. Of the two major T-cell subsets, CD8⁺ T-cells are known to be the key effector cells that control viral infections via cytolytic activity and cytokine secretion. Herein, we review various aspects of HCV-specific CD8⁺ T-cell responses in acute HCV infection. In particular, we focus on timing of CD8⁺ T-cell responses, relationship between CD8⁺ T-cell responses and outcomes of acute HCV infection, receptor expression on CD8⁺ T-cells, breadth of CD8⁺ T-cell responses, and viral mutations.