[New direct-acting antiviral agents for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C in 2014]. / Neue direkt antivirale Medikamente zur Behandlung der chronischen Hepatitis C 2014.

BACKGROUND: The development of direct-acting antiviral agents (DAA) against the hepatitis C virus (HCV) has seen enormous progress in recent years. In 2011, the first protease inhibitors boceprevir (BOC) and telaprevir (TLV) were approved, which still need to be combined with pegylated interferon α (PEG-IFN α) and ribavirin (RBV) and are used only in patients with genotype 1. With sofosbuvir (SOF) and simeprevir (SMV), two new DAA are available. More DAA are in clinical development. OBJECTIVES: Which changes in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C infection can be expected with the approval of the new DAA in 2014? Relevant phase IIb and phase III studies for the approval in 2014 were considered for drugs approved by the FDA or EMA at the editorial deadline. CURRENT DATA: For patients with genotype 1, the combination of SOF, SMV or faldaprevir with PEG-IFN α and RBV was successfully evaluated in phase III studies. In contrast to previous treatment with PEG-IFN α, RBV and telaprevir (TLV) or boceprevir (BOC), therapy can be shortened in most cases with a significantly improved side-effect profile. Cure rates above 80 % are possible. Data are also available for an interferon-free therapy with either SOF and RBV or SOF and SMV in GT-1 patients. SVR rates exceeding 60 % and up to 90 % are possible. However, treatment experience with these combinations is low and an unrestricted interferon-free therapy for genotype 1 should not be expected before 2015. For patients with genotypes 2 and 3, valid data for interferon-free therapies are available. The combination of SOF and RBV for 12 weeks in genotype 2 and 24 weeks for genotype 3 is effective and shows equal or superior cure rates with fewer side effects than the PEG-IFN α/RBV therapy. CONCLUSION: For patients with genotype 1, the duration of therapy can be further reduced with better side effect profile. In certain situations, therapy without PEG-IFN α is possible and should be considered. For patients with genotypes 2 and 3, an interferon-free therapy will be standard of care in 2014.

Percutaneous Transsplenic Balloon-Assisted Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt Placement in Patients with Portal Vein Obliteration for Portal Vein Recanalization: Feasibility, Safety and Effectiveness.

PURPOSE: To assess the feasibility, safety and effectiveness of portal vein recanalization (PVR)-transjugular portosystemic shunt (TIPS) placement via splenic access using a balloon puncture technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a single-center retrospective study from March 2017 to February 2021, 14 consecutive patients with portal hypertension, chronic liver disease and portal vein occlusion or near-complete (> 95%) occlusion were referred for PVR-TIPS placement. Feasibility, safety and effectiveness including procedural characteristics such as technical success, complication profile and splenic access time (SAT), balloon positioning time (BPT), conventional portal vein entry time (CPVET), overall procedure time (OPT), fluoroscopy time (FT), dose-area product (DAP) and air kerma (AK) were evaluated. RESULTS: Transsplenic PVR-TIPS using balloon puncture technique was technically feasible in 12 of 14 patients (8 men, 49 ± 13 years). In two patients without detectable intrahepatic portal vein branches, TIPS placement was not feasible and both patients were referred for further treatment with nonselective beta blockers and endoscopic variceal ligation. No complications grade > 3 of the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe classification system occurred. The SAT was 25 ± 21 min, CPVET was 33 ± 26 min, the OPT was 158 ± 54 min, the FT was 42 ± 22 min, the DAP was 167.84 ± 129.23 Gy*cm2 and the AK was 1150.70 ± 910.73 mGy. CONCLUSIONS: Transsplenic PVR-TIPS using a balloon puncture technique is feasible and appears to be safe in our series of patients with obliteration of the portal vein. It expands the interventional options in patients with chronic PVT.

[Treatment strategies for acute-on-chronic liver failure]. / Behandlungsstrategien des akut-auf-chronischen Leberversagens.

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is a newly defined syndrome in patients with liver cirrhosis characterized by acute hepatic decompensation (jaundice, ascites, hepatic encephalopathy, bacterial infection and gastrointestinal bleeding), single or multiple organ failure and a high mortality (>15% within 28 days). The affected organ systems include not only the liver but also the circulation, lungs, kidneys, brain and/or coagulation. Pathophysiologically decisive is an uncontrolled inflammation that is induced by specific triggers and on the basis of previously (possibly not diagnosed) compensated as well as already decompensated liver cirrhosis leads to a severe systemic clinical syndrome, ACLF. The course during the first 72 h is decisive for the prognosis. In addition to treatment of the respective organ or system failure, the underlying triggers should be quickly identified and if necessary specifically treated. Often, however, these cannot (no longer) be determined with any certainty, in particular recent alcohol consumption as well as bacterial and viral infections play an important role. A specific treatment for the ACLF is (currently) not established. Some experimental approaches are currently being tested, including administration of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (GCSF). Additionally, suitable patients should be presented to a liver transplantation center in a timely manner.

Dominance of hepatitis C virus (HCV) is associated with lower quantitative hepatitis B surface antigen and higher serum interferon-γ-induced protein 10 levels in HBV/HCV-coinfected patients.

Different viral dominance patterns have been documented in coinfection with hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) based on HBV DNA and HCV RNA quantification. In most cases, HCV is dominant and suppresses HBV replication. In vitro studies revealed that there is most probably no direct interference between HBV and HCV replication. We hypothesized that indirect mechanisms mediated by host immune responses might be responsible for the different dominance patterns. In this study we analysed quantitative hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) as a marker for immune control of HBV and interferon γ-induced protein 10 (IP-10) as host marker for the endogenous interferon in 85 patients with HBV/HCV coinfection. Levels of HBsAg were closely associated with viral dominance patterns in 85 HBV/HCV-coinfected patients. HBsAg levels were lowest in patients with HCV dominance, even lower compared with HBV-monoinfected patients undergoing treatment with nucleos(t)ide analogues (NA) but comparable to low replicative HBsAg carriers. An increase in HCV RNA during follow up was associated with HBsAg decline. Patients with HCV dominance had significantly higher serum IP-10 levels compared with HBV-dominant patients or HBV-monoinfected patients treated with NA. Lower HBsAg and higher IP-10 levels in HCV-dominant HBV/HCV-coinfected patients suggest that HCV suppresses HBV DNA replication and also HBsAg production by immune mechanisms.

Hepatitis B core-related antigen (HBcrAg) levels in the natural history of hepatitis B virus infection in a large European cohort predominantly infected with genotypes A and D.

Hepatitis B core-related antigen (HBcrAg) has been suggested as an additional marker of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. HBcrAg combines the antigenic reactivity resulting from denatured hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg), HBV core antigen and an artificial core-related protein (p22cr). In Asian patients, high levels of HBcrAg have been suggested to be an independent risk factor for hepatocellular carcinoma, while low levels could guide safe cessation of treatment with nucleos(t)ide analogues. We here studied HBcrAg levels in different phases of HBV infection in a large European cohort predominantly infected with genotypes A and D: HBeAg-positive immune tolerance (n = 30), HBeAg-positive immune clearance (IC) (n = 60), HBeAg-negative hepatitis (ENH) (n = 50), HBeAg-negative inactive/quiescent carrier phase (c) (n = 109) and acute hepatitis B (n = 8). Median HBcrAg levels were high in the immune tolerance and immune clearance phases (8.41 and 8.11 log U/mL, respectively), lower in ENH subjects (4.82 log U/mL) but only 2.00 log U/mL in ENQ subjects. Correlation between HBcrAg and HBV DNA varied among the different phases of HBV infection, while HBcrAg moderately correlated with hepatitis B surface antigen in all phases. ENQ patients had HBcrAg levels <3 log U/mL in 79%, in contrast to only 12% in the ENH group. HBcrAg levels vary significantly during the different phases of HBV infection. HBcrAg may serve as valuable marker for virus replication and reflect the transcriptional activity of intrahepatic cccDNA. In HBeAg-negative patients, HBcrAg may help to distinguish between inactive carriers (ENQ) and those with active disease (ENH).

Detection of low HCV viraemia by repeated HCV RNA testing predicts treatment failure to triple therapy with telaprevir.

BACKGROUND: Early on-treatment virological response is one of the most important predictors for sustained virological response (SVR) to treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 infection with triple therapy including HCV protease inhibitors (PI). Treatment duration (24 vs. 48 weeks) is based on HCV RNA results at weeks 4 and 12 of PI therapy when HCV RNA must be 'undetectable' to allow shorter therapy. AIM: To analyse the reliability of HCV RNA measurements at key decision time points (weeks 4 and 12) and the predictive value of concordant or discordant assay results for SVR. METHODS: Weeks 4 and 12 samples of patients receiving telaprevir-containing triple therapy were initially tested with the AmpliPrep/COBAS-TaqMan_HCV-Test-v1.0 (limit of detection; LOD = 15IU/mL) and retested with the AmpliPrep/COBAS-TaqMan_HCV-Test-v2.0 (LOD = 15IU/mL) and the High_Pure/COBAS-TaqMan_HCV-Test-v2.0 (LOD = 20IU/mL). RESULTS: Concordance among the three test results in classifying samples as HCV RNA 'undetectable' or 'detectable' was only 55% at week 4, but 85% at week 12. Retesting of 'undetectable' week 4 samples with the respective other assays revealed positive HCV RNA results in 32-50%. In 30%, HCV RNA was 'undetectable' by all three tests at week 4 and all of these patients achieved SVR. In contrast, treatment failure occurred in 62% of patients with at least one 'detectable' result, including cases with one or two other 'undetectable' tests at week 4. CONCLUSIONS: A single 'undetectable' HCV RNA result at week 4 is not always associated with achieving SVR. Repeated testing in difficult-to-treat patients may identify those at risk for treatment failure.

The clinical significance of drug-drug interactions in the era of direct-acting anti-viral agents against chronic hepatitis C.

BACKGROUND: Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C infection became a potential challenge with the introduction of direct-acting anti-virals (DAAs). Both currently approved DAAs, the protease inhibitors (PIs) telaprevir (TVR) and boceprevir (BOC), are substrates and inhibitors of P-glycoprotein and the cytochrome P450 3A4, which are regularly involved in DDIs. AIM: To analyse the risk for DDIs in patients with chronic HCV genotype 1 infection considered for PI treatment at a tertiary referral centre. METHODS: The first 115 consecutive patients selected for a PI therapy at Hannover Medical School were included. All changes to co-medication before and during PI treatment were documented. Drugs were checked for DDIs with TVR and BOC using DDI websites and the respective prescribing information. RESULTS: Out-patient medication contained 116 different drugs. Median number of drugs/patient was 2 (range 0-11). The risk for DDIs was substantial for 38% of the drugs affecting 49% of patients. Only 4% of the drugs were strictly contraindicated. DDIs between a PI and drugs newly prescribed during anti-viral therapy were considerable in 42% of the patients. Suspected DDIs were managed by dose adjustments and discontinuation of co-medication in 7% and 21% of the patients respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Many patients with chronic HCV genotype 1 infection are affected by potential DDIs if treated with a protease inhibitor, but only in a minority of cases co-medication is strictly incompatible. Overall, the challenge of DDIs is time-consuming, but well manageable by a careful review of the patient's drug chart and monitoring during treatment.