Antiviral therapy of hepatitis C in chronic kidney diseases: meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials

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.

Epidemiological Survey of Patients With Hemodialysis Complicated by Hepatitis C in Japan

Nowadays, interferon-free direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatment is the standard of care for chronic hepatitis C patients. Some DAA regimens are highly effective and safe even for those with renal dysfunction/failure including those receiving HD. However, it remains unclear to what extent HD specialists gain knowledge about advances in anti-hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment. To clarify the current situation and identify problems in the treatment of HD patients with chronic hepatitis C, we performed a questionnaire survey at 36 HD facilities between June 2016 and September 2017. In a total of 3418 HD patients, 179 (5.2%) were positive for anti-HCV antibody, and among these patients, 110/125 (88.0%) were positive for serum HCV RNA. Of the latter, only 42/110 (38.2%) patients received antiviral therapy. Moreover, HCV serotyping or genotyping was performed in 23/110 (20.9%) patients. In 26/49 (53.1%) of the remaining 68 untreated patients, "HD specialists do not know any HCV-specific treatments" and "HD specialists have no opportunity to consult with a hepatologist" were the reasons cited for the lack of anti-HCV treatment. This epidemiological study found that some HD patients with chronic hepatitis C had not yet received antiviral treatment despite the emergence of DAAs. To overcome such undesirable circumstances, medical cooperation between HD specialists and hepatologists should be required.

Efficacy of daclatasvir plus asunaprevir in patients with hepatitis C virus infection undergoing and not undergoing hemodialysis

AIM

To evaluate the virologic responses and clinical course of daclatasvir plus asunaprevir treatment in non-hemodialysis (non-HD) and hemodialysis (HD) patients infected with genotype 1 hepatitis C virus (HCV).

METHODS

A total of 1113 non-HD patients and 67 HD patients were assessed. To evaluate pretreatment factors contributing to sustained virological response at 12 weeks (SVR12), univariate and multivariate analyses were carried out. To adjust for differences in patient background, propensity score matching was undertaken.

RESULTS

The overall SVR12 rates were 91.6% in non-HD patients and 95.5% in HD patients. Compared with non-HD patients, HD patients were younger, were more likely to be male, were less likely to have received interferon-based pretreatment, had a lower viral load, and had lower levels of alanine transaminase, hemoglobin, and α-fetoprotein. Multivariate analysis revealed that viral load, α-fetoprotein, L31 substitution negative, and Y93 substitution negative were independent predictive factors for SVR12 in non-HD patients. The proportion of patients with undetectable HCV-RNA during the initial 4 weeks was significantly higher in HD patients than in non-HD patients. The SVR12 rate was clearly higher in HD patients than in non-HD patients, although the difference was not statistically significant. After propensity score matching to adjust for viral load, α-fetoprotein, L31 substitution, and Y93 substitution, these trends disappeared.

CONCLUSIONS

For treatment of HCV genotype 1 infection, daclatasvir plus asunaprevir is useful not only in non-HD patients but also in HD patients. Viral load, α-fetoprotein levels, L31 substitution, and Y93 substitution influence treatment course and outcome.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Aspartate Aminotransferase to Platelet Ratio Index and Fibrosis 4 Scores in Predicting Advanced Liver Fibrosis in Patients with End-stage Renal Disease and Chronic Viral Hepatitis: Experience from Pakistan

Objectives

The aim was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of APRI and FIB-4 in assessing the stage of liver fibrosis in end stage renal disease (ESRD) patients with chronic viral hepatitis and to compare the two tests with standard tru-cut liver biopsy.

Material and Methods

The study was conducted at Sindh Institute of Urology and Transplantation Karachi (SIUT) from May 2010 to May 2014. All ESRD patients, being considered as candidates for renal transplantation and in whom liver biopsy was performed were included. Fibrosis stage was assessed on liver biopsy using Ishak scoring system. The serum transaminases and platelet counts were used to calculate APRI and FIB-4 scores.

Results

Out of 109 patients, hepatitis C and B virus infections were present in 104 (95.4%) and 3(2.8%), respectively, while 2 (1.8%) patients had both infections. The mean Ishak fibrosis score was 1.95 ± 2. Advanced fibrosis was noted in 37 (34%) patients. Univariate analysis showed that advanced liver fibrosis was associated with lower platelets counts (P=0.001) and higher aspartate aminotransferase (AST) (P=0.001), alanine aminotransferase (ALT) (P=0.022), APRI score (P=0.001) and FIB-4 score (P=0.001). On logistic regression analysis, only APRI score (P < 0.001) was found to be the independent variable associated with advanced liver fibrosis. APRI score cutoff ≥1 indicating advanced fibrosis showed sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of 91.9%, 90.3%, 82.9%, 95.6%, respectively with area under the curve (AUC) of 0.97. Similarly, a FIB-4 score cutoff ≥1.1 had sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of 70.27%, 66.67%, 52% and 81.36%, respectively with AUC of 0.74.

Conclusion

APRI is more accurate noninvasive test for assessing advanced liver fibrosis in ESRD patients as compared to FIB-4. It can be used to obviate the need for liver biopsy in this high risk population.

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.

Opportunities for treatment of the hepatitis C virus-infected patient with chronic kidney disease

The prevalence of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection amongst patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage renal disease exceeds that of the general population. In addition to predisposing to the development of cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma, infection with HCV has been associated with extra-hepatic complications including CKD, proteinuria, glomerulonephritis, cryoglobulinemia, increased cardiovascular risk, insulin resistance, and lymphoma. With these associated morbidities, infection with HCV is not unexpectedly accompanied by an increase in mortality in the general population as well as in patients with kidney disease. Advances in the understanding of the HCV genome have resulted in the development of direct-acting antiviral agents that can achieve much higher sustained virologic response rates than previous interferon-based protocols. The direct acting antivirals have either primarily hepatic or renal metabolism and excretion pathways. This information is particularly relevant when considering treatment in patients with reduced kidney function. In this context, some of these agents are not recommended for use in patients with a glomerular filtration rate < 30 mL/min per 1.73 m². There are now Food and Drug Administration approved direct acting antiviral agents for the treatment of patients with kidney disease and reduced function. These agents have been demonstrated to be effective with sustained viral response rates comparable to the general population with good safety profiles. A disease that was only recently considered to be very challenging to treat in patients with kidney dysfunction is now curable with these medications.

Anti-hepatitis C virus drugs and kidney

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) mainly targets the liver but can also induce extrahepatic manifestations. The kidney may be impacted via an immune mediated mechanism or a cytopathic effect. HCV patients are clearly at a greater risk of chronic kidney disease (CKD) than uninfected patients are, and the presence of CKD increases mortality. Interferon-based therapies and ribavirin are difficult to manage and are poorly effective in end-stage renal disease and hemodialysis. These patients should be given priority treatment with new direct anti-viral agents (DAAs) while avoiding peginterferon and ribavirin. The first results were convincing. To aid in the correct use of these drugs in patients with renal insufficiency, their pharmacokinetic properties and potential renal toxicity must be known. The renal toxicity of these new drugs was not a safety signal in clinical trials, and the drugs are generally efficient in these frail populations. These drugs are usually well tolerated, but recent cohort studies have demonstrated that these new regimens may be associated with renal side effects, especially when using sofosbuvir combinations. HCV, renal diseases and comorbidities are intimately linked. The close monitoring of renal function is required, particularly for at-risk patients (transplanted, HIV-coinfected, CKD, hypertensive or diabetic patients). New DAA regimens, which will soon be approved, will probably change the landscape.

Safety and Efficacy of Pegylated Interferon Alpha-2b Monotherapy in Hepatitis C Virus-Infected Children with End-Stage Renal Disease on Hemodialysis

Treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients is an important issue before kidney transplantation (KT). The aim of the study is to assess the efficacy and tolerability of HCV treatment with pegylated interferon (PEG IFN)-α 2b in children with ESRD. The study included 17 children, aged 3-18 years with ESRD on hemodialysis (HD), with chronic HCV. They received 40 μg/m² of PEG IFN-α 2b once-weekly subcutaneous injections for 48 weeks. Early virological response (EVR) was achieved in 76.5%. At week 24, 8 patients had negative HCV RNA. Six patients received KT during therapy. Treatment was discontinued in 2 patients: one for anemia and another for retinopathy. Two patients completed 48 weeks of therapy and both achieved end-of-treatment response and sustained virological response (SVR). Constitutional symptoms were the most frequently reported side effects. Neutropenia occurred in 10 patients (58.8%), drop in hemoglobin in 10, and thrombocytopenia in 9. HCV-infected children with ESRD on HD have high EVR (76.5%) on IFN monotherapy. SVR could not be assessed due to the high dropout rate related mainly to early transplantation. Constitutional symptoms and hematological side effects were the most frequently reported side effects.

Hepatitis C Virus Infection in Chronic Kidney Disease

Soon after the hepatitis C virus (HCV) was identified in 1989, it was recognized that the prevalence of infection in patients with ESRD far exceeded that in the general population. Infection with HCV predisposes to the hepatic complications of cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. However, important extrahepatic manifestations include immune complex glomerular disease, accelerated progression of CKD, increases in cardiovascular event risk, and lymphoproliferative disorders. Advances in understanding the molecular biology of HCV have ushered in a new era in the treatment of this infection. Second generation direct-acting antiviral agents have revolutionized therapy, with sustained virologic response rates (undetectable viral load 12 weeks after completing therapy) of >90% in most patients. Studies using direct-acting antivirals in patients with CKD and those on dialysis are showing excellent safety and efficacy as well. In this context, it is imperative that nephrologists become familiar with this literature, reviewed here, so that the important decisions, including which patients should be treated and the optimal timing to initiate therapy, are vetted in association with the compounding issues of CKD, ESRD, and kidney transplantation.

Hepatitis C in non-hepatic solid organ transplant candidates and recipients: A new horizon

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is estimated to affect 130-150 million people globally which corresponds to 2%-3% of the total world population. It remains the leading indication for liver transplant worldwide and has been demonstrated to negatively impact both patient and graft survival following non-hepatic organ transplantation. In the era of interferon-based therapy, although treatment and cure of HCV prior to non-hepatic transplant improved survival, tolerability and low cure rates substantially limited therapy. Interferon (IFN)-based therapy following non-hepatic solid organ transplant, due to the risk of allograft rejection, is generally contraindicated. Rapid advances in IFN-free therapy with direct acting antivirals (DAAs) in the last few years have completely changed the paradigm of hepatitis C therapy. Compared to IFN-based regimens, DAAs have less frequent and less severe adverse effects, shorter durations of therapy, and higher cure rates that are minimally impacted by historically negative predictors of response such as cirrhosis, ethnicity, and post-transplant state. Recent studies have shown that liver transplant (LT) recipients can be safely and effectively treated with DAA combination therapies; although data are limited, many of the principles of therapy in LT may be extrapolated to non-hepatic solid organ transplant recipients. Here we review the data on DAA combination therapies in transplantation, discuss the advantages and disadvantages of pre- vs post-transplant HCV therapy and future directions.

Grazoprevir plus elbasvir in treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients with hepatitis C virus genotype 1 infection and stage 4-5 chronic kidney disease (the C-SURFER study): a combination phase 3 study

BACKGROUND

Chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in patients with stage 4-5 chronic kidney disease increases the risk of death and renal graft failure, yet patients with hepatitis C and chronic kidney disease have few treatment options. This study assesses an all-oral, ribavirin-free regimen in patients with HCV genotype 1 infection and stage 4-5 chronic kidney disease.

METHODS

In this phase 3 randomised study of safety and observational study of efficacy, patients with HCV genotype 1 infection and chronic kidney disease (stage 4-5 with or without haemodialysis dependence) were randomly assigned to receive grazoprevir (100 mg, NS3/4A protease inhibitor) and elbasvir (50 mg, NS5A inhibitor; immediate treatment group) or placebo (deferred treatment group) once daily for 12 weeks. Randomisation was done centrally with an interactive voice response system. An additional cohort of patients who were not randomised received the same regimen open-label and underwent intensive pharmacokinetic sampling. The primary efficacy outcome was a non-randomised comparison of sustained virological response at 12 weeks (SVR12) after the end of therapy for the combined immediate treatment group and the pharmacokinetic population with a historical control. The primary safety outcome was a randomised comparison between the immediate treatment group and the deferred treatment group. After 4 weeks of follow-up (study week 16), unmasking occurred and patients in the deferred treatment group received grazoprevir and elbasvir. The primary efficacy hypothesis was tested at a two-sided significance level (type I error) of 0·05 using an exact test for a binomial proportion. Safety event rates were compared between immediate treatment and deferred treatment groups using the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with baseline dialysis status as the strata. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02092350.

FINDINGS

224 patients were randomly assigned to the immediate treatment group with grazoprevir and elbasvir (n=111) or the deferred treatment group (n=113), and 11 were assigned to the intensive pharmacokinetic population. Overall, 179 (76%) were haemodialysis-dependent, 122 (52%) had HCV genotype 1a infection, 189 (80%) were HCV treatment-naive, 14 (6%) were cirrhotic, and 108 (46%) were African American. Of the 122 patients receiving grazoprevir and elbasvir, six were excluded from the primary efficacy analysis for non-virological reasons (death, lost-to-follow-up [n=2], non-compliance, patient withdrawal, and withdrawal by physician for violent behaviour). No patients in the combined immediate treatment group and intensive pharmacokinetic population and five (4%) in the deferred treatment group discontinued because of an adverse event. Most common adverse events were headache, nausea, and fatigue, occurring at similar frequencies in patients receiving active and placebo drugs. SVR12 in the combined immediate treatment group and intensive pharmacokinetic population was 99% (95% CI 95·3-100·0; 115/116), with one relapse 12 weeks after end of treatment when compared with a historical control of 45%, based on meta-analyses of interferon-based regimens used in clinical trials of patients infected with HCV who are on haemodialysis.

INTERPRETATION

Once-daily grazoprevir and elbasvir for 12 weeks had a low rate of adverse events and was effective in patients infected with HCV genotype 1 and stage 4-5 chronic kidney disease.

FUNDING

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.

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.

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.

Efficacy and safety of pegylated interferon base treatment in patients with chronic hepatitis C on dialysis

INTRODUCTION

Patients with chronic hepatitis C (CHC) and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on dialysis are difficult to treat and show higher dropout rates during treatment. The aim of this study was to analyze the treatment outcomes in patients with CHC and underlying end-stage renal disease on dialysis in Korea.

METHODS

A retrospective multi-center study of 35 patients with CHC and underlying ESRD on regular dialysis from 13 centers were analyzed. We investigated the tolerability and efficacy of pegylated interferon therapy with or without ribavirin on dialysis patients.

RESULTS

Twenty patients (57%) were genotype 1. Sixteen patients (46%) were treated with pegylated interferon monotherapy. Nineteen patients (54%) were treated with pegylated interferon and ribavirin. The overall sustained virological response (SVR) rate was 65.7% in all subjects. Thirteen patients (37%) dropped out before completion of treatment, and six patients (46.2%) showed SVR despite premature termination of treatment. Twenty patients (90.9%) achieved SVR among the 22 patients who completed the scheduled course. The most common side effects were anemia and neutropenia. The patients receiving ribavirin treatment showed a higher dropout rate (52.6% vs. 18.8%, p=0.04) and higher SVR rate (68.4% vs. 62.5%, p=0.07) compared to the pegylated interferon mono-treatment group.

CONCLUSIONS

The difficulty in treating HCV patients with ESRD was attributed to higher dropout rate. However, despite the high dropout rate (37%), the SVR rate in genotype 1 was 65% and in genotypes 2 and 3 was 66%. Patients who completed the treatment showed a high SVR rate of 89.5%.

Hepatitis C infection in hemodialysis patients: A review

Hepatitis C virus (HCV)-related liver disease is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) who is treated with dialysis or kidney transplantation (KT). The survival rate for HCV-infected renal transplant recipients is better than that for HCV-infected hemodialysis patients on transplant waiting lists. Early diagnosis and treatment HCV infection prior to KT prevents complications post-transplantation and reduces mortality. In addition to screening for anti-HCV antibodies and detecting HCV RNA, percutaneous liver biopsy is particularly valuable for assessing the stage of liver damage in HCV-infected patients, because the stage of fibrosis is important determining optimal treatment for HCV. Studies have been demonstrated that with conventional interferon (IFN) monotherapy or pegylated IFN monotherapy are similar efficacy and safety in HCV-infected hemodialysis patients. Sustained viral responses (SVRs) with these monotherapies have ranged approximately 30% to 40%. Limited reports support the use of IFN and ribavirin combination therapy as antiviral treatment for ESRD patients or patients on hemodialysis. Ribavirin can be started at low dose and careful monitoring for side effects. Patients that show SVR after treatment are strong candidates for KT. It is also generally accepted that ESRD patients with decompensated cirrhosis and portal hypertension should be referred to the liver transplant team for consideration of combined liver-KT.

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.

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 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.

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.

A study of the immunoloregulation of double filtration plasmapheresis in maintenance hemodialysis patients with chronic hepatitis C

Although a large number of drugs have been used to treat chronic hepatitis C (CHC), there still remains a great challenge to treat maintenance hemodialysis (MHD) patients with chronic hepatitis C. To clarify the immunnoloregulation of double filtration plasmapheresis (DFPP) in MHD patients with CHC, DFPP was performed in 20 MHD patients with CHC (HCV-antibody positive, serum HCV RNA >500 IU/ml more than 6 months and HCV genotype 1b). The clinical data was collected and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) were analyzed by flow cytometry at the time of hour 0, hour 3, day 3, day 7 and day 28 after the DFPP, respectively. Serum HCV particles could be removed partially by the DFPP. The titer of serum HCV RNA could remain in a lower level even 28 days after the treatment. Compared to MHD patients without HCV infection, the frequencies of innate immune cells were similar in MHD patients with CHC, while Th1/Th2 was elevated and the frequencies of regulatory T (Treg) cells were higher in those MHD patients with CHC. The frequencies of monocytes and natural killer (NK) cells remained after the DFPP in MHD patients with CHC. There were no significant changes of Th1, Th2 and Th1/Th2 in PBMC after DFPP. DFPP could reduce the frequencies of Th17 cells and Treg cells in PBMC from 7 days after DFPP in MHD patients with CHC. DFPP could partially remove the serum HCV particles mechanically. The titer of HCV RNA could remain in a lower level at least for 28 days probably due to the redistribution of the immunocytes in circulation.

Hepatitis C virus infection in nephrology patients

CONTEXT

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection leads to chronic liver disease, but also to extra-hepatic manifestations.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITIONS

Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), Google Scholar, Pubmed (NLM), LISTA (EBSCO) and Web of Science have been searched.

RESULTS

Herein, we provide an overview of renal diseases related to HCV and their therapies, as well as the treatment options available for HCV (+)/RNA (+) dialysis patients. We will not mention, however, HCV infection-related complications in the post-kidney transplantation setting.

CONCLUSIONS

Extra-hepatic manifestations of HCV infection include mixed cryoglobulinemia, lymphoproliferative disorders, and renal disease. HCV infection has been reported in association with distinct histological patterns of glomerulonephritis in native kidneys.

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.

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.

Transient elastography to assess hepatic fibrosis in hemodialysis chronic hepatitis C patients

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Although percutaneous liver biopsy (PLB) is the gold standard for staging hepatic fibrosis in hemodialysis patients with chronic hepatitis C (CHC) before renal transplantation or antiviral therapy, concerns exist about serious postbiopsy complications. Using transient elastography (TE, Fibroscan(®)) to predict the severity of hepatic fibrosis has not been prospectively evaluated in these patients.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

A total of 284 hemodialysis patients with CHC were enrolled. TE and aspartate aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio index (APRI) were performed before PLB. The severity of hepatic fibrosis was staged by METAVIR scores ranging from F0 to F4. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to assess the diagnostic accuracy of TE and APRI, taking PLB as the reference standard.

RESULTS

The areas under curves of TE were higher than those of APRI in predicting patients with significant hepatic fibrosis (≥F2) (0.96 versus 0.84, P<0.001), those with advanced hepatic fibrosis (≥F3) (0.98 versus 0.93, P=0.04), and those with cirrhosis (F4) (0.99 versus 0.92, P=0.13). Choosing optimized liver stiffness measurements of 5.3, 8.3, and 9.2 kPa had high sensitivity (93-100%) and specificity (88-99%), and 87, 97, and 93% of the patients with a fibrosis stage of ≥F2, ≥F3, and F4 were correctly diagnosed without PLB, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

TE is superior to APRI in assessing the severity of hepatic fibrosis and can substantially decrease the need of staging PLB in hemodialysis patients with CHC.

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

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Chronic hepatitis C increases mortality of patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Ribavirin is not recommended for patients with renal dysfunction; peginterferon monotherapy is the most appropriate treatment for chronic hepatitis C in such patients. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of 2 dosages of peginterferon alfa-2a (40 kDa) in patients with chronic hepatitis C and ESRD on hemodialysis.

METHODS

We performed a randomized, multicenter, open-label clinical study of 85 patients with chronic hepatitis C and ESRD who were receiving hemodialysis at specialist outpatient hepatology clinics. Patients were treated with subcutaneous peginterferon alfa-2a (40 kDa) at dosages of 135 or 90 μg/wk for 48 weeks.

RESULTS

The incidences of overall sustained virologic responses (SVRs) (undetectable hepatitis C virus [HCV] RNA [<50 IU/mL] after 24 weeks of untreated follow-up) were 39.5% (15/38) in the 135 μg/wk group and 34.9% (15/43) in the 90 μg/wk group (odds ratio, 1.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-3.06; P = .67). Among patients with undetectable HCV RNA at week 12, 60.9% (14/23) of those in the 135 μg/wk group and 87.5% (14/16) of those in the 90 μg/wk group achieved an SVR. Therapy was well-tolerated with no new safety concerns. The most common adverse events (>10% of patients in at least 1 treatment group) included conditions associated with ESRD (anemia and hypertension) and with interferon treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Forty-eight weeks of treatment with low-dose peginterferon alfa-2a (40 kDa) is safe and produces an SVR in 35%-40% of patients with chronic hepatitis C and ESRD on hemodialysis.

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.

Renal diseases and the liver

Many liver diseases coexist with chronic renal disease, because many systemic conditions affect both the liver and the kidneys. Certain liver diseases are also common in patients with chronic renal disease, especially viral hepatitis, either because the renal disease occurs as a complication of viral hepatitis, or the viral hepatitis is acquired as a result of dialysis. Renal tubular dysfunction is also frequently observed with cholestasis. However, liver complications of renal diseases are extremely uncommon, notable examples include nephrogenic ascites and nephrogenic hepatic dysfunction. Nephrogenic ascites can mimic liver cirrhosis with ascites, and it improves with renal transplantation. Nephrogenic hepatic dysfunction is a manifestation of renal cell carcinoma, which settles with the removal of the renal cell carcinoma, but returns with the recurrence of the tumor. In general, the presence of liver disease in patients with chronic renal disease makes management of both conditions more challenging. Viral hepatitis should be treated, if possible, before renal transplant. If cirrhosis is present, renal transplant alone is contraindicated; combined liver and kidney transplantation is indicated in patients with end-stage renal disease and advanced cirrhosis.

Treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus infection in dialysis patients: an update

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is a blood-borne infection and its prevalence used to be elevated in hemodialysis (HD) patients. Its main mode of contamination relies on nosocomial transmission. HCV infection is frequently associated in HD patients with normal liver enzymes whereas liver histology can display some degree of HCV-related lesions. The assessment of HCV-related lesions, even in HD dialysis patients, can be done via noninvasive tests. After kidney transplantation, HCV-related lesions can worsen; however, in this setting antiviral treatment harbors the risk of acute rejection. Therefore, it is recommended to implement antiviral treatment while the patient is receiving dialysis therapy. In this setting, the rate of viral clearance is usually high. In case of sustained virological response, no relapse occurs after kidney transplantation, despite heavy immunosuppression.

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

The efficacy and safety of pegylated interferon monotherapy in patients with chronic renal failure and chronic hepatitis C remains unclear, although a number of small clinical trials have been published addressing this issue. A systematic review of the literature with a meta-analysis of clinical trials was performed in order to assess efficacy and safety of initial pegylated interferon monotherapy in chronic renal failure patients with chronic hepatitis C. The primary outcome was sustained virological 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. Sixteen clinical trials (254 unique patients) were identified, five (31%) being controlled studies; the majority (15/16 = 94%) regarded patients on long-term dialysis. The summary estimate for sustained virological response and drop-out rate was 33% [95% Confidence Intervals (95%CI) 24-43] and 23% (95%CI, 14-33), respectively. The most frequent side-effects requiring interruption of treatment were haematological (18%) and gastrointestinal (14%). In the group of controlled clinical trials, the summary estimate for sustained viral response and drop-out rate was 38% (95% CI, 18-59), and 15% (95% CI, 3-26), respectively. The studies were heterogeneous with regard to sustained virological response and drop-out rate. Pegylated IFN does not provide an added benefit in terms of virological response in comparison with standard IFN monotherapy. Tolerance to pegylated-IFN monotherapy was unsatisfactory. Prospective trials are in progress to assess the optimal antiviral therapy for chronic hepatitis C in dialysis patients.

Management of hepatitis C; Report of the Consensus Meeting at the 45th Annual Meeting of the Japan Society of Hepatology (2009)

The consensus meeting for the diagnosis, management and treatment for hepatitis C was held in 45(th) annual meeting for the Japan Society of Hepatology (JSH) in June 2009 where the recommendations and informative statements were discussed including organizers and presenters. The Several important informative statements and recommendations have been shown. This was the fourth JSH consensus meeting of hepatitis C, however, the recommendations have not been published in English previously. Thus, this is the first report of JSH consensus of hepatitis C. The rate of development of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in HCV-infected patients in Japan is higher than in the USA, because the average age of the HCV-infected patients is greater and there are more patients with severe fibrosis of the liver than in the USA. In Japan, more than 60% of HCV-infected patients are genotype 1b infection, and they show lower response to perinterferon and ribavirin combination treatment. To improve the response rate is also an important issue in our country. To establish the original recommendations and informative statements to prevent the development of HCC is a very important issue in Japan.

Health care-associated transmission of hepatitis B and C viruses in hemodialysis units

Liver disease is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in patients receiving long-term dialysis. This article summarizes the most recent information on epidemiology, clinical significance, and management of infection by hepatitis B and C viruses in this population.

Results of hepatitis C virus treatment in patients on hemodialysis: data from published meta-analyses in 2008

Reports on the outcome of treatment for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in dialysis patients are limited by small patient series, nonrandomized study designs, and few case-control studies. We reviewed 2 meta-analyses (Meta-1 and Meta-2) published in 2008, which analyzed sustained viral responses (SVR), adverse effects, and reasons for discontinuing treatment. Meta-1 analyzed the results obtained in 645 patients and Meta-2 the results in 459 patients (19 studies were duplicated). The overall SVR was 40%; the SVR in genotype 1 was 33%, with pegylated interferon providing few additional benefits over conventional interferon. Adverse events were reported in <50% of cases compiled in the meta-analyses. A high percentage of anemia was documented, although the use of erythropoietin, intravenous iron administration, or transfusions was not generally reported. A typical flu-like syndrome occurred in 41% of patients, requiring withdrawal of antiviral treatment in 11%. Severe adverse events were divided into the following groups: hormonal (thyroid): bone pain; cytopenia; gastrointestinal; immunological (prior graft rejection); central nervous system; cardiovascular; and infectious problems. The authors of the meta-analyses pointed out bias in the selection of candidates for treatment, limitations related to the number and type of adverse effects and their clinical evaluation, and in the cases of discontinuation of treatment or loss to follow-up. Additional studies reporting individual patient data are needed because the paucity of controlled studies limits generalization of the results to the population of dialysis patients.

Impact of hemodialysis therapy on hepatitis C virus infection: a deeper insight

Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) infection remains prevalent in patients receiving regular dialysis all over the world. The adverse impact of anti-HCV serologic status on mortality in the dialysis population has been documented. Antiviral therapy for hepatitis C in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients, including the dialysis population, is still unsatisfactory. Several findings support a different course of HCV in dialysis patients versus the non-uremic population. The HCV viral load appears lower in hemodialysis patients with HCV despite the immune compromise caused by chronic uremia; the histologic abnormalities seem milder, and a severe clinical course of chronic hepatitis C is unusual in most hemodialysis (HD) patients. It appears that the HD procedure per se can preserve patients from an aggressive course of HCV by reducing the viral load (HCV RNA). The mechanisms by which the HD procedure lowers HCV viremia remain largely speculative: the passage of viral particles into the dialysate, the trapping of the virus on the surface of the dialyzer membrane, and an indirect host-mediated mechanism have been cited. The latter hypothesis implicates the production of interferon-alpha, hepatocyte growth factor, or other cytokines provided with antiviral activities during the hemodialysis sessions. Clinical trials aimed at clarifying this issue are under way.

Hepatitis C virus and kidney disease

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection remains frequent in patients on renal replacement therapy and has an adverse impact on survival in infected patients on chronic hemodialysis as well as renal transplant (RT) recipients. Nosocomial spread of HCV within dialysis units continues to occur. HCV is also implicated in the pathogenesis of renal dysfunction often mediated by cryoglobulins leading to chronic kidney disease as well as impairing renal allograft function. The role of antiviral therapy for hepatitis C in patients with renal failure remains unclear. Monotherapy with conventional interferon (IFN) for chronic hepatitis C is probably more effective in dialysis than in non-uraemic patients but tolerance is lower. Limited data only are available about monotherapy with pegylated interferon and combination therapy (pegylated IFN plus ribavirin) for chronic HCV in the dialysis population. Clinical experience with antiviral therapy for acute HCV in dialysis population is encouraging. Interferon remains contraindicated post-RT because of concerns about precipitating graft dysfunction. Sustained viral responses obtained by antiviral therapy in renal transplant candidates are durable after renal transplantation and may reduce HCV-related complications after RT (post-transplant diabetes mellitus, HCV-related glomerulonephritis, and chronic allograft nephropathy).