January 12, 2014

Hepatitis C virus infection in dialysis patients

REVIEW ARTICLE

Year : 2014  |  Volume : 25  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 1-8

Hossein Khedmat1, Mohsen Amini1, Mohammad Ebrahim Ghamar-Chehreh1, Shahram Agah2
1 Baqiyatalah Research Center for Gastroenterology and Liver Disease, Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2 Colorectal Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Click here for correspondence address and email

Date of Web Publication 7-Jan-2014

Abstract

Despite the introduction of strict hygienic precautions preventing infection spread of hepatitis C virus (HCV) in dialysis settings, this infection is still prevalent among dialysis patients due to procedures making the patients vulnerable to infection through blood contamination. Treatment of HCV infection in dialysis patients is also less successful than that in the non-uremic population due to contraindication of using ribavirin, a main drug, in the infected patients. In this review article we aim to investigate the feasibility of the current antiviral therapies in dialysis patients infected with HCV infection.

How to cite this article:
Khedmat H, Amini M, Ghamar-Chehreh ME, Agah S. Hepatitis C virus infection in dialysis patients. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl 2014;25:1-8

How to cite this URL:
Khedmat H, Amini M, Ghamar-Chehreh ME, Agah S. Hepatitis C virus infection in dialysis patients. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl [serial online] 2014 [cited 2014 Jan 12];25:1-8. Available from: http://www.sjkdt.org/text.asp?2014/25/1/1/124455

Introduction

The World Health Organization estimates the global prevalence of chronic infection with hepatitis C virus (HCV) to be 3%, with wide epidemiological variation. [1] In patients under going maintenance hemodialysis (HD), the prevalence of HCV infection substantially increases to up to 90%, [1],[2] and this disease has been shown to be associated with severe complications from chronic hepatitis to fatal cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. [3] Furthermore, there are other malignancies associated with

HCV infection in some patient populations. [4] Moreover, data on the natural history of HCV infection in kidney disease patients demonstrate that these patients may have significant liver disease on liver biopsy, despite normal serum liver enzymes, [5] and it also reportedly impairs the quality of life of chronic HD patients. [6] Accordingly, eradication of HCV infection in this specific population is highly recommended. [7]

Interferon-based therapy, a standard treatment for HCV infection, has many drawbacks in HD patients, such as poor tolerance and marginal response. [8] Prescription of ribavirin in HD patients is generally contraindicated due to a risk of hemolytic anemia. [9] Pegylated interferon (PEG-IFN), which has a large polyethylene glycol moiety bound to IFN, has higher stability and prolonged systemic bio-availability [10] with more efficiency compared with regular IFN. [9] However, data on the efficiency and safety of PEG-IFN in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients are limited. There are also newly introduced agents, including telaprevir and boceprevir, which have been successfully employed to manage HCV infection in the non-dialysis context. [10],[11] However, there is an absolute scarcity of data on the efficacy and/or safety of these drugs in dialysis patients, although one study suggested that renal dysfunction does not affect the serum levels of boceprevir. [12]

We aim in this review article to discuss the course and management of HCV-positive patients on maintenance HD.

HCV Infection Course in HD Patients

Because of the chronic nature of HCV infection and the high rate of morbidities and mortalities in dialysis patients owing to their renal disease, the long-term evaluation of the natural history of HCV infection in this patient population has several limitations. However, evidence suggests that HCV infection increases all-cause mortality in dialysis patients, [13],[14],[15],[16],[17] and this risk of death exists irrespective of the type of dialysis. [18] In a meta-analysis, Fabrizi et al. [19] reported that the presence of anti-HCV antibody was an independent factor for death, with a relative risk of 1.57 in patients on maintenance dialysis. They also reported that dialysis patients with HCV infection are significantly more likely to develop hepatocellular carcinoma and liver cirrhosis. [19] On the other hand, renal transplantation has been recommended for HCV-positive dialysis patients because of its survival advantage over patients remaining in the waiting list, [20] although, not surprisingly, viral replication of HCV has been shown to adversely affect renal graft survival. [21] The proposed explanation for this observation is that HCV-induced hepatic necro-inflammation would be accelerated, especially after renal transplantation, due to immunosuppression therapy. [22]

 Diagnosis of HCV Infection in ESRD Patients

There are two types of assays that measure the anti-HCV antibodies: Enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and recombinant immunoblotting assay (RIBA). Although RIBA is a known confirmative test for the diagnosis of HCV infection in case of positive EIA samples, molecular assays detecting circulating HCV-RNA have thoroughly replaced it. It has been demonstrated that the false-negative rates of EIA-2 were too high, rendering the HCV-RNA polymerization as the gold standard test to confirm the HCV infection. [23],[24] However, the EIA-3, as a serological assay, has a high sensitivity in patients on maintenance dialysis and can be effectively used for HCV diagnosis in the HD population. [3]

Detection of serum aminotransferase levels in HCV-infected HD patients is of less value because it is suggested that ESRD itself lowers the aminotransferase levels; however, some authors suggested different cut-off levels for them in this patient population. , Although some authors suggested some clinical values for elevated aminotransferase levels in dialysis patients, multivariable analysis in one of them showed no independently significant relationship. [27]

The distribution of HCV genotypes widely varies in different geographical areas, although HCV genotype 1 predominates in dialysis patients with chronic HCV infection, regardless of geographic area. [28],[29],[30] Detection of HCV-RNA is the direct method of evaluating HCV infection. Moreover, this method enables us to estimate the viral replication rate in the liver; thus, it is a reliable test to assess the response to antiviral treatment and helps physicians determine the optimal duration and dosage of anti-viral agents. Most studies indicate that the HCV-RNA levels decrease transiently during HD sessions. [31] Several mechanisms have been suggested for this observation, including the adsorption of HCV onto the dialysis membrane, destruction of HCV particles, escape of HCV into the dialysate and an increase of plasma IFN-α levels during dialysis. [32],[33] However, recent studies have reported different observations such as a steady state or an increasing rate of HCV-RNA concentration during HD sessions. [34],[35] Interestingly, this observation was independent from HD procedures, dialysis membrane, heparin concentration and uremic toxins. [35]

Role of Histological Evaluation of the Liver

The histopathological evaluation of a liver biopsy specimen is of substantial value in determining the severity of liver fibrosis and necro-inflammation in chronic HCV infection. This also rules out other disorders, including the very prevalent non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, which may be able to induce similar damages to the liver. [36] However, liver biopsies are limited by complications including potentially mass bleeding events, patients' unwillingness and technical errors in obtaining the specimen or its evaluation. Compared with HCV patients with normal renal function, dialysis patients with HCV infection have milder hepatic necro-inflammation and fibrosis. The predictors of a hepatic damage in this patient population include a longer duration of infection, advanced age at infection, elevated serum aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and severe hepatic necro-inflammation on liver biopsy. [37] Clinical relevance of evaluating liver histopathology in dialysis patients includes the necessity for IFN-based therapy, the long-term prognosis and the eligibility for kidney transplantation. [38],[39],[40]

For dialysis patients on a transplantation waiting list, the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) recommends liver biopsies in the HCV-infected patients, while the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) limits the biopsies to only the dialysis patients with genotypes 1 and 4 HCV infection. [42]

There is an increased risk of bleeding in patients with chronic kidney disease because of platelet dysfunction and anticoagulation therapies. Accordingly, the preferred method of a liver biopsy in HD patients is the trans-jugular or transfemoral routes. Moreover, through this method, one can also estimate the hepatic venous pressure gradient as well as the portal hypertension.

Treatment of Acute Infection with Hepatitis C Virus

Despite the introduction of a new generation of anti-HCV agents, IFN-α is still considered a very effective treatment in dialysis patients developing acute HCV infection according to recent publications. In a recent meta-analysis of eight clinical studies including 173 unique patients, Fabrizi et al [7] reported that IFN-based therapy of acute hepatitis C in dialysis populations results in a sustained virological response (SVR) in almost half of the patients. The patients who received higher doses of IFN developed higher rates of SVR. [44],[45]

In non-uremic patients, PEG-IFN-α-2b increases the SVR rate up to 94% in acute hepatitis C infection. [46] Nevertheless, data on the efficacy of PEG-IFN in dialysis patients are limited and suggestive of less-promising results than in non-uremic individuals. A recent study by Liu et al [47] on 35 HD patients who developed acute hepatitis C and did not have spontaneous HCV clearance by 16 weeks concluded that treatment with PEG-IFN-α-2a at a dosage of 135 μg weekly for 24 weeks was associated with almost 90% virological response, while this rate in 36 control patients who did not receive therapy was only 17%. In another study, 32 ESRD patients with acute HCV infection were followed and ten of them received PEG-IFN-α-2b, and only 40% developed SVR and one died. [48]

Treatment of Chronic Hepatitis C Virus Infection in Dialysis Patients

[Table 1] summarizes the data of previous metaanalyses on the treatment of chronic HCV infection in HD patients. Despite the introduction of more potent drugs and combination therapies of HCV infection in dialysis patients, IFN monotherapy is still considered a very effective therapeutic option in patients on maintenance dialysis. Conventional IFN monotherapy at a dose of 1-6 MU daily or three times per week for 12-48 weeks has been associated with SVR rates of 20-71% in dialysis patients. [3],[49],[50],[51] The predictive factors of SVR in these patients include a low baseline HCV-RNA level, mild liver histology and treating patients by IFN at a dose of 3 MU for at least six months.[3],[52] Previous review articles have excellently included articles published earlier on the efficacy and safety of IFN monotherapy for chronic HCV infection in dialysis patients. [3] In our review, we only found one more article published recently to add. Fucuta Pereira Pda et al, [53] evaluating 40 HD patients, reported septal fibrosis or cirrhosis in 38% of patients. HCV-RNA was undetectable at Week 12 in 68% and SVR was observed in 30% of patients.

SaudiJKidneyDisTranspl_2014_25_1_1_124455_t1

Table 1: Meta-analyses investigating efficacy of chronic HCV treatment in dialysis patients.

Peg-IFN has also been extensively used to treat chronic HCV infection in HD patients. Among recent studies, Kose et al. [5] investigated the largest patient population. PEG-IFN-α-2a 135 mcg/week was given for 48 weeks, which was administered in 41 patients, of whom 38 completed the study. Virological response rates for Weeks 12 and 72 were 60% and 50%, respectively. Furthermore, Alsaran et al. [2]treated 13 patients with PEG-IFN for 48 weeks, with no drop-out. After 24 weeks of therapy, 76% of patients responded to therapy and 24% of patients were resistant. Six months after termination of therapy, nine (69%) patients had SVR. [2] [Table 2] summarizes the recent studies investigating anti-HCV therapy in ESRD patients.

SaudiJKidneyDisTranspl_2014_25_1_1_124455_t2

Table 2: Recent studies investigating treatment of HCV infection in dialysis patients.

Resistant Cases of Hepatitis C Virus-Infected Dialysis Patients to Interferon Therapy

Although treatment of HCV infection with IFN-based regimens in dialysis patients has been reportedly considered a safe and feasible method of therapy, many ESRD patients with HCV infection show resistance toward it. Intolerance to IFN due to its side-effects is the most significant cause of resistance to this therapy. There is a wide spectrum of side-effects associated with IFN therapy, which includes loss of appetite, fatigue, dry skin, influenzalike symptoms and gastrointestinal disturbances as well as neuropsychiatric symptoms and hematological abnormalities. [64] These side-effects often result in discontinuation or dose reduction of the drug, which can endanger viral response in HCV-infected dialysis patients. [55],[56] The incidence of these side-effects can be as high as 30% in patients using PEG-IFN, with lower rates in those using standard IFN. [64] Data on the efficacy and safety of PEG-IFN in ESRD patients are more limited and future studies are required to extend our knowledge on this issue.

References

1.Aoufi Rabih S, García Agudo R. Management of HCV infection in chronic kidney disease. Nefrologia 2011;31:260-7. 

2.Alsaran K, Sabry A, Shaheen N. Pegylated interferon alpha-2a for treatment of chronic HCV infection in hemodialysis patients: A single Saudi center experience. Int Urol Nephrol 2011;43:865-73.  [PUBMED]   

3.Liu CH, Kao JH. Treatment of hepatitis C virus infection in patients with end-stage renal disease. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011;26:228-39.  [PUBMED]   

4.Khedmat H, Taheri S. Hepatitis C virus infection can affect lymphoproliferative disorders only as a cofactor for Epstein-Barr virus in liver transplant recipients: PTLD.Int survey. Exp Clin Transplant 2012;10:141-7.  [PUBMED]   

5.Fabrizi F, Dixit V, Messa P, Martin P. Hepatitis C-related liver disease in dialysis patients. Contrib Nephrol 2012;176:42-53.  [PUBMED]   

6.Afsar B, Elsurer R, Sezer S, Ozdemir NF. Quality of life in hemodialysis patients: Hepatitis C virus infection makes sense. Int Urol Nephrol 2009;41:1011-9.  [PUBMED]   

7.Fabrizi F, Dixit V, Messa P, Martin P. Interferon therapy of acute hepatitis C in dialysis patients: Meta-analysis. J Viral Hepat 2012;19: 784-91.  [PUBMED]   

8.Russo MW, Goldsweig CD, Jacobson IM, Brown RS. Interferon monotherapy for dialysis patients with chronic hepatitis C: An analysis of the literature on efficacy and safety. Am J Gastroenterol 2003;98:1610-5. 

9.Teta D, Lüscher BL, Gonvers JJ, Francioli P, Phan O, Burnier M. Pegylated interferon for the treatment of hepatitis C virus in haemo-dialysis patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2005;20:991-3. 

10.McHutchison JG, Everson GT, Gordon SC, et al. PROVE1 Study Team. Telaprevir with peginterferon and ribavirin for chronic HCV genotype 1 infection. N Engl J Med 2009; 360:1827-38.  [PUBMED]   

11.Available from: http://www.aasld.org/Liver Learning%C2%AE/TEST/Renal%20Insufficie ncy-Hemodialysis.pdf. (Last accessed on 22 April 2013). 

12.Treitel M, Marbury T, Preston RA, et al. Single-dose pharmacokinetics of boceprevir in subjects with impaired hepatic or renal function. Clin Pharmacokinet 2012;51:619-28.  [PUBMED]   

13.Vispo E, Barreiro P, Soriano V. Pharmacokinetics of new oral hepatitis C antiviral drugs. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 2013;9:5-16.  [PUBMED]   

14.Khedmat H, Alavian SM, Miri SM, et al. Trends in seroprevalence of hepatitis B, hepatitis C, HIV, and syphilis infections in Iranian blood donors from 2003 to 2005. Hepat Mon 2009;9:24-8. 

15.Alavian SM. A shield against a monster: Hepatitis C in hemodialysis patients. World J Gastroenterol 2009;15:641-6.  [PUBMED]   

16.Ohsawa M, Kato K, Tanno K, et al. Seropositivity for anti-HCV core antigen is independently associated with increased all-cause, cardiovascular, and liver disease-related mortality in hemodialysis patients. J Epidemiol 2011;21:491-9.  [PUBMED]   

17.Fabrizi F, Dixit V, Messa P. Impact of hepatitis C on survival in dialysis patients: A link with cardiovascular mortality? J Viral Hepat 2012;19:601-7.  [PUBMED]   

18.Bose B, McDonald SP, Hawley CM, et al. Effect of dialysis modality on survival of hepatitis C-infected ESRF patients. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2011;6:2657-61.  [PUBMED]   

19.Fabrizi F, Martin P, Dixit V, Bunnapradist S, Dulai G. Meta-analysis: Effect of hepatitis C virus infection on mortality in dialysis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2004;20:1271-7.  [PUBMED]   

20.Roth D, Gaynor JJ, Reddy KR, et al. Effect of kidney transplantation on outcomes among patients with hepatitis C. J Am Soc Nephrol 2011;22:1152-60.  [PUBMED]   

21.Gentil Govantes MA, Esforzado N, Cruzado JM, et al. Harmful effects of viral replication in seropositive hepatitis C virus renal transplant recipients. Transplantation 2012;94:1131-7.  [PUBMED]   

22.Töz H, Ok E, Yilmaz F, et al. Clinicopathological features of hepatitis C virus infection in dialysis and renal transplantation. J Nephrol 2007;15:308-12. 

23.Kalantar-Zadeh K, Miller LG, Daar ES. Diagnostic discordance for hepatitis C virus infection in hemodialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis 2005;46:290-300.  [PUBMED]   

24.Alavian SM, Hosseini-Moghaddam SM, Rahnavardi M. Hepatitis C among Hemodialysis Patients: A Review on Epidemiologic, Diagnostic, and Therapeutic Features. Hepat Mon 2007;7:153-62. 

25.Lampe E, Yoshida CF, De Oliveira RV, Lauer GM, Lewis-Ximenez LL. Molecular analysis and patterns of ALT and hepatitis C virus seroconversion in haemodialysis patients with acute hepatitis. Nephrology (Carlton) 2008;13: 186-92.  Back to cited text no. 25
[PUBMED]   

26.Lopes EP, Gouveia EC, Albuquerque AC, et al. Determination of the cut-off value of serum alanine aminotransferase in patients undergoing hemodialysis, to identify biochemical activity in patients with hepatitis C viremia. J Clin Virol 2006;35:298-302.  [PUBMED]   

27.Dzekova-Vidimliski P, Severova-Andreevska G, Trajceska L, et al. Aminotransferase activity as a poor predictor of liver disease progression in dialysis patients with chronic hepatitis C. Bratisl Lek Listy 2011;112:568-71.  [PUBMED]   

28.Fallahian F, Najafi A. Epidemiology of hepatitis C in the Middle East. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl 2011;22:1-9.  [PUBMED] 

29.Joukar F, Khalesi AK, Jafarshad R, Rahimabadi MS, Mansour-Ghanaei F. Distribution of hepatitis C virus genotypes in haemodialysis patients of Guilan, northern Islamic Republic of Iran. East Mediterr Health J 2012;18:236-40.  [PUBMED]   

30.Al Balwi MA. Prevalence of mixed hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotypes among recently diagnosed dialysis patients with HCV infection. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl 2011;22:712-6.  [PUBMED] 

31.Kaiser T, Damerow HC, Tenckhoff S, et al. Kinetics of hepatitis C viral RNA and HCV-antigen during dialysis sessions: Evidence for differential viral load reduction on dialysis. J Med Virol 2008;80:1195-201.  [PUBMED]   

32.Mizuno M, Higuchi T, Yanai M, Kanmatsuse K, Esumi M. Dialysis-membrane-dependent reduction and adsorption of circulating hepatitis C virus during hemodialysis. Nephron 2002;91:235-42.  [PUBMED]   

33.Badalamenti S, Catania A, Lunghi G, et al. Changes in viremia and circulating interferon-alpha during hemodialysis in hepatitis C virus-positive patients: Only coincidental pheno-mena? Am J Kidney Dis 2003;42:143-50.  [PUBMED]   

34.Martins RS, Martins Filho OA, Gonçales NS, et al. Kinetics of hepatitis C virus load and hemodialysis: Is there any influence of the reuse of dialysis membrane on HCV viremia? Scand J Infect Dis 2012;44:190-6. 

35.Putz-Bankuti C, Kessler HH, Schilcher G, et al. Increase of HCV RNA concentration during hemodialysis treatment in patients with chronic hepatitis C. J Clin Virol 2012;54:110-4.  [PUBMED]   

36.Khedmat H, Taheri S. Non-alcoholic Steato-hepatitis: An update in pathophysiology, diag-nosis and therapy. Hepat Mon 2011;11:74-85. 

37.Trevizoli JE, de Paula Menezes R, Ribeiro Velasco LF, et al. Hepatitis C is less aggressive in hemodialysis patients than in nonuremic patients. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2008;3:1385-90.  [PUBMED]   

38.Roth D, Bloom R. Selection and management of hepatitis C virus-infected patients for the kidney transplant waiting list. Contrib Nephrol 2012;176:66-76.  [PUBMED]   

39.Morales JM, Bloom R, Roth D. Kidney transplantation in the patient with hepatitis C virus infection. Contrib Nephrol 2012;176:77-86.  [PUBMED]   

40.Rockey DC, Caldwell SH, Goodman ZD, Nelson RC, Smith AD. American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Liver biopsy. Hepatology 2009;49:1017-44. 

41.Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes. Clinical practice guidelines for the prevention, diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of hepatitis C in chronic kidney disease. Kidney Int 2008;73(Suppl 109):S53-68. 

42.Ghany MG, Strader DB, Thomas DL, Seeff LB; American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Diagnosis, management, and treatment of hepatitis C: An update. Hepatology 2009;49:1335-74.  [PUBMED]   

43.Kojima A, Kakizaki S, Hosonuma KI, et al. Interferon treatment for patients with chronic hepatitis C complicated with chronic renal failure receiving hemodialysis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013;28:690-9. 

44.Rocha CM, Perez RM, Narciso JL, et al. Interferon-alpha therapy within the first year after acute hepatitis C infection in hemodialysis patients: Efficacy and tolerance. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007;19:119-23.  [PUBMED]   

45.Smirne C, Minisini R, Burlone ME, et al. Interferon alpha concentrations in blood and peritoneal fluid during treatment for hepatitis C. Perit Dial Int 2012;32:664-6.  [PUBMED]   

46.Santantonio T, Fasano M, Sinisi E, et al. Efficacy of a 24-week course of PEG-interferon alpha-2b monotherapy in patients with acute hepatitis C after failure of spontaneous clearance. J Hepatol 2005;42:329-33.  [PUBMED]   

47.Liu CH, Liang CC, Liu CJ, et al. Pegylated interferon alfa-2a monotherapy for hemodialysis patients with acute hepatitis C. Clin Infect Dis 2010;51:541-9.  [PUBMED]   

48.Engel M, Malta FM, Gomes MM, et al. Acute hepatitis C virus infection assessment among chronic hemodialysis patients in the Southwest Parana State, Brazil. BMC Public Health 2007;7:50.  [PUBMED]   

49.Grgureviæ I, Vince A, Buljevac M, et al. Efficacy of interferon-alpha in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C in dialysis patients: Two therapeutic protocols compared. Nephron Clin Pract 2006;103:c8-11. 

50.Liu CH, Liang CC, Lin JW, et al. Pegylated interferon alpha-2a versus standard interferon alpha-2a for treatment-naive dialysis patients with chronic hepatitis C: A randomised study. Gut 2008;57:525-30.  [PUBMED]   

51.Buargub M, El Huni S, Tagdi M. Tolerance and efficacy of interferon-alpha in hemodialysis patients in Tripoli. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl 2006;17:338-43.  [PUBMED] 

52.Gordon CE, Uhlig K, Lau J, Schmid CH, Levey AS, Wong JB. Interferon for hepatitis C virus in hemodialysis-an individual patient meta-analysis of factors associated with sustained virological response. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2009;4:1449-58.  [PUBMED]   

53.Fucuta Pereira Pda S, Uehara SN, de Mello Perez R, et al. Is early virological response as predictive of the hepatitis C treatment response in dialysis patients as in non-uremic patients? Int J Infect Dis 2013;17:e50-3. 

54.Köse S, Senger SS, Ersan G, Cavdar G. Virological responses of pegylated interferon alpha-2a treatment in hemodialysis patients infected with hepatitis C. Clin Exp Nephrol 2013;17:115-9. 

55.Fabrizi F, Dulai G, Dixit V, Bunnapradist S, Martin P. Meta-analysis: Interferon for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C in dialysis patients. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2003;18: 1071-81.  [PUBMED]   

56.Russo MW, Goldsweig CD, Jacobson IM, Brown RS Jr. Interferon monotherapy for dialysis patients with chronic hepatitis C: An analysis of the literature on efficacy and safety. Am J Gastroenterol 2003;98:1610-5.  [PUBMED]   

57.Gordon CE, Uhlig K, Schmid CH, Levey AS, Wong JB. Long-term viral negativity after interferon for chronic hepatitis C virus infection in hemodialysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2011;6:2226-34.  [PUBMED]   

58.Fabrizi F, Dixit V, Messa P, Martin P. Interferon monotherapy of chronic hepatitis C in dialysis patients: Meta-analysis of clinical trials. J Viral Hepat 2008;15:79-88.  [PUBMED]   

59.Fabrizi F, Dixit V, Messa P, Martin P. Pegylated interferon monotherapy of chronic hepatitis C in dialysis patients: Meta-analysis of clinical trials. J Med Virol 2010;82:768-75.  [PUBMED]   

60.Fabrizi F, Dixit V, Martin P, Messa P. Combined antiviral therapy of hepatitis C virus in dialysis patients: Meta-analysis of clinical trials. J Viral Hepat 2011;18:e263-9.  [PUBMED]   

61.Tae HJ, Jun DW, Choi JW, et al. A case of pegylated interferon alpha-2a monotherapy in a peritoneal dialysis patient with chronic hepatitis C. Korean J Gastroenterol 2011;58: 107-10.  [PUBMED]   

62.Giguere A, Anas A, Nasser T, et al. Treatment of hepatitis C virus infection in patients on maintenance hemodialysis: A single United Arab Emirates center experience. Eur J Intern Med 2011;22:582-6.  [PUBMED]   

63.Fucuta Pereira Pda S, Uehara SN, de Mello Perez R, et al. Is early virological response as predictive of the hepatitis C treatment response in dialysis patients as in non-uremic patients? Int J Infect Dis 2013;17:e50-3. 

64.Fried MW. Side effects of therapy of hepatitis C and their management. Hepatology 2002; 36(5 Suppl 1):S237-44. 

Source

January 11, 2014

Clinical Trial: Phase III HIV/HCV Co-Infection Daclatasvir (DCV) + Sofosbuvir (SOF) (ALLY 2)

This study is not yet open for participant recruitment.

Verified January 2014 by Bristol-Myers Squibb

Sponsor: Bristol-Myers Squibb

Information provided by (Responsible Party): Bristol-Myers Squibb

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02032888
First received: January 9, 2014
Last updated: NA
Last verified: January 2014
History: No changes posted

Purpose

To study the combination of Daclatasvir and Sofosbuvir for the treatment of HCV/ HIV Coinfection

Condition Intervention Phase
Hepatitis C
Drug: Daclatasvir
Drug: 
Sofosbuvir

Phase 3

Study Type: Interventional

Study Design:
Allocation: Randomized
Endpoint Classification: Efficacy Study
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Masking: Open Label
Primary Purpose: Treatment

Official Title:
A Phase 3 Evaluation of Daclatasvir Plus Sofosbuvir in Treatment-naïve and Treatment-experienced Chronic Hepatitis C (Genotype 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6) Subjects Coinfected With Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)

Resource links provided by NLM:

Genetics Home Reference related topics: complement factor I deficiency

MedlinePlus related topics: HIV/AIDS Hepatitis Hepatitis A Hepatitis C

U.S. FDA Resources

Further study details as provided by Bristol-Myers Squibb:

Primary Outcome Measures:

  • Proportion of treatment-naive subjects with sustained virologic response 12 (SVR12) [ Time Frame: Post treatment Week 12 ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

    SVR12 defined as hepatitis C virus (HCV) ribonucleic acid (RNA) < lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) target detected (TD) or target not detected (TND) at follow-up Week 12 for the treatment-naive HCV genotype 1 subjects coinfected with HIV on the DCV+SOF 12-week regimen

Secondary Outcome Measures:

  • Proportion of treatment-naive subjects with SVR12 [ Time Frame: Post treatment Week 12 ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

    SVR12 defined as hepatitis C virus (HCV) ribonucleic acid (RNA) < lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) target detected (TD) or target not detected (TND) at follow-up Week 12 for the treatment-naive HCV genotype 1 subjects coinfected with HIV on the DCV+SOF 8 -week regimen

  • Proportion of treatment-experienced HCV subjects with SVR12 [ Time Frame: Post treatment Week 12 ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

    SVR12 defined as hepatitis C virus (HCV) ribonucleic acid (RNA) < lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) target detected (TD) or target not detected (TND) at follow-up Week 12 for the treatment-experienced HCV genotype 1 subjects coinfected with HIV on the DCV+SOF 12-week regimen

  • Proportion of HIV/HCV coinfected subjects, in each treatment arm, with SVR12 [ Time Frame: Post treatment Week 12 ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

    SVR12 defined as HCV RNA < LLOQ TD or TND at follow-up Week 12 without regard to infecting HCV genotype

  • Safety measured by deaths and the frequency of serious adverse events (SAEs), discontinuations due to adverse events (AEs), Grade 3/4 AEs, and Grade 3/4 laboratory abnormalities [ Time Frame: Up to EOT (Approximately 8/12 weeks depending on treatment regimen) + 7 days ] [ Designated as safety issue: Yes ]

    EOT = End of treatment

  • The proportion of subjects coinfected with HIV, in each treatment arm, who achieve HCV RNA < LLOQ-TD/TND [ Time Frame: At Weeks: 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 and 12 (for subjects in the 12-week arm) and EOT; post-treatment Weeks 4 and 24 ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
  • The proportion of subjects coinfected with HIV, in each treatment arm, who achieve HCV RNA < LLOQ TND [ Time Frame: At Weeks: 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 and 12 (for subjects in the 12-week arm) and EOT ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
  • The proportion of HIV/HCV coinfected subjects, in each treatment arm, with CC or non-CC genotype at the IL28B rs12979860 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) who achieve SVR12 [ Time Frame: Post treatment Week 12 ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

Estimated Enrollment: 200
Study Start Date: February 2014
Estimated Study Completion Date: March 2015
Estimated Primary Completion Date: December 2014 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)

Arms Assigned Interventions
Experimental: Arm 1: Cohort 1a-Treatment-naive-12 weeks
Daclatasvir 30, 60 or 90 mg tablet and Sofosbuvir 400 mg tablet orally once daily for 12 weeks
Drug: Daclatasvir
Other Name: BMS-790052
Drug: Sofosbuvir
Experimental: Arm 2: Cohort 1b-Treatment-naive-8 weeks
Daclatasvir 30, 60 or 90 mg tablet and Sofosbuvir 400 mg tablet orally once daily for 8 weeks
Drug: Daclatasvir
Other Name: BMS-790052
Drug: Sofosbuvir
Experimental: Arm 3: Cohort 2-Treatment Experineced-12 weeks
Daclatasvir 30, 60 or 90 mg tablet and Sofosbuvir 400 mg tablet orally once daily for 12 weeks
Drug: Daclatasvir
Other Name: BMS-790052
Drug: Sofosbuvir

Eligibility

Ages Eligible for Study:  18 Years and older
Genders Eligible for Study:  Both
Accepts Healthy Volunteers:  No

Criteria

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Subjects must be able to understand and agree to comply with the prescribed dosing regimens and procedures, report for regularly scheduled study visits, and reliably communicate with study personnel about adverse events and concomitant medications
  • Subjects chronically infected with HCV genotype 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6, as documented by positive HCV RNA at screening
  • HCV-Treatment-naive subjects
  • HCV treatment-experienced subjects are eligible. All permitted prior anti-HCV therapies must be discontinued or completed at least 12 weeks prior to screening
  • Subjects must have an HCV RNA ≥ 10,000 IU/mL at Screening
  • Subjects must have HIV-1 infection

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Presence of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS)-defining opportunistic infections within 12 weeks prior to study entry (AIDS-defining opportunistic infections as defined by the CDC)
  • Subjects infected with HIV-2
  • Liver or any other organ transplant (including hematopoietic stem cell transplants) other than cornea and hair
  • Current or known history of cancer (except in situ carcinoma of the cervix or adequately treated basal or squamous cell carcinoma of the skin) within 5 years prior to screening
  • Documented or suspected hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), as evidenced by previously obtained imaging studies or liver biopsy (or on a screening imaging study/liver biopsy if this was performed)
  • Evidence of decompensated liver disease including, but not limited to, radiologic criteria,a history or presence of ascites, bleeding varices, or hepatic encephalopathy

Contacts and Locations

Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02032888

Sponsors and Collaborators
Bristol-Myers Squibb

Investigators
Study Director:
Bristol-Myers Squibb Bristol-Myers Squibb

More Information

No publications provided

Responsible Party: Bristol-Myers Squibb
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02032888 History of Changes
Other Study ID Numbers: AI444-216
Study First Received: January 9, 2014
Last Updated: January 9, 2014
Health Authority: United States: Food and Drug Administration

-------------------------------------------

Clinical Trial: Phase III Daclatasvir + Sofosbuvir for Genotype 3 Chronic HCV (ALLY 3)

This study is not yet open for participant recruitment.

Verified January 2014 by Bristol-Myers Squibb

Sponsor: Bristol-Myers Squibb

Information provided by (Responsible Party): Bristol-Myers Squibb

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02032901
First received: January 9, 2014
Last updated: NA
Last verified: January 2014
History: No changes posted

Purpose

To study the combination of Daclatasvir and Sofosbuvir for the treatment of HCV Genotype 3 infection

Condition Intervention Phase
Hepatitis C
Drug: Daclatasvir
Drug: 
Sofosbuvir

Phase 3

Study Type:
Interventional

Study Design:
Allocation: Non-Randomized
Endpoint Classification: Efficacy Study
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Masking: Open Label
Primary Purpose: Treatment

Official Title:
A Phase 3 Evaluation of Daclatasvir and Sofosbuvir in Treatment Naive and Treatment Experienced Subjects With Genotype 3 Chronic Hepatitis C Infection

Resource links provided by NLM:

MedlinePlus related topics: Hepatitis Hepatitis A Hepatitis C

U.S. FDA Resources

Further study details as provided by Bristol-Myers Squibb:

Primary Outcome Measures:

  • Proportion of treatment naive subjects with sustained virologic response 12 (SVR12) [ Time Frame: Post treatment Week 12 ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

    SVR12 defined as hepatitis C virus (HCV) ribonucleic acid (RNA) < lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) target detected (TD) or target not detected (TND) at follow-up Week 12

  • Proportion of treatment experienced subjects with SVR12 [ Time Frame: Post treatment Week 12 ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

Secondary Outcome Measures:

  • Safety measured by frequency of serious adverse events (SAEs), discontinuations due to adverse events (AEs), Grade 3/4 AEs, and Grade 3/4 laboratory abnormalities [ Time Frame: Up to end of treatment (EOT) (Week 12) + 7 days ] [ Designated as safety issue: Yes ]
  • The proportion of subjects who achieve HCV RNA < LLOQ-TD/TND [ Time Frame: At Weeks: 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 and 12; EOT; post-treatment Weeks 4 and 24 ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
  • The proportion of subjects who achieve HCV RNA < LLOQ TND [ Time Frame: At Weeks: 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 and 12; EOT ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
  • The proportion of subjects who achieve SVR12 by baseline cirrhosis (presence or absence) [ Time Frame: Post treatment Week 12 ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
  • The proportion of subjects with CC or non-CC genotype at the IL28B rs12979860 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) who achieve SVR12 [ Time Frame: Post treatment Week 12 ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

Estimated Enrollment: 150
Study Start Date: February 2014
Estimated Study Completion Date: March 2015
Estimated Primary Completion Date: December 2014 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)

Arms Assigned Interventions
Experimental: A1:Daclatasvir + Sofosbuvir in treatment-naive subjects
Daclatasvir 60 mg tablet and Sofosbuvir 400 mg tablet orally once daily for 12 weeks
Drug: Daclatasvir
Other Name: BMS-790052
Drug: Sofosbuvir
Experimental: A2:Daclatasvir + Sofosbuvir in treatment-experienced subjects
Daclatasvir 60 mg tablet and Sofosbuvir 400 mg tablet orally once daily for 12 weeks
Drug: Daclatasvir
Other Name: BMS-790052
Drug: Sofosbuvir

Eligibility

Ages Eligible for Study: 18 Years and older
Genders Eligible for Study: Both
Accepts Healthy Volunteers:  No

Criteria

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Subjects must be able to understand and agree to comply with the prescribed dosing regimens and procedures, report for regularly scheduled study visits, and reliably communicate with study personnel about adverse events and concomitant medications
  • Subjects chronically infected with HCV genotype 3
  • Subjects who are HCV-Treatment-naive
  • Subjects who are HCV-treatment-experienced

    • Previous exposure to non-structural 5A (NS5A) inhibitors is prohibited
  • HCV RNA ≥ 10,000 IU/mL at Screening

Exclusion Criteria:

  • HCV Genotypes other than genotype (GT) -3 infection; mixed genotype infections are not permitted
  • Liver or any other organ transplant (including hematopoietic stem cell transplants) other than cornea and hair
  • Current or known history of cancer (except in situ carcinoma of the cervix or adequately treated basal or squamous cell carcinoma of the skin) within 5 years prior to screening
  • Documented or suspected hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), as evidenced by previously obtained imaging studies or liver biopsy (or on a screening imaging study/liver biopsy if this was performed)
  • Evidence of decompensated liver disease including, but not limited to, radiologic criteria, a history or presence of ascites, bleeding varices, or hepatic encephalopathy

Contacts and Locations

Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02032901

Sponsors and Collaborators
Bristol-Myers Squibb

Investigators
Study Director: Bristol-Myers Squibb Bristol-Myers Squibb

More Information

No publications provided

Responsible Party: Bristol-Myers Squibb
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02032901 History of Changes
Other Study ID Numbers: AI444-218
Study First Received: January 9, 2014
Last Updated: January 9, 2014
Health Authority: United States: Food and Drug Administration

-----------------------------------

Clinical Trial: A Phase III Evaluation of Daclatasvir + Sofosbuvir in Genotype 1-6 Chronic HCV Subjects With Cirrhosis Who May Require Future Liver Transplant and Subjects Post-Liver Transplant

This study is not yet open for participant recruitment.

Verified January 2014 by Bristol-Myers Squibb

Sponsor: Bristol-Myers Squibb

Information provided by (Responsible Party): Bristol-Myers Squibb

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02032875
First received: January 9, 2014
Last updated: NA
Last verified: January 2014
History: No changes posted

Purpose

This trial is open to patients with cirrhosis due to chronic HCV, and to patients who have already received a liver transplant for chronic HCV. All subjects will be treated with Daclatasvir and Sofosbuvir for 12 weeks. Under certain conditions, the treatment duration may be extended for cirrhotic subjects. The study will test how well this combination of investigational drugs works to treat chronic HCV.

Condition Intervention Phase
Hepatitis C Drug: Daclatasvir
Drug: Sofosbuvir
Drug: Ribavirin
Phase 3

Study Type:
Interventional

Study Design:
Allocation: Non-Randomized
Endpoint Classification: Efficacy Study
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Masking: Open Label
Primary Purpose: Treatment

Official Title:
A Phase 3 Evaluation of Daclatasvir and Sofosbuvir in Genotype 1-6 Chronic Hepatitis C Infection Subjects With Cirrhosis Who May Require Future Liver Transplant and Subjects Post-Liver Transplant

Resource links provided by NLM:

Genetics Home Reference related topics: North American Indian childhood cirrhosis

MedlinePlus related topics: Cirrhosis Hepatitis Hepatitis A Hepatitis C Liver Transplantation

Drug Information available for: Ribavirin

U.S. FDA Resources

Further study details as provided by Bristol-Myers Squibb:

Primary Outcome Measures:

  • Proportion of genotype (GT) -1 infected Cirrhotic subjects with sustained virologic response (SVR12) [ Time Frame: Post treatment Week 12 ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

    SVR12 defined as hepatitis C virus (HCV) ribonucleic acid (RNA) < lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) target detected (TD) or target not detected (TND) 12 weeks after end of treatment (EOT)

  • Proportion of GT-1 infected Post-transplant subjects with SVR12 [ Time Frame: Post treatment Week 12 ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

    SVR12 defined as hepatitis C virus (HCV) ribonucleic acid (RNA) < lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) target detected (TD) or target not detected (TND) 12 weeks after end of treatment (EOT)

Secondary Outcome Measures:

  • The proportion of subjects who achieve SVR12 rates in all Cirrhotic and Post-transplant subjects, respectively, regardless of infecting HCV genotype, and GT-2-6 independently [ Time Frame: Post treatment Week 12 ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
  • Safety measured by frequency of deaths, serious adverse events (SAEs), discontinuations due to adverse events (AEs), Grade 3/4 AEs, and Grade 3/4 clinical laboratory abnormalities [ Time Frame: Up to end of treatment (Week 12 of the treatment phase) + 7 days ] [ Designated as safety issue: Yes ]
  • The proportion of subjects who achieve HCV RNA < LLOQ-TD/TND [ Time Frame: At Weeks: 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and EOT; post-treatment Weeks 4, 8 and 24 ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
  • The proportion of subjects who achieve HCV RNA < LLOQ TND [ Time Frame: At Weeks: 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and EOT ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
  • The proportion of subjects with CC or non-CC genotype at the IL28B rs12979860 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) who achieve SVR12 in Cirrhotic and Post-transplant subjects respectively [ Time Frame: Post treatment Week 12 ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

Estimated Enrollment: 110
Study Start Date: March 2014
Estimated Study Completion Date: March 2015
Estimated Primary Completion Date: January 2015 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)

Arms Assigned Interventions
Experimental: Arm 1a: Daclatasvir and Sofosbuvir in Cirrhotic subjects
Daclatasvir 60 mg tablet and Sofosbuvir 400 mg tablet orally once daily for 12 weeks
Drug: Daclatasvir
Other Name: BMS-790052
Drug: Sofosbuvir
Experimental: Arm 1b: Daclatasvir+Sofosbuvir+Ribavirin(Relapse Re-treatment)
Cirrhotic subjects who undergo transplant while on study treatment may enter an additional Treatment Extension or Relapse Re-treatment period
Daclatasvir 60 mg tablet and Sofosbuvir 400 mg tablet orally once daily for 12 weeks. Ribavirin tablet daily dose of 1000 - 1200 mg orally in two divided doses for 12 weeks
Drug: Daclatasvir
Other Name: BMS-790052
Drug: Sofosbuvir Drug: Ribavirin
Experimental: Arm 1c: Daclatasvir and Sofosbuvir (Treatment Extension)
Cirrhotic subjects who undergo transplant while on study treatment may enter an additional Treatment Extension or Relapse Re-treatment period
Daclatasvir 60 mg tablet and Sofosbuvir 400 mg tablet orally once daily for 12 weeks
Drug: Daclatasvir
Other Name: BMS-790052
Drug: Sofosbuvir
Experimental: Arm 2: Daclatasvir and Sofosbuvir in Post-transplant subjects
Daclatasvir 60 mg tablet and Sofosbuvir 400 mg tablet orally once daily for 12 weeks
Drug: Daclatasvir
Other Name: BMS-790052
Drug: Sofosbuvir

Eligibility

Ages Eligible for Study:  18 Years and older
Genders Eligible for Study:  Both
Accepts Healthy Volunteers:  No

Criteria

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Subjects must be able to understand and agree to comply with the prescribed dosing regimens and procedures, report for regularly scheduled study visits, and reliably communicate with study personnel about adverse events and concomitant medications
  • Subjects chronically infected with HCV Genotype 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 with HCV RNA viral load of ≥ 10,000 IU/mL at screening
  • Subjects may be treatment-naïve or treatment-experienced
  • Cirrhotic subjects must have cirrhosis confirmed by biopsy, Fibroscan or fibrotest and Aspartate aminotransferase platelet ratio index (APRI) criteria as outlined in the protocol
  • Post-transplant subjects must be at least 3 months post-transplant with no evidence of moderate or severe rejection

Exclusion Criteria:

  • History of multi-organ transplant, with the exception of dual transplantation of the liver/kidney, is prohibited
  • Current or known history of cancer (with the following exceptions: In situ carcinoma of the cervix, adequately treated basal or squamous cell carcinoma of the skin, or hepatocellular carcinoma within Milan criteria for transplantation) within 5 years prior to screening
  • Evidence of an ongoing medical condition contributing to chronic liver disease other than HCV (such as, but not limited to: hemochromatosis, autoimmune hepatitis, metabolic liver disease, alcoholic liver disease, or toxin exposures)
  • History of HIV infection or chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) as documented by HBV serologies (e.g., HBsAg-seropositive). Subjects with resolved HBV infection may participate (e.g., HBcAb-seropositive with concurrent HBsAg-seronegative)
  • Active hospitalization for decompensated liver disease

Contacts and Locations

Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02032875

Sponsors and Collaborators
Bristol-Myers Squibb

Investigators
Study Director: Bristol-Myers Squibb  Bristol-Myers Squibb

More Information

No publications provided

Responsible Party: Bristol-Myers Squibb
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02032875 History of Changes
Other Study ID Numbers: AI444-215
Study First Received: January 9, 2014
Last Updated: January 9, 2014
Health Authority: United States: Food and Drug Administration

-----------------------------------------

January 10, 2014

Thinking About Your Health: How much should we pay for medicines?

Provided by Craig Daily Press

Trudy Lieberman, Rural Health News Service Friday, January 10, 2014

TrudyLieberman_t180

Courtesy photo
Trudy Lieberman

At the tail end of last year the Food and Drug Administration approved a drug that may cure some 3 million Americans who have hepatitis C, a disease that interferes with liver function and can eventually lead to liver cancer. It’s a serious illness; many people don’t know they have it until the first symptoms show up years later, and those who do have it undergo grueling and sometimes ineffective treatments.

So when Gilead Sciences, the manufacturer of sofosbuvir, which goes by the brand name Sovaldi, announced its new drug was ready for prime time, doctors who treat patients with the disease cheered. Results of clinical trials showed side effects appeared to be mild compared to those from conventional treatment and cure rates seemed to be high. A hepatitis expert at Johns Hopkins said, “This is about as hot as I’ve ever seen.”

Stock analysts were ecstatic. One told the New York Times global sales —about 170 million people worldwide are infected — could surpass the sales record of $13 billion set by Lipitor, the statin used to treat high cholesterol. The press touted the good news, too, as it customarily does when a new wonder drug hits the market. And as it too often does, it gave short shrift to the price.

Sovaldi has one major drawback — its budget-busting price tag. Gilead says it will cost $84,000 for the three-month treatment regime. That’s $1,000 a pill.

The debut of sofosbuvir offers a clear example of how expensive technology enters the medical marketplace even before all the evidence comes in that the drug works. In Sovaldi’s case not all the new drug combinations have been extensively tested. “We may be in for surprises, still,” said Charles Rice, a hepatitis C expert at Rockefeller University in New York City.

It also raises important questions about who should pay for the drug. Should it be Medicare? Medicaid? Commercial insurers? Or should it be the patients whose insurance policies increasingly come with high amounts of cost-sharing in the form of deductibles and coinsurance? And what contribution does Sovaldi make to the overall high price of medical care in the U.S., the highest in the world?

Indeed these questions can be asked about any new drug or medical device. But they aren’t. Other countries have agencies that deliberate such trade-offs. We don’t. To raise them conjures up unpleasant images of rationing—patients deprived of life-saving treatments. Asking them also conflicts with a deeply held American belief that the medicine man sits at the right hand of God, and we’re willing to spend anything for cures and treatments even if they are extraordinarily pricey.

The entry of Sovaldi also invites serious questioning about why the price of new medical technology doesn’t seem to decrease as prices for other technological advances do---computers, for example. There’s no downward pressure on prices. The patent system for new drugs—protection from competition for seven to 12 years---leaves drug makers in the driver’s seat. Payers pretty much have to cough up what drug makers charge. And federal rules prevent Medicare, one of the largest buyers of drugs, from negotiating with drug makers over prices. Basically, what’s left is negative publicity, and the press doesn’t provide much of that.

A recent NPR segment did, however, probing the high price of sofosbuvir. It questioned why the drug maker needed to make its prices so high especially given the large potential market for the drug. One hepatitis expert wanted to know why once Gilead recovered its costs it couldn’t reduce the price. “I don’t want to say it’s unfair, but it does start feeling more exploitative,” she told NPR listeners. A Gilead vice president responded “That’s very unlikely that we would do that.” Right now they don’t have to.

Instead Gilead said it would help patients pay for the drug. You know one of those patient assistance programs that no doubt helps those who have no money for such expensive treatment. (These programs do means test; that is, help is available only for those with the lowest incomes.) But does that gesture do much to bring down the cost of the drug and thus the country’s health care tab that feeds into the insurance premiums and cost of care we pay out of pocket? No, say many experts. Such programs may serve to keep drug prices high.

All this is something to ponder as we move into an election year with health care and its cost promising to dominate the campaign.

Source

January 9, 2014

Multiple Factors Predict Physical Performance in People with Chronic Liver Disease

Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2014 Jan 6. [Epub ahead of print]

Loria A, Doyle K, Weinstein AA, Winter P, Escheik C, Price J, Wang L, Birerdinc A, Baranova A, Gerber L, Younossi ZM.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess whether physical performance correlates with metabolic and inflammatory measures in research subjects with chronic liver disease.

DESIGN: This is a prospective, descriptive cohort study correlating performance on a 6-min walk test with cardiorespiratory variables, metabolic measures (glucose [GLU], C-peptide insulin, and lipids), liver enzymes (aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase), and the proinflammatory cytokine interleukin-8 (IL-8).

RESULTS: This study enrolled 51 subjects (18 women) with chronic liver disease: 41% (n = 21) with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and 59% (n = 30) with hepatitis C virus. Age, resting heart rate, and fasting GLU correlated significantly with distance walked (P's < 0.05). First quartile "poor performers" (n = 14) and fourth quartile "high performers" (n = 14) showed differences in age, sex, fasting GLU, and IL-8 level (P's < 0.05). Combining the number of abnormal serum values (IL-8, C-peptide insulin, GLU, aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, high-density lipoprotein, triglyceride, and total cholesterol) did not correlate with distance walked (P > 0.90). However, in multiple regression analysis, a model that included sex, age, resting heart rate, IL-8 level, and fasting GLU level explained approximately 39% of the variance in the distance walked during the test.

CONCLUSIONS: Older age, female sex, abnormal levels of the proinflammatory cytokine IL-8, abnormalities of GLU metabolism, and high resting heart rate are associated with poor physical performance in subjects with chronic liver disease. Poor physical performance is associated with physiologic, metabolic, and inflammatory abnormalities in subjects with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and hepatitis C virus.

PMID: 24398583 PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

Source