August 7, 2010

Abnormalities of lipid metabolism in hepatitis C virus infection

Gut Published Online First 26 July 2010
doi:10.1136/gut.2009.192732

Clinical impact

The multifaceted interactions between HCV and lipid metabolism may not only have biological significance in the HCV life cycle. The potential consequences on the host can hardly be overlooked, but should not be overemphasised either.

The effect of steatosis on liver fibrosis seems to depend on the pathogenesis of fat accumulation rather than on the presence of steatosis per se. There is good evidence that steatosis is a risk factor of liver disease progression. This has been shown by both cross-sectional71 72 91-93 and longitudinal studies.72 94-96 However, the steatosis observed in genotype 3, presumably viral in origin, does not seem to be independently associated with liver fibrosis.93 In this same meta-analysis, fibrosis was independently associated with steatosis only in patients with genotype 1.93 Thus, the accelerated fibrogenesis may depend on the co-occurrence of steatosis of non-viral origin. In patients with chronic hepatitis C who do not drink alcohol and are infected with non-3a genotypes, the most frequent correlate of fatty liver is increased body weight. Being overweight or presenting with a visceral obesity are two independent risk factors for fatty liver.72 97 Its pathogenesis is most likely the insulin resistance98 via several mechanisms leading to an imbalance between uptake, de novo synthesis and degradation of fatty acids by hepatocytes resulting in excess triglyceride accumulation.54 In addition, if insulin resistance is included in a multivariate logistic regression to analyse the factors independently associated with fibrosis, the association between steatosis and fibrosis disappears in favour of the association with insulin resistance.97 Thus, although HCV may cause massive steatosis, this does not seem to lead to accelerated fibrogenesis and, if any association between fatty liver and fibrosis progression exists, this appears to depend on the co-occurrence of a steatosis caused by factors other than HCV.

Whether HCV-induced steatosis is a risk factor for the appearance of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains an open question. Some transgenic mice models of HCV-induced fatty liver have shown progression to HCC.82 99 The production of reactive oxygen species may be responsible for somatic mutations in these models.82 100 Human studies are, however, inconclusive. In patients with chronic hepatitis C, steatosis may be an independent risk factor for the development of HCC101, but a retrospective study including a smaller number of patients with chronic hepatitis C did not confirm these findings.102 Thus, further prospective studies are warranted to evaluate the role of HCV-associated steatosis in liver carcinogenesis.

The interaction of HCV with lipid metabolism may have three consequences regarding the treatment of hepatitis C with antiviral agents. First, since HCV interacts with the LDL receptor during uptake by hepatocytes, one may speculate that high levels of circulating LDL might interfere with hepatocyte infection by HCV. Although the competition has been shown in vitro,17 there are no data confirming that this occurs also in the human infection. It is unknown whether this potential receptor competition may account for the repeated observation that elevated LDL levels are associated with an increased response to IFNα.103-106

A second issue is the impact (if any) of virally-induced steatosis on the response to treatment. It has been shown in large clinical trials that steatosis impairs the response to antiviral therapy.74 The effect, however, is more pronounced in patients with non-3a genotype,74 hinting again at insulin resistance as the mechanism affecting the response to IFNα and suggesting that the viral steatosis does not impair response to treatment.107 108 The pretreatment insulin resistance score is indeed a predictor of a poor response to treatment.10 The molecular reasons for the correlation between insulin and IFNα resistance are unclear. It is worth noting that patients with chronic hepatitis C with virally-induced steatosis do not have increased insulin resistance levels relative to patients without steatosis.98

A third and final point worthy of discussion is the interesting potential use of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-CoA reductase inhibitors in HCV therapy. It was mentioned above how use of lovastatin may inhibit HCV RNA replication in hepatoma cells.46 In an in vitro assay the anti-HCV activity of several statins were compared.50 Fluvastatin exhibited the strongest activity, atorvastatin and simvastatin an intermediate degree and lovastatin showed the weakest inhibitory activity.50 A few clinical trials have used statins as monotherapy or in combination with the standard of care (SOC). In a pilot trial, atorvastatin was administered as monotherapy (at the conventional daily dose of 20 mg) to 10 patients with chronic hepatitis C with hypercholesterolaemia.109 Although serum cholesterol and LDL decreased, there was no effect on serum HCV RNA after 4 and 12 weeks of treatment.109 Similarly disappointing results were reported in 42 patients coinfected with HCV and HIV and receiving fluvastatin 80 mg daily, in whom the expected decrease of serum cholesterol and LDL was paralleled by a paradoxical increase in HCV RNA levels.110 However, in another study conducted on 31 veterans, different oral doses of fluvastatin (20-320 mg/day) induced a modest viral suppression which was sometimes short-lived but nonetheless significant.111 Statins lower the levels of LDL and enhance LDL receptor expression; whether the increased HCV RNA observed in the study by Milazzo et al110 may depend on the facilitation of HCV hepatocyte uptake remains to be proven. It is noteworthy, however, that use of statins does not reduce the efficacy of SOC, as suggested by two recent encouraging trial results. In another small uncontrolled trial, 20 mg/day fluvastatin was given in addition to the pegylated IFNα/ribavirin combination to a group of 21 patients. In the 15 patients who received a 48-week course of therapy the SVR was 67%.112 All the above studies show that statin use is safe in patients with hepatitis C, but also that the choice of the appropriate statin may be critical in order to achieve antiviral effects. The relationship between concomitant use of statins and the lipid profile, with particular regard to the serum level of LDL and total cholesterol, was evaluated retrospectively in a very large trial.113 The results show that statin use was associated with significantly greater chances of reaching SVR, independent of the baseline lipid profile. In particular, statin users had higher chances of SVR when aged >48 years, of non-African American ethnicity and female. Further research on this issue is justified.

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

Abnormalities of lipid metabolism in hepatitis C virus infection

Gut
Published Online First 26 July 2010
doi:10.1136/gut.2009.192732

Francesco Negro
Divisions of Clinical Pathology and of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland Correspondence to Francesco Negro, Divisions of Clinical Pathology and of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospital, rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil 4, 1211 Genve 4, Switzerland; francesco.negro@hcuge.ch

Abstract

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is a human pathogen responsible for acute and chronic liver disease, infecting an estimated 130-170 million persons worldwide. An intriguing feature of HCV infection is its peculiar relationship with lipids: (1) HCV virions circulate in serum bound to lipoproteins; (2) lipids have been shown to modulate (and, indeed, are essential to) the HCV life cycle; and (3) an occasionally severe accumulation of triglycerides is found in a distinct subgroup of patients in the form of hepatic steatosis. As a result, lipid metabolism is overall altered, conferring an idiosyncratic profile to HCV infection. The scope of this review is to discuss these aspects, focusing on both their molecular mechanisms and their clinical consequences.

Summary box

In hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, the lipid metabolism is characterised by the following peculiar features:

* HCV virions circulate in serum bound to triglyceride-rich lipoproteins.
* Lipids modulate (and indeed are essential to) the HCV life cycle.
* An occasionally severe hepatocyte steatosis is observed in a subgroup of patients with chronic hepatitis C.

The clinical relevance of these findings is debated:

* Virally-induced steatosis does not seem to accelerate the clinical and histological progression of liver disease or to reduce responsiveness to antiviral drugs.
* Available data on the antiviral properties of cholesterol synthesis inhibitors are not univocal and warrant further studies.

Introduction

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is a positive strand RNA virus of the Flaviviridae family that infects about 130-170 million people (ie, ∼2.2-3% of the world population).1 Infection with HCV induces both innate and adaptive immune responses that resolve the infection in 15-45% of individuals.2 Failure to clear the virus leads to persistent infection, in most cases associated with chronic progressive liver damage (chronic hepatitis C). Treatment with the combination of pegylated interferon-α (IFNα) and ribavirin results in sustained clearance of HCV in 45-80% of chronically infected individuals.3-5 The morbidity and mortality associated with chronic hepatitis C are mainly attributable to progression towards cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma.6 As a consequence, HCV-induced end-stage liver disease is currently the leading indication for liver transplantation in most western countries (box 1).

Box 1 Major facts about the hepatitis C virus (HCV)

* HCV is a positive strand RNA virus (genus Hepacivirus within the Flaviviridae family).
* is estimated to infect about 130-170 million persons (∼2.2-3% of the world population).
* Primary HCV infection persists in 55-85% of individuals.
* Persistent HCV infection is mostly associated with chronic hepatitis.
* Progression of chronic hepatitis C leads to cirrhosis (5-30% over 2-3 decades) and hepatocellular carcinoma (2-4% yearly in patients with established cirrhosis).
* Treatment of chronic hepatitis C with a combination of pegylated interferon-α and ribavirin results in sustained clearance of HCV in 45-80% of cases.
* HCV-induced end-stage liver disease is the leading indication for liver transplantation in most western countries.

LIPIDS & HCV

The spectrum of severity of chronic hepatitis C varies widely, as does the rate of its progression to the cirrhotic stage. This heterogeneity largely depends on host and environmental factors,7 although the contributing role of viral features such as the HCV genotype has recently been revisited.8 Cofactors influencing hepatitis C severity and progression include age, gender, excess alcohol consumption, coinfections with other hepatotropic viruses and/or HIV and the metabolic syndrome.7 The role of the latter in the pathogenesis of hepatitis C has attracted considerable attention in recent years. The metabolic syndrome has reached pandemic proportions and, based on estimates, it will become a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide in the near future.9 The relationship between HCV and the metabolic syndrome is important because of the multifaceted direct molecular interactions between HCV and lipid metabolism.10 11 In particular, HCV infection is characterised by a peculiar relationship with lipids: (1) HCV virions circulate in serum bound to lipoproteins; (2) lipids have been shown to modulate (and, indeed, are essential for) the HCV life cycle; and (3) an occasionally severe accumulation of triglycerides in hepatocytes is observed in a distinct subgroup of patients in the form of fatty liver. In summary, lipid metabolism shows widespread alterations, conferring an idiosyncratic profile to HCV infection. This review will discuss these aspects, focusing on both their molecular mechanisms and their clinical consequences.

HCV and lipoproteins

HCV was found to circulate bound to lipoproteins soon after its discovery. In a landmark study, Thomssen and collaborators reported that HCV virions failed to band homogeneously across a sucrose density gradient, with HCV RNA-positive fractions being distributed over a wide range, extending from a high density (1.20 g/cm3) to an unusually low density (1.03 g/cm3).12 Interestingly, low-density fractions, at variance with high-density ones, could be precipitated by anti-β-lipoprotein antisera, raising the hypothesis that virions could be tightly associated with such lipoproteins.12 In addition, not only could low-density fractions transmit HCV to experimental animal models,13 but the infectious titre of HCV-positive inocula was inversely correlated with the buoyant density of HCV RNA-carrying particles,14 hinting at a critical role for the association with lipoproteins in conferring infectivity. Low-density HCV particles were subsequently also shown to be infectious in vitro15 and in natural human infections.16 Furthermore, cell culture grown HCV successfully transmitted to the chimpanzee is associated with low-density fractions.15

By electron microscopy, these low-density particles are roughly spherical with a heterogeneous diameter of 50-150 nm.17 Chemically, they are highly enriched in triglycerides17 and can be almost completely precipitated by anti-apolipoprotein B (apoB) and anti-lipoprotein E (apoE) antibodies,18 hence the name lipoviroparticles (LVP).17 In addition, apolipoproteins CII and CIII have been reported to be associated with LVP.19 LVP contain HCV RNA and all of the structural viral proteins.17-19 In particular, the viral envelope proteins E1 and E2 are present at the surface of LVP and can thus be recognised by anti-envelope antibodies under non-denaturating conditions.19 The observation that LVP contain both apoB isoforms (ie, apoB-100 and apoB-48)19 is worth noting because, although apoB-100 is synthesised by hepatocytes, apoB-48 expression is specific to enterocytes where it is incorporated in chylomicrons. This raises the issue of the participation of enterocytes in the HCV life cycle. In support of this hypothesis, HCV non-structural antigens have been detected in small intestine epithelial cells in a proportion of viraemic HCV carriers.20 In addition, LVP surge and are rapidly enriched in triglycerides after a fat-rich meal.19 21

The association of HCV with lipoproteins appears to have a precise biological significance. HCV uptake by hepatocytes is mediated, among other proteins,11 by the low-density lipoprotein (LDL) receptor.22 This phenomenon was initially shown in culture where the endocytosis of HCV and other members of the Flaviviridae family correlated with the LDL receptor expression and was competed out both by antibodies against anti-LDL receptor and by other specific inhibitors of the LDL/LDL receptor interaction.22 In keeping with the fact that both apoB-100 and apoE are ligands for the LDL receptor is the important observation that anti-apoB-100 and anti-apoE antibodies inhibit HCV cell binding17 22 and in vitro infection.23 24 The likely heterogeneity of LVP size is not an issue because the long flexible modular structure of the extracellular N-terminal domains of the LDL receptor are designed to allow binding to triglyceride-rich lipoproteins of different sizes (figure 1).

Figure 1

Interaction between the hepatitis C virus (HCV) lipoviroparticles (LVP) and the lipoprotein receptors at the hepatocyte surface. The initial attachment involves glycosaminoglycans (GAG) and the low-density lipoprotein receptor (LDL-R). Binding to abundant unbranched GAG, that is the prosthetic groups of membrane proteoglycans, is low-affinity and non-specific. Conversely, binding to the flexible structure of the extracellular LDL-R domains is mediated by apoB-100 and apoE and can be inhibited by very low-density lipoproteins (VLDL), LDL and by antibodies directed against LDL-R, apoB and apoE. Binding to the scavenger receptor B type I (SR-BI) is facilitated by high-density lipoprotein (HDL) and occurs via the viral envelope protein E2; the SR-BI binding sites for HDL and E2 are, however, distinct. Oxidised LDL (oxLDL), serum amyloid A (SAA) and antibodies against SR-BI inhibit the binding of LVP to SR-BI. Neither the attachment to LDL-R nor the binding to SR-BI are sufficient to establish a productive HCV infection which requires the interaction of HCV particles with several other cell surface proteins, such as the tetraspanin CD81 and the tight junction proteins claudin-1 and occludin (not shown in the figure). For a thorough discussion of HCV receptors, see Popescu and Dubuisson.

HCV cell entry is also mediated by another lipoprotein receptor, the scavenger receptor class B type I (SR-BI),25-28 which is responsible for the entry of various classes of lipoproteins, primarily the high-density lipoproteins (HDL). The interaction is determined by the binding to the viral envelope protein E2.25 However, the SR-BI determinants that bind to HDL are different from those that bind the viral envelope. HDL mediate enhancement of HCV infection via SR-BI, but this does not occur via a direct binding of HDL to HCV particles.29 Although HDL enhance the efficiency of HCV infection, anti-SR-BI antibodies and SR-BI-specific siRNA inhibit HCV infection independently of these lipoproteins.27 Besides providing a docking site for HCV particles, the SR-BI facilitates HCV entry also through its physiological function (ie, cholesterol uptake and/or efflux). Thus, there appears to be some specific SR-BI-mediated lipid transfer function(s) hijacked by HCV to favour infection.29 Contrary to HDL, another SR-BI ligand-oxidised LDL-inhibits HCV entry.30 Finally, serum amyloid A (SAA), an acute phase protein synthesised by the liver, blocks HCV entry by interacting directly with virions,31 and this inhibitory effect is prevented by co-incubation of SAA with HDL,31 suggesting a close interaction between these two proteins in modulating HCV infection. The final internalisation of HCV by target cells, however, occurs only upon interaction of viral particles with further cell surface receptors, and the mere binding of HCV to the LDL receptor and the SR-BI is not sufficient to support productive infection.11

The tight association of circulating HCV to triglyceride-rich lipoproteins may be accounted for by the fact that HCV particles exploit the very low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) assembly and export pathway to be released from hepatocytes (figure 2). Intracellular infectious viral particles are similar in size but differ in their buoyant density (1.15-1.20 g/ml) from secreted particles (1.03-1.16 g/ml), as determined by ultracentrifugation.32 This suggests that infectious HCV particle composition is modified during release from hepatocytes. HCV assembly and maturation occur in the endoplasmic reticulum, and both depend on the microsomal triglyceride transfer protein (MTP) and apoB.33 MTP participates in the VLDL assembly by uploading lipids to the nascent apoB polypeptide after this has been translocated into the endoplasmic reticulum lumen. Inhibitors of MTP activity such as the compound BMS-200150,33 the grapefruit flavonoid naringenin34 or other substances35 significantly decrease the secretion of HCV from infected cells. Similar results can be obtained by inhibiting apoB synthesis with short interfering RNAs.33-35 Thus, it is likely that HCV co-opts VLDL assembly and secretion pathways, although the finer details of this interaction are currently unclear and subject of intense speculation.

Figure 2

Simplified schematisation of some of the factors participating in hepatitis C virus (HCV) lipoviroparticle (LVP) assembly. Soon after synthesis and processing the HCV core protein is transferred to the lipid monolayer of the lipid droplet (LD) surface, gradually displacing resident proteins such as the adipocyte differentiation-related protein (ADRP) (black circles). The core protein also directs the transfer of the HCV replication complex (HCVrc) to the LD surface where the assembly of virions is supposedly taking place. Meanwhile, endoplasmic reticulum (ER)-associated ribosomes (ER-r) synthesise apoB-100 which is transferred to the ER lumen. Here the microsomal triglyceride transfer protein (MTP) uploads triglycerides (TG) to the apoB to form TG-rich lipoproteins. HCV virions, consisting of core protein, the RNA genome and the two envelope proteins E1 and E2, bud through the ER lipidic bilayer merging with nascent lipoproteins. The intermediate steps of this process are hypothetical and largely unknown. The final LVP, whose size can vary from 50 to 150 nm, contains both the HCV virion proper and the VLDL constituents (see text for details).

The interaction between HCV morphogenesis and cellular lipids is not limited to the final assembly of LVP but starts early on, soon after viral polyprotein synthesis. The core protein is tightly associated with lipid droplets (LD), and this physical interaction is mediated by specific amino acids within the central D2 domain of the viral protein.37 Immediately after its synthesis the core protein is cleaved by a signal peptidase and a signal peptide peptidase, giving rise to a mature form that is transferred from the endoplasmic reticulum membrane to the surface of LD.38 Hydrophobic residues determine the stability of this binding,39 40 a critical event in determining the subsequent efficient virus assembly.40 The binding of HCV core to LD also alters the intracellular distribution of LD which are relocated to the perinuclear area.41 LD redistribution can be prevented by disrupting the microtubule network or by blocking the dynein motor protein, and this results in reduced virion production.41 In addition, the core protein gradually displaces the proteins physiologically found at the surface of the LD such as the adipocyte differentiation-related protein.41 Once at the surface of the LD, the HCV core recruits other viral non-structural proteins.42 43 LD-enriched fractions contain HCV RNA, and virus particles have been observed in close proximity to LD.42 In a series of elegant electron microscopy-based observations, HCV-like particles have been seen budding from convoluted endoplasmic reticulum membrane structures in close proximity to LD.44 The interaction between HCV proteins and the LD therefore appears to be critical for virion assembly, and LD may be the specialised organelles hijacked to provide the triglycerides necessary for the assembly of LVP (figure 2).

Lipids and the HCV life cycle

Lipids are essential to the HCV life cycle: they may exert their effect at different levels-that is, as prosthetic groups of viral proteins and/or of cellular cofactors of HCV replication, as components of the specialised membrane structure where HCV replication takes place or, as discussed above, as constituents of LVP.

The acute HCV infection of chimpanzees is associated with an increased intrahepatic expression of genes involved in lipidogenesis45 such as the ATP citrate lyase, an enzyme activated by the transcription factor sterol-responsive element binding protein (SREBP).45 In the subgenomic HCV replicon system it was shown that 25-hydroxycholesterol, which inhibits SREBP cleavage/translocation, causes a decrease in fatty acid biosynthesis and HCV replication.45 In contrast, nystatin, which may activate the SREBP pathway through cholesterol sequestration, caused a dose-dependent increase in replication levels by nearly 100%.45 HCV RNA replication in hepatoma cells can be disrupted by treatment with lovastatin, a drug that decreases the production of mevalonate by inhibiting 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-CoA reductase.46 Mevalonate is a precursor of hydrophobic prenyl prosthetic groups such as the geranylgeranyl group which is necessary to anchor various proteins to cell membranes. The cholesterol-biosynthetic pathway controls HCV RNA replication by regulating the cellular levels of geranylgeranyl pyrophosphate, and the impact of geranylgeranylation depends on the fatty acid content of the cell.47 The inhibition of HCV RNA replication by lovastatin can be overcome by the addition of geranylgeraniol, suggesting that HCV RNA replication requires one or more geranylgeranylated proteins.46 47 One such protein was identified as the F-box and leucine-rich repeat-containing protein 2 (FBL2).48 Knockdown of FBL2 mRNA is parallelled by inhibition of HCV replication in vitro.49 Other statins possess anti-HCV activity in vitro,50 and their activity is reversed by mevalonate or geranylgeraniol.50

In addition to cholesterol precursors, fatty acids can also stimulate (or inhibit) HCV replication. Interestingly, their effect seems to depend on their degree of saturation.47 Polyunsaturated fatty acids, including arachidonic acid, docosahexaenoic acid and eicosapentaenoic acid, inhibit HCV replication.51 On the contrary, saturated and monounsaturated fatty acids stimulate it.47 Inhibition of fatty acid synthase (FAS) by cerulenin45 or C7552 blocks HCV replication in a subgenomic replicon system and the secretion of virions in the JFH1 infectious system. Fatty acids can be used as prosthetic groups in exactly the same way as cholesterol intermediates. These prosthetic groups may facilitate viral non-structural protein anchoring to the specialised membrane structures that serve as the platform for HCV RNA replication and assembly. For example, the non-structural protein 4B undergoes a double palmitoylation on the two cysteine residues 257 and 261 at its C-terminal end. Site-directed mutagenesis has shown that these lipid modifications, particularly of Cys261, are important for protein-protein interactions in the formation of the HCV RNA replication complex.53 Thus, palmitoylation may be another post-translational modification essential to the HCV life cycle.

The fatty acids necessary for HCV replication and assembly must be provided in sufficient quantity by the infected cell. Although there are situations where the uptake of fatty acids by hepatocytes may be pathologically increased, such as in the insulin-resistant state,54 there is good experimental evidence that HCV directly stimulates lipidogenesis. During primary infection in chimpanzees, HCV activates genes involved in lipid metabolism via SREBP.45 In vitro, HCV induces transcriptional activation, proteolytic processing and phosphorylation of the two factors SREBP-1c and SREBP-2, responsible for the transactivation of enzymes involved in the synthesis of fatty acids and cholesterol, respectively.55 SREBP activity is stimulated in vitro by several viral proteins including the core55 and the non-structural proteins 256 and 4B.55 57 Activation of SREBP and several enzymes involved in lipidogenesis has also been reported in transgenic mice expressing different HCV proteins.58 59 In addition to activating SREBP, the HCV core protein may also bind to and activate the DNA-binding domain of the retinoid receptor α, a transcriptional regulator that controls many cellular functions including cellular lipid synthesis.60 Enzymes responsible for fatty acid synthesis such as the acetyl-Coa carboxylase 151 and the FAS56 61 are, indeed, strongly activated by the expression of viral proteins in vitro. Unfortunately, the rare data on the expression level of these factors in the liver of chronic hepatitis C patients have suggested an association between the activation of SREBP-1c and the severity of inflammation and fibrosis, but not steatosis.62 Similarly, intrahepatic FAS mRNA levels were not correlated with steatosis,62 albeit that they have been reported to be increased in two recent reports.63 64 This suggests that some caution should be used in interpreting data when these are primarily obtained in experimental models. Metabolic pathways and responses to external stimuli (such as viral infection) may not be comparable to what occurs in human livers, especially when these models involve metabolically inefficient tumour cell lines. Thus, further large-scale studies using appropriate experimental settings and designs are warranted.

HCV and fatty liver

The fact that HCV stimulates lipidogenesis raises the issue of the long-known relationship between hepatitis C and fatty liver. The prevalence of fatty liver in patients with chronic hepatitis C varies between 40% and 80%, depending on the prevalence of alcohol consumption, overweight, type 2 diabetes and other risk factors of fatty liver.65 If all these factors of fatty liver are excluded, the prevalence of steatosis in chronic hepatitis C is still approximately 40%-that is, about a twofold increase compared with chronic hepatitis B.66 67 This suggests that HCV may directly cause fatty liver, at least in a subgroup of patients with chronic hepatitis C. Indeed, the association is so strong that in the pre-serology era it was used as a diagnostic tool to identify patients with chronic non-A, non-B hepatitis.68 69

Steatosis is more frequent and severe in patients with HCV genotype 3,70-72 suggesting the presence of specific sequences across the genome of genotype 3 that are involved in fat accumulation within hepatocytes. This is further supported by two additional observations. First, the severity of steatosis correlates with the level of HCV RNA, both in liver71 and in serum,72 especially in patients with genotype 3. Second, the fatty liver may significantly decrease-if not disappear altogether-when patients are successfully treated with antiviral agents, especially in patients with genotype 3.71 73 74 Steatosis may persist in most patients with non-3 genotypes, even in case of sustained virological response (SVR).74 Interestingly, in anecdotal cases where this has been carefully documented, the recurrence of HCV after the end of therapy may result in the reappearance of steatosis in patients in whom it had disappeared during treatment.75 There are several experimental models of HCV-induced steatosis including in vitro transient expression systems76-79 and transgenic mice.58 80-82 The constructs vary as to the viral proteins expressed and the genotype but, in most cases, the core protein seems sufficient to induce steatosis, the genotype 3a being the most efficient.76-78 Some of these models have been used to identify the mechanisms responsible for the triglyceride accumulation. As discussed above, in several experimental systems HCV enhances lipogenesis via the activation of specific transcription factors. This would be a plausible mechanism, sufficient to explain the fatty liver often seen in patients with chronic hepatitis C. It is disturbing that the rare data available from patients' livers have so far failed to confirm this.61 However, HCV may cause fatty liver via other independent mechanisms, and one of them may be the impaired lipoprotein secretion. It is noteworthy that the serum levels of apoB and cholesterol are reduced in patients with chronic hepatitis C in whom steatosis later responds to antiviral therapy.83 This suggests that, at least in patients with steatosis, HCV may interfere with the VLDL assembly and/or secretion. To further confirm this, the disappearance of fatty liver in SVR upon successful antiviral therapy coincides with the normalisation of cholesterol and ApoB levels.74 84 In a transgenic mouse model, the HCV core protein was found to inhibit MTP activity.81 As discussed above, this enzyme plays a key rate-limiting role in VLDL assembly. Thus, its inhibition would lead to the accumulation of triglycerides otherwise uploaded onto VLDL, and the morphological counterpart of this would be hepatocyte steatosis. Interestingly, the intrahepatic levels of MTP mRNA are reduced in patients with chronic hepatitis C, especially those with steatosis and/or genotype 3,85 thus reinforcing the view that HCV-induced steatosis may be due to an impaired MTP function. There is no satisfactory explanation as to why-at least in some patients-HCV should inhibit an enzymic activity that is so critical to its life cycle, as seen above. Another pathway that may be perturbed by HCV leading to fat accumulation is fatty acid oxidation. Transfection of hepatoma cells with the HCV core protein is followed by a reduced expression of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor α (PPARα), a nuclear receptor regulating several genes responsible for fatty acids degradation.86 In keeping with these in vitro data, intrahepatic PPARα mRNA is significantly reduced in patients with chronic hepatitis C87 88 and the carnitine palmitoyl acyl-CoA transferase 1A, a target gene of PPARα responsible for mediating the long chain fatty acids transport across the mitochondrial membrane, is downregulated by HCV both in vitro86 and in the liver of patients with chronic hepatitis C.89 Finally, an additional mechanism leading to fatty liver may be an incresaed afflux of non-esterified fatty acids to hepatocytes, as is the case in the insulin resistance syndrome.54 Although HCV may be associated with extrahepatic insulin resistance,90 this seems to involve striated muscles rather than the adipose tissue. Thus, there is no evidence as yet that HCV may induce fatty liver via an increased lipolysis in adipocytes. A schematic summary of the suggested models of HCV-induced fatty liver is presented in figure 3.

Figure 3

Schematic representation of the proposed mechanisms of hepatitis C virus (HCV)-induced fatty liver. (1) Increased lipogenesis occurs via activation of specific transcription factors, largely documented in experimental models but so far not supported by the scanty findings in human livers. (2) Impaired secretion of very low-density lipid (VLDL) is supported by both experimental data and analysis of human liver tissue: in particular, microsomal triglyceride transfer protein (MTP) mRNA and activity seem reduced in case of steatosis. (3) Decreased fatty acid (FA) oxidation is compatible with the reduced expression of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor α (PPARα) in the liver of patients with chronic hepatitis C. (4) Although an increased afflux of non-esterified fatty acids (NEFA) may lead to steatosis, there is no evidence that this occurs in patients with hepatitis C without the metabolic syndrome.

The sequence responsible for fatty accumulation is not definitively known. Some data suggest that a phenylalanine at position 164 of the core sequence found in genotype 3a but replaced by a tyrosine in all other genotypes may be associated with activation of FAS76 and accumulation of large lipid droplets in hepatocytes.78 Other microheterogeneities in other HCV genomic regions, or even host factors, may modulate the steatosis phenotype.79

Clinical impact

The multifaceted interactions between HCV and lipid metabolism may not only have biological significance in the HCV life cycle. The potential consequences on the host can hardly be overlooked, but should not be overemphasised either.

The effect of steatosis on liver fibrosis seems to depend on the pathogenesis of fat accumulation rather than on the presence of steatosis per se. There is good evidence that steatosis is a risk factor of liver disease progression. This has been shown by both cross-sectional71 72 91-93 and longitudinal studies.72 94-96 However, the steatosis observed in genotype 3, presumably viral in origin, does not seem to be independently associated with liver fibrosis.93 In this same meta-analysis, fibrosis was independently associated with steatosis only in patients with genotype 1.93 Thus, the accelerated fibrogenesis may depend on the co-occurrence of steatosis of non-viral origin. In patients with chronic hepatitis C who do not drink alcohol and are infected with non-3a genotypes, the most frequent correlate of fatty liver is increased body weight. Being overweight or presenting with a visceral obesity are two independent risk factors for fatty liver.72 97 Its pathogenesis is most likely the insulin resistance98 via several mechanisms leading to an imbalance between uptake, de novo synthesis and degradation of fatty acids by hepatocytes resulting in excess triglyceride accumulation.54 In addition, if insulin resistance is included in a multivariate logistic regression to analyse the factors independently associated with fibrosis, the association between steatosis and fibrosis disappears in favour of the association with insulin resistance.97 Thus, although HCV may cause massive steatosis, this does not seem to lead to accelerated fibrogenesis and, if any association between fatty liver and fibrosis progression exists, this appears to depend on the co-occurrence of a steatosis caused by factors other than HCV.

Whether HCV-induced steatosis is a risk factor for the appearance of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains an open question. Some transgenic mice models of HCV-induced fatty liver have shown progression to HCC.82 99 The production of reactive oxygen species may be responsible for somatic mutations in these models.82 100 Human studies are, however, inconclusive. In patients with chronic hepatitis C, steatosis may be an independent risk factor for the development of HCC101, but a retrospective study including a smaller number of patients with chronic hepatitis C did not confirm these findings.102 Thus, further prospective studies are warranted to evaluate the role of HCV-associated steatosis in liver carcinogenesis.

The interaction of HCV with lipid metabolism may have three consequences regarding the treatment of hepatitis C with antiviral agents. First, since HCV interacts with the LDL receptor during uptake by hepatocytes, one may speculate that high levels of circulating LDL might interfere with hepatocyte infection by HCV. Although the competition has been shown in vitro,17 there are no data confirming that this occurs also in the human infection. It is unknown whether this potential receptor competition may account for the repeated observation that elevated LDL levels are associated with an increased response to IFNα.103-106

A second issue is the impact (if any) of virally-induced steatosis on the response to treatment. It has been shown in large clinical trials that steatosis impairs the response to antiviral therapy.74 The effect, however, is more pronounced in patients with non-3a genotype,74 hinting again at insulin resistance as the mechanism affecting the response to IFNα and suggesting that the viral steatosis does not impair response to treatment.107 108 The pretreatment insulin resistance score is indeed a predictor of a poor response to treatment.10 The molecular reasons for the correlation between insulin and IFNα resistance are unclear. It is worth noting that patients with chronic hepatitis C with virally-induced steatosis do not have increased insulin resistance levels relative to patients without steatosis.98

A third and final point worthy of discussion is the interesting potential use of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-CoA reductase inhibitors in HCV therapy. It was mentioned above how use of lovastatin may inhibit HCV RNA replication in hepatoma cells.46 In an in vitro assay the anti-HCV activity of several statins were compared.50 Fluvastatin exhibited the strongest activity, atorvastatin and simvastatin an intermediate degree and lovastatin showed the weakest inhibitory activity.50 A few clinical trials have used statins as monotherapy or in combination with the standard of care (SOC). In a pilot trial, atorvastatin was administered as monotherapy (at the conventional daily dose of 20 mg) to 10 patients with chronic hepatitis C with hypercholesterolaemia.109 Although serum cholesterol and LDL decreased, there was no effect on serum HCV RNA after 4 and 12 weeks of treatment.109 Similarly disappointing results were reported in 42 patients coinfected with HCV and HIV and receiving fluvastatin 80 mg daily, in whom the expected decrease of serum cholesterol and LDL was paralleled by a paradoxical increase in HCV RNA levels.110 However, in another study conducted on 31 veterans, different oral doses of fluvastatin (20-320 mg/day) induced a modest viral suppression which was sometimes short-lived but nonetheless significant.111 Statins lower the levels of LDL and enhance LDL receptor expression; whether the increased HCV RNA observed in the study by Milazzo et al110 may depend on the facilitation of HCV hepatocyte uptake remains to be proven. It is noteworthy, however, that use of statins does not reduce the efficacy of SOC, as suggested by two recent encouraging trial results. In another small uncontrolled trial, 20 mg/day fluvastatin was given in addition to the pegylated IFNα/ribavirin combination to a group of 21 patients. In the 15 patients who received a 48-week course of therapy the SVR was 67%.112 All the above studies show that statin use is safe in patients with hepatitis C, but also that the choice of the appropriate statin may be critical in order to achieve antiviral effects. The relationship between concomitant use of statins and the lipid profile, with particular regard to the serum level of LDL and total cholesterol, was evaluated retrospectively in a very large trial.113 The results show that statin use was associated with significantly greater chances of reaching SVR, independent of the baseline lipid profile. In particular, statin users had higher chances of SVR when aged >48 years, of non-African American ethnicity and female. Further research on this issue is justified.

Conclusions

When it comes to its relationship with lipid metabolism, HCV is a remarkable virus. Its interaction with lipoproteins and its ability to induce massive steatosis are quite unique and idiosyncratic. HCV is clearly exploiting the host lipid metabolism to its advantage. Whether we may turn this interaction to our advantage remains to be proven. It should be acknowledged that much of what we know about this topic comes from simple but careful observations made in the clinical setting (in some cases even long before HCV was discovered, such as the identification of virally-induced fatty liver). To follow on this path, the preliminary data on the clinical use of inhibitors of the cholesterol synthesis are encouraging and may thus pave the way for further work.

Source

August 6, 2010

Noninvasive tests for liver disease, fibrosis, and cirrhosis: Is liver biopsy obsolete?

EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVE: Readers will consider using noninvasive tests instead of liver biopsy, when appropriate

EMILY CAREY, DO

+ Author Affiliations

Digestive Disease Institute, Cleveland Clinic

ADDRESS: Emily Carey, DO, Digestive Disease Institute, A30, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195; e-mail careye2@ccf.org.

WILLIAM D. CAREY, MD

+ Author Affiliations

Abstract

Liver biopsy has been used to diagnose chronic liver disease and to assess the degree of hepatic inflammation and fibrosis. However, it is an invasive test with many possible complications and the potential for sampling error. Noninvasive tests are increasingly precise in identifying the cause of many cases of liver disease and even the amount of liver injury (fibrosis). This review discusses the role of noninvasive tests to diagnose liver disease and to assess hepatic fibrosis and cirrhosis.

KEY POINTS
  • Liver biopsy remains an important tool in the evaluation and management of liver disease.
  • The role of liver biopsy for diagnosis of chronic liver disease has diminished, owing to accurate blood tests and imaging studies.
  • Noninvasive tests for assessing the degree of hepatic fibrosis are showing more promise and may further reduce the need for liver biopsy. Elastography, in particular, shows promise in measuring hepatic fibrosis.
  • Liver biopsy is still needed if laboratory testing and imaging studies are inconclusive.
Primary care physicians and specialists alike often encounter patients with chronic liver disease. Fortunately, these days we need to resort to liver biopsy less often than in the past.
 
The purpose of this review is to provide a critical assessment of the growing number of noninvasive tests available for diagnosing liver disease and assessing hepatic fibrosis, and to discuss the implications of these advances related to the indications for needle liver biopsy.
 
WHEN IS LIVER BIOPSY USEFUL?
 
In diagnosis

Needle liver biopsy for diagnosis remains important in cases of:

Diagnostic uncertainty (eg, in patients with atypical features)

Coexisting disorders (eg, human immunodeficiency virus [HIV] and hepatitis C virus infection, or alcoholic liver disease and hepatitis C)

An overlapping syndrome (eg, primary biliary cirrhosis with autoimmune hepatitis).

Fatty liver. Needle liver biopsy can distinguish between benign steatosis and progressive steatohepatitis in a patient with a fatty liver found on imaging, subject to the limitations of sampling error.

Because fatty liver disease is common and proven treatments are few, no consensus has emerged about which patients with suspected fatty liver disease should undergo needle biopsy. Many specialists eschew needle biopsy and treat the underlying risk factors of metabolic syndrome, reserving biopsy for patients with findings that raise the concern of cirrhosis.

Hereditary disorders, eg, hemochromatosis, alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency, and Wilson disease.

In management

Periodic needle biopsy is also valuable in the management of a few diseases.

In autoimmune hepatitis, monitoring the plasma cell score on liver biopsy may help predict relapse when a physician is considering reducing or discontinuing immunosuppressive therapy.1

After liver transplantation, a liver biopsy is highly valuable to assess for rejection and the presence and intensity of disease recurrence.

PROBLEMS WITH LIVER BIOPSY

Liver biopsy is invasive and can cause significant complications. Nearly 30% of patients report having substantial pain after liver biopsy, and some experience serious complications such as pneumothorax, bleeding, or puncture of the biliary tree. In rare cases, patients die of bleeding.2

Furthermore, hepatic pathology, particularly fibrosis, is not always uniformly distributed. Surgical wedge biopsy provides adequate tissue volume to overcome this problem. Needle biopsy, on the other hand, provides a much smaller volume of tissue (1/50,000 of the total mass of the liver).3

As examples of the resulting sampling errors that can occur, consider the two most common chronic liver diseases: hepatitis C and fatty liver disease.

Regev et al4 performed laparoscopically guided biopsy of the right and left hepatic lobes in a series of 124 patients with chronic hepatitis C. Biopsy samples from the right and left lobes differed in the intensity of inflammation in 24.2% of cases, and in the intensity of fibrosis in 33.1%. Differences of more than one grade of inflammation or stage of fibrosis were uncommon. However, in 14.5%, cirrhosis was diagnosed in one lobe but not the other.

In a study in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, Ratziu et al5 found that none of the features characteristic of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis were highly concordant in paired liver biopsies. Clearly, needle liver biopsy is far from an ideal test.

Increasingly, liver diseases can be diagnosed precisely with laboratory tests, imaging studies, or both. Thus, needle liver biopsy is playing a lesser role in diagnosis.

ADVANCES IN NONINVASIVE DIAGNOSIS OF LIVER DISEASE
 
Over the past 30 years, substantial strides have been made in our ability to make certain diagnoses through noninvasive means.

Blood tests can be used to diagnose viral hepatitis A, B, and C and many cases of hemochromatosis and primary biliary cirrhosis. For a detailed discussion of how blood tests are used in diagnosing liver diseases, see http://www.clevelandclinicmeded.com/medicalpubs/diseasemanagement/hepatology/guide-to-common-liver-tests/

Imaging studies. Primary sclerosing cholangitis can be diagnosed with an imaging study, ie, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The value of needle biopsy in these patients is limited to assessing the degree of fibrosis to help with management of the disease and, less often, to discovering other liver pathologies.6

Most benign space-occupying liver lesions, both cystic and solid, can be fully characterized by imaging, especially in patients who have no underlying chronic liver disease, and no biopsy is needed. Whether biopsy should be performed to investigate liver lesions depends on the clinical scenario; the topic is beyond the scope of this paper but has been reviewed in detail by Rockey et al.2

CAN NONINVASIVE TESTS DETECT HEPATIC FIBROSIS?
 
Fibrosis, an accumulation of extracellular matrix, can develop in chronic liver disease. FIGURE 1 shows the typical stages and distribution. 7

Cirrhosis (stage 4 fibrosis) results in nodular transformation of the liver and impedance of portal blood flow, setting the stage for portal hypertension and its sequelae. Knowing whether cirrhosis is present is important in subsequent management.

FIGURE 1.
BASED ON INFORMATION CONTAINED IN BATTS KP, LUDWIG J. CHRONIC HEAPTITIS. AN UPDATE ON TERMINOLOGY AND REPORTING. AM J SURG PATHOL 1995; 19:1409–1417.

In advanced cases, cirrhosis is associated with typical clinical manifestations and laboratory and radiographic findings. In such cases, needle biopsy will add little. However, in most cases, particularly early in the course, clinical, laboratory, and radiologic correlates of cirrhosis are absent. In one study of patients with hepatitis C, 27% had cirrhosis, but in only a small number would cirrhosis have been apparent from clinical signs and laboratory and imaging studies.6
 
Since a major contemporary role for liver biopsy is in assessing the degree of fibrosis, it is reasonable to ask if newer noninvasive means are available to estimate hepatic fibrosis. The remainder of this review focuses on assessing our increasing ability to stage the degree of fibrosis (including the presence or absence of cirrhosis) by noninvasive means.

Clinical features point to cirrhosis, but not earlier fibrosis

Clinical manifestations help point to the diagnosis of cirrhosis but not to earlier stages of fibrosis.

For example, if a patient is known to have liver disease, the findings of ascites, splenomegaly, or asterixis mean that cirrhosis is highly probable. Similarly, hypersplenism (splenomegaly with a decrease in circulating blood cells but a normal to hyperactive bone marrow) in a patient with liver test abnormalities almost always represents portal hypertension due to cirrhosis, although other, nonhepatic causes are possible, such as congestive heart failure and constrictive pericarditis.

These features generally emerge late in the course of cirrhosis. The absence of such stigmata certainly does not preclude the presence of cirrhosis. Thus, these clinical signs have a high positive predictive value but a low negative predictive value, making them insufficient by themselves to diagnose or stage liver disease.

Laboratory tests are of limited value in assessing the degree of fibrosis

Standard liver tests are of limited value in assessing the degree of fibrosis.

Usual laboratory tests. At one end of the spectrum, anemia, thrombocytopenia, and leukopenia in the presence of liver disease correlate with cirrhosis. At the other end, a serum ferritin concentration of less than 1,000 mg/mL in a patient with hemochromatosis and no confounding features such as hepatitis C, HIV infection, or heavy alcohol use strongly predicts that the patient does not have significant hepatic fibrosis.8

Bilirubin elevation is a late finding in cirrhosis, but in cholestatic diseases bilirubin may be elevated before cirrhosis occurs.

Albumin is made exclusively in the liver, and its concentration falls as liver function worsens with progressive cirrhosis.

The prothrombin time increases as the liver loses its ability to synthesize clotting factors in cirrhosis. Coagulopathy correlates with the degree of liver disease.

Hyponatremia due to impaired ability to excrete free water is seen in patients with cirrhosis and ascites.

In summary, the usual laboratory tests related to liver disease are imprecise and, when abnormal, often indicate not just the presence of cirrhosis, but impending or actual decompensation.

Newer serologic markers, alone or in combination, have been proposed as aids in determining the degree of fibrosis or cirrhosis in the liver. Direct markers of fibrosis measure the turnover or metabolism of extracellular matrix. Indirect markers of fibrosis reflect alterations in hepatic function (see below).

Parkes et al9 reviewed 10 different panels of serum markers of hepatic fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C. Only 35% of patients had fibrosis adequately ruled in or ruled out by these panels, and the stage of fibrosis could not be adequately determined.

These serologic markers have not been validated in other chronic liver diseases or in liver disease due to multiple causes. Thus, although they show promise for use by the general internist, they need to be validated in patients with disease and in normal reference populations before they are ready for “prime time.”

Direct serologic markers of fibrosis

Direct serologic markers of fibrosis include those associated with matrix deposition—eg, procollagen type III amino-terminal peptide (P3NP), type I and IV collagens, laminin, hyaluronic acid, and chondrex.

P3NP is the most widely studied marker of hepatic fibrosis. It is elevated in both acute and chronic liver diseases; serum levels reflect the histologic stage of hepatic fibrosis in various chronic liver diseases, including alcoholic, viral, and primary biliary cirrhosis.10–12 Successful treatment of autoimmune hepatitis has been shown to lead to reductions of P3NP levels.13

Other direct markers of fibrosis are those associated with matrix degradation, ie, matrix metalloproteinases 2 and 3 (MMP-2, MMP-3) and tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinases 1 and 2 (TIMP-1, TIMP-2). Levels of MMP-2 proenzymes and active enzymes are increased in liver disease, but studies are inconsistent in correlating serum levels of MMP-2 to the degree of hepatic fibrosis.14,15 These tests are not commercially available, and the components are not readily available in most clinical laboratories.

Indirect serologic markers of fibrosis

Some indirect markers are readily available:

The AST:ALT ratio. The normal ratio of aspartate aminotransferase (AST) to alanine aminotransferase (ALT) is approximately 0.8. A ratio greater than 1.0 provides evidence of cirrhosis. However, findings have been inconsistent.

The AST:platelet ratio index (APRI), a commonly used index, is calculated by the following formula:


In studies of hepatitis C and hepatitis C-HIV, the APRI has shown a sensitivity of 37% to 80% and a specificity of 45% to 98%, depending on the cutoff value and whether a diagnosis of severe fibrosis or cirrhosis was being tested.16–19 These sensitivities and specificities are disappointing and do not provide information equal to that provided by needle liver biopsy in most patients with chronic liver disease.

The combination of prothrombin, gamma glutamyl, and apolipoprotein AI levels (PGA index) has been validated in patients with many types of chronic liver disease, and its accuracy for detecting cirrhosis is highest (66%–72%) in patients with alcoholic liver disease.20,21

FibroIndex uses the platelet count, AST level, and gamma globulin level to detect significant fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C, but its accuracy has yet to be validated.22

The FIB-4 index is based on four independent predictors of fibrosis, ie, age, the platelet count, AST level, and ALT level. It has shown good accuracy for detecting advanced fibrosis in two studies in patients with hepatitis C.23,24

Fibrometer (based on the platelet count; the prothrombin index; the levels of AST, alfa-2 macroglobulin, hyaluronate, and blood urea nitrogen; and age) predicted fibrosis well in chronic viral hepatitis.25,26

Fibrotest and Fibrosure are proprietary commercial tests available in many laboratories. They employ a mathematical formula to predict fibrosis (characterized as mild, significant, or indeterminate) using the levels of alpha-2 macroglobulin, alpha-2 globulin, gamma globulin, apolipoprotein A1, gamma glutamyl transferase, and total bilirubin. For detecting significant fibrosis, these tests are reported to have a sensitivity of about 75% and a specificity of 85%.27–29

ActiTest incorporates the ALT level into the Fibrotest to reflect liver fibrosis and necro-inflammatory activity.

A meta-analysis showed that Fibrotest and ActiTest could be reliable alternatives to liver biopsy in patients with chronic hepatitis C.30 The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve for the diagnosis of significant fibrosis ranged from 0.73 to 0.87; for the diagnosis of significant histologic activity it ranged from 0.75 to 0.86. Fibrotest had a negative predictive value for excluding significant fibrosis of 91% with a cutoff of 0.31. ActiTest’s negative predictive value for excluding significant necrosis was 85% with a cutoff of 0.36. None of these serum tests have become part of standard of practice for diagnosing fibrosis or cirrhosis.

The Sequential Algorithm for Fibrosis Evaluation (SAFE) combines the APRI and Fibrotest-Fibrosure tests in a sequential fashion to test for fibrosis and cirrhosis. In a large multicenter study31 validating this algorithm to detect significant fibrosis (stage F2 or greater by the F0–F4 METAVIR scoring system32), its accuracy was 90.1%, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.89 (95% CI 0.87–0.90), and it reduced the number of liver biopsies needed by 46.5%. When the algorithm was used to detect cirrhosis, its accuracy was 92.5%, the area under the curve was 0.92 (95% CI 0.89–0.94), and it reduced the number of liver biopsies needed by 81.5%.

FIGURE 2.
Magnetic resonance elastography for detecting hepatic fibrosis

Magnetic resonance elastography uses a vibrating device to induce shear waves in internal organs, which are detected by a modified magnetic resonance imaging machine. In this color-coded image, areas toward the red end of the spectrum are stiffer and therefore contain more fibrosis than areas toward the violet end of the spectrum.
FROM TALAWALKAR JA. ELASTOGRAPHY FOR DETECTING HEPATIC FIBROSIS : OPTIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS. GASTROENTEROLOGY 2008; 135:299–302; USED WITH PERMISSION FROM THE AMERICAN GASTROENTEROLOGICAL SOCIETY; WWW.SCIENCEDIRECT.COM/SCIENCE/JOURNAL/00165085.

Another algorithm was developed to simultaneously detect significant fibrosis and cirrhosis. It had a 97.4% accuracy, but 64% of patients still required a liver biopsy.31

SAFE algorithms have the potential to reduce the number of needle biopsies needed to assess the degree of hepatic fibrosis.

CONVENTIONAL IMAGING STUDIES ARE NOT SENSITIVE FOR FIBROSIS

Standard imaging studies often show findings of cirrhosis but are not particularly sensitive, with a low negative predictive value.

Ultrasonography can show a small, nodular liver in advanced cirrhosis, but surface nodularity or increased echogenicity can be seen in hepatic steatosis as well as in cirrhosis. In one study,33 ultrasonography identified diffuse parenchymal disease but could not reliably distinguish fat from fibrosis or diagnose cirrhosis.

Often, in cirrhosis, the right lobe of the liver is atrophied and the caudate or left lobes are hypertrophied. Efforts to use the ratio of the widths of the lobes to diagnose cirrhosis have shown varying performance characterstics.34,35

One study of the splenic artery pulsatility index has shown this to be an accurate predictor of cirrhosis.36

Computed tomography provides information similar to that of ultrasonography, and it can identify complications of cirrhosis, including portal hypertension and ascites. On the other hand, it costs more and it exposes the patient to radiation and contrast media.

ELASTOGRAPHY, A PROMISING TEST
 
Hepatic elastography, a method for estimating liver stiffness, is an exciting recent development in the noninvasive measurement of hepatic fibrosis. Currently, elastography can be accomplished by ultrasound or magnetic resonance.

Ultrasound elastography

The FibroScan device (EchoSens, Paris, France) uses a mild-amplitude, low-frequency (50-Hz) vibration transmitted through the liver.37 It induces an elastic shear wave that is detected by pulse-echo ultrasonography as the wave propagates through the organ.

The velocity of the wave correlates with tissue stiffness: the wave travels faster through denser, fibrotic tissue.38,39

Ultrasound elastography (also called transient elastography) can sample a much larger area than liver biopsy can, providing a better understanding of the entire hepatic parenchyma. 40 Moreover, it can be repeated often without risk. This device is in widespread use in many parts of the world, but it is not yet approved in the United States.

A meta-analysis of 50 studies assessed the overall performance of ultrasound elastography for diagnosing liver fibrosis.41 The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve were as follows:

■For significant fibrosis: 0.84 (95% CI 0.82–0.86)
■For severe fibrosis: 0.89 (95% CI 0.88–0.91)
■For cirrhosis: 0.94 (95% CI 0.93–0.95).

The type of underlying liver disease influenced the diagnosis of significant fibrosis, which was diagnosed most consistently in patients with hepatitis C. The authors concluded that ultrasound elastography had excellent diagnostic accuracy for diagnosing cirrhosis irrespective of the underlying liver disease, while the diagnosis of significant fibrosis had higher variation, which was dependent on the underlying liver disease.

A meta-analysis of nine studies 42 showed ultrasound elastography to have a sensitivity of 87% (95% CI 84%–90%) and a specificity of 91% (95% CI 89%–92%) for the diagnosis of cirrhosis. In seven of the nine studies, it diagnosed stage II to IV fibrosis with 70% sensitivity (95% CI 67%–73%) and 84% specificity (95% CI 80%–88%).

Limitations. Ultrasound elastography is less effective in obese patients, as the adipose tissue attenuates the elastic wave, and it has not been reliable in patients with acute viral hepatitis.43 Male sex, body mass index greater than 30, and metabolic syndrome seem to increase liver stiffness, thus limiting the use of this test.44

Until more data are available, the ultimate value of ultrasound elastography in reducing the number of liver biopsies needed remains unknown. However, this test shows potential as a reliable and noninvasive way to assess the degree of fibrosis in patients with liver disease.

Magnetic resonance elastography

Magnetic resonance elastography appears more promising than ultrasound elastography (FIGURE 2).32,37 The technique used is similar to that used in ultrasound elastography in that it uses a vibration device to induce a shear wave in the liver. However, in this case, the wave is detected by a modified magnetic resonance imaging machine, and a color-coded image is generated that depicts the wave velocity, and hence stiffness, throughout the organ.

Studies have shown a magnetic resonance scoring system that distinguishes Child-Pugh grade A cirrhosis from other grades to be 93% sensitive and 82% specific.45

FIGURE 3.

Median values and interquartile ranges (box plots) of values on magnetic elastography, (top), ultrasound elastography, (middle), and the aspartate:platelet ratio index (APRI) (bottom) for each METAVIR fibrosis stage in 96 patients with chronic liver disease. Crosses represent mean values, and error bars indicate the smallest and the largest values that are within 1.5 box-lengths of the 25th and 75th percentiles. Outliers are represented as individual points. In the bottom graph, one outlier has not been represented in the F4 group to maintain the clarity of the graph.
REPRINTED FROM HUWART L, SEMPOUX C, VICAUT E, ET AL. MAGNETIC RESONANCE ELASTOGRAPHY FOR THE NONINVASIVE STAGING OF LIVER FIBROSIS. GASTROENTEROLOGY 2008; 135:32–40; USED WITH PERMISSION FROM THE AMERICAN GASTROENTEROLOGICAL SOCIETY; WWW.SCIENCEDIRECT.COM/SCIENCE/JOURNAL/00165085.

In a recent direct comparison,46 the separation of values for varying stages of fibrosis was poor with the APRI index, fair with ultrasound elastography, and very good with magnetic resonance elastography (FIGURE 3). Indeed, in magnetic resonance elastography, a value greater than 4.46 kPa indicates cirrhosis (and a value less than 4.13 indicates no cirrhosis) with a high degree of likelihood, and a value less than 2.84 appears to exclude the likelihood of significant fibrosis. These findings need to be confirmed, and assurance is needed that the test performs accurately across all liver disease states.

Cost may limit the use of magnetic resonance elastography, and some patients may be unable to tolerate the procedure because of claustrophobia. It seems clear, though, that this test currently has the most promise in reducing the need for liver biopsy for grading the severity of hepatic fibrosis.

WHERE ARE WE NOW?
 
The importance of liver biopsy in arriving at a diagnosis of diffuse parenchymal liver disease is being diminished by accurate blood testing strategies for chronic viral hepatitis, autoimmune hepatitis, and primary biliary cirrhosis. Further, imaging tests are superior to liver biopsy in the diagnosis of primary sclerosing cholangitis.

However, many cases remain in which diagnostic confusion exists even after suitable laboratory testing and imaging studies. Diagnosing infiltrative disease (eg, amyloidosis, sarcoidosis), separating benign fatty liver disease from steatohepatitis, and evaluating liver parenchyma after liver transplantation are best accomplished by liver biopsy.

While needle biopsy is still the mainstay in diagnosing hepatic fibrosis, its days of dominance seem limited as technology improves. When physical examination or standard laboratory tests reveal clear-cut signs of portal hypertension, liver biopsy will seldom add useful information. Similarly, when imaging studies provide compelling evidence of cirrhosis and portal hypertension, needle biopsy is not warranted.

The SAFE algorithms warrant further evaluation in all chronic liver diseases, as they may help decrease the number of liver biopsies required. And we believe elastography will play an ever-increasing role in the assessment of hepatic fibrosis and will significantly reduce the need for biopsy in patients with liver disease.

■Copyright© 2010 The Cleveland Clinic Foundation

REFERENCES

1.↵Verma S, Gunuwan B, Mendler M, Govindrajan S, Redeker A. Factors predicting relapse and poor outcome in type I autoimmune hepatitis: role of cirrhosis development, patterns of transaminases during remission and plasma cell activity in the liver biopsy. Am J Gastroenterol 2004; 99:1510–1516.
 
2.↵Rockey DC, Caldwell SH, Goodman ZD, Nelson RC, Smith AD, American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Liver biopsy. Hepatology 2009; 49:1017–1044.
 
3.↵Bravo AA, Sheth SG, Chopra S. Liver biopsy. N Engl J Med 2001; 344:495–500.
 
4.↵Regev A, Berho M, Jeffers LJ, et al.Sampling error and intraobserver variation in liver biopsy in patients with chronic HCV infection. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97:2614–2618.
 
5.↵Ratziu V, Charlotte F, Heurtier A, et al., LIDO Study GroupSampling variability of liver biopsy in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Gastroenterology 2005; 128:1898–1906.
 
6.↵Saadeh S, Cammell G, Carey WD, Younossi Z, Barnes D, Easley K. The role of liver biopsy in chronic hepatitis C. Hepatology 2001; 33:196–200.
 
7.↵Batts KP, Ludwig J. Chronic hepatitis. An update on terminology and reporting. Am J Surg Pathol 1995; 19:1409–1417.
 
8.↵Morrison ED, Brandhagen DJ, Phatak PD, et al.Serum ferritin level predicts advanced hepatic fibrosis among U.S. patients with phenotypic hemochromatosis. Ann Intern Med 2003; 138:627–633.
 
9.↵Parkes J, Guha IN, Roderick P, Rosenberg W. Performance of serum marker panels for liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C. J Hepatol 2006; 44:462–474.
 
10.↵Montalto G, Soresi M, Aragona F, et al.Procollagen III and laminin in chronic viral hepatopathies. Presse Med 1996; 25:59–62.
 
11.Teare JP, Sherman D, Greenfield SM, et al.Comparison of serum procollagen III peptide concentrations and PGA index for assessment of hepatic fibrosis. Lancet 1993; 342:895–898.
 
12.↵Trinchet JC, Hartmann DJ, Pateron D, et al.Serum type I collagen and N-terminal peptide of type III procollagen in chronic hepatitis. Relationship to liver histology and conventional liver tests. J Hepatol 1991; 12:139–144.
 
13.↵McCullough AJ, Stassen WN, Wiesner RH, Czaja AJ. Serial determinations of the amino-terminal peptide of type III procollagen in severe chronic active hepatitis. J Lab Clin Med 1987; 109:55–61.
 
14.↵Takahara T, Furui K, Funaki J, et al.Increased expression of matrix metalloproteinase-II in experimental liver fibrosis in rats. Hepatology 1995; 21:787–795.
 
15.↵Takahara T, Furui K, Yata Y, et al.Dual expression of matrix metalloproteinase-2 and membrane-type 1-matrix metalloproteinase in fibrotic human livers. Hepatology 1997; 26:1521–1529.
 
16.↵Wai CT, Greenson JK, Fontana RJ, et al.A simple noninvasive index can predict both significant fibrosis and cirrhosis in patients with chronic hepatitis C. Hepatology 2003; 38:518–526.
 
17.Kelleher TB, Mehta SH, Bhaskar R, et al.Prediction of hepatic fibrosis in HIV/HCV co-infected patients using serum fibrosis markers: the SHASTA index. J Hepatol 2005; 43:78–84.
 
18.Islam S, Antonsson L, Westin J, Lagging M. Cirrhosis in hepatitis C virus-infected patients can be excluded using an index of standard biochemical serum markers. Scand J Gastroenterol 2005; 40:867–872.
 
19.↵Lackner C, Struber G, Liegl B, et al.Comparison and validation of simple noninvasive tests for prediction of fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C. Hepatology 2005; 41:1376–1382.
 
20.↵Poynard T, Aubert A, Bedossa P, et al.A simple biological index for detection of alcoholic liver disease in drinkers. Gastroenterology 1991; 100:1397–1402.
 
21.↵Oberti F, Valsesia E, Pilette C, et al.Noninvasive diagnosis of hepatic fibrosis or cirrhosis. Gastroenterology 1997; 113:1609–1616.
 
22.↵Koda M, Matunaga Y, Kawakami M, Kishimoto Y, Suou T, Murawaki Y. FibroIndex, a practical index for predicting significant fibrosis in patients with chronic hepatitis C. Hepatology 2007; 45:297–306.
 
23.↵Vallet-Pichard A, Mallet V, Nalpas B, et al.FIB-4: an inexpensive and accurate marker of fibrosis in HCV infection. Comparison with liver biopsy and fibrotest. Hepatology 2007; 46:32–36.
 
24.↵Sterling RK, Lissen E, Clumeck N, et al., APRI COT Clinical Investigators. Development of a simple noninvasive index to predict significant fibrosis in patients with HIV/HCV coinfection. Hepatology 2006; 43:1317–1325.
 
25.↵Calès P, Oberti F, Michalak S, et al.A novel panel of blood markers to assess the degree of liver fibrosis. Hepatology 2005; 42:1373–1381.
 
26.↵Leroy V, Hilleret MN, Sturm N, et al.Prospective comparison of six non-invasive scores for the diagnosis of liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C. J Hepatol 2007; 46:775–782.
 
27.↵Myers RP, De Torres M, Imbert-Bismut F, Ratziu V, Charlotte F, Poynard T, MULTIVIRC Group. Biochemical markers of fibrosis in patients with chronic hepatitis C: a comparison with prothrombin time, platelet count, and age-platelet index. Dig Dis Sci 2003; 48:146–153.
 
28.Rossi E, Adams L, Prins A, et al.Validation of the FibroTest biochemical markers score in assessing liver fibrosis in hepatitis C patients. Clin Chem 2003; 49:450–454.
 
29.↵Halfon P, Bourliere M, Deydier R, et al.Independent prospective multicenter validation of biochemical markers (fibrotest-actitest) for the prediction of liver fibrosis and activity in patients with chronic hepatitis C: the fibropaca study. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101:547–555.
 
30.↵Poynard T, Imbert-Bismut F, Munteanu M, et al.Overview of the diagnostic value of biochemical markers of liver fibrosis (FibroTest, HCV FibroSure) and necrosis (ActiTest) in patients with chronic hepatitis C. Comp Hepatol 2004; 3:8.
 
31.↵Sebastiani G, Halfon P, Castera L, et al.SAFE biopsy: a validated method for large-scale staging of liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C. Hepatology 2009; 49:1821–1827.
 
32.↵The French METAVIR Cooperative Study Group. Intraobserver and interobserver variations in liver biopsy interpretations in patients with chronic hepatitis C. Hepatology 1994; 20:15–20.
 
33.↵Sanford NL, Walsh P, Matis C, Baddeley H, Powell LW. Is ultrasonography useful in the assessment of diffuse parenchymal liver disease? Gastroenterology 1985; 89:186–191.
 
34.↵Harbin WP, Robert NJ, Ferrucci JT Jr. Diagnosis of cirrhosis based on regional changes in hepatic morphology: a radiological and pathological analysis. Radiology 1980; 135:273–283.
 
35.↵Giorgio A, Amoroso P, Lettieri G, et al.Cirrhosis: value of caudate to right lobe ratio in diagnosis with US. Radiology 1986; 161:443–445.
 
36.↵Liu CH, Hsu SJ, Lin JW, et al.Noninvasive diagnosis of hepatic fibrosis in patients with chronic hepatitis C by splenic Doppler impedance index. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007; 5:1199–1206.
 
37.↵Talawalkar JA. Elastography for detecting hepatic fibrosis: options and considerations. Gastroenterology 2008; 135:299–302.
 
38.↵Sandrin L, Fourquet B, Hasquenoph JM, et al.Transient elastography: a new noninvasive method for assessment of hepatic fibrosis. Ultrasound Med Biol 2003; 29:1705–1713.
 
39.↵Kettaneh A, Marcellin P, Douvin C, et al.Features associated with success rate and performance of FibroScan measurements for the diagnosis of cirrhosis in HCV patients: a prospective study of 935 patients. J Hepatol 2007; 46:628–634.
 
40.↵Ziol M, Handra-Luca A, Kettaneh A, et al.Noninvasive assessment of liver fibrosis by measurement of stiffness in patients with chronic hepatitis C. Hepatology 2005; 41:48–54.
 
41.↵Friedrich-Rust M, Ong MF, Martens S, et al.Performance of transient elastography for the staging of liver fibrosis: a meta-analysis. Gastroenterology 2008; 134:960–974.
 
42.↵Talwalkar JA, Kurtz DM, Schoenleber SJ, West CP, Montori VM. Ultrasound-based transient elastography for the detection of hepatic fibrosis: systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007; 5:1214–1220.
 
43.↵Arena U, Vizzutti F, Corti G, et al.Acute viral hepatitis increases liver stiffness values measured by transient elastography. Hepatology 2008; 47:380–384.
 
44.↵Roulot D, Czernichow S, Le Clésiau H, Costes JL, Vergnaud AC, Beaugrand M. Liver stiffness values in apparently healthy subjects: influence of gender and metabolic syndrome. J Hepatol 2008; 48:606–613.
 
45.↵Ito K, Mitchell DG, Hann HW, et al.Viral-induced cirrhosis: grading of severity using MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999; 173:591–596.
 
46.↵Huwart L, Sempoux C, Vicaut E, et al.Magnetic resonance elastography for the noninvasive staging of liver fibrosis. Gastroenterology 2008; 135:32–40.
 
Source

Retreatment of hepatitis C patients with pegylated interferon combined with ribavirin in non-responders to interferon plus ribavirin. Is it different in real life?

BMC Infect Dis. 2010; 10: 212.

Published online 2010 July 20. doi: 10.1186/1471-2334-10-212.
PMCID: PMC2912909
Copyright ©2010 Gonçales et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

Fernando L Gonçales, Jr,1 Camila A Moma,1 Aline G Vigani,1 Adriana FCF Angerami,1 Eduardo SL Gonçales,1 Raquel Tozzo,1 Maria HP Pavan,1 and Neiva SL Gonçales 1,2

1 Grupo de Estudo das Hepatites, Disciplina de Doenças Infecciosas, Departamento de Clínica Médica, Faculdade de Ciências Médicas, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, UNICAMP, São Paulo, Brazil

2 Centro de Hematologia e Hemoterapia, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, UNICAMP, São Paulo, Brazil

Corresponding author

Fernando L Gonçales, Jr: flgj@uol.com.br; Camila A Moma: cami_atm@yahoo.com.br; Aline G Vigani: aline.vigani@sigmanet.com.br; Adriana FCF Angerami: afcfeltrin@yahoo.com.br; Eduardo SL Gonçales: dugoncales@hotmail.com; Raquel Tozzo: tumoca@uol.com.br; Maria HP Pavan: mariahpavan@uol.com.br; Neiva SL Gonçales: neiva@unicamp.br

Received November 9, 2009; Accepted July 20, 2010

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
 
Abstract
 
Background


More than 50% of hepatitis C viruses (HCV)-infected patients do not respond to the classical Interferon (IFN)/Ribavirin (RBV) combination therapy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of retreatment with Peg-Interferon alpha-2b (PEG-IFN alpha-2b) plus RBV, in patients with HCV, genotypes 1 or 3, who were non-responders to the previous standard treatment with IFN/RBV.Methods

In the period 2005-2007, a total of 238 HCV chronic patients were non-responders to previous treatment with IFN plus RBV. Of these 130 agreed to be retreated with PEG-IFN alpha-2b and participated in this evaluation (90 with genotype 1 HCV and 40 with genotype 3 HCV). Patients were retreated at assisted IFN application hubs in compliance with the country's public health system rules. They received subcutaneous PEG-IFN alpha-2b, 1.5 μg, once weekly, associated with RBV, through the oral route, with doses determined according to weight (1,000 mg if weight ≤ 75 kg and 1,250 mg if > 75 kg). Patients with genotype 1 HCV were retreated for over 48 weeks and patients with genotype 3 HCV for over 24 weeks. HCV-RNA was tested by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) at baseline, at week 12, at the end of the treatment, and 6 months thereafter. The predictiveness of week 12 in the development of a sustained virologic response (SVR) was also evaluated. Patients with negative HCV-RNA at week 12 were considered as early virologic responders (EVR).Results

EVR was observed in 25% of the patients with genotype 1 HCV and in 64% of the patients genotype 3 HCV (risk = 2.075 and p-value = 0.0414). SVR was observed in 22.2% of the patients with genotype 1 HCV and in 40% with genotype 3 HCV (intention-to-treat analysis). The positive predictive value (PPV) of the HCV-RNA testing at week 12, in order to obtain the SVR, was 65% for genotype 1 and 56% for genotype 3, and the negative predictive value (NPV) was 88% for genotype 1 and 89% for genotype 3.Conclusions

PEG-IFN alpha-2b plus weight-based ribavirin is effective in re-treating previous interferon-α plus RBV failure; 22.2% of the patients with genotype 1 HCV and 40% of patients with genotype 3 HCV achieved SVR.
 
Background
 
Initially the treatment of chronic hepatitis C (CHC) was carried out with the combination of conventional alpha-interferon (IFN-α) plus ribavirin (RBV) over 24-48 weeks according to the genotype. Progressively, IFN-α was replaced by pegylated interferon (PEG-IFN), because this was the most efficacy regime [1-3]. The primary objective of the treatment is to achieve undetectable HCV-RNA with the polymerase chain reaction (PCR). During therapy, this assay allows testing for the early virologic response (EVR) at week 12, the end of treatment virologic response (ETVR) and the sustained virologic response (SVR) at 24 weeks after therapy suspension. In large international multicentric studies, treatment-naive patients receiving PEG-IFN plus RBV showed 54-63% of SVR when considering all viral genotypes [1-3]. The treatment-naive patients infected by genotype 1 showed lower SVR rates (42-46%), as compared with those infected by genotypes 2 and 3 (76-82%). Some authors who re-treated patients without SVR with combined treatment of IFN-α plus RBV reported that it was better to retreat relapsing patients than non-responders to the previous treatment [4-9]. Authors also observed that patients who were non-responders to monotherapy or combined therapy of IFN-α plus RBV respond better than non-responders to PEG-IFN plus RBV [5,8,10].In Brazil, the public health system (SUS) provides free drugs for the treatment of hepatitis C virus chronic patients, in compliance with a specific Ministry of Health protocol. This protocol determines that PEG-IFN is administered weekly at reference centers called "application hubs" which are outpatient departments. Under this system it is estimated that the patients fully comply with the treatment.The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of retreating Brazilian patients with CHC, genotypes 1 or 3, with PEG-IFN α-2b associated with RBV at a public health system university hospital. These patients were non-responders to previous conventional treatment. The secondary objective was to evaluate the early virologic response (EVR), characterized by the negativation of HCV on week 12 and its SVR predictive value.
 
Methods
 
This was a retrospective study carried out by the Hepatitis Study Group from the Medical Sciences School at the State University of Campinas (GEHEP). In the period 2005-2007, a total of 238 HCV non-responder patients to previous treatment with interferon plus ribavirin were considered for retreatment with PEG-IFN plus RBV. Of this total, 172 had been treated at our institution of which 152 agreed to receive retreatment with PEG-IFN plus RBV. Of these, 130 met the inclusion criteria and were retreated, in compliance with the rules created by the State of São Paulo Health Secretary and the Brazilian Ministry of Health, which provided the medication. This study was approved by our Ethical Committee. The evaluation included male and female patients, over 18, chronically infected by hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotypes 1 or 3, who were non-responders to the previous treatment with IFN-α plus RBV. Data were collected on age, sex, ethnic group, alcohol abuse and the possible infection route. Patients were considered as potentially contaminated through the parenteral route when they reported receiving transfusions, injections with non-disposable syringes or needles, or sharing materials used for manicures, acupuncture or application of tattoos given in less than optimal conditions. Patients were considered as intravenous drug users (IVDU) when reporting the use of illegal drugs or stimulants (Glucoenergan®) through the intravenous route, in groups, and sharing syringes or needles.
 
At baseline, all patients showed positive serum test for HCV-RNA by polymerase chain reaction (PCR-Cobas Amplicor® HCV Test - Roche Molecular Systems Inc.). All patients were negative for HBsAg and anti-HIV.
 
The previous treatment for HCV was carried out with IFN-α 2a or 2b (3,000,000 UI, subcutaneous, three times a week) plus RBV (administered through oral route, twice a day, weight-based dose: 1,000 mg/day for patients under 75 kg and 1,250 mg/day for those weighing over 75 kg. In Brazil this drug is provided free by the Ministry of Health in capsules of 250 mg. All patients were treated at outpatients departments. Patients with genotype 1 had been treated for over 48 weeks and those with genotype 3 were treated for over 24 weeks. Therapy was discontinued for all patients infected with genotype 1 who had positive HCV-RNA (PCR qualitative, PCR Amplicor HCV test - Roche molecular systems) at week 24. So, only non-responder patients (positive HCV-RNA at week 24) were screened for this study. Patients relapsing or who had a breakthrough in the first treatment were excluded. We included in our sample only patients who had attended every clinical evaluation of the first treatment, who had received all the drugs from the hospital pharmacy and had done all the biochemical and molecular tests requested.
 
Before starting the retreatment, all patients had hemoglobin > 10 g/dL, neutrophils > 1,500 cells/mm3, platelet > 70,000/mm3, albumin > 3.5 mg/dL and INR < 1.2. The bilirubin and creatinine levels were within normal values. All patients had a liver biopsy performed no more than 18 months before the start of the study, and the diagnosis was consistent with HCV. The inflammatory activity and the fibrosis grade were evaluated by the Metavir score. Patients were considered as carriers of non significant fibrosis when classified as F0, F1 and F2. Patients with F3 and F4 were considered as significant fibrosis carriers. Patients on hemodialysis, and heavy drug and alcohol users unable to comply with the treatment, were excluded. Other patients excluded had auto-immune, degenerative, renal and hematological diseases, or had other liver metabolic diseases, or those who had hypersensitivity reaction or other contraindications to the PEG-IFN plus RBV combination.
 
All patients were retreated with PEG-IFN α-2b associated with RBV. PEG-IFN α-2b was administered through the subcutaneous route, with a once weekly dose of 1.5 μg. All doses were administered at reference centers called "application hubs" which are outpatient departments. The 250 mg tablets of RBV were administered through the oral route, twice a day, with the dose varying according to the weight: 1,000 mg/day if the weight was less than 75 kilos and 1,250 mg/day if the weight was over 75 kilos. The retreatment period for genotype 1 was 48 weeks, while for genotype 3 it was 24 weeks.
 
Clinical and biochemical evaluations were performed before starting the treatment and then monthly throughout the treatment (hemogram, AST, ALT, gama-GT, TSH and free T4 dosing) in order to evaluate adverse events, tolerance and efficacy. The AST, ALT and gamma-GT levels were expressed in quotients (qALT, qAST, qGama-GT). Thus, for example, the qALT was obtained by dividing the serum ALT value by the method's highest normal value. Those with qALT > 1 had increased ALT. In the case of patients having severe adverse events or biochemical abnormalities the dose of ribavirin or PEG-IFN α-2b was reduced. In patients with hemoglobin levels lower than 8.5 mg/dL, ribavirin was suspended and when the hemoglobin levels varied between 8.5 and 10 mg/dL, the dose was reduced to half of the initial. The reduction of PEG-IFN α-2b to two-thirds of the initial dose occurred when the platelet count was lower than 30,000/mm3 or when the granulocyte count was lower than 750 cells/mm3.
 
The HCV-RNA was detected by PCR at weeks 12, 24 and 48 for patients infected by genotype 1 and at weeks 12 and 24 for patients infected by genotype 3. The EVR was tested at week 12 by qualitative HCV-RNA (PCR- Cobas Amplicor® HCV Test version 2.0-Roche Molecular Systems Inc.) in 104 patients, 78 (75%) with genotype 1 and 26 (25%) with genotype 3. Patients with negative PCR on this occasion were considered as complete early virologic responders (EVR). The end-of-treatment virologic response (ETVR) was tested at week 24 (genotype 3) or week 48 (genotype 1) by the same qualitative HCV-RNA test. The SVR was evaluated by a HCV-RNA test at 24 weeks after the end of the treatment.
 
The patients' descriptive data analysis was presented in tables for categorical variables. In order to identify risk factors for the treatment responses, uni - and multivariate Cox regression analyses were used. The adopted significance level was 5%. The computer program SAS, System for Windows (Statistical Analysis System), and version 9.1.3 Service Pack 3, SAS Institute Inc, 2002-2003, Cary, NC, USA was used.
 
Results
 
The evaluation included 130 patients with chronic hepatitis C who were non-responders to previous treatment with IFN plus RBV, carried out at our outpatient departments. The main demographic, epidemiological and biochemical data of the 130 patients are presented in Table 1. Most of the patients were males (72%) and white (90%), and the median age was 48. Around 33% of the patients acquired the infection through the parenteral route, 21% were IVDU and in 40% of the cases the acquisition route of HCV was unknown. Alcohol abuse was present in 17% of the studied population. Of the 130 patients, 90 (70%) were infected by genotype 1 and 40 (30%) were infected by genotype 3. Only 1 (0.8%) of the infected patients showed no fibrosis according to the Metavir score (F0); 19 (14.6%) were F1, 58 (44.6%) were F2, 38 (29.2%) were F3, and 14 (10.8%) were F4. The groups, analyzed according to the genotypes, showed similar characteristics, demonstrating that no considerable bias occurred during the data statistical analysis. A small difference, however, was observed in the presence of significant fibrosis (F3 plus F4) in genotype 3 (45% of the patients against 37.8% of genotype 1). Most patients (56%) did not need a reduction in their PEG-IFN or RBV doses.
 
Table 1
Characteristics of the patient's population according to the genotypes (N = 130)

Eleven out of 130 (8.5%) patients did not conclude the treatment due to side effects resulting from the drugs administered. These 11 patients were infected by HCV genotype 1.Of the 90 patients with genotype 1, 79 (87.7%) performed HCV-RNA testing (PCR) at week 12, while 25 (63%) of 40 patients infected by genotype 3 were also tested in the same week. All of them completed the treatment period and were tested for the presence of HCV-RNA six months after the end of the therapy to estimate the SVR rates. A higher percentage of patients with genotype 3 reached EVR (64%), when compared to genotype 1 (25%) (Figure ​(Figure1).There1).There were no significant differences in the EVR of patients infected by genotypes 1 or 3, when they were analyzed according to sex, race, mean age, alcohol abuse, and the kind of exposure or enzyme alterations of AST, ALT and gamma-GT (Table 2). In both patient groups there were no statistical differences in regard to higher or lower EVR percentages associated with the liver fibrosis grade.

Figure 1
Early virologic response (EVR) and sustained virologic response (SVR) in patients retreated with PEG-IFN alpha 2b plus RBV according to the HCV genotypes (n = 104).

Table 2
Early virologic (EVR) and sustained virologic response (SRV) according to the genotype and population characteristics.

By intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis the SVR was lower in patients with genotype 1(20/90,22.2%) when compared to 40% (16/40) of SVR in patients infected by genotype 3. By per protocol analysis (PPA) the SVR also was lower in patients infected by genotype 3 (20/79, 25.3%) compared to 40% (16/40) of SVR in patients infected by genotype 3. Figure ​Figure11 shows the results of the HCV-RNA testing at week 12 (EVR) in the 104 patients who performed this test and at 24 weeks after the end of the treatment. There was a statistically significant correlation for both genotypes concerning the absence of EVR and the absence of SVR (NPV = Negative Predictive Value). The positive predictive value (PPV) was 65% (13/20) for genotype 1 and 56% (9/16) for genotype 3 and the negative predictive value (NPV) was 88% (52/59) and 89% (8/9), respectively. It is important to note that 7 patients with genotype 1 and only 1 with genotype 3 reached SVR, despite presenting no EVR. In an unvaried Cox regression analysis, the sole risk factor for not obtaining EVR was the presence of infection by the genotype 1, with a risk of 2.075 (CI 95% [1.029; 4.183]) and p value below 5% (0.0414). Regarding the reduction of medication dosage, there was no statistically significant change in the SVR, with the reduction of peg-interferon or ribavirin or both. Additionally, no relation was found between the fibrosis grade and lower response to the treatment. The body mass index (BMI) was also related to EVR and SVR for each genotype, with no statistical differences between the groups.

We observed that all patients with significant fibrosis and infection by genotype 1 who had drug dose reduction did not achieve sustained virologic response, in contrast to those infected by genotype 3. When analyzing patients with non-significant fibrosis (F0, F1 and F2) who had reduced drug doses, no difference was observed in the sustained virologic response between genotypes 1 and 3. Patients with genotype 3 and non-significant fibrosis had a worse response to dose reduction than those with F3 and F4 stages.

Discussion

Overall, our population of non-responders is similar to those of other studies and to the standard population of patients infected by HCV in our country. There was homogeneity regarding demographic, epidemiologic and biochemical characteristics among patients infected by genotypes 1 and 3, except for those who had significant fibrosis (grades 3 and 4 on the Metavir fibrosis score), whose percentage was proportionally higher for genotype 3 than genotype 1 (45% versus 37,8%).This was also seen in other Brazilian studies [4,7]. We observed a higher percentage of IVDU among those infected by genotype 3 (32%) and a higher percentage of cirrhosis carriers (20%), which could reduce the SVR rates.

It is known that patients who have relapses after the standard IFN treatment, whether combined or not with RBV, respond better to the retreatment with PEG-IFN plus RBV than those not responding to the same regimes. Krawitt et al. observed 55% of SVR in 66 relapsing patients when retreated with PEG-IFN alpha 2b (100-150 μg/week) plus RBV (1,000 mg/day) against 20% of SVR in 116 previous non-responder patients treated with the same regime [6]. They also observed SVR in 53% of the relapsing patients infected by genotype 1 and in 59% of the relapsing patients infected by genotypes 2/3. Therefore, there was no significant difference in this group of patients. This was not observed among the previous non-responders when retreated. Of these, only 17% of patients infected by genotype 1 presented SVR, as compared to 57% of the infected by the genotypes 2/3. Therefore, genotype influenced the SVR in previous non-responders. Multicentric studies, sponsored by pharmaceutical companies and conducted in Brazil by Parise et al. with PEG-IFN alpha-2a plus RBV [4] and by Gonçales Jr et al., with PEG-IFN alpha-2b plus RBV [7], in patients who were non-responders to IFN/RBV, found higher SVR percentages (24-38%) when compared to the international studies. Sherman et al. found a SVR percentage of 23% among the non-responders against a SVR of 41% among relapsing patients after retreatment with PEG-IFN alpha-2a and ribavirin [9]. In the present study, with real life patients treated outside clinical trials, we found by intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis 22.2% (20/90) of SVR in the patients infected by genotype 1 and 40% of SVR among the infected by genotype 3. By per protocol analysis the SVR also was lower in patients infected by genotype 3 (20/79, 25.3%) compared to 40% (16/40) of SVR in patients infected by genotype 3. Because patients in this study received all injections of PEG-IFN at a specialized center we should expect better rates of SVR than those treated in their homes. Again, the Brazilian patients who were non-responders to previous treatment with IFN plus RBV, when retreated, obtained good SVR rates, particularly those infected by the HCV genotype 1. The lower SVR rate observed in our Brazilian patients, infected by genotype 3, when compared to that observed by Krawitt et al. (57%) may be associated with the type of patient included by us, as 45% of them showed significant fibrosis. Additionally, Krawitt et al., in contrast to the present study, did not include non-responders to the IFN monotherapy in their retreatment group.

Two large international studies, HALT-C and EPIC3, that retreated with PEG-IFN α-2a/α-2b plus RBV HCV patients who were non-responders or relapsers to previous treatment with interferon plus RBV, obtained 18% of SVR for non-responders [5,8] and 43% of SVR for relapsers [8]. The retreatment results for EPIC3 were better in relapsers than in non-responders and, mainly, in those who received IFN plus RBV previously as compared to those who received PEG-IFN plus RBV. In EPIC3, the early virologic response (week 12) was an important predictor of SVR, as 56% of the patients with undetectable HCV-RNA obtained SVR, while no individual with decrease ≤ 2log10 in the serum HCV-RNA had SVR. Patients who had a decrease of at least 2 log10 in the viral load obtained SVR of 12%. In our study, 65% of the patients with HCV-genotype 1, with EVR, had SVR. Of the patients infected by HCV-genotype 3, 56% had SVR. It is important to note the poor liver profile of these patients (45% presented F3/F4). The negative predictive value was 88-89% showing the usefulness of carrying out the HCV-RNA testing at week 12 in the retreatment cases. With regard to week 4, there are no clear predictiveness rules for patients on retreatment. Regarding the dose reduction of medications throughout the treatment, variations were observed in the SVR obtained for each genotype. The lower SVR percentage (17%) was found in the patients who had their PEG-IFN doses reduced. It is important to point out, however, that the total sample encompassed only 17 patients who had this medication reduced. In the multivariate analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in the SVR observed among patients with or without the reduction of medications, regardless of whether ribavirin or PEG-IFN was reduced. It is probable that if the sample were more powerful it would be possible to obtain a more reliable value for the outcome of reducing pegylated interferon doses during the treatment. Recent studies have shown that the fibrosis grade is one of the primary predictors of worse therapeutic response [5,8]. When comparing the liver fibrosis grade with the SVR rate we did not find statistically significant differences between the groups of patients. In the initial stages of liver fibrosis, as evaluated by the METAVIR score (F0, F1, F2), 24% of the patients with genotype 1 obtained SVR against 25% with genotype 3, which was not significant. In advanced grades of fibrosis (F3, F4), 30% of SVR was observed in the group infected by HCV-genotype 1 against 35% in the group infected by HCV-genotype 3. In fact, in our study, the fibrosis grade itself did not appear to affect the SVR. Perhaps this may be due to a relatively small sample size of advanced fibrotics enrolled. However, when analyzing the reduction of doses of drugs, it was observed that none of the patients infected with HCV genotype 1 who had significant fibrosis and reduction of drug had a sustained virological response. In EPIC3, SVR predictors included: infection by genotypes 2/3, presence of fibrosis F2/F3, viral load ≤ 600,000 UI/ml, previous treatment with IFN monotherapy and patients relapsing after the first treatment [8]. The results of our study confirmed that the response percentage was good for Brazilian patients infected by HCV who were non-responders to the previous treatment with IFN plus RBV when retreated in real life with PEG-IFN plus RBV.

Conclusions

Our patients, retreated at assisted interferon application hubs, had good virologic response rates. In the present study, intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis showed an SVR of 22.2% (20/90) in those patients infected by genotype 1 and 40% (16/40) among those infected by genotype 3.By per-protocol-analysis the SVR was also lower in patients infected by genotype 1 (20/79, 25.3%) compared to 40% (16/40) of SVR in patients infected by genotype 3.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors' contributions

FLGJ participated in the design of the study, performed the statistical analysis, conceived the study, and made substantial contributions to acquisition, analysis, and interpretation. CAM, AGV, ESLG, MHP made substantial contributions to acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data. AF performed liver biopsies and participated in the design of the study. NSLG coordinated the laboratory analyses carried out the molecular genetic studies and drafted the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Pre-publication history

The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2334/10/212/prepub

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Stephen Shaw for the English review of the manuscript. Project partially sponsored by a scientific initiation scholarship PIBIC/CNPq.

References

1. Manns M, McHutchinson J, Gordon SC, Rustgi VK, Shiffman M, Reindollar R, Goodman ZD, Koury K, Ling M, Albrecht JK. Peg-interferon alfa -2b plus ribavirin for initial treatment of chronic hepatitis C: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2001;358:958–65. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06102-5.

2. Fried MW, Shiffman ML, Reddy KR, Smith C, Marinos G, Gonçales FL Jr, Haussinger D, Diago M, Carosi G, Dhumeaux D, Craxi A, Lin A, Hoffman J, Yu J. Peginterferon alfa-2a plus ribavirin for chronic hepatitis virus infection. N Eng J Med. 2002;347:975–982. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa020047.

3. Hadziyannis SJ, Sette H, Morgan TR. Peginterferon alfa-2a (40 kilodaltons) and ribavirin combination therapy in chronic hepatitis C: randomized study of the effect of treatment duration and ribavirin dose. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140:346–355.

4. Parise E, Cheinquer H, Crespo D, Meirelles A, Martinelli A, Sette H, Gallizi J, Silva R, Lacet C, Correa E, Cotrim H, Fonseca J, Paraná R, Spinelli V, Amorim W, Tatsch F, Pessoa M. Brazilian Pegasys Cooperative Study Group. Peginterferon alfa- 2 a(40 KD) (PEGASYS®) plus Ribavirin (COPEGUS®) in retreatment of chronic hepatitis C patients nonresponders and relapsers to previous conventional interferon plus ribavirin therapy. Braz J Infect Dis. 2006;10:11–16.

5. Shiffman ML, Di Bisceglie AM, Lindsay KL, Morishima C, Wright EC, Everson GT, Lok AS, Morgan TR, Bonkovsky HL, Lee WM, Dienstag JL, Ghany MG, Goodman ZD, Everhart JE. The Halt-C Trial Group. Peginterferon alfa-2a and ribavirin in patients with chronic hepatitis C who have failed prior treatment. Gastroenterology. 2004;126:1015–1023. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2004.01.014.

6. Krawitt EL, Ashikaga T, Gordon SR, Ashikaga T, Gordon SR, Ferrentino N, Ray MA, Lidofsky SD. New York New England Study Team. Peginterferon alpha-2b and ribavirin for treatment-refractory chronic hepatitis C. J Hepatol. 2005;43:243–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2005.03.015.

7. Gonçales FL Jr, Vigani A, Gonçales N, Barone AA, Araújo E, Focaccia R, Oliveira U, Coelho HS, Paixao J, Perez R, Lobato C, Weirich J, Rosa H, Borges A, Vila R, Corrêa-Giannella ML, Ferraz ML. Weight-based combination therapy with peginterferon alpha-2b and ribavirin for naïve, relapser and non-responder patients with chronic hepatitis C. Braz J Infect Dis. 2006;10:311–6.

8. Poynard T, Colombo M, Bruix J, Schiff E, Terg R, Flamm S, Moreno-Otero R, Carrilho F, Schmidt W, Berg T, McGarrity T, Heathcote EJ, Gonçales F, Diago M, Craxi A, Silva M, Bedossa P, Mukhopadhyay P, Griffel L, Burroughs M, Brass C, Albrecht J. Epic Study Group. Peginterferon alfa-2b and ribavirin: effective in patients with hepatitis C who failed interferon alfa/ribavirin therapy. Gastroenterology. 2009;136:1618–28. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2009.01.039.

9. Sherman M, Yoshida EM, Deschenes M, Krajden M, Bain VG, Peltekian K, Anderson F, Kaita K, Simonyi S, Balshaw R, Lee SS. Canadian Pegasys Study Group. Peginterferon alfa-2a (40 KD) plus ribavirin in chronic hepatitis C patients who failed previous interferon therapy. Gut. 2006;55:1631–8. doi: 10.1136/gut.2005.083113.

10. Moucari R, Ripault MP, Oules V, Martinot-Peignoux M, Asselah T, Boyer N, El Ray A, Cazals-Hatem D, Vidaud D, Valla D, Bourlière M, Marcellin P. High predictive value of early viral kinectics in retreatment with peginterferon and ribavirin of chronic hepatitis C patients non-responders to standard combination therapy. J Hepatol. 2007;46:596–04. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2006.10.016.
 
Source