Demographic profile, host, disease & viral predictive factors of response in patients with chronic hepatitis C virus infection at a tertiary care hospital in north India

A Systematic Review of Risk Factors for Hepatitis C Virus Infection Among Low-Risk Population in India

Background

Identification of risk factors for hepatitis C virus (HCV) transmission will help in targeted screening of people who are at risk for HCV.

Method

Indian studies, published between January 1989 and June 2020, were systematically reviewed to identify the relevant studies. We searched electronic databases including PubMed/Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Google scholar to identify the original data published in English language. The full-text studies, published in any form, which reported data on risk factors for HCV transmission among low-risk population were selected. The studies which exclusively included high-risk groups were excluded.

Results

Data were extracted from 31,176 participants included in 25 studies (median [range] 40 [7-20,113). The participants were HCV infected patients who visited the hospital (n = 10), community population (n = 6), pregnant women (n = 5), blood donors (n = 2), people with diabetes mellitus (n = 1), army recruits (n = 1), or slum dwellers (n = 1). These studies provided data on blood transfusion, use of unsafe injections, minor or major surgery, unsafe dental procedures, tattooing, body piercing, obstetrical procedures, unsafe shaving, intravenous drug use, and unsafe sexual practices as risk factors for HCV transmission.

Conclusion

Unsafe injections, body piercing, unsafe dental procedure, unsafe shaving, and tattooing were identified as major risk factors for reported by HCV population participants.More data are needed to identify the risk factors for HCV in Indian population. Risk-factor-targeted screening may increase the yield and reduce the cost of HCV screening in India.

Systematic review with meta-analysis: impact of baseline resistance-associated substitutions on the efficacy of glecaprevir/pibrentasvir among chronic hepatitis C patients

BACKGROUND

The effect of baseline resistance-associated substitutions (RAS) on the sustained virologic response at 12 weeks (SVR12) among chronic hepatitis C (CHC) patients receiving the second generation, pan-genotypic glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (G/P) regimen is unclear.

AIM

To assess the effect of RAS on the SVR12 in CHC patients treated with G/P regimen.

METHODS

The EMBASE, MEDLINE and Cochrane central register of controlled trials databases were searched for relevant studies published before 1 March 2019. The principal outcome was to compare the SVR12 in CHC patients with and without baseline RAS, particularly in genotype-1, genotype-3 and direct-acting anti-virals (DAAs) failure patients. The outcomes were pooled using a random-effects model and odds ratio (OR) was calculated. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tools for randomised and nonrandomised interventional studies.

RESULTS

After initially identifying 410 studies, 3302 patients from 17 studies were included. Among 50 cases of virologic failures, 48% had genotype-3 infection, 44% genotype-1 infection and 36% DAA-failure patients. Baseline RAS were present in 44(88%) patients. The most common NS5a and NS3 mutations were Y93H and A166S respectively. The odds of SVR12 were significantly reduced in patients with any baseline RAS (NS3 and/or NS5a) (OR 0.32, 95%C I[0.15, 0.65], I²  = 0%) and NS5a substitutions (OR 0.36, 95%CI [0.18,0.73]). The impact of RAS on SVR12 was significant among genotype-3 patients, but not among genotype-1 or DAA-failure cases. The presence of Y93H and A30K mutations significantly impacted SVR12 rates in genotype-3 patients.

CONCLUSION

Baseline NS3 or NS5a RAS, especially the NS5a substitutions-A30K, Y93H, decrease the odds of achieving SVR12 in genotype-3 CHC patients.

Recipient Outcomes with Younger Donors Undergoing Living Donor Liver Transplantation

Introduction

The impact of donor age on liver transplantation is well known. Data on an appropriate donor age cut-off for living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) with a background of hepatitis C (HCV) is generally limited. The objective of this study was to determine whether limiting donor age to less than 35 years improved outcomes in patients with HCV-related end-stage liver disease (ESLD).

Methods

This was a retrospective review of 169 patients who underwent LDLT for HCV-related ESLD. The patients were divided into two groups based on whether they received grafts from donors ≤ 35 (Group 1) or > 35 (Group 2) years of age. Kaplan Meier curves were used to determine survival. Uni and multivariate analysis were performed to determine independent predictors of mortality.

Results

Mean donor age was 25.1 ± 5.2 and 40.1 ± 3.4 years (P < 0.0001). Early allograft dysfunction (EAD) was seen in 11.7% patients in Group 1 versus 29.6% in Group 2 (P = 0.02). A significant difference in mortality was present between the two groups, i.e., 33.3% versus 15.8% (P = 0.04). The estimated four-year overall survival (OS) was 78% and 64% (P = 0.03). Upon doing univariate analysis, the donor age (P = 0.04) and EAD (P = 0.006) were found to be significant variables for mortality. On multivariate analysis, EAD was the only independent predictor of mortality (Hazard ratio: 2.6; confidence interval: 1.1 - 5.8; P = 0.01).

Conclusion

Opting for younger donors (≤ 35 years) for HCV-related ESLD patients lowers the risk of EAD and improves overall survival.

Efficacy of generic oral directly acting agents in patients with hepatitis C virus infection

Novel direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) are now the standard of care for the management of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. Branded DAAs are associated with high sustained virological response at 12 weeks post-completion of therapy (SVR12), but are costly. We aimed to assess the efficacy of generic oral DAAs in a real-life clinical scenario. Consecutive patients with known HCV infection who were treated with generic-oral DAA regimens (May 2015 to January 2017) were included. Demographic details, prior therapy and SVR12 were documented. Four hundred and ninety patients (mean age: 38.9 ± 12.7 years) were treated with generic DAAs in the study time period. Their clinical presentations included chronic hepatitis (CHC) in 339 (69.2%) of cases, compensated cirrhosis in 120 (24.48%) cases and decompensated cirrhosis in 31 (6.32%) cases. Genotype 3 was most common (n = 372, 75.9%) followed by genotype 1 (n = 97, 19.8%). Treatment naïve and treatment-experienced (defined as having previous treatment with peginterferon and ribavirin) were 432 (88.2%) and 58 (11.8%), respectively. Generic DAA treatment regimens included sofosbuvir in combination with ribavirin (n = 175), daclatasvir alone (n = 149), ribavirin and peginterferon (n = 80), ledipasvir alone (n = 43), daclatasvir and ribavirin (n = 37), and ledipasvir and ribavirin (n = 6). Overall SVR12 was 95.9% (470/490) for all treatment regimens. SVR12 for treatment naïve and experienced patients was 97.0% (419/432) and 87.9% (51/58), respectively, P = .005. High SVR12 was observed with various regimens, irrespective of genotype and underlying liver disease status. There were no differences in SVR12 with 12 or 24 weeks therapy. No major adverse event occurred requiring treatment stoppage. Generic oral DAAs are associated with high SVR rates in patients with HCV infection in a real-life clinical scenario.

The influence of polymorphic GSTM1 gene on the increased susceptibility of non-viral hepatic cirrhosis: evidence from observational studies

It is reported that glutathione S-transferase mu (GSTM1) polymorphism is associated with non-viral hepatic cirrhosis (HC). However, some studies showed different views. Therefore, in this paper, a meta-analysis was conducted to get a more comprehensive understanding of GSTM1 polymorphisms in non-viral HC susceptibility. The results showed that GSTM1 null was associated with the increased risk of non-viral HC (OR = 1.337, 95% CI 1.112–1.804, p = 0.005). Subgroup analysis of cirrhosis type revealed that GSTM1 null was a prominent risk factor for alcoholic HC (OR = 1.416, 95% CI 1.112–1.804, p = 0.005). Meanwhile, subgroup analysis of population indicated that the significant differences only existed in Asian population (OR = 1.719, 95% CI 1.212–2.438, p = 0.002). In hospital-based studies, patients with GSTM1 null were more likely in risk of HC (OR = 1.426, 95% CI 1.092–1.863, p = 0.009). Subgroup analysis using genotyping method showed a significant association between GSTM1 null genotype and HC occurrence in the studies employing the multiple PCR genotyping method (OR = 1.559, 95% CI 1.171–2.076, p = 0.002). Based on the results of this analysis, it was concluded that GSTM1 null genotype could increase the susceptibility of non-viral hepatic cirrhosis. In addition, alcohol intake, Asian ethnicity, sample source from hospital and multiple PCR genotyping method may also influence the susceptibility of hepatic cirrhosis.

Treatment of chronic hepatitis C genotype 3 with Sofosbuvir-based therpy: a real-life study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Recently, Sofosbuvir was launched in India at affordable cost. We conducted a real-life study to determine the efficacy and safety of Sofosbuvir plus Ribavirin, with and without peginterferon-alfa 2a, in patients with chronic hepatitis C (CHC) genotype 3, the commonest genotype in South Asia.

METHODS

This study included data of CHC patients from 11 sites in northern India between March 2015 and December 2015 (n = 1203). Patients with CHC genotype 3 (n = 931), who were treated with either Sofosbuvir 400 mg plus weight-based Ribavirin, daily ×24 weeks (n = 432) (dual therapy), or Peginterferon-α2a 180 mcg weekly, Sofosbuvir 400 mg plus weight-based Ribavirin, daily ×12 weeks (n = 499) (triple therapy) were included for analysis. Primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving sustained viral response at 12 weeks post-therapy.

RESULTS

The overall SVR rates were 91 and 92% in the dual and triple therapy arms, respectively. The SVR rates in treatment experienced were 67 and 74% versus 93 and 96% in naïve patients, on the dual and triple therapy arms, respectively. The SVR rates of cirrhotics were 73 and 75% on the dual and triple treatment arms, respectively. The SVR rates were low in the experienced cirrhotic patients: 44% (dual therapy) and 58% (triple therapy). Common adverse events were fatigue, headache, and myalgia.

CONCLUSION

Both dual and triple therapy regimes resulted in SVR rates of >95% in CHC genotype 3 who were naive non-cirrhotics. However, the SVR rates were low in treatment-experienced cirrhotics.